Unemployment near 10 percent

A few months ago, Obama predicted that his "stimulus" would reduce unemployment to 8%.

Latest: 9.7%--much worse than he predicted, and much worse than he predicted would happen WITHOUT his "stimulus."

By Obama's own numbers, his trillion dollar "stimulus" has been a flop.

Meanwhile, Canada, which has a much more sensible government, didn't do an expensive "stimulus"--and added jobs last month!

This is indeed a "teachable moment."

Unemployment nears 10 percent and as soon as the news was announced the DJIA jumped positive. GO FIGURE!!!
Rational people expect the rate to top 10 percent by the end of the year. This number just shows how screwed up the economy got under the last administration. They screwed the pooch pretty darn good those "free-markets police themselves" types did. Now the recession is over and, as always, employment will drag about a year behind. Markets are in recover and cash is flowing once again. Employment will improve. It always does. And no amount of "the sky is falling" paranoia from the RNC and Faux Noise will keep the economy from recovering from the aggregious failures of the 8 year tenure of the previous administration.

How's that Hope and Change workin' for ya?

"...Rational people expect the rate to top 10 percent by the end of the year..."

Posted by: kg123 | September 4, 2009 2:49 PM

I agree with you - Obama was completely irrational in his pushing of the $787 stimulus on the grounds that it was needed to prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%...so far he is off by 25% and we still have Q4 to go with less than 15% of stimulus money in the economy.

--
So I would ask you- if the prez is willing to borrow almost a trillion dollars to avoid a (his words) “inherited crisis”, based on a completely irrational projection of unemployment trending- why should I want him anywhere near my health care or this countries energy production?

Employment numbers would. Be. Worse. If a Stimulus Bill was not passed. Jobs are ALWAYS the last indicator to get healed.

It's working great, Bush&Cheney are under investigation for torture and our President is encouraging our children to stay in school. There are no more WMDs, no more lying," Mission Accomplished " and no more privatizing of our Veterans Healthcare !! That is what I call, Hope and Change workin', yeah !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

If Obama gets the "stimulus" numbers so wrong, why should any rational person credit Obama's predictions on the cost of ObamaCare?

The economy is slowly recovering from the Bush recession, unemployment is a lagging indicator.

But that won't stop Republicans from being fake outraged (see Bruce above) about the economic mess that their leadership (Bush, Cheney) created. Afterall, being a Republican isn't about solving problems or running a competent gov't, it's about making the already rich - richer.

@Don F
How do you like Obama's Afgan policy? No exit strategy, no way to define victory, only more troops and money to the cause. Should we bring them home now or let them stay there so BO can save face? Change to a banana republic and smiling all the way

Bruce, Companies are flocking to Canada because they don't have to pay for healthcare.

For your Labor Day viewing pleasure I recommend this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0150216/

The most important and truthful film of the last 15 years. Or since "Schindler's List" anyway. And it is also based on a true story.

Dumb Dumb Janet, please explain how there would be more unemployed if the spendulus program wasn't passed? What jobs have been "saved" or "created" because of it. And what exactly has the stimulus bill done to help the economy?

The reporter, Don Lee, says unemployment "unexpectedly" rose in August. Exactlyn how was it unexpected and who didn't expect it? The White House? It's media lackeys? Most economists have been saying it will hit 10 percent, so the fact that it is approaching 10 percent is NOT unexpected, unless it's the White House, which said it would not rise above 8 percent if the spendulus program was not passed.
It's also interesting that Mr. Lee didn't note how the July unemployment numbers were "corrected" up from those released a month ago.

It took Bush and his party 8 years to screw the United States and it's going to take Obama more than 7 months to repair the damage.

So, the administration says that losing 216,000 jobs is "an improvement." And to think the media used to find "economists" to denigrate George Bush when "only" 400,000 new jobs were CREATED. How stupid they must think the public is. Even Joe Biden knows enough to say that "Less bad is not good." When will Obama learn that and take steps to improve private sector hiring, such as (gasp) corporate tax cuts and fewer regulations. Don't hold your breath.

B-b-b-but the stimulus is working.

oh, Joe Biden, God love ya!

Read Krugman's NYT Magazine piece on why economists got it SO wrong....

Well, at least I knew a crash was coming as far back as the repeal of Glass
Steagall.

Why would anyone repeal that, I thought at the time, unless they want to turn the banks into casinos.

And it turned out they did.

And here's another cheerful thought for today (not from 10 years ago):

This depression ain't over by any means.....

Maybe the end of the beginning.

So I think Obama should make that point publicly.....

Though I understand why as Cheerleader-in-Chief he feels he can't.

Mansfield, I overlooked you and didn't mean to slight you.

Yes, indeedy.

What's needed is less intrusive regulation and oversight.

Let's start with the SEC.

They were far too harsh on Bernie Madoff, for example.

Think what he could have accomplished for humanity if they hadn't been so tough, harrassing him with all those audits and cease and desist orders...

