Support NeoGAF

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

But there is no sane mainstream American economist (left or right) currently claiming that the US needs to increase spending in order to fix our current economic woes.

Increased spending is needed when demand and hiring is low, and when the economy is in better shape only then reduce spending and balance the budget.

That is widely accepted, mainstream economics.

 

[Black Republican]

summer of romney is upon us!

 

[Chumly]

Simply spending more money is the LAST thing we need. (dude, who the fuck taught you economics!)

According to the BBC, Greece is in trouble because of a massive budget deficit (Greece was spending more money than was coming in). Greece should take a lesson from you and just "supply more financial assets", right? Um no, thats not how it works.

Currently the US is also in a budget deficit. The government is spending over $1 trillion more than it's taking in the last time I looked. This is a recipe for disaster, yet you are actually calling for more spending? Can you explain this?

What our government needs to do is either raise revenue (taxes), cut spending, or a mixture of both (my preference). But there is no sane mainstream American economist (left or right) currently claiming that the US needs to increase spending in order to fix our current economic woes. (and if you quote stinkprogress, kos, or TPM in your reply I'll simply write you off as a blind partisan and we can part ways with a smile and a handshake.)

I wouldn't be calling anyone out on economics when your the person who didn't know where money came from.

Its already been explained to you why greece and the US have no comparison and yet you still bring it up. I would look back at the last few times you tried to post.

Its a basic economic principle that if you decrease spending like you are proposing then you will depress the economy. The opposite is true as well. If the government increases spending it will boost the economy. As you said...... no sane mainstream American economist would argue against that (left or right).

 

[schuelma]

Increased spending is needed when demand and hiring is low, and when the economy is in better shape only then reduce spending and balance the budget.

That is widely accepted, mainstream economics.

Here is the problem with that- when the economy is good, no one will want to reduce spending either. People and politicians will be wanting a piece of the pie for themselves. Basically, no one ever wants to cut anything.

 

[Chumly]

Here is the problem with that- when the economy is good, no one will want to reduce spending either. People and politicians will be wanting a piece of the pie for themselves. Basically, no one ever wants to cut anything.

That may be a problem (especially with hypocritical republicans) but it doesn't mean that it makes sense to cut spending during an economic downturn since it only compounds the problem.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Uh oh, downward revisions. :O

Yup. Very bad sign.

Looking at the historical, this May was still (somehow) better than last year, on this initial report. We had four sub-100k months in a row, before it rebounded in September. So far we have two this year - which started a month earlier.

And with Europe flushing themselves down the loo, headwinds won't abate as they did when the faux debt crisis was resolved last year. Going to be a long slog to November.

On the plus side the markets are falling back down to earth, so my monthly investments are gobbling up more shares. :lol

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Here is the problem with that- when the economy is good, no one will want to reduce spending either. People and politicians will be wanting a piece of the pie for themselves. Basically, no one ever wants to cut anything.

Clinton

 

[reggieandTFE]

I wouldn't be calling anyone out on economics when your the person who didn't know where money came from.

Its already been explained to you why greece and the US have no comparison and yet you still bring it up. I would look back at the last few times you tried to post.

Its a basic economic principle that if you decrease spending like you are proposing then you will depress the economy. The opposite is true as well. If the government increases spending it will boost the economy. As you said...... no sane mainstream American economist would argue against that (left or right).

He's a damned moron who delights in his ignorance while criticizing others who clearly know more than him. It's kind of funny to witness in a morbid way and speaks to the current conservative mindset in this country.

 

[RustyNails]

69K? what what

 

[Loudninja]

Boehner response
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/boehner-on-jobs-report-weak-economy-sad-new

Heh.

 

[eznark]

Huh, I went to a talk by an IU economist last night and he had this mornings number on the head. Bravo, sir. He also predicted a sharp downturn this summer.

Romney is going to struggle to wipe the shit eating grin off his face today.

Oh God Boehner is already celebrating. Gross.

