Ace of Spades HQ

December 16, 2010

Initial Unemployment Claims - the Trend Continues
— Geoff

The Department of Labor released the initial unemployment claims data this morning. You all may recall a couple of months ago when I noted that we were seeing a sudden, dramatic shift in the behavior of initial unemployment claims. From Nov '09 through July '10 they showed no improvement at all, but in mid-August something changed. And ever since then it's continued on a new course. Here's what I mean (click on the graph for the legible version):

As you can see, through most of 2009 the rate was falling at a fine pace, suggesting that we'd see a drop in the unemployment rate by June 2010. But in November '09 the descent slowed to a crawl, suggesting in turn that we wouldn't see a drop in the unemployment rate for more than a decade.

Then, thankfully, something kicked the claims rate back onto its original glide path, and improvement resumed. My theory, as I shared with you last month, was that the catalyst for this improvement was industry's response to the news that the GOP was likely to take control of the House. I'm willing to entertain other theories, but the timing is awfully good for mine.

In any case, take heart, for industry is showing signs of life. The financial and real estate pictures are not so rosy, but at least industry is starting to get back on its feet.

Now that it's got some stable ground to stand on.

Posted by: Geoff at 12:12 PM | Comments (114)
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'll take good news where I can find it. Maybe if the chinese get around to collapsing some of those factories will come back here.

Posted by: joncelli© at December 16, 2010 12:15 PM (RD7QR)

2 Oh, and FRIST!

Posted by: joncelli© at December 16, 2010 12:15 PM (RD7QR)

3 Yes, but how many people have given up entirely and have either tried/succeeded to sign onto SS because of some 'illness', and how many others took a hit in benefits and signed onto SS a few years early?

Posted by: momma at December 16, 2010 12:16 PM (penCf)

4 I wonder what that chart would feel like on my penis.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff in 2012 at December 16, 2010 12:16 PM (D9kBV)

5 OT:

Does this shit make anyone else nervous?

Facebook to suggest friends through facial-recognition software

Posted by: momma at December 16, 2010 12:17 PM (penCf)

Uhh.... you do realize that if you are not working... and thus not laid off, you are not an initial Unemployment claim?

Less people are claiming new unemployment, because less people are working... and in fact, at 100% unemployment, there would be NO NEW claims...

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 16, 2010 12:19 PM (AdK6a)

In any case, take heart, for industry is showing signs of life. The financial and real estate pictures are not so rosy, but at least industry is starting to get back on its feet.

Based on what imaginary rosy scenario?

Oh I forgot, the courageous GOP Establishment is coming to the rescue any minute now, (looks at watch skeptically).

Posted by: ontherocks at December 16, 2010 12:19 PM (HBqDo)

8 Oh thank God. About the new thread, I mean. Now to read the post ....

Posted by: Bomber at December 16, 2010 12:21 PM (d88g9)

9 4 I wonder what that chart would feel like on my penis. Posted by: Empire of Jeff in 2012 at December 16, 2010 04:16 PM (D9kBV) That would depend on whether you printed it out or not.

Posted by: joncelli© at December 16, 2010 12:22 PM (RD7QR)

Now to read the post ....

Why?

Posted by: garrett at December 16, 2010 12:22 PM (z8dhf)

It's recovery summer.

In Australia.

Posted by: Sheriff Joe at December 16, 2010 12:23 PM (B+qrE)

12 Facebook to suggest friends through facial-recognition software

That's a big part of why Zuckerberg was Person of the Year.

Posted by: Time at December 16, 2010 12:24 PM (d88g9)

13 Initial claims are a leading indicator going in to a recession.
When you're deep in the trough not so much, except maybe if you're on a double dip watch.

Posted by: ontherocks at December 16, 2010 12:24 PM (HBqDo)

14 All that assumes you accept the numbers from these liars?

Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2010 12:25 PM (e4sSD)

15 and in fact, at 100% unemployment, there would be NO NEW claims...

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 16, 2010 04:19 PM (AdK6a)

And as a result the economy will be a-ROARING!

See? It's not that hard to figure out now, is it?

Posted by: President Mulligan at December 16, 2010 12:25 PM (VLL29)

16 4 I wonder what that chart would feel like on my penis. You should ask for a study to be added to the omnibus spending bill.