And let's not forget Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch and Lehman:

what great engines of scientific and humanistic advance they could have been if only the govt. hadn't prevented all that pent up innovation, blocked them from creating new forms of "securities" etc.

And taxes. Yes, Mansfield. Taxes. Just think of all the great works of philanthropy the upper 1 % of "earners" would have wrought if they didn't have those WW II high marginal rates weighing them down.

They'd commission works of art and architecture as Julius II, set up medical research institutes, and create whole new industries in the US. Yep, that 99% top rate is really holding back human progress.

So, Mansfield, let me know when your exploratory committee for a run for the Presidency in 2012 is set up and I'll have some further thoughts to share with them.....

You should have no trouble beating Barack......

Everyone, enjoy Labor Day and don't forget the union worker and the Labor Movement for this holiday !! Just one of a multitude of achievements our Labor Movement has given the workers of America. Just to name a few more, less we forget; 5-day work week, 8-hour work day, child labor laws, safe work environments and of course, fair labor practices. Have you hugged a union worker, today? They too, have given a lot to make the American workplace safer and fairer !! It wasn't the union worker that gave us the Wreck on Wall Street, the Bandits in the Boardrooms, or the Greed Creed of Corporate America !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

KG123,

The recession is over? When was that proclaimed? According to National Bureau of Economic Research, it's still going on

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Stalker of John D,

Unemployment would be worse if the Spendulus wasn't passed? I guess you absent that day in math when your teacher explained inequalities. 9.7% is greater than 8%. See the graph below - the two blue lines are from BO's economists

http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/the-may-unemployment-numbers-are-here-and-worse-than-predicted/

Kool-Aid Drinking FITZ,

How's BO doing bring the troops home?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Ornery,

Why did Presdient Clinton sign the repeal of Glass Steagall? Why did it pass with overwhelming support: 90-8 and 362-57? Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions to make more home mortgage money available to those who could not afford the payments - and thus the start of the housing bubble.

You always go on and say that it was the prior 8 years that screwed up this economy - please give me one law passed under the Bush Administration that did this.

What happened to BO creating 3 million jobs in his first two years? Seems he is down about 2 million. Do you think the economy will create 5 million jobs in the next 18 months?

Thsi is no depression. It is a recession. Although BO may turn it into one.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342931435353734.html

Finally, as we celebrate Labor day this weekend, make sure you all turn to your greedy capitalist boss and thank him/her for the job he/she has given you. Becuase w/o the greedy capitalist, there would be no Labor Day.

"It took Bush and his party 8 years to screw the United States"

No, Ornery, it took a runaway FEDERAL GOVERNMENT under both parties about 80 years (starting with Hoover and FDR) to screw the United States. What happened at the end of the Bush administration has been building for long long time.

Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | September 5, 2009 4:04 AM

Have you ever seen the film I suggested earlier? Alot of it is about the labor movement, set in 1936 during the depression.

And also about how greedy, corporate, fascists like William Randolph Hearst and steel company execs funded Mussolini's (and by extension) Hitler's armies.

You can read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_Will_Rock

Well Bruce, since you like "predictions" so much, let's talk about how newly-elected President Bush said that his budgets would not only eliminate the federal deficit but also erase the National Debt, and that there would be surpluses as far as the eye can see. You remember those "predictions", right? How accurate were they?

" pd" seems to think companies are "flocking to Canada because they don;t have to pay health care". What? Does pd think health care is "free" in Canada? No, it isn't. There is this small item called "taxes" that pay for it. Second, perhaps "pd" could point us to a list of companies "flocking" to Canada.

"former Republican" (who is not one): You continue to show your complete ignorance of all things economic, business, and finance related. This is not an ordinary inventory based recession. This is a complete world wide financial meltdown. It was caused by too much and too easy credit and has taken 40 years to develop. To end this, we need to write off the bad loans and reduce the overall credit outstanding. Until that happens, the consumer (70% of the economy) will be unable to lift this economy up. This period will be lengthy and painful. We can continue to follow the Japan model and lose a decade or two, or we can take the pain at once, but it will be painful.

You tell us unemployment is a lagging indicator because you heard it some place, but don't understand it. Temporary employment is not a lagging indicator, permanent employment is because employers are reluctant to hire until they are sure things are getting better. But, the August unemployment number was much worse than we are being told. The U6 number jumped .5% to 16.8% unemployed or underemployed. But worse, is this:

"First, employment in this survey showed a plunge of 392,000, but that number was flattered by a surge in self-employment (whether these newly minted consultants were making any money is another story) as wage & salary workers (the ones that work at companies, big and small) plunged 637,000 "

and even worse news:

"As an aside, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also publishes a number from the Household survey that is comparable to the nonfarm survey (dubbed the population and payroll-adjusted Household number), and on this basis, employment sank — brace yourself — by over 1 million"

Rick

T, I have errands to do and will have to get back to you later.

Yeah, Clinton signed it which is one reason I bashed Hillary every chance I could in 07 and 08--who would want more of the Clintons?

