unemployment up to 9.6%

[droski]

Hmmmmm. This is a very interesting take. It's too bad almost none of it is true.

Unemployment was low in the US, but not as low as France and England (again, thanks to full employment policies). Both France and England had to dig themselves out of the rubble first too.

Churchill actually nationalized what would become BP after WWI when he was the Exchequer. The Crisis of Empire was already strained long before WWII put a fork in it.

The NHS is not "free" but citizens pay far less money for it than we do our system in America, and according to the WHO (and to a host of health statistics) they get more for their money. It is a comprehensive system as well. If you want to pay private in Britain, you can as well.

Health care is a classic "market failure" enterprise.

unemployment in the US was lower for the 60 years after WW II. your info sucks.

 

[utgibbs]

unemployment in the US was lower for the 60 years after WW II. your info sucks.

Ah, I thought you meant relative to Europe over the same time scales.

It was FAR better after Keynesian full employment policy, to be sure. No question. Europe had even less unemployment. They were, of course, digging out of the rubble too.

 

[droski]

yes relavative to europe it was lower. for christ sake. it wasn't even close.

 

[utgibbs]

yes relavative to europe it was lower. for christ sake. it wasn't even close.

Who are you talking about here?

French was like 1.0%
Germans had nothing 0.5%
Attlee as I said 1.3%

US about 2.5%. Great for us, but still higher (this was the real number too).

:dunno:

 

[droski]

you are arguing the french have averaged 1% unemployment for the last 70 years? or do you just have very poor reading skills?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Since 80:

YearUnemployment ratePercent Change19806.349 19817.43817.15 %19828.0698.48 %19838.4214.36 %19849.77116.03 %198510.234.70 %198610.3631.30 %198710.51.32 %198810.006-4.70 %19899.396-6.10 %19908.975-4.48 %19919.4675.48 %19929.854.05 %199311.11712.86 %199411.6835.09 %199511.15-4.56 %199611.5833.88 %199711.542-0.35 %199811.067-4.12 %199910.458-5.50 %20009.083-13.15 %20018.392-7.61 %20028.9086.15 %20039.0081.12 %20049.3083.33 %20059.275-0.35 %20069.25-0.27 %20078.333-9.91 %20087.885-5.38 %20099.54321.03 %

 

[MG1968]

Who are you talking about here?

French was like 1.0%
Germans had nothing 0.5%
Attlee as I said 1.3%

US about 2.5%. Great for us, but still higher (this was the real number too).

:dunno:

source? and please don't tell us that you just know these things. It's long been suspected that you just pull things out of your rear end, but this time, I'd like to see you back up your ridiculous assertion.

 

[CSpindizzy]

 

[MG1968]

dammit, cspin, stop providing facts. You know academic types like utgibbs can't stand it when they're presented with facts.

 

[BigPapaVol]

who buys unemployment as the lone measure of prosperity?

 

[MG1968]

who buys unemployment as the lone measure of prosperity?

apparently academic socialists and Keynesian sycophants like utgibbs

 

[J-P]

Wow. You may want to reconsider choice of weapons; I'm a dead aim at 200 yards with my arsenal of deer rifles.

If you like to think of yourself as a consumer, it is your right. I tend to think cows are consumers, and I would rather think of myself as a citizen.

To each his own.

Wow. I'm shaking in my boots about this whole deer gun thing. :shades:

So you're telling me that you do not eat, you do not use any form of energy, you do not breathe? If that's so, I guess you are a non-consuming citizen, as you claim. Personally, I suspect that you are less intelligent than those consuming cows you mentioned.

Where was the "To each his own" attitude a few days back when you spouted off about "normalized consumption" as a necessary "cultural revolution", something that is popular with dictators and elitist tyrants. You do realize that in order to normalize practically anything, an act of force is required, don't you?

 

[utvolpj]

only 200yds? You should probably practice more

 

[BigPapaVol]

only 200yds? You should probably practice more

Or replace the flintlocks.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[CSpindizzy]

Or replace the flintlocks.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

+1

I was thinking the same thing...

 

[utgibbs]

Thanks for doing my legwork and proving my point! I appreciate that.

:good!:

MG, I think the easiest source would be Daniel Yergin's "The Commanding Heights." It's excellent grade school history, not very deep, and certainly not a lot of graphs and tables, but serves a needed purpose in looking (briefly) at economic history for the world since WWII.

It is rather comical in places to read its triumphalism in light of the trillion dollar liquidity input a decade later, so Yergin's sensibilities are clear. However, the book serves an important function nonetheless. By all accounts, it pales to his "The Prize" which, paradoxically, I haven't read given my interest in the oil industry.