Posted by: dagny at December 16, 2010 12:26 PM (aTI8L)

17 All the chart really says is that people are not being laid off as quickly as before. Nothing about the unemployed getting new jobs.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 16, 2010 12:26 PM (hiFDo)

18 Why?

Bucking the trend.

Posted by: Bomber at December 16, 2010 12:27 PM (d88g9)

19 5 OT:

Does this shit make anyone else nervous?

Facebook to suggest friends through facial-recognition software

Posted by: momma at December 16, 2010 04:17 PM (penCf)

Just another reason I do not and will never have a FB presence.

Posted by: billygoat at December 16, 2010 12:27 PM (5qJM5)

20 Some of you knew my dad Pelayo. He posted her sort of irregularly. It is my unfortunate duty as his youngest son that while at work he suffered a medical emergency and is gone to the next. He was a great man and brilliant engineer and the world is a darker place without him.

Posted by: Holger at December 16, 2010 12:28 PM (V9Q+f)

In any case, take heart, for industry is showing signs of life

How dare it. We'll stop that naughty behavior.

Posted by: California cap and trade at December 16, 2010 12:29 PM (R2fpr)

22 Geoff, Could you explain the causality here, because I'm not really getting it. Are you using unemployment claims as a metric for the overall health of the economy or more for hiring based on future expectations?

Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 12:30 PM (Nljcu)

23 14 All that assumes you accept the numbers from these liars?

Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2010 04:25 PM (e4sSD)

Ummmm, come on now, uhhhhhhh, Moron; we're sincere and pure as the driven snow. By the way, have you seen my new uhhhhhhhh, line of cars? The Volt gets 200mpg and never uhhhhhhhh, needs new batteries...I bought one for Sheriff Joe -- he loves it, just, ummmmmmmmm, ask him.

Posted by: TEH WON at December 16, 2010 12:30 PM (5qJM5)

24 By the By. Fat ass Chucky Johnson has now made his swamp blog unreadable unless your a signed in, non-banned, super secret member? Comments are off limits except to the officially approved. That aughta bring alot of traffic?????

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 16, 2010 12:30 PM (0GFWk)

25 Some of you knew my dad Pelayo. He posted her sort of irregularly. It is my unfortunate duty as his youngest son that while at work he suffered a medical emergency and is gone to the next. He was a great man and brilliant engineer and the world is a darker place without him.

Posted by: Holger

There is an Irish saying; "I'm sorry for your troubles". It don't mean to belittle this. It means that I cannot begin to address the enormity of what has happened.

I'l keep you and he and all your family in my prayers.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 16, 2010 12:32 PM (R2fpr)

26 "If there had been no Porkulus, we probably would not have seen that plateau. If there had been no TARP we would have been back to vibrant growth already. Really vibrant growth, like 7%, on the bounceback from such a deep recession." How can you know any of that? That's like Krugman saying that, if it hadn't been for TARP and the Stimulus, we would be at 15% unemployment now.

Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 12:32 PM (Nljcu)

27 Obviously, Industry is racist. Just like the millions of racists who have realized that the socialists are in power and Da Zero is a balloon full of intestinal gas.

Posted by: maddogg at December 16, 2010 12:33 PM (OlN4e)

28
Uhh.... you do realize that if you are not working... and thus not laid off, you are not an initial Unemployment claim?

We're nowhere near the point where the number of unemployed is so large as to affect IUCs by shrinking the pool of layoff candidates.

Posted by: geoff at December 16, 2010 12:33 PM (LrFwU)

29 Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 04:30 PM (Nljcu)

Seconded. I'm not seeing any evidence of increased hiring, so isn't this just a decrease in the rate of decline? Could the issue in August be companies already ramping up for Xmas? I know a lot retailers and even some banks do so... that far back it's supply chain and back-end types, with new retail/counter folks starting in November. If so, I would expect that, starting with January's numbers we'll see a leveling off, or even acceleration, of New claims.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 16, 2010 12:33 PM (8y9MW)

My theory, as I shared with you last month, was that the catalyst for this improvement was industry's response to the news that the GOP was likely to take control of the House.

That was my feeling when our orders started picking up a couple of months before the elections.

