http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36146930/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

4/2/2010 5:53:37 PM

And yet, somehow this is a bad thing, I'm sure of it. Perhaps the panelists can tell us why.

4/2/2010 6:05:08 PM

i suspect that it's "not enough"


i mean, he's had a year. geeze. how much more time does he need?

4/2/2010 6:07:52 PM

You're probably right, that was the line used on increased drilling, why not double-dip?

4/2/2010 6:10:52 PM

To put those numbers in a little more context:


This isn't the partisan red/blue chart, but the current President obviously took office towards the end of January 09.


President Barack Obama speaks about jobs and the economy during a forum at Celgard, Charlotte, North Carolina, April 2, 2010.

A section of the remarks (the full remarks are at whitehouse.gov)

Quote :

"So it is good to be here at Celgard, and it is good to be back in North Carolina. It is good to be back. (Applause.) We just concluded our tour, where we saw some of the workings of this facility where you’re manufacturing components for state-of-the-art batteries. You’re building separators to make sure diametrically opposed forces can work successfully together. And I couldn’t help but think: We could use your help in Congress. (Laughter and applause.) We could get one of those -- we could get one of those tri-part films and put it between the Democrats and the Republicans. (Laughter.) And it would improve conductivity. Right? Did I get that right? Okay. Now, the truth is, these have been a very tough two years for North Carolina, and they’ve been a tough two years for the United States of America. We’ve been through the worst period of economic turmoil since the Great Depression. Keep in mind, when I first took the oath of office, we were already moving towards what some thought was a Great Depression. We were losing about 700,000, 800,000 jobs per month. And the economy was contracting at a pace that we hadn’t seen in generations -- about 6 percent contraction that first quarter when I first took office. And I’ve often had to report bad news during the course of this year as the recession wreaked havoc on people’s lives. But today is an encouraging day. We learned that the economy actually produced a substantial number of jobs instead of losing a substantial number of jobs. We are beginning to turn the corner. (Applause.) This month, more Americans woke up, got dressed, and headed to work at an office or factory or storefront. More folks are feeling the sense of pride and satisfaction that comes with a hard-earned and well-deserved paycheck at the end of a long week of work."

4/2/2010 10:14:11 PM

Most of those are temporary census jobs and temporary summer jobs, but I have heard that it will still be a small increase after those aren't included.

4/2/2010 10:42:06 PM

^ Still "most in 3 years” which is significant anyway you cut it, and corroborates the trend supplanter posted.

4/2/2010 10:43:21 PM

4/2/2010 11:47:02 PM

so many obama fan boys on this site. homers all over the place.

seriously 1 month of added jobs finally and your bragging?

4/3/2010 12:09:55 AM

^ where would you propose they start, then? can you not accept good news for what it is?

4/3/2010 12:11:07 AM

out of the 9 threads out there on this topic i'm not sure where to post my celebritory remarks on the 1 month climb out of this deep recession.

4/3/2010 12:24:12 AM

Spring came towards the end of last month, so more of it was winter than spring. I'm not sure I'd dismiss those as summer jobs. I mean, I've had temporary summer jobs before, and none of them have ever started in winter.

4/3/2010 4:46:47 AM

^

4/3/2010 8:12:35 AM

this is good news. Hopefully the trend will continue with more private sector jobs though.

Its politics to take credit for any good news and shift blame for the bad news. no biggie.

I do not think the stim had nearly the effect most thought, esp for the price. And the upcoming tax hikes will really hurt esp if the economy isnt rolling again.

4/3/2010 9:46:17 AM

^ Yeah, but any economist is gonna tell you that you have to give most top-down stimulus some lead time before the average working man will see it. That said, it's been a year or so since the big package was passed, and now you're starting to see some gain from it. It's going to be a recovery by inches before it's a recovery by feet or yards.

4/3/2010 10:52:56 AM

Those of you hating on Obama, I would LOVE to see the hate you brought on to Bush because he's by far the worst president in history.

4/3/2010 11:07:25 AM

Im curious why you say the worst in history.

I disliked bush bc of his deficit spending, so you know exactly how I feel about Obama.

Every dem was pissed when we had 300-500B deficits and now are nowhere to be found when Obama has a 333B deficit in MARCH.