 

[dabig2]

+69k

Unemployment rate at 8.2%

Horrible numbers, way below expectations and all data feeding into the release. Whee!

March from +154k to +143k; April from 115k to 77k.

Those April revisions are nasty. Would love to see all the data compiled to figure out the bleeding.

 

[ToxicAdam]

A bipartisan group in the House of Representatives “slammed the Obama administration’s plan to close the nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, as both praised a bill that would keep that site open, and indicated they would try to add more money to keep the site active,” reports The Hill.

“The bill, H.R. 5325, includes $25 million for Yucca Mountain, which Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) said would keep the site useable in the future… House Appropriations Committee ranking member Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) added that he supports that language, and would try to add more money to send a signal that Congress opposes efforts to close the site.”

While members of both parties noted that tight budget constraints required tough choices on how to fund the Department of Energy and other agencies, the bill spends $32.1 billion, about $88 million more than current funding.

"No funding is provided for Solyndra-like loan guarantee programs in our bill," he said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/230397-house-members-slam-obama-on-yucca-mountain-policy

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I should just stop following politics until September

 

[eznark]

lol@TPM being a partisan site

You think it isn't?

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Horrible numbers. What's Obama's plan if we continue having these low numbers?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Expectation of more downturn during the summer apparently. Game over

 

[eznark]

Horrible numbers. What's Obama's plan if we continue having these low numbers?

Blame congress

Expectation of more downturn during the summer apparently. Game over

The economist last night nearly had people in tears with his outlook.

 

[The Librarian]

Horrible numbers. What's Obama's plan if we continue having these low numbers?

He would love for Congress to pass the American Jobs Act, but Congress won't do anything.

 

[RustyNails]

I should just stop following politics until September

But if you look at 2011, 2010 and 2009 May numbers, 2012 May numbers are still better.

 

[ToxicAdam]

WASHINGTON -- In the three years since President Barack Obama took office, Republicans have made the Environmental Protection Agency a lightning rod for complaints that his administration has been too tough on oil and gas producers.
But an Associated Press analysis of enforcement data over the past decade finds that's not the case. In fact, the EPA went after producers more often in the years of Republican President George W. Bush, a former Texas oilman, than under Obama.
Also, the agency's enforcement actions have declined overall since 2002 and reached their lowest point last year, the review found

While there has been an uptick in the average fine against companies producing oil and gas since 2007, when the penalty reached a low in the decade evaluated by the AP, the average is still lower than during some years under Bush, who was viewed as sympathetic to the oil and gas industry

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/30/2824100/fact-check-oil-stats-belie-tough.html#storylink=cpy


I think it's funny that Obama has been wildly pro-business and anti-tax, yet his critics are effectively arguing he isn't.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

But if you look at 2011, 2010 and 2009 May numbers, 2012 May numbers are still better.

Obama is not winning re-election at these numbers. He needs minimum 150k+ each month and close to 200-225k in August-September-October

 

[Sirpopopop]

Well folks, get ready for Euro-style austerity in 2013.

It's going to be one long shitty ride.

Hope you're right about GW, TA.

 

[Loudninja]

His is Romney response

“Today’s weak jobs report is devastating news for American workers and American families. This week has seen a cascade of one bad piece of economic news after another. Slowing GDP growth, plunging consumer confidence, an increase in unemployment claims, and now another dismal jobs report all stand as a harsh indictment of the President’s handling of the economy. It is now clear to everyone that President Obama’s policies have failed to achieve their goals and that the Obama economy is crushing America’s middle class. The President’s re-election slogan may be ‘forward,’ but it seems like we’ve been moving backward. We can do so much better in America. That’s why I’m running for president.”

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-jobs-report-is-devastating-news-for-american

 

[PhoenixDark]

He would love for Congress to pass the American Jobs Act, but Congress won't do anything.

If only democrats could have controlled the house and senate in the last four years, they could have done something about the economy

 

[The Librarian]

If only democrats could have controlled the house and senate in the last four years, they could have done something about the economy

What in the world are you quoting me for?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Not to absolve Obama/Senate Dems of the blame here, but the Republicans really should have come to the table on the 'Grand Compromise" that was floated last year. That was super shitty on their part.