Posted by: eleven at December 16, 2010 12:34 PM (7DB+a)

31 Condolences, Holger.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 16, 2010 12:34 PM (AzcBR)

Posted by: momma at December 16, 2010 04:17 PM (penCf)

Facebook is awesome. That's where I find most of my victims.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 16, 2010 12:34 PM (hiFDo)

33 Sorry to hear that, Holger. My condolences.

Posted by: Bomber at December 16, 2010 12:34 PM (d88g9)

34 Posted by: Holger at December 16, 2010 04:28 PM (V9Q+f)

I do remember Pelayo's handle. Blessings to you and your family in this sad time.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 16, 2010 12:35 PM (T0NGe)

35 Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 04:32 PM (Nljcu)

"Know" it, we can't really. But it is borne out by historical data, so it's a fair assumption: unlike Krugmann's drivel.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 16, 2010 12:35 PM (8y9MW)

36 20 Some of you knew my dad Pelayo. He posted her sort of irregularly. It is my unfortunate duty as his youngest son that while at work he suffered a medical emergency and is gone to the next. He was a great man and brilliant engineer and the world is a darker place without him. Posted by: Holger at December 16, 2010 04:28 PM (V9Q+f) Holger, you have my condolences. Rest in peace.

Posted by: joncelli© at December 16, 2010 12:35 PM (RD7QR)

37 28 "If there had been no Porkulus, we probably would not have seen that plateau. If there had been no TARP we would have been back to vibrant growth already. Really vibrant growth, like 7%, on the bounceback from such a deep recession."

How can you know any of that?

You can't. And that, my friend, is the essence of economics.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 16, 2010 12:36 PM (T0NGe)

38
Are you using unemployment claims as a metric for the overall health of the economy

I use it as an early indicator of employment, which is in turn an indicator of the health of industry.

Posted by: geoff at December 16, 2010 12:36 PM (LrFwU)

39 I'm sorry Holger. My prayers for his quick trip into the arms of God.

Posted by: dagny at December 16, 2010 12:36 PM (aTI8L)

40 Sorry for your loss.

Posted by: eleven at December 16, 2010 12:36 PM (7DB+a)

41 So what you're saying is, we're totally boned, but not quite so totally as before, maybe

Hmmmm. Seen the whole foreclosure thing, especially commercial real estate?

Noticed the Actual Twenty Percent Unemployment Rate ??????

The gubmint printing money and the Fed passing it out like candy?

Hmmmmmm?

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 16, 2010 12:36 PM (UqKQV)

42 "It's my opinion, based on nothing but all of recorded economic history. But a guess, nonetheless." It must be nice to have a photographic knowledge of all of recorded economic history. "It's my position and the lefties can explain where I'm wrong if they disagree." I guess that's easier than having to explain your own claims yourself.

Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 12:37 PM (Nljcu)

43 Holger, I'm so sorry for your loss. God bless you and your family.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff in 2012 at December 16, 2010 12:37 PM (D9kBV)

Posted by: Holger at December 16, 2010 04:28 PM (V9Q+f)

Holger, condolences. I lost my Dad 2 years ago. I still miss him, always will.

Posted by: maddogg at December 16, 2010 12:37 PM (OlN4e)

45 He's in a better place, Holger

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 16, 2010 12:38 PM (UqKQV)

46
I'm not seeing any evidence of increased hiring, so isn't this just a decrease in the rate of decline?

Hiring has increased, but not at a pace fast enough to keep up with new entries and reentries into the job market. When the IUCs get to around 350K/mo, you'll start to feel it.

Posted by: geoff at December 16, 2010 12:38 PM (LrFwU)

Holger,

I am sorry to hear of your loss. God bless your family and all those who mourn.

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at December 16, 2010 12:38 PM (x1CBb)

48 Before long, temporary contract workers will be the new norm.

Posted by: tarpon at December 16, 2010 12:39 PM (g0QB8)

49 He was a great man and brilliant engineer and the world is a darker place without him.

Posted by: Holger

So sorry for your loss.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 16, 2010 12:39 PM (hiFDo)

50 "Know" it, we can't really. But it is borne out by historical data, so it's a fair assumption: unlike Krugmann's drivel." Well it assumes that the doomsday predictions back in 2008 that inspired TARP were hooey. That's possible, but I was, like Ace, reluctantly led to believe otherwise. Also, I don't think anyone denies that the Stimulus had SOME positive effect. The issue is only that that effect was nowhere near worth the cost and vastly unstimultive compared to a similar debt incurred by tax cuts.

Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 12:40 PM (Nljcu)

51 Holger -- please accept my condolences and sympathy.

Posted by: billygoat at December 16, 2010 12:40 PM (5qJM5)

52 Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 04:37 PM (Nljcu)

It doesn't have to be photographic. The numbers have been posted here, and elsewhere, many times before. Pre-1929 the US had entered several "panics" as they were known at the time. The Government did little or nothing, and recovery usually began in (trying to remember exactly) 12 - 18 months, or so. The first time we see a really long, slow recovery is the Great Depression- the first with big, keynesian intervention. The "Reagan Recession" of 80 had a similarly fast recovery, as did the Recession of (if you'll recall) 2000/2001. This one (more big intervention) has taken more than 2 years, and we're not even recovering yet.

The same kind of thing is borne out in economic histories of other nations as well. I don't know that I (personally) would go so far as to say "all recorded economic history" but a) Geoff knows more about this than I do, so I'm willing to cut some slack and b) it's probably close enough to "all" that the statement should stand.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 16, 2010 12:42 PM (8y9MW)

53 Holger, I'm sorry you lost your dad. Prayers for him and your family.

Posted by: mikeyboss at December 16, 2010 12:44 PM (MX5qJ)

54 Also, I don't think anyone denies that the Stimulus had SOME positive effect. The issue is only that that effect was nowhere near worth the cost and vastly unstimultive compared to a similar debt incurred by tax cuts.

Posted by: James

If you do something, and the costs outweigh any benefit, then talking about positive effects is rather pointless, isn't it? Busineses declare the loss and move on. Why would this be treated differently?

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 16, 2010 12:44 PM (R2fpr)

55 6

Uhh.... you do realize that if you are not working... and thus not laid off, you are not an initial Unemployment claim?

Less people are claiming new unemployment, because less people are working... and in fact, at 100% unemployment, there would be NO NEW claims...

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 16, 2010 04:19 PM (AdK6a)

< This sounds logical however, it would not affect the rate of those filing first time unemployment. The reduction in an aggregate sum of something does not intrinsically impact rate.

When a funnel is used, does the rate of flow change just because that which is being funneld at top is being reduced? No.

However, it does when a certain critical point is reached. What is the critical point? When the co-efficient of friction is reduced i.e. when their ain't hardly nothing left to funnel.

We aren't quite at that point yet.

Posted by: journolist at December 16, 2010 12:44 PM (LwLqV)

56 AllenG, I agree with you on the economics, obviously, I just take issue with such confident claims as, "had we done X, we would be a Y% unemployment rate." These are intrinsically unfalsifiable and thus a dime a dozen. All you end up really doing is restating your own economic model.

Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 12:45 PM (Nljcu)

57 Also, I don't think anyone denies that the Stimulus had SOME positive effect.

I do.

Besides, aren't you the philosopher, James? Or am I thinking of some other font of misinformation?

Posted by: AmishDude at December 16, 2010 12:45 PM (T0NGe)

58 Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 04:40 PM (Nljcu)

I do believe the doomsday scenarios painted in'08 were drivel. I believed it at the time, too.

The New Deal had some positive effects, too, but virtually every economist I respect says it actually worsened and prolonged the Depression. TARP and Porkulous are the same: of course they had some positive effect- that much money was bound to- but based on my limited understanding (again, Geoff is better at this than I am) it's a net negative effect- which means it's made the situation worse.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 16, 2010 12:45 PM (8y9MW)

59 Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 04:45 PM (Nljcu)

Perhaps. But, as I said, our "economic model" at least has some actual historical support- unlike Krugman, et. al.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 16, 2010 12:47 PM (8y9MW)

60 "Tell me James, how long does it take the US, on average, to emerge from a recession?" Depends on a multitude of factors, many of them outside the government's control, many of them international in nature. For example, if gas was half the price it is now, that would amount to a trillion plus dollar stimulus on its own terms. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't make such wildly confident claims when you have no means to prove them.

Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 12:47 PM (Nljcu)

61 Amish, Are you suggesting that you can dump the better part of a trillion dollars into an economy and not get anything out of it? Please. Keynesianism is bunk but not because the model is theoretically impossible. Rather because it's inefficient and the "multipliers" it's defenders claim it offers are horseshit.

Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 12:49 PM (Nljcu)

62 So sorry for your loss, Holger. I lost my dad 4 years ago, and I miss him a lot. Be glad for the years you had together and for all of the things you learned from him.

