Posted on 03/04/2011 9:52:04 AM PST by FromLori
Pretty much precisely what noted earlier today: "A couple of behind-the-scene facts: from October to February, an epic 700k people have left the work force. If you actually adjust for the fact that the labour force participation rate has plunged this cycle to a 27-year low the unemployment would be sitting at 12% today. Moreover the employment-to-population ratio — the so-called “employment rate” — stagnated in February at 58.4% and is actually lower now than it was last fall when “double dip” was the flavour du jour."
PAYROLL REVIEW – NICE JOB, SHAME ABOUT THE PAYCHEQUE, from Gluskin Sheff
The widespread reaction to the jobs report today is uniformly positive. I think a dose of reality is really needed here. It may as well come from this pen. The headline print of +192k was in line with published estimates but following the slate of ISMs and the ADP report, the “whispered” number was closer to +250k. Of course, there were the upward revisions to the back-data that showed net gains of +58k so one could easily respond that adjusted for these, the topline did indeed meet these “whispered” estimates. The employment diffusion index jumped to a 13-year high of 68.2% from 60.1% in January, but beware of peaks and troughs in this index (i.e. it would have been a mistake to extrapolate the 17% low in this job dispersion measure at the March 2009 market trough).
Here is what I think is important: because of the winter storms, we really have to average out the past two months. So the January-February average for payrolls is +128k. Allowing for a similar reading in March that we received in February would generate an average increase for the first quarter of around 150k. That is little changed from what employment gains averaged on a monthly basis in the fourth quarter. So while we are seeing positive job growth, it is not accelerating even though we are coming off the most intense impact of the fiscal and monetary easing that was unveiled late last year. In other words, we are disappointed with what is still a lacklustre trend in net job creation, particularly in view of the peak stimulus we are currently experiencing.
What if Q1 is the peak for job growth? If you remember, we ended up with sub-3% GDP growth in the fourth quarter, which is about half of what we should be seeing at this stage of the cycle. And if we are generating jobs at a similar rate in the current quarter, barring a re-acceleration in productivity, growth again will be below 3% at a time when the consensus is closer to 3.5%. But more to the point — what if this represents the peak for the year? Because if there is one thing we do know, it is that this quarter contains all the incremental policy easing impact on the macro data.
What was particularly discouraging was the fact that both the wage number and the workweek were flat. Nominal wages, in fact, have been stagnant in three of the past four months. Weekly average earnings have also been flat or negative in three of the past four months. How on earth can these statistics possibly be viewed as bullish for the economy? The year-over-year-trend in average weekly earnings in the past three months has softened from 2.6% to 2.5% to 2.3% today. At the same time, it is probably reasonable to assume that surging food and fuel costs will bring headline inflation to, and possibly through, 3% in coming months. In other words, the growing risk of falling personal income in real terms, even with the positive growth in payrolls, is a glaring yellow light as far as the consumer spending outlook is concerned.
Aggregate hours worked only managed to tick up 0.2% in February after a flat January. That is total labour input — bodies and hours. So assuming a trend-like productivity performance, we are talking yet again about sub-3% GDP growth, which by itself is okay but considering the peak impact of all the fiscal and monetary steroids being administered this quarter, it is actually disappointing.
Yes, the unemployment rate dipped again to a 22-month low of 8.9% from 9.0% in January and the nearby high of 9.8% in November. This reflected a 250k risein Household employment — the third increase in a row — and a flat participation rate. A couple of behind-the-scene facts: from October to February, an epic 700k people have left the work force. If you actually adjust for the fact that the labour force participation rate has plunged this cycle to a 27-year low the unemployment would be sitting at 12% today. Moreover the employment-to-population ratio — the so-called “employment rate” — stagnated in February at 58.4% and is actually lower now than it was last fall when “double dip” was the flavour du jour.