 

[eznark]

Obama is not winning re-election at these numbers. He needs minimum 150k+ each month and close to 200-225k in August-September-October

That would require massive make work programs which I doubt Boehner will give him.

HOLY SHIT PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT POLITICS STOP SAYING DOUBLE DOWN!!!!

 

[Rocket Scientist]

He would love for Congress to pass the American Jobs Act, but Congress won't do anything.

Theoretically, can he executive order it? And yeah I'm guessing if he even can, it would be political suicide to order it.

Isn't pretty much any course too late now though? For november I mean.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I strongly disagree that Congress + the President's ability to affect public sector job growth is limited. As the monopoly supplier of financial assets into the economy via the spending power, Congress + the President stand most responsible for the growth of jobs (or lack thereof) in the private sector via their power to influence aggregate demand. Now, that doesn't mean that the president, in isolation, is not limited. Or that the Congress, in isolation, is not limited. Per the constitution, both institutions are unfortunately needed to spend. It should accordingly be little surprise that political gridlock in Washington D.C. will cause the economy to suffer.

Design flaw.

I have a subtle disagreement with this point that I need to do more thinking about, but let me say broadly that considering that we have been experiencing political gridlock for the last couple of years, the idea that Congress or the President would claim credit for whatever private sector job growth has occurred (despite their largely sitting on their hands) is what bothers me. And they've been even worse on public sector employment--if anything, they should be sanctioned for the slowing of the recovery caused by their failing to extend additional help to state and local governments.

Simply spending more money is the LAST thing we need. (dude, who the fuck taught you economics!)

According to the BBC, Greece is in trouble because of a massive budget deficit (Greece was spending more money than was coming in). Greece should take a lesson from you and just "supply more financial assets", right? Um no, thats not how it works.

Currently the US is also in a budget deficit. The government is spending over $1 trillion more than it's taking in the last time I looked. This is a recipe for disaster, yet you are actually calling for more spending? Can you explain this?

What our government needs to do is either raise revenue (taxes), cut spending, or a mixture of both (my preference). But there is no sane mainstream American economist (left or right) currently claiming that the US needs to increase spending in order to fix our current economic woes. (and if you quote stinkprogress, kos, or TPM in your reply I'll simply write you off as a blind partisan and we can part ways with a smile and a handshake.)

The sophistication of your understanding of economics is a perpetual delight to me.

If only democrats could have controlled the house and senate in the last four years, they could have done something about the economy

What the fuck do you think ARRA was, exactly?

 

[FyreWulff]

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/230397-house-members-slam-obama-on-yucca-mountain-policy

"We don't want the government subsidizing energy companies. So we're going to send a message by subsidizing energy companies."

 

[eznark]

Theoretically, can he executive order it? And yeah I'm guessing if he even can, it would be political suicide to order it.

Isn't pretty much any course too late now though? For november I mean.

I don't think spending can dictated by the executive. Congress has to approve spending. Right?

 

[ToxicAdam]

"Congress holds the purse .." is the old adage.

 

[eznark]

"Congress holds the purse .." is the old adage.

Yeah, but with the absurd expansion of executive powers by the last two presidents, I'm not sure that's the case anymore. I think it probably is, but I'm sure before long some asshole will figure out a way to get around it.

 

[thefro]

Good news is this should tank oil prices and hopefully the Fed will start doing something again.

 

[PhoenixDark]

What in the world are you quoting me for?

Just pointing out democrats had their chance and wasted it.

Obama has no economic record to run on. Outside of foreign policy and the car industry, his entire message is "things could have been worse." He has absolutely no credibility, and here we go with another bad summer. Things will probably rebound a bit in the fall but it'll be too late. There is no way the youth vote turns out for this guy, with youth unemployment so high. These are people that spent considerable time and money getting Obama elected. What have they gotten in return, outside of health care likely to be overturned later this month?