4/3/2010 12:30:17 PM

Perhaps because they'd rather have a deficit than watch the economy entirely collapse? Which is the better of the two crappy options?

4/3/2010 1:05:00 PM

More jobs is a good thing on the surface, until you look at where jobs are being created.

Construction jobs, service sector jobs, and government jobs. Those are not the jobs we want. Those are not the jobs that will create a strong economy. Service sector jobs are based on consumption, something that we've had way too much of. Construction jobs...Jesus Christ. The construction industry should be contracting right now, not growing. Too many homes were build during the bubble. There are way more houses on the market than there are buyers.

Government jobs, of course, can't be created without taking money from productive members of society. A lot of those jobs are census workers. Temporary jobs, those are all going away. And we're paying (read: borrowing) for their wages.

We need more jobs where we produce things that can be sold to other countries. We can't continue with this consumption-based economy. It's not sustainable, and the only reason it works now is because people still trust the dollar. Of course, these numbers are being touted as "proof that the recession is over." We're in for a harsh dose of reality later this year, I think.

[Edited on April 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM. Reason : ]

4/3/2010 3:14:02 PM

So if, later this year we are not treated with a harsh dose of reality, will you admit that you simply spewed lies and hate, or will you come up with some lame reason why it's going to happen next year and we just staved off our inevitable economic demise?

4/3/2010 3:55:35 PM

I'm not spewing lies or hate, though I'm not surprised to see you say something like that. If we continue to see job growth like this, then yes, I'll admit I was wrong. As long as you admit that you were wrong when the correction does finally come. Of course, when it does come, the last thing I'm going to be worried about is telling someone on TWW "I told you so."

4/3/2010 8:19:51 PM

Again, I have to ask... Why can we not simply be happy that some out of work folks can earn a meal again? Jesus christ people, get some fucking perspective here.

4/3/2010 9:00:02 PM

I said it was a good thing on the surface. If the jobs are going away in 6 months though, it's not enough.

4/3/2010 9:12:31 PM

^^^^ And let's not forget hyperinflation. That's coming any second now, too, according to him.


At first this thread made me think how the Democrats were mostly doom-and-gloom about the economy when Bush was in office, and how they suddenly became optimists when Obama took office.

Then I realized that they were and are right.

4/3/2010 9:22:50 PM

Hyperinflation is coming when the rest of the world stops buying treasuries, not "any second." Government bonds are what's keeping this whole sham going. If say, China, stops deciding to fund our debt, there will either be hyperinflation or a massive default that would result in a global depression. Either way, we're not going to win.

4/3/2010 9:42:33 PM

Quote :

"Construction jobs, service sector jobs, and government jobs. Those are not the jobs we want."

I don't see how you can honestly say this. construction jobs are bad now? you think there aren't architects/engineers designing things being constructed? service sector jobs. you think there aren't people making the items being purchased? jobs are jobs are jobs. seriously. there are no "good jobs" and "bad jobs" when talking about the economy. there may be desirable jobs and less desirable jobs, but that's all a matter of perspective, so that argument is moot. its one thing to lambaste a consumer based economy, but if the economy is an indicator of growth, this should surely be good news for everyone.

by no means are we out of the woods, but at least the path is visible

[Edited on April 3, 2010 at 9:43 PM. Reason : ]

4/3/2010 9:43:06 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps because they'd rather have a deficit than watch the economy entirely collapse? Which is the better of the two crappy options?"

surprised anyone still trots this bullshit out as true.

What I want to know is why President Obama (or anyone else for that matter) gets credit for the job growth? If all 162,000 were govt, then no new wealth was created, only either redistributed or inflated int existence. If they're private sector, they're likely in spite of costs imposed by regulations.

What would be real interesting would be to see the non-defense sector private jobs numbers. They've been in decline since 2000, so they're a much more solid measure of the true health of the economy.

4/3/2010 10:27:35 PM

Isn't your interpretation just an opinion as well? I mean, economists don't know shit any more than weathermen. They just use models based on prior history and then when stuff happens, they explain it using any number of factors they prefer to look at. Art Laffer is the prime example of someone who still gets credibility even though his ideas were totally bullshit and made up out of nothing, all to serve an ideological bent. That's how this stuff always works. Democrats claim credit when there is growth, and Republicans say it happened in spite of all the shit they did, and vice versa.

