Mostly, I need to read the primary source material, since Zero Hedge usually just cuts out graphs from other peoples' work and half the time leaves out the legends and footnotes. For example, which recoveries does that include?

St. Louis Federal Reserve report

Answer: the previous 10 recoveries. Which 10 are those? Well, you need to go to the NBER site to see. They include:

• 2009
• 2001
• 1991
• 1982
• 1980
• 1975
• 1970
• 1961
• 1958
• 1954

Why is that important? Because the title of the ZH post is "Worst. Recovery. EVER." However, it should be something more like "worst recovery as measured by real GDP since 1954." Not as catchy, I agree.


Now, I do like charts and the data they represent...



If anything, I am surprised at the level of private domestic investment. I'm not surprised by the personal consumption expenditures. People trying to shed debt are not going to ramp up their consumption.

What doesn't fit in to most peoples' narrative is the second chart down on the right column.


You don't use the unemployment rate? Or you use the broader U-6 measure? As stated repeatedly, I prefer the employment-population ratio.

 

Could it be, and I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, that the data shown in the chart above reflects a perfectly reasonable correction in the domestic employment landscape?

In other words, what happens when you give context to that data by expanding the time scale outwards to include a larger sample?



It would appear that between 1948 and 1984, the E:P ratio moved back and forth across a relatively narrow range. Given that this period includes both the "golden age" period of the 1950s and early 1960s, as well as the "shitty" period of the late 1970s, we might consider a ratio in the range of 55-60% to constitute "normal".

Between 1983 and 2000, the ratio grew dramatically. This might reflect the fact that the overall demographic in the US was changing during this time, with many women of the baby-boom generation entering the workforce for the first time, as well as a higher ratio of adults of working age to adults of normal retirement age.

Now, the baby boomers are starting to retire in large numbers. At the same time, the fact that they tended to produce fewer children per couple than their parents means that fewer new adults are entering the workforce to take their place. The ratio of people of retirement age to people of "traditional" working age is rising.

And then, of course, you have the concept of "surplus labor." During the 1990s in particular, we saw a dramatic upswing in the creation of entirely new job categories which, if we're totally honest with ourselves, didn't really contribute much to the overall economy. You can only have so many people employed as "canine dietary consultants" and "corporate image specialists" before your economy starts to look like something Douglas Adams would have written about.

 

correction as is in: the point in which you make too much money?

 

No, see the major edits I made to the above, to clarify the theory.

 

way to ruin my pun.

 

with your objective nuanced analysis and actually taking the time to go to the primary data source! George W. Obama and all the neo-coniberals have ruined this country with their wars and guns and religion and athiesm and taxes and spending!

 

Doesn't the second chart on the right say, "We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem."?

Of course you'd get push-back from the Prez on that one.

 

Which one are you referring to? The "Real Personal Consumption Expenditures" or the "Real Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment" or a different one?

 

Althouse: "Wisconsin budget surplus projected to grow to $484 million."

Walker cut spending, stopped out of control benefits, and didn't raise taxes.

Obama is taking the "balanced approach", where he taxes the business owners, spends more and kicks the can down the road. California agrees with Obama, and any business that can is moving to Texas, Nevada or Arizona, in that order.

 

ca is "projected" to make a surplus too, after raising taxes...

lets see how the laffer curve treats them before we hold judgement.

 

California has a balanced budget requirement, and it hasn't happened in years. The smoke and mirrors is ridiculous--we miss our budget by more than the entire budget of nearly every other state.

Can you imagine competing on the world stage with your own 'cap and tax' scheme, or adding a 'high speed rail' that has tripled in price, lost speed & estimated passengers (raising ticket prices), and goes from nowhere to nowhere?

At least Hollywood gets special tax exemptions, because we all know they need the money to protect against the media attack on all the gun violence in movies, post-Newtown. Oh wait, that was in a parallel universe.

 

Piece of ****? At least the fly thinks so... me too.

 

Libs still can't figure it out. Flys just know.

 

 

I saw one of those on a urinal today, or wait, was it here?

 

Just like back home in Kenya...

 

just some reads:

Barack Obama: 'I go shooting all the time' - Telegraph

Government Officials Can Still Own Assault Weapons Under Feinstein Bill

CBS Runs Segment Called 'Let's Give Up On The Constitution'

Obama EPA kills power plant, 3,900 jobs in Texas | WashingtonExaminer.com

Welfare payments to be slashed ¥74 billion to root out the comfortably poor | The Japan Times

 

 

This article blows my mind. I have heard this argument before and not once has anyone come up with a satisfactory replacement. It is almost always brought up by someone who wants to limit something protected by the constitution. The sad part is I hear this more and more and much of it is from my own generating who's political positions I find atrocious.