Posted by: chillin the most at December 16, 2010 12:50 PM (6IV8T)

63 "Tell me where I said that?" Here: "If there had been no TARP we would have been back to vibrant growth already."

Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 12:51 PM (Nljcu)

64 In Europe ( such as it is, or was ), most of the new hires are signed to temp contracts with no benefits or guarantees of full-time employment.

This gets the employer a pass from profit-crushing legislation making it nearly impossible to fire full-time workers

not Unexpectedly, the French are the best/ worst at this.

we're next, mais oui?? Nous sommes encore?

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 16, 2010 12:51 PM (UqKQV)

65 Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 04:47 PM (Nljcu)

That's avoiding the question, James. This is real, historical data- just like "average" rates of return on an investment: we know each one is different, but what is the "average?"

I'll give you a clue: I gave you an approximate band earlier in the thread (which I'm pretty sure is right).

Your actual answer is very "chicken and egg." The whole system is interconnected, so anything changing affects all the others to greater or lesser extent. That doesn't change the historical data- and equivalent (if not identical) factors existed during previous recessions as well.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 16, 2010 12:53 PM (8y9MW)

66 Unadjusted numbers, you know real people filing real claims looked like crap:
http://tinyurl.com/28k3gcu

Posted by: hu at December 16, 2010 12:54 PM (qLqLT)

Are you suggesting that you can dump the better part of a trillion dollars into an economy and not get anything out of it?

Please

Are you suggesting that you can dump starter fluid into a carbeurator and the beat up car still won't start? Especially if the starter fluid you use has a corrosive effect?

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 16, 2010 12:54 PM (R2fpr)

68 68 So sorry for your loss, Holger. I lost my dad 4 years ago, and I miss him a lot. Be glad for the years you had together and for all of the things you learned from him.

Posted by: chillin the most at December 16, 2010 04:50 PM (6IV8T)

< To you both, I am very sorry to hear about the passing of your loved ones. This is a tough time of the year for those who have lost parents.

I will admit, tears are running down my face.

May God richly bless you with peace.

Posted by: journolist at December 16, 2010 12:54 PM (LwLqV)

69 In any case, take heart, for industry is showing signs of life. Personal anecdote but... I just interviewed this week for a Designer job at Chrysler in Michigan. The Supervisor interviewing me told me that it was the first time he had been able to hire people in his Department in 10 years. He's looking to fill up to 7 positions. And the project for which he is hiring is a DoE (Energy) government project to investigate the design of a new engine with a lot of updated technological components and systems, etc. That's the first time in the last 2 years I've interviewed with a company that was hiring for more than just one position (when I first came into the workforce upon graduation college in 1999, all places were looking to hire to fill multiple positions.). Everything else has been for a single position. Which meant that there could be 10-20 people interviewing for that one opening. Now, with this possibility of filling 7 positions, this definitely improves my chances of landing one of them. 10-20 people competing for 7 positions is much better than 10-20 people competing for 1. The only bad thing about this is that the positions are UAW positions and I despise the UAW. But, at this point, I'm taking what I can get. That aside, this position is exactly the same as what I had when working at Ford. So I'm a perfect fit. Just gotta hope come the first week of January I hear back from them that they agree with me.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 12:54 PM (NITzp)

70 Holger,

My condolences and may God comfort you and yours in this time.

Posted by: Penfold at December 16, 2010 12:55 PM (1PeEC)

71 My condolances for your loss, Holger. Thoughts and prayers are in-bound for you and your family.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 16, 2010 12:56 PM (5gWwb)

72 Wow, we truly have globull warming today. It is currently 57Â° and they predicted 47 as a high today.

Don't you just love how accurate all these weather estimates are. They can't predict weather even a few hours in advance, much less a 100 years.

Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2010 12:57 PM (e4sSD)

73 Sorry for your loss, Holger.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at December 16, 2010 12:57 PM (0LABp)

74 Are you suggesting that you can dump the better part of a trillion dollars into an economy and not get anything out of it?

Please.

Keynesianism is bunk but not because the model is theoretically impossible. Rather because it's inefficient and the "multipliers" it's defenders claim it offers are horseshit.

I know all about the basic Keynesian assumptions am well aware of the notion of a geometric series. My people invented it.