I agree with your idea of looking at private sector jobs to a point, but many of the jobs put into place in the late 30s and early 40s were public sector, but it got people employed and still managed to help get us out of the Depression.

If the other option is to NOT increase public sector jobs and have millions more unemployed, I really don't see how that helps the situation any.

4/3/2010 11:04:49 PM

Quote :

"If all 162,000 were govt, then no new wealth was created, only either redistributed or inflated int existence."

Umm... this is just blatantly wrong.

4/3/2010 11:17:09 PM

Quote :

""Perhaps because they'd rather have a deficit than watch the economy entirely collapse? Which is the better of the two crappy options?" surprised anyone still trots this bullshit out as true."

Ahh, I see that forecasts from economists don't fit your view of the world. Sorry to hear that. I guess both Bernanke and Greenspan got it wrong?

[Edited on April 3, 2010 at 11:39 PM. Reason : quote fail]

4/3/2010 11:39:25 PM

Quote :

"Isn't your interpretation just an opinion as well? I mean, economists don't know shit any more than weathermen."

except that the collective future of Americans under 40 isn't being banked on the assumptions of weather nerds.

And yes, I think the general read is that Greenspan was a key enabler of the unsustainable boom cycle and that the only real benefit to Bernanke staying the Fed chair is that President Obama didn't have the opportunity to name someone worse.

[Edited on April 4, 2010 at 12:33 AM. Reason : .]

4/4/2010 12:16:36 AM

Quote :

"I guess both Bernanke and Greenspan got it wrong?"

holy fuck did they get it wrong

4/4/2010 4:20:10 AM

Quote :

"As long as you admit that you were wrong when the correction does finally come. Of course, when it does come, the last thing I'm going to be worried about is telling someone on TWW "I told you so.""

I keep hearing the same thing about The Rapture.

4/4/2010 10:17:38 AM

Funny you say that. From my perspective, Keynesian economics is a religion. If only we spend and create enough money, we'll be prosperous again. Never mind that it's been tried many times over the past thousands of years and failed every single time. The people trying it always seem to say, "this time, it'll be different."

4/4/2010 10:54:08 AM

Quote :

"Keynesian economics is a religion. If only we spend and create enough money, we'll be prosperous again."

You don't know what Keynesian economics are. It's not about just spending.

Quote :

"Never mind that it's been tried many times over the past thousands of years and failed every single time."

I keep thinking of the last large instance it was tried, and it was correlated with getting the US out of the great depression. Now I'm sure you'll say it was due to some other reason and that those tactics made it worse, but the fact is you can't really call that one a "failure".

4/4/2010 11:12:56 AM

Quote :

"You don't know what Keynesian economics are. It's not about just spending."

No shit. Economic "stimulus" is one of the key principles of it, though.

Quote :

"I keep thinking of the last large instance it was tried, and it was correlated with getting the US out of the great depression. Now I'm sure you'll say it was due to some other reason and that those tactics made it worse, but the fact is you can't really call that one a "failure"."

That's the common take on it. Bernanke fancies himself as an expert on the Great Depression and its causes. The Great Depression was caused by easy money by the Federal Reserve during the 1920s. It could have been a much faster correction, but government intervention made it last many years. No one talks about the recession of the early 1920s. It was short lived because the government didn't do shit about it.

If you want to see recent failure of Keynesian economics, take a look at Japan. They spent all of the 1990s trying to stimulate their way back to a legitimate economy. It didn't work. Now they have a ridiculous debt to GDP ratio and it's getting worse. At least their debt is internal, though. We're not in nearly as good of a position.

4/4/2010 11:17:22 AM

Quote :

"No shit. Economic "stimulus" is one of the key principles of it, though."

That's not true, I'm not going to spoonfeed it to you, and I know you are to hard headed to learn about it yourself.

Quote :

"It could have been a much faster correction, but government intervention made it last many years."

Strangely the implementation of FDR's Keynesian principles correlated with the revival of the economy. Most americans gave him credit for it, I don't really care to get in the argument about whether it caused the revival or it was in spite of it. The fact remains that it was a success, not a failure, whether it was by dumb luck or whatever, the fact remains that you are wrong to say that it's failed every time.