Obama will have low 40s approval ratings all month.

 

[The Librarian]

Just pointing out democrats had their chance and wasted it.

So ARRA doesn't exist in your world? And neither does the filibuster?

And why quote me about something completely unrelated to my post? It's annoying.

 

[empty vessel]

Good news is this should tank oil prices and hopefully the Fed will start doing something again.

There's nothing left for the Fed to do, unfortunately. Interest rates are already zero. It has to be fiscal policy from the President + Congress.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

There's nothing left for the Fed to do, unfortunately. Interest rates are already zero. It has to be fiscal policy from the President + Congress.

Cue agitation for QE3.

 

[eznark]

There's nothing left for the Fed to do, unfortunately. Interest rates are already zero. It has to be fiscal policy from the President + Congress.

Quantitative Easing 3, yo.

 

[RustyNails]

And why quote me about something completely unrelated to my post? It's annoying.

He's trying to infect his doom spell on gaf, one poster at a time. This is how it begins.

 

[Measley]

Just pointing out democrats had their chance and wasted it.

Obama has no economic record to run on. Outside of foreign policy and the car industry, his entire message is "things could have been worse." He has absolutely no credibility, and here we go with another bad summer. Things will probably rebound a bit in the fall but it'll be too late. There is no way the youth vote turns out for this guy, with youth unemployment so high. These are people that spent considerable time and money getting Obama elected. What have they gotten in return, outside of health care likely to be overturned later this month?

Obama will have low 40s approval ratings all month.

I would say going from losing 800k jobs a month to almost three years of constant job growth month after month is a very solid economic record to run on. Also don't forget, the economies in swing states like Ohio, and Michigan are improving rapidly.

 

[codhand]

 

[teruterubozu]

I would say going from losing 800k jobs a month to almost three years of constant job growth month after month is a very solid economic record to run on.

It's not so solid because those numbers don't resonate with anybody but the administration. I hope they have something stronger than this.

 

[empty vessel]

Cue agitation for QE3.

Quantitative Easing 3, yo.

Not that either of you are advocating it, but QE policy is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about how bank's operate, and shouldn't be relied upon to increase aggregate demand. Although I agree they may well consider doing it again.

The evidence that bank lending is not tied to the quantity of reserves is here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2010/201041/201041pap.pdf

 

[PhoenixDark]

It's not so solid because those numbers don't resonate with anybody but the administration. I hope they have something stronger than this.

They don't, which is why they're picking a fight over Romney's jobs record as governor of MA; you know, when their unemployment rate was below 5%. They're running a clueless campaign of projection and distraction, but time is running out; they can't change the subject this month

Demographically I don't think Romney can win big, but a 2004 type victory is all he needs. The swing will be more visible locally as republicans retake the senate

 

[The Librarian]

He's trying to infect his doom spell on gaf, one poster at a time. This is how it begins.

With the recent jobs report, and the likely case of the EU not getting their shit together, and a slowdown occuring all over the world, I think the direction is pretty clear.

Things could still turn around, but at this point I'm not optimistic.

 

[codhand]

a 2004 type victory

You mean theft? I think Florida is way ahead of you.

 

[eznark]

Not that either of you are advocating it, but QE policy is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about how bank's operate, and shouldn't be relied upon to increase aggregate demand. Although I agree they may well consider doing it again.

The evidence that bank lending is not tied to the quantity of reserves is here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2010/201041/201041pap.pdf

You know I'm not advocating it, however members of the Fed have been advocating for a third round since before the second buy backs started. This will surely fuel that, and I guaranty Obama and the left will push for more of it. As you said, the Fed can't do much by traditional means and as noted earlier, Congress won't act either. Barry is going to want to take action, QE3 is about all he can really advocate for and get at this point.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Also don't forget, the economies in swing states like Ohio, and Michigan are improving rapidly.

Thank god for Republican Governors to bail him out.

(ps. Michigan is not a swing state)