All that matters in these employment reports is what the jobs environment means for income, because workers generally spend in the real economy. With credit harder to come by, and with fiscal policy soon to become more focussed on austerity, it is the income that the labour delivers that will prove to be the critical determinant of the economic outlook. So while the “spin” may be over near-200k headline payroll gains, another dip in the headline unemployment rate, the organic income backdrop can really only be described as tentative, at best, especially in real terms as gasoline prices make their way to $4 a gallon by the time Memorial Day rolls around.
Sorry to see that you confuse such basic notions as discussions and lectures.
That what I said was not lectures you could easily see by my posing questions to you, time and time again. You made claims, and I asked for clarification. I keep repeating the same question, which you don't even attempt to answer.
. Well, as is typical for people who have nothing to say, you turn away from the issue to personal attack: I think they are indeed a cry for help.
Thank you for playing the role of a psychologist on TV. It's a pretty entertaining and comical role.
Isn't it easier to just support your own allegation? Apparently not. Well, thank you for showing your depth and moral fiber.
Get lost.
No I don't realize that. Is your thermometer bogus or simply less than perfectly accurate?
You shouldn't be throwing around words such as "bogus" so easily, my friend. No need to be LessThanTolerant to the truth and logic.
Bite me!
As far as I recall, this is one of the conditions that Marx puts forth as necessary for the destruction of capitalism. I've seen it often quoted on numerous web sites which, like you, don't explain what they read into it. THey seem to find it very damning somehow: "Well, we have a central bank, don't we --- just like Marx wanted."
Merely having the central bank is different from the sentence you quoted. Please look at it again: "the centralization of wealth..."
There is no wealth in our central bank (the Fed). Do you know, in particular, that, at least since 1940s, the Fed has returned 97% of its profits to the U.S. Treasury? This fact is somehow "overlooked" by conspiracy theorists.
Next, what does centralization mean? A great proportion of the nation's wealth being at some "center" --- the central bank, as Marx alleges. So, do we see it? Of course not: Marx was totally wrong --- and fraudulent, as historians subsequently revealed -- so many times that it is unsurprising to see him wrong in this case.
Our national wealth is estimated at about 52 trillion dollars. For it to be "centralized" anywhere, that center has to contain a huge proportion of that --- 30, 40, 50 trillion. Just think about that: $40,000 billion must be concentrated in one place! Largest American companies have value of about only $200 billion --- and they are owned not by one person but by tens of millions of Americans. For example: BP, which was so much in the news during the spill in the Gulf, is owned by 39 million of Americans. There is no concerntration --- anywhere, let alone at the Fed.
This statement of Marx and Engels is just one of their idiotic prophecies. Recall that Marx also predicted that "workers" will be increasingly "impoverished" by capitalism. They were getting better and better off even as he wrote those words! (He actually falsified data in his Das Kapital to "prove" his point). That prediction, too, became completely laughable a few decades later: it was socialist workers in the Soviet Union and China that were impoverished, while American workers were busily buying houses and cars.
This "concentration of wealth at the central bank" is just one of those bogus "predictions," by Marx, at which we can only laugh today.
I gave you specific examples.
government (taxpayer forced) bailouts of private companies.
government (taxpayer forced ) subsidies of private companies and nearly entire industries in some cases
government writing/enforcing tax codes and regulations which specifically favor one or more corporations (or entire sectors of the economy) to the detriment of open competition.
You have no evidence, of course, of such a collusion. The only support you offer amounts to (i) two people have been observed in the same room at the same time, and (ii) it’s human nature.
It is true, of course, that “GS has spun the door with particular frequency.” That is very easily explained by the fact that GS is well known to attract and retain the best and the brightest --- the source of envy by the rest Wall Street. This time, too, they it was the only one to get it right: about six months before the crisis, it became alarmed at the housing prices and started to reduce the exposure. No, GS management did not see the crisis coming, but GS was in a pretty good shape when the crisis hit --- better than the rest of Wall Street. GS hunts for the best and the brightest, so it I unsurprising that, when presidents seek economic advisers, they often find them at GS.