First, a trillion wasn't "dumped", it was trickled out. Second, a spending stimulus motivates changes in behavior which take money out of the productive economy. Third, the choice of a stimulus itself and the Keynesian approach left the markets wary and that -- along with all the rest of Obama's shenanigans -- left investors unwilling to spend.

If you're trying to argue that some sort of theoretical spending binge independent of every other factor might have improved the economy, well...Japan tried endless stimuli and they hadn't worked. In fact, the only time in history there is any evidence that a stimulus might work was the Great Depression and even then it's questionable.

Which goes to show my maxim: Economics is the art of finding a best-fit straight line through a single data point.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 16, 2010 12:57 PM (T0NGe)

75 "That's avoiding the question, James. This is real, historical data- just like "average" rates of return on an investment: we know each one is different, but what is the "average?"" Again, I think the failure of the Stimulus has irrefragably refuted Keynesianism. BUT, its defenders claim: 'That's because the stimulus wasn't big enough and if we hadn't of done anything we would be at XX% unemployment.' These kinds of counterfactual claims are cheap and easy to make since no one can prove you wrong. They are BS when Krugman uses them, and they are when people here use them.

Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 12:58 PM (Nljcu)

76 The longest "recession" in U.S. history was extended by tax and spend meddling of FDR. I expect the same thing this time unless Obama and ALL the Dems get ousted in 2012 AND the Republicans take some real conservative actions.

Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2010 12:59 PM (e4sSD)

77 All the chart really says is that people are not being laid off as quickly as before. Nothing about the unemployed getting new jobs. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 16, 2010 04:26 PM Exactly. What are the numbers/trend on the long-term unemployed (ie those who have been unemployed 6+, 12+, 18+ months, etc)? What are the numbers on those filing for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th tier EUC and EB 'extensions'?

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 16, 2010 01:00 PM (NITzp)

78 Amish, I don't know where we are disagreeing. My only point was that government stimulus is not metaphysically incapable of producing growth, but rather that it is a horribly inefficient and corrupt means of producing such growth.

Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 01:01 PM (Nljcu)

79
Holger, I had no idea you were related to Pelayo.

I always enjoyed reading his comments. And I remember seeing him around just the other day. I used to kid around with Pelayo by saying his name always reminded me of Smurfs because of the creator of the Smurfs, Peyo.

I'm so sorry for your loss, Holger.

And I'm sorry for our loss, too, as Pelayo was like one of the family in the comment threads.

Posted by: Senator Soothsayer (R-AoS) at December 16, 2010 01:01 PM (uFokq)

80 My only point was that government stimulus is not metaphysically incapable of producing growth, but rather that it is a horribly inefficient and corrupt means of producing such growth.

Well, we'll just have to agree to agree, then.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 16, 2010 01:01 PM (T0NGe)

81 All I know is that it feels like this shitstorm is never going to end and it's going to take me forever to get back to where I was before I was laid off.

Posted by: Annabelle at December 16, 2010 01:02 PM (Zeljq)

82 Holger, I'm sorry for your loss. May Pelayo find Peace.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 16, 2010 01:02 PM (swuwV)

83 Do they think this omnibus spending bill is going to help? Are Kennedy named bridges and beaver control supposed to jolt the economy?

Posted by: dagny at December 16, 2010 01:03 PM (aTI8L)

84 Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 04:58 PM (Nljcu)

Exactly how are my (or our) claims counter-factual? We're pointing to actual historical facts. The first economic down-turn which lasted more than about a year or so was the Great Depression. Before that- no government intervention. The ones since then which had no government intervention- or the government intervention was only cutting taxes- have also followed that same trend.

These are facts. Ergo, my claims are factual: historical data supports the theory that no government intervention at all would have been much, much better than TARP + Porkulous.

You're like 'War' on one of yesterday's threads: simply stating that something isn't the way it is doesn't make it untrue- we have actual, verifiable data backing our theories.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 16, 2010 01:04 PM (8y9MW)

85 I think the failure of the Stimulus has irrefragably refuted Keynesianism. BUT, its defenders claim: 'That's because the stimulus wasn't big enough and if we hadn't of done anything we would be at XX% unemployment.'

These kinds of counterfactual claims are cheap and easy to make since no one can prove you wrong. They are BS when Krugman uses them, and they are when people here use them.

