Who Caused the Recession?

[jayboat]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/June-...tml?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

Not good

Agreed. More worrisome analysis from the Economist here.

Money quote: If the recovery continues to be jobless, it may cease to be recovery.

ANd what the heck you doing up at 2 in the morning?????:seeya:

worryin about my economy.

 

[jayboat]

In law, the same thing as found guilty by the jury and pardoned by the judge. Still impeached....

for a blowjob, or trying to cover one up with a lie about it.

much more serious than lying us into an unnecessary war. :ack2:

 

[Ratickle]

for a blowjob, or trying to cover one up with a lie about it.

much more serious than lying us into an unnecessary war. :ack2:

It was just a fact, not a judgement......:sifone:


The one thing I don't like about the job market currently.

There are several major specialists who say the current job loss/unemployment numbers are being manipulated by falsifications.

IE; they are not counting anyone working part-time or anyone not working whose unemployment has run out.

Some are saying, measuring the way we did during the great depression, we would have already surpassed their numbers.

 

[Ratickle]

for a blowjob, or trying to cover one up with a lie about it.

much more serious than lying us into an unnecessary war. :ack2:

Nice picture by the way....:sifone: :sifone: :sifone:

 

[Ratickle]

And the one thing on your graph I wish someone would pay attention to:

The new Congress, (controlled by the liberals), was sworn in early January 2008.

They immediately made dumb changes to laws for businesses.

The loss of jobs started exactly at that time and has not improved one little bit, but continued in a free fall.......

 

[BBB725]

Lets just hope the Senate stops the Cap and Trade bill, if not it will completely destroy the economy.

 

[jayboat]

It was just a fact, not a judgement......:sifone:

I don't care, it still pizzes me off every time I see it. :willy_nilly:

The one thing I don't like about the job market currently.

There are several major specialists who say the current job loss/unemployment numbers are being manipulated by falsifications.

IE; they are not counting anyone working part-time or anyone not working whose unemployment has run out.

Some are saying, measuring the way we did during the great depression, we would have already surpassed their numbers.

Yep- so many pundits can't be bothered with truthful, in-depth analysis. Stay on the surface- it's sooo much easier that way.

Here's a decent overview with good links that help put it in perspective. (Kos alert) Not many bright spots.

A couple of the commenters seem to know what they are talking about:

Yeah the turnaround is probably going to be pretty slow. But one reason that it'll be slow has more to do with how our economy is structured than anything else. More specifically:

In 1974, the job recovery took 19 months; in 1981, 28 months; in 1991, 32 months; in 2001, 47 months.

The obvious conclusion: we recover more slowly. But the question is why? The reason is that back in '74, we were largely a manufacturing driven economy. In manufacturing, if the economy hits the skids, you see this reflected in rising unsold inventory. So when that happens you idle plants and temporarily lay off workers that aren't needed in an idle plant.

Once the unsold inventory is sold, then you rehire the same people you just laid off because they have the skills and knowledge to work those positions in your plant. So when you lay people off, unless it's so bad that you are shutting down the plant entirely, you generally end up hiring them right back a few months down the road.

Of course as you see things have gotten worse, largely because we're a service economy. The service economy is driven by general business activity, rather than inventory. Furthermore, there's greater flexibility in terms of how many staff you need to do a given amount of work. So layoffs tend to have greater permanence in a service economy.

So a manufacturing sees quick drops in employment followed by quick returns to full employment once plants come back online. In the service sector, the drops are more gradual, but the return to full employment takes a lot longer.

*

Any system with stable money supply and falling employment is proofed against inflation.

The basics are so obvious. We do financial economics, which is total overkill for understanding the reality. Here's the simple model for What Bush Did To Us:

Free money after 9/11 led house prices in our area to inflate to 3 times what they had been a decade ago. Foreign money came in like the Nile in a pre-Anwar flood.

Wages in this area -- Manhattan/Northern Jersey -- stayed the same except for the various Wall Street RICO operations.

Now, wages are falling rapidly. Foreign investment is no more. Housing prices are falling, of course, but no where near fast enough to match the wage/investment fall. At this rate it will take 5 years for houses to reach normal wage-driven price levels.

These antisocial/paranoid sell-outs wanna cry/whine/lie about "inflation" ??? Serving what rational economic interest ???

If its the banks thinking they're gonna win with this nonsense, they're damn fools. These national banks are going to get themselves nationalized, as in taken over lock-stock-and-barrel. They cannot survive another year of falling employment, plus the killer: unsound currency.

God-effin'-damn these characters such as Morris and the bank-shills in Congress are dishonest. There's no sense to it, no way.

Best analogy I can think of right off: a combo of Rev. Jim Jones and Bernie Madoff. Lie, cheat, steal and do their damnedest to kill everybody. Out of simple incompetence at junior-year financial economics.

 

[Ted]

Always with the BDS, no wonder they are so loonie.