Although I certainly appreciate the fact that people are generally starting to realize that the emperor has no clothes, I really have to wonder why it is ever relevant to ask common people about issues related to long-term macro-economic events.
Employment is always a lagging economic indicator. Obama has been President for 6 months. There is really nothing one could expect otherwise. There is nothing he or any other President could have done at this point to change the employment figures. All that could be done would be to have had people more confident in him. The President could only create jobs by being even more socialist than he already is.
Asking people about macroeconomics is like asking them about nucelar physics.
I would agree with you 99.99% of the time. That is the traditional, classic, and reliable characterization of employment as a lagging indicator.
However, we are in uncharted territory now. Because we now have the most HOSTILE president (to business and entrepreneurs) prolly in our entire history.
I’m here in S. Utah. We have NO large businesses here, other than branches of national chains. I can’t think of a single large firm headquartered here, in fact. This place is loaded with small mom & pop businesses. They are laying off PREEMPTIVELY! (something I’ve not seen before!) They are absolutely terrified. Not only not hiring people, but stripping their workforces of all but the most necessary of employees, in fear of what is to come from this WH. This isn’t hard to learn; you go in stores that you frequent, wonder where so and so is (who waited on you last time) and the owner comes from behind the counter and says what I just did. One couple that owns a local sewing shop got rid of everyone, telling me “We don’t wanna get caught holding the bag!” They called their kids back from college and run the store as a family.
Every day, I see at least another 4 businesses that are empty now, with a For Lease sign outside.
Scary times, folks....
What about asking them whether debt can be solved by more spending? That’s a macroeconomic question and it doesn’t take a PhD to understand it.
Those who think “common people” shouldn’t be included in decisions regarding how their own tax money is spent have demonstrated they lack an understanding of basic moral principles. They need to go home and study.
Your comment suggests you don’t have any credibility regarding the question of who should be asked about macroeconomics.
[There is nothing he or any other President could have done at this point to change the employment figures.]
That’s not true. Had there been $800 billion in tax cuts to companies who hired people, I guarantee the situation would be better.
“The President could only create jobs by being even more socialist than he already is.”
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You are setting off the crock alarm. No president should try to create jobs, he should get the damned government out of the way and let the people create jobs. There is never any shortage of work to be done, government interference creates unemployment and more government interference won’t help solve a problem that government created.
Socialism in greater or lesser quantities has the same chance of solving economic problems as gasoline has of putting out a forest fire.
Ronald the magnificent was exactly right when he said that the government is not the solution, the government is the problem.
My friend, you are unfamiliar with something known as “kitchen table economics.” It’s widely practiced in America; you might want to familiarize yourself with it.
It is the oddball economic notion of this: The deeper in debt the gov’t dives into, the more frugal the citizens of that same gov’t become. It’s a “fear” thing. This is the reason that the polling numbers against a second stimulus are so enormous. Each and every time Americans hear of politicians willing to add another significant layer of debt, you can depend on them drawing their checkbooks inward.
Obama doesn’t understand or know this now. It won’t be long until he does, however.
I totally disagree. He could have used the "stimulus" money to implement an immediate tax cut. This money would have immediately been available for businesses to hire more people. The effect would easily have been in place by now.
Obama has done exactly the wrong thing in a Recession. He has threatened increased taxation on everyone. With those threats, employers hold off hiring. The rich consider moving to other countries. Oh yes, the President has effected the economy - BADLY
The poor will feel the increased energy costs in the price of everything they eat. They will feel it in the costs of everything they wear and they will feel it in Transportation as the costs trickle down in higher energy costs.
Obama could have given $200 Billion in tax breaks for businesses to hire a person in 2009. Unemployment would vanished overnight and the economy would have been kick started.
But Obama has done the opposite and the unemployment figures show it.