Posted by: James

One has the advantage over the other; Keynesian policies have both immediate and long lasting negative effects. An active economist can explain it better than I, but the sheer fact that this is going on causes negative effects, in investment, bonds and particularly with the outlook for our currency and debt. That infusion is either to be defaulted or paid off somehow. That fact alone has an intimidating factor on the internal economy and global trade. And that in turn has an effect.

Shedding that debt, and signalling that further such debts and idiotic policies won't be employed can have the exact opposite effect. Electing grownups is such a move.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 16, 2010 01:06 PM (R2fpr)

86 Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 05:01 PM (Nljcu)

Government stimulus may not be "metaphysically incapable of producing growth" but it is actually incapable of it. At least- in any long-term, sustainable (that is: non-net-negative) way.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 16, 2010 01:07 PM (8y9MW)

87 Holger, I too remember and appreciated his comments as Pelayo. Four years ago he was quite active here. Godspeed to a good and insightful man.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at December 16, 2010 01:09 PM (UMjFR)

88 Look folks, this country is in trouble financially, and so is the world.
We are tied together in this mess and it wont take much to bring real hardships.
Prepare yourselves the best you can!

Posted by: MarkC at December 16, 2010 01:12 PM (yPPVC)

89 He was a great man and brilliant engineer and the world is a darker place without him.

Posted by: Holger at December 16, 2010 04:28 PM (V9Q+f)

Holger,

What a lucky man you are to be able to say this about your father. Find strength in the man he was, and the angel he has become.

You and your family are in our prayers.

Posted by: momma at December 16, 2010 01:13 PM (penCf)

90 You're like 'War' on one of yesterday's threads: simply stating that something isn't the way it is doesn't make it untrue- we have actual, verifiable data backing our theories.

That doesn't sound like the economics I thought I knew.

Posted by: Paul Krugman at December 16, 2010 01:15 PM (T0NGe)

OT Happy Boston Tea Party day.

Little know Tea Party fact: Two-thirds of those partcipating whose ages were known were under 20, including 16 teenagers. Only nine are known to have been 40 years old or older.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at December 16, 2010 01:17 PM (QMtmy)

92 @98 - Speaking of, how on earth did that man win a Nobel? If he really believes in so easily a discredited theory as Keynesian economics, how did he do something that so advanced economic thought that he deserved the Nobel?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 16, 2010 01:18 PM (8y9MW)

93 "Government stimulus may not be "metaphysically incapable of producing growth" but it is actually incapable of it. At least- in any long-term, sustainable (that is: non-net-negative) way." Agreed. It can produce it, but at a cost that comes out of future growth. As for your other point, I have no problem with people claiming, "if we has spent the 900 bil on tax cuts instead of a pork boondoggle, we would be better off right now. I think that's well supported. What I don't like is when people start offering figures. That's all meaningless conjecture. Besides, even tax cuts can take time to work their way through the economy, as Reagan found out early in his administration.

Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 01:19 PM (Nljcu)

94 Deepest condolences, Holger. May Pelayo be in heaven a half-hour before the devil knows he's dead!

^{/quarter-Irish, it's allowed}

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at December 16, 2010 01:21 PM (GBXon)

95 Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 05:19 PM (Nljcu)

Meh. I'm not one of the ones who gives President BOHICA and his team grief about his figures as such. If UE had capped at, say 8.5% instead of the 8% he promised, I'd find it hard to quibble about the half a percentage point. These numbers are estimates, after all.

My problem with BOHICA's numbers was that they were so obviously made up and (now) just as obviously wrong.

So if someone wants to say "We'd be at 7% growth by now if not for TARPulous!" I can mostly agree with the sentiment and not loose any sleep over the specific number.

Though, that's actually (at least sort of) backed-up by historical data, too. After every recession in this nation's history, the "recovery" period experienced phenomenal growth. I don't have those numbers memorized, but 7% wouldn't surprise me.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 16, 2010 01:25 PM (8y9MW)

96 100 @98 - Speaking of, how on earth did that man win a Nobel?

Because economics is a wussy social scientific field in which inanimate objects are more often correct.

Also, he bashed Bush so that got him enough votes.