To see this point better, consider that about 20% of all Justices that served on the Supreme Court in our entire history were alumni of Harvard Law School. If I suggested that there is some kind of collusion, you’d laugh and say: “There is a simple explanation (Occam’s razor): Harvard Law is one of the best schools, and it is unsurprising that some of the best and the brightest rise to the Supreme Court.” Well, that same reasoning applies here. And it is corroborated by the fact that GS alumni served both Republicans and Democrats.
The situation is actually simpler: it is hardly possible in this country to have a conspiracy of half a dozen people --- someone always finds a reason to benefit from blowing a whistle. Matters that you are talking about involve hundreds of decision-makers --- conservative patriots and liberal loons, Republicans and Democrats. The events of 2007 have been looked into for the past two years very closely. Obama would love nothing better than to uncover Paulson’s supposed actions in the interest of GS rather than the country. None of that has been even alleged by anyone (other than conspiracy theorists). No such conspiracy could possibly work: someone would blow a whistle --- to promote his career, if nothing else. I don’t blame you being misled by the commie propaganda we constantly hear, but the following is simply a misunderstanding:
holders of dodgy mortgage backed securities were stared in the face by their own potential insolvency and decided, as the maxim now goes, not to let a crisis go to waste.
Wall Street does not hold those securities: it only helps to create them. The securities are held by pension funds and other institutional buyers.
It is also a deliberate lie (perpetrated by the government, trying to deflect the responsibility from itself, and the media): MBS have nothing to do with the crisis.
Securitization has been with us since late 1980s and never created a crisis. On the contrary, some papers even partially credited it with the boom we had in 1990s (and rightfully so: by reducing risk, it reduces the cost of capital so much needed by companies).
The housing crisis was created solely by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1998 (requested by Clinton, Rubin’s committee modified the Carter’s earlier act), which mandated that banks give a certain proportion of loans to those that cannot afford them under normal standards. That was a pure social engineering, an attempt increase home-ownership in inner cities. The proportion of bad loans was specified and increased to 52% in 2007. It was Fannie and Freddie that were obligated to buy those loans. M
(Note how Fannie and Freddie were completely excluded from the Frank-Dodd regulation. Why? Because any discussion of that matter in Congress would quickly lead to the real culprit --- Congress and its CRA of 1998. You would be angry today at Clinton and not on Wall Street, and Pelosi, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters did not want that to happen. The latter two, BTW, were the ones responsible for the oversight of CRA. So finger-pointing at Wall Street began. To deflect the blame, various financial institutions started to point at each other. That is how you started to hear nonsense about the MBS, the rating agencies, Goldman --- anybody but the real culprit.)
To continue: once bad loans were demanded by Congress, banks (commercial, not Wall Street) responded by relaxing lending standards. How else could they satisfy that stupid demand: if more loans cannot be issues under the existing standards, then those standards must be relaxed. So some of the loans that got into the MBS pipeline where indeed bad. Because they were diluted by really good loans, they appeared less dangerous than they actually were. And, the disaster did not strike right away, so people started to believe --- all people, commercial banks, Wall Street, rating agencies, pension funds that purchased MBS, Warren Buffett --- that there is no problem. That’s what happened.
Securitization is like a pipe into which contaminated water (bad loans at the point of origination by commercial banks) was pumped. Yes bad water came out at the other end, but the pipe (securitization) has nothing to do with it: the water (loans) was bad on entry. Blaming MBS is red herring being sold by Obamites.
So what were the “the actions of autumn 2008”to which you refer? What happened was an attempt to let “too big” to actually fail. The government stood aside when Lehman fell (that too is blamed on Paulson: he just wanted the competitor to fall. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. More importantly: it was not just up to him to take or not to take that action). But things turned out to be worse than Bush and Paulson thought. Lehman fell because of a run on it by institutional investors. As long as it was just a few institutional investors, Bush and Paulson let it fall. But then it turned out that AIG and other will be also in trouble, which will lead to run on all banks --- by Joe and Jane on their corner banks as well. That would be a complete collapse of the economy. The actions taken were taken for a sole reason: to prevent this massive run on banks. There is not an economist, conservative or liberal, that would suggest that no action should’ve been taken to recapitalize banks.