Bush Admin didn't even ENFORCE the laws already on the books.

Just read the Inspector General's report on how the SEC screwed up even when they had memos telling them how Madoff was running his Ponzi....

Repuglicans don't have to "pass laws" when they get in power.

They just don't enforce laws already in place to protect the public.

So they and their pals can get rich....

Gotta run!

"ornery": I did read the Krugman piece. You have to remember, though, that Krugman is a liberal, big government, Keynesian. So, it is no surprise he ends the piece with:

"Second, they have to admit ... that Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions."

In this piece, Krugman does not differentiate the inventory and expansion caused recessions as opposed to the financial meltdown recessions like this one and the depression. They are different beasts. Krugman also neglects the Keynesian prescription in Japan that did nothing for a decade.

It is simply not so that Keynesian economics is the best framework for understanding recessions and depressions. If you read his piece, you will see he makes no attempt to justify that line. He just throws it out as a "fait accompli". Krugman neglects to mention the Austrian school predicted this meltdown. That is not to say their solutions are terrific, but they did predict it.

You claim the problem was the repeal of Glass-Stiegall. I disagree that it was any more than a minor part. The fundamental problem was the government, particularly in the area of housing, completely distorted the markets. Also, the government insures depositors making it easier for the finance guys to take bigger risks since they won't bankrupt their depositors. In addition, the reason the banks are sitting on their capital is they know a lot of the loans they have on their books are not worth what they currently valued. We have also lost the whole shadow banking system. That is the system that bought all the collateralized debt and thereby put money back into the banking system.

Krugman talks about the financial models as a problem and they were. The models just did not allow for a decline in the value of housing and so did not capture the real risk. But, most people had complete confidence in those models and acted accordingly.

By all means, read the Krugman piece. There is a lot of good stuff there. But, do not take everything as gospel. Krugman brings his own long term biases and blinders to the discussion.

Rick

Idiot-for-life BC, please show some proof of Bush predicting he would eliminate the national debt.
Anyway, are you attempting to excuse Obimbo for being off in his predictions (and mind you his predictions were short term, not long term) of lower unemployment by you making up that Bush said he was going to eliminate the national debt and it not happening?

Ornery,

Assuming the Bush Administration didn't enforce the law that would require banks to increase their risk by lending to people that can't afford the loans, the banks would have made fewer bad loans, not more. This portion of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act, that was put into the original law at the bequest of the democrats and needed in order to get thru a filabuster, was ill conceived and we paid the consequences as the bubble burst.

T, there you go again, as Ronnie might say.

All those white collar and professional jobs going **poof**.

All those Wall Street houses collapsing.

All those banks failing, 89 this year so far...

You're trying to blame all this on some table crumbs thrown to low income folk?

That's like believing Germany lost WW I because she was "stabbed in the back".

I didn't say repeal of Glass Steagall "caused" the current depression.

It was however a very serious symptom that our rulers in Warshington had "jumped the shark" as the young say today.

Or as I might say, it was one of the larger canaries in the coal mine. (A bit dated, but nonethless descriptive.)

Back in the later 90's, anyone who had lived a few decades could read the figures about household debt, credit card debt, erosion of manufacturing base, etc., and know a collapse was coming.

Clinton--well, he just as easily could have run as a Repuglican. He was like one of those "wiggle pictures" they used to put in CrackerJack boxes. Though he was no prize.

"Triangulation" was the euphemism his people used to describe their betrayal of the core constituency of the Democratic Party.

Where did the Clintons go in 2001?

To Manhattan, to batten on "contributions" from their pals running the hedge funds and various other shady operations, thanks to them, unregulated for the most part.

Any, forget Schumpeter. I predicted the crash way over 10 years ago.

Glass Steagall repeal, a symptom and a cause, but not THE cause.

Obama's reliance on Clinton people like Summers, who are beholden to the Wall Street crowd, as Paulson was, may well contribute to the failure of his efforts to resuscitate the economy....

We'll see.

Ornery,

Name the legislation that President Bush signed that led to this collapse. BTW, this has nothing to do with the SEC's lack of investigating Madoff. The SEC tightened its regulation over business during the Bush Administration. Look up Sarbanes-Oxley - legislation that was designed to clean-up the messes during the Clinton Administration.

Bush was all about neglect and non-action. Non-enforcement of the anti fraud laws, denying funding for Food & Drug Admin. etc. etc.

Was what W was about.

President Bush was about creating an economy with low unemployment, 73 months of economic growth, finally tackling a terrorist problem that had been punted down the road for many a year.

When President Bush screwed up is when he tried to be like the democrats - increased gov'rt spending, No-Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug program, etc... He would spend this money thinking he would be liked, but it wouldn't buy him any popularity from the left and more importantly was fiscally imprudent.

Unemployment is a worldwide scenario. Government will have to focus in providing more stable jobs with high cost of salary. I want to help.

www.bigjobsboard.com

Thank You and Good Luck!