Posted by: AmishDude, mathematical snob at December 16, 2010 01:26 PM (T0NGe)

97 @106 - Okay, yeah. That would explain it.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 16, 2010 01:29 PM (8y9MW)

98 Actually the first prerequisite for winning any Nobel is for the winner to be steeped in liberalism.

Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2010 01:34 PM (e4sSD)

99 Geoff I'm surprised. You did not mention that many 99ers have not been able to claim unemployment anymore. That is a factor (a huge one) in the drops

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 16, 2010 01:43 PM (c5RQr)

100 Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 16, 2010 05:43 PM (c5RQr)

Not with new claims. New claims are just that- new. It would be someone who was just fired or laid-off. Once you've been on for a week, you're no longer a new claim.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 16, 2010 01:46 PM (8y9MW)

101 All we need to know about Porkulus is that it cost $400,000 per job "saved" or created. The average private job pays $50,000.

Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz at December 16, 2010 01:59 PM (Buoh2)

102 Frankly, I donÂ’t see how the Repubs winning the House would affect any business decision. About the only thing would be greater chance of extending the higher end tax brackets (not even a certainty) and stopping tax and crap.

Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz at December 16, 2010 02:06 PM (Buoh2)

103 Holger, so sorry for your loss. Both my parents are gone, with my father and a brother passing during the Christmas season. You are in my prayers.

Posted by: texette at December 16, 2010 02:19 PM (+61wI)

104
That is a factor (a huge one) in the drops

Actually it doesn't have anything to do with the drops. These are initial claims we're talking about.

Posted by: geoff at December 16, 2010 02:26 PM (LrFwU)

105 Posted by: texette at December 16, 2010 06:19 PM (+61wI)

My grandmother (his mother) fell and broke her hip this time of year. I think she and my paternal grandfather died around this time of year. I'm beginning to hate this time of year.

Posted by: Holger at December 16, 2010 02:26 PM (V9Q+f)

106 wow 650,000 I had forgotten that it was that bad when Obama took over

Posted by: archie bunker at December 16, 2010 02:48 PM (0YS61)

107 Holger, eventually you will find yourself remembering the good times at Christmas. Make a few photo ornaments for your tree with your father's happy images through your lifetime.

Posted by: texette at December 16, 2010 03:22 PM (+61wI)

108 Just because companies have stopped laying off doesn't mean they are hiring. Many have laid off all they can lay off. Yahoo! is talking about laying off another 500 people. Looks like they might still have some fat left.

Posted by: crosspatch at December 16, 2010 03:30 PM (ZbLJZ)

109 Holger, we were glad to have had Pelayo with us here. Hope you stick around here for him. Be Pelayo Too! We need all the Morons we can get.

Posted by: torabora at December 16, 2010 04:52 PM (H5l1+)

110 82 "That's avoiding the question, James. This is real, historical data- just like "average" rates of return on an investment: we know each one is different, but what is the "average?""

Again, I think the failure of the Stimulus has irrefragably refuted Keynesianism. BUT, its defenders claim: 'That's because the stimulus wasn't big enough and if we hadn't of done anything we would be at XX% unemployment.'

These kinds of counterfactual claims are cheap and easy to make since no one can prove you wrong. They are BS when Krugman uses them, and they are when people here use them.

Posted by: James at December 16, 2010 04:58 PM (Nljcu)

Think of all the jobs that were saved! Praise O!

Posted by: Whorehouse Harry Reid at December 16, 2010 04:58 PM (H5l1+)

111 If the measure of employment is the measure of unemployment benefits, then the expiration of unemployment benefits equals employment.

Not really, but according to these jokesters it is. The 99 week mark has surely expired for some and when they come off the check, they come off the measure.

That does not mean that they've found jobs.

Posted by: jmflynny at December 16, 2010 05:33 PM (piMMO)

112

But it we pass it now, we will only see 8% max...........

Posted by: Mike at December 16, 2010 08:19 PM (QI2vM)

113 Any reduction in new claims is good news, but should not be overestimated. There is an attrition factor when the economy has lost as many jobs as this one has in this downturn, at some point there just aren't many more to lose without a wave of significant company closures.

We need a NET job creation of roughly 150,000 or more per month just to keep up with new people entering the work force. To be said to be in recovery with the number of jobs already lost, we probably need to be creating twice that number.

Job creation is a more reliable indicator of economic direction than new unemployment claims.

Posted by: Adjoran at December 17, 2010 12:27 AM (VfmLu)

114 Ace: "...industry is showing signs of life..."

Me: "Not a chance"

Posted by: tiger at December 17, 2010 04:48 AM (7osnW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

133kb generated in CPU 0.1885, elapsed 0.3073 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2506 seconds, 242 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.