It is also important to remember: banks never asked for a bailout; it was dictated to them --- by Bush to prevent collapse. Goldman, being in pretty good shape, was particularly against that. Much later, it wanted to repay the “bailout” money early. Obama refused. Just recently, when testifying before Congress, Blankfein “reminded” congressmen of these facts (they tried to shame him into taking “our money”). I’ve heard that on C-Span, by the way. GS raised $5B in the markets and could raise more if they needed the money. They did not and did not ask for it; it was forced on them.
Nobody on FR seems to remember also that it was Detroit CEOs who actually asked for the bailout, multiple times, and even blackmailed Congress.
Why? Because all leftists since Marx, trying to bring down capitalism, tried to anger the populous at the very symbols of capitalism --- financial institutions. This is because it is easy to do: very few people know how they function. So Marx, Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini all pointed to “financiers,” those blood-suckers who seem to produce nothing. Roosevelt did the same thing in 1930s, and with the same success as you see now: even some conservatives believed that propaganda.
So, when you spoke of actions of 2008, are these the facts you had in mind? Probably not.
You are correct of course when you apply Occam’s razor. But you should also remember Einstein’s words: “Everything should be made as simple as possible. But not simpler.” In this particular case, your Occam’s razor is too simple. I’ve seen also these words attributed to Einstein: “For every problem there is a simple solution, which is usually wrong.” Too many conservatives give a simple explanation for the crisis ---- so simple that it is utterly false.
This is abominable, I agree. All I am asking people on FR to remember who those companies were --- Detroit automakers, not Wall Street. Wall Street did not ask for and tried to avoid the "bailout."
We have the right and reasons to be angry. Let's be angry at the true culprits and for the right reasons.
government (taxpayer forced ) subsidies of private companies and nearly entire industries in some cases.
government writing/enforcing tax codes and regulations which specifically favor one or more corporations (or entire sectors of the economy) to the detriment of open competition.
As I suspected, we are in complete agreement here as well. Thank you for being precise here: it is the government that is the culprit here --- and at least one half of the country that ignorantly applauds those actions.
The only small remark I would make here is that what you describe falls under the category of fascism (as Mussolini construed it). No, I don't mean it as an insult. I am referring to the form of socialism where the government formally leaves ownership in private hands but over-regulates companies ---- in the name of the state --- to such extent that ownership ultimately becomes moot. Fascism rather than corporatism seem a more appropriate name for what you describe here. But we completely agree on content.
We had Fannie and Freddie buying up every crap loan that banks could shovel into their coffers.
I completely agree that this is an abomination, which has nothing to with capitalism. I also remember why Fannie and Freddie were buying these loans: they were ordered to do so by Congress: The Community Reinvestment Act of 1998, one of many attempts at social engineering, mandated an ever increasing proportion (52% in 2007) be issued to those who cannot afford them.
I am as appalled as you are when I see the government acting in this way. What I am against is inventing scapegoats. When there is wrongdoing on Wall Street, we should uncover it. But pinning government's actions and misuse of power on Wall Street or anybody else is simply false.
you’re a nasty piece of fecal matter aren’t you?
Nice to see your decorum and civility.
This tells me everything I needed to know about you.
Have a good night.
Hear, Hear
“Our present path is not sustainable and we must change. I do not advocate replacing capitalism, rather, I wish to see it flourish. In order for that to happen we need to remove the rampant fraudulent plaque clogging our economic veins. “
We don’t really have capitalism anymore in this country.
We are a socialist/communistic country already!
The “public schools” are a model of communism.
The tax system to pay the debt to the FED, is communism.