 

[utgibbs]

who buys unemployment as the lone measure of prosperity?

Most people, especially the unemployed.

Admittedly, Friedmanites believe in the "reserve labor army" to hold down inflation (read: wages), but normal people see high unemployment as bad for prosperity.

 

[utgibbs]

dammit, cspin, stop providing facts. You know academic types like utgibbs can't stand it when they're presented with facts.

Uh, his chart just proved me right, MG.

Moreover, it is CRUCIAL to remember that the transition out of Keynesian policy has also resulted in a stagnation of real wages. The period of state supported / Keynesian policies marks the fastest and most prolific increase in across the board earnings in history. As you can see, the real results of the "Age of Hayek" (ca. 1973) has been income polarization - certainly not "wealth creation".

 

[utgibbs]

Again, it's these graphs which make clear the real mission of the "Age of Friedman / Hayek". Its mission has been the restoration of elite class power. It is difficult to call it "wealth creation" when the majority of people have seen no real increase in wealth.

Notice the precipitous decline under Reagan as well. Interesting.

 

[MG1968]

nice, linking to an image from a leftist website like thinkprogress

 

[utgibbs]

nice, linking to an image from a leftist website like thinkprogress

Would you prefer Fox?

This graph could be replicated by any number of citations. It is simply conventional wisdom now.

Some people will vociferously defend it, absolutely.

Another take on the same theme, this time from the Hoover Institute (can't deny their Hayek creditentials!):

This one is quite interesting. Note our current troubles are clearly visible.

Shall I go on? The data is real. If you want to vociferously defend this state of affairs, it is your right. But don't attack sources having none yourself.

 

[MG1968]

that sharp spike in home ownership from the late 90's to about 2008 is no doubt due to Clinton's "third way" BS. Government meddling in a capitalist system, forcing lenders to extend credit to high risk applicants, then backing those mortgages through the corrupt Fannie/Freddie.

 

[utgibbs]

that sharp spike in home ownership from the late 90's to about 2008 is no doubt due to Clinton's "third way" BS. Government meddling in a capitalist system, forcing lenders to extend credit to high risk applicants, then backing those mortgages through the corrupt Fannie/Freddie.

Oh good grief, MG!

The real growth in home ownership (a favorite metric of real prosperity according to BPV and droski) occurs during the Keynesian years.

The "sharp spike" coincides with the repeal of Glass-Steagal. It is actually NOT "third way BS." It coincides with the sharp deregulation and liberalization (Friedman style) of financial markets and institutions! Government TOOK AWAY THOSE BARRIERS - in a word, deregulated! They forced nothing, they "freed" up the market to use the lingo. It was Clinton era, so you got that right at least.

That's Hoover Institute data. That's Game, Set, and Match.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Oh good grief, MG!

The real growth in home ownership (a favorite metric of real prosperity according to BPV and droski) occurs during the Keynesian years.

The "sharp spike" coincides with the repeal of Glass-Steagal. It is actually NOT "third way BS." It coincides with the sharp deregulation and liberalization (Friedman style) of financial markets and institutions! Government TOOK AWAY THOSE BARRIERS - in a word, deregulated! They forced nothing, they "freed" up the market to use the lingo. It was Clinton era, so you got that right at least.

That's Hoover Institute data. That's Game, Set, and Match.

I know making crap up is your way, but the spike isn't remotely related to Glass Steagal and is absolutely related to lending in the old margins. Fannie / Freddie are the lone reason said lending started.

I never said it's a metric of real prosperity. It is the best route to real wealth in America because the 30 year mortgage made it affordable and it's essentially forced savings. Has nothing to do with being an indicator of anything. If I'm advising someone young in building wealth, it starts with a home on a 15 year note. Precludes rental waste and forces savings.

I know you want to attribute something to Keynesian gibberish, but that boom was driven almost solely by mortgage lending and people transitioning to long term jobs in our economy. The long term job transition was more of a shift in the structure of our economy than it was any socialist thinking about the economy.

 

[utvolpj]

so will these guys show up in the new numbers next month? I'm sure Obama is responsible for the elections

Are poll workers being used to inflate employment totals? - NYPOST.com

But if the election boards in all 50 states suddenly report an influx of additional government workers, the effect on the monthly employment numbers could be very, very significant.

But if New York alone hires 30,000 to 36,000 workers, the nationwide figures could easily rival the contribution that Census 2010 had on employment figures in earlier months this year.