Quote :

"If you want to see recent failure of Keynesian economics, take a look at Japan."

I don't need to in order to disprove your claim. You said that Keynesian policies have failed EVERY time they have been tried, your stupid use of the word EVERY means I get to pick the example, and I only have to show one.

4/4/2010 11:36:07 AM

For the record, deficit funded stimulus is the long term economic equivalent of "Drill Baby Drill" as a sustainable energy policy.

4/4/2010 4:26:32 PM

^ possibly, but stimulus could have the effect of creating new wealth, just like gov. spending during WWII pushed the nuclear industry forwards (as well as jet, radar, and rocket technology), or the space race of the 60s pushed various fields of science and technology forward.

It's not like we're paying people to dig holes, then fill them back.

[Edited on April 4, 2010 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ]

4/4/2010 4:43:11 PM

Quite right. What we are doing is much worse. We are hiring people to consume expensive office space and enforce an ever-exploding registry of restrictions upon the private sector which is then forced to pay taxes to cover it.

4/4/2010 5:27:45 PM

^ what he said. War is an inherently unsustainable state, but even then the demands of the battlefield create artificial market signals as to what needs to be produced. In this case only the demands of political patronage in a tight election year will dictate the redistribution of this wealth. That is the very definition of corruption and inefficiency.

4/4/2010 8:46:18 PM

^ except you have nothing to back up the assertion that this spending is particularly worthless compared to other expenditures in the past, that you seem to feel were justified.

4/4/2010 8:50:24 PM

moron likes to see all the wealth going into the collective for redistribution according to race / gender / sexual preference and other silly things.

nothing shy of 'religious' like opinions about how it should be distributed as well. all the other species on this planet should be imprisioned immediately for moron to give them a harsh lesson on how to kindly treat the weak links in their evolutionary chain.

4/4/2010 9:23:17 PM

^it's nice to know that you consider people who benefit from race/gender/sexual orientation equality as the "weak link in the evolutionary chain."

4/4/2010 9:35:25 PM

War is a broken window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window), but I believe taxation is a very functional part of our economic system that act as fertilizer for our economic growth.

4/4/2010 9:57:26 PM

Quote :

"except you have nothing to back up the assertion that this spending is particularly worthless compared to other expenditures in the past, that you seem to feel were justified"

you're right, since I haven't said any were justified.

[Edited on April 4, 2010 at 11:14 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2010 11:09:38 PM

^ so you lament the earlier advent of nuclear and space technologies?

4/4/2010 11:53:30 PM

I don't lament them in and of themselves, I'm just not so narrow minded as to think that the only way to create them was spending prompted by the greatest armed conflict the world has seen was the only way for them to flourish.

By your logic, hospitals everywhere should be named after President Bush for the advances in limb replacement technology made necessary by the war in Iraq.

4/5/2010 10:13:02 AM

Between this, the stock market recovery, and almost unanimous agreement among top economists that the stimulus package worked, I really can't see how anyone can say it was a bad move anymore. I guess republicans will just continue to stick their heads in the sand on the issue.

4/5/2010 10:25:51 AM

Quote :

"Between this"

162,000 jobs? Out of 4.8 million (at least) lost since 2008?


Well fuckin' a:

Quote :

"the stock market recovery"

piss poor index. Depending on the analysis you use, the "recovery" has largely been built on the falling value of the dollar, not on any sustained growth.

Quote :

"and almost unanimous agreement among top economists that the stimulus package worked"

we've already established the dubious credibility of "top economists" and there is far from unanimous agreement outside of the talking heads on television who failed to predict the 2008 crash in the first place. Hell, Krugman is out there taking credit for a stimulus whose full value he decried as insufficient and only a fraction of that total amount has even been spent. The neo-Keynesians aren't even in agreement with their own personal positions much less with one-another.


I'm not saying this may not be the start of a real recovery, but 1) the Great Depression and the Japanese Lost Decade, which are the two closest economic models we have right now, were not monolithic events of bad news, there were multiple "mini-recoveries" sprinkled throughout. 2) pointing to the "stimuli" and saying they're responsible is the equivalent of responding to an unexplained medical recovery with "God did it." He may very well have but he may very well haven't and the evidence doesn't generally point to that being the deciding factor.

4/5/2010 12:28:35 PM