The “redistribution of wealth” though the taxes is communism.
The growing debt caused by our fractional reserve system is communism.
This country after the days of McCarthyism, never dared to name what is killing it. And it is most certainly killing the host as the interest on the debt grows, and is already beyond what this nation can pay.
Letting this system default, NOW THAT WOULD BE CAPITALISTIC!!!!!!!!!!!
In fact, I propose, that being against the true return to freedom, of money that has value, is the one who is a commie.
Oh, the defamer is back. The liar is back.
Yes, the one who with no backup who calls other Freepers commie’s, and then NEVER answers the challenge to prove HIS accusation.
I say this to you, YOU ARE THE COMMIE.
The current fractional reserve system always implodes from an over burden of debt, historically. In the end, the population is in indentured servitude. Only commies want that.
You ivory tower pig, are a commie of the most evil kind.
You want the sons and daughters of Freepers to be shackled and destitute, you want people to suffer and die penniless. As long as your precious FED is untouched, all the above WILL happen. Smug snot coward that you are, commie.
“Not even once did I receive an answer. “
That is a lie. You have received PLENTY of answers on this very thread. You just like to lie about other posters, while pretending you wanted an answer, because you do get answers. Liar.
“that is what passes as education for these people. “
And YOU, who claim to know so much and have such a vaulted opinion of yourself, don’t do any educating at all!! NO YOU DON’T. You would rather sniffle and whine about how you don’t get answers, when you certainly do, liar commie.
“Why are your attacks on financial sector coincide with those practiced by all Leftists since Marx, including Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini? “
I could and am asking you THE VERY SAME QUESTION. They all used a fractional reserve system, and used it against their own people, COMMIE. Take the corrupt and evil practice of not discharging debts of college students to hold up another bubble called college. COMMIE’s delight in ensnaring their people in debt. Do you deny this country is in debt? Do you deny that that debt is not payable? Do you deny that the debt will bring IN COMMUNISM???
YOU ARE THE ONE DEFENDING COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I tried to engage TopQuark into a discussion. He refused. All I do now is attract FReerpers’ attention to the fact that what TopQuark post’s is commie propaganda, whether he knows it or not.
“It is Congress and presidents that enslaved us for generations. The Fed has absolutely no say in these matters. “
True Congress is involved, but the FED is the drug dealer, they are the ones that feed this country the debt. They are NOT innocent at all. No, they know preciously what they are doing. They are NOT helpless, they are a private bank, and they DON’T only do what congress tells them. They also DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM, COMMIE.
“They are laws for Volker, Greenspan and Bernanke just like for everybody else.” hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! yeah right, coward liar. That is why they are hiding their balance sheets, yep, because congress told them not to show it to the American people. hahahahahahahahahhaha!!!!!!
THEY ARE A PRIVATE BANK AND CAN DO WHATEVER THE H@LL THEY WANT. Innocent poor babies, HA!!!
” the Fed faces enormous debt and deficit spending created by Congress and presidents.” But the FED is the drug dealer, they WANTED AND PLANNED TO BE A BANK TO THIS COUNTRY FOR THIS REASON ALONE. This nation did not form, nor is it in the CONSTITUTION for their to BE a CENTRAL BANK.
“So why is the Fed walking over an abyss on both sides, who put it into that position? Congress and presidents.””...blaming the Fed for what Congress and presidents do. This is false to the point of being silly.”
No, it is NOT silly, and you are being disingenuous, even deceitful, liar commie.
TOPQUARK IS A COMMIE BECAUSE HE IS WILLING TO LIE TO FREEPERS AND ANYONE ELSE WHO READS THIS.
THE FED IS A PRIVATE BANK, THE THRID PRIVATE CENTRAL BANK, AND IS NOT UNDER THE THUMB OF CONGRESS. IT IS CONGRESS WHO IS UNDER THEIR THUMB BECAUSE THEY ARE HOOKED ON THE DURG CALLED DEBT.
You can’t have a welfare state WITHOUT a central bank. The congress and the FED BOTH are to blame. Anyone defending the FED, with lies, is a commie in my book.
Lying defaming coward pig commie.
And calling people commies with no reason, to actually stalk them, and make accusations from thread to thread, THAT is civility?
lieing coward commie.
“Marty: These figures are manipulated by the DOL.
TQ: If you know that, give us evidence. Without support, such evidence is nothing but a defamation.
Marty: Look at the charts previously posted. Are you blind?”
LOL, no, he is just unable to admit that he has no reading comprehension skills. Then, to hide it, he calls other Freeper’s who he harasses, commies.
“Guess what? Goldman is hated on Wall Street for attracting and keeping the best and the brightest. It is little wonder that, when president seek someone to serve them, they look for the best and the brightest, and often find them in Goldman Sacks.”
Here is the key to TopQuark.
He thinks he is one of the best and the brightest.
We, on the otherhand, are not northeastern educated ariristicats. Nope. So, obviously, really reading anything we say is just not worthy of one such as he. No, we should just trust that the FED, otherwise known as the DebtDrugDealer, isn’t after our homes, our children and, yes, our very lives.
“...the article lists Goldman alumni who were conservative and worked for Bush as well as those that were liberal loons and worked for Clinton.”
Get a clue, NoQuarkCommieLiar. Most people today see BOTH parties at fault, and this partisan division propaganda isn’t working anymore, silly coward.
NoQuarkCommieLiar, is a coward of the worst sort.
He lies every chance he gets.
What a funny liar you are!!!!LOL!!!!!!!
“...are you for or against capitalism? A person may be all for capitalism (as I am) but still be against unbridled capitalism that allows for a few monopolies to be formed.”
But you are blind to the monopolies growing at the top. No, look away, you say. You did not see that right. LIAR. The banks since 2008 have been concentrating their power NOW, as the good banks get eaten up by banks THAT SHOULD HAVE FAILED. That is NOT CAPITALISM!!!! That is COMMUNISM!!!!
You are a tiring piece of retarded work. YOU are not smart or bright. You are an ivory tower idiot who can not even read, can only ask questions without bothering to read the answers, or answer them without being a pompous @ss.
“But wholesale notions and accusations do not help us to identify true enemies trying to ruin this great country of ours.”
The true enemies trying to ruin this country are idiots like you who do all you can, pick on women, and try to obfuscate the REAL ISSUES so that
THE
COMMIES
CAN
WIN
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NoQuarkCommieLiar is just that Freeper.
ME : The problems with the economy go back to the incestuous relationships between Federal Govt , the FED , GS and the banksters in general
TQ: You give a great example of what I just said. What’s the evidence for your claim? And, how can a person with traditional American values even write something like that without even bothering to be specific?
************************************************
I don’t have a staff to clip and file every piece of information so I can regurgitate it at your command .. The fact is that you could fill several warehouses with data backing up everything I and FromLori have said ... I have seen the raw data and the reports enough to where I can tell you exactly how damn near everything in this realm will play out ...
If you are so blind that you cannot see the revolving door between the democrat party (and to a lesser extent the republicans) , wall street , the way that oversight at the SEC , the banking comittees , the FCIC and FDIC etc. etc. , has been winked at for DECADES and the way we are currently bankrupting every person in the country by destroying the faith (what little is left) in the USD to save a handful of companies that abused their power knowing that through their government connections they would never be made to pay if their bets failed ... you are beyond saving...
***********************************************
Where do you buy your crack sir?
You're supposed to ping a fellow Freeper if you're attacking them by name. You wouldn't want to be rude.
Ah, then tell NoQuarkCommieLiar the same, Todds.
Here, this will help both of you understand what is really going on. And it is a cartoon! Enjoy, it should be easy to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=theamericandreamfilm&annotation_id=annotation_996700&feature=iv
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.