Political & Elections

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: The Hypothetical President.


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 660
Date: May 5, 2012
RE: The Hypothetical President.
Permalink  
 


Here is a take on the jobs number.  Also note the number of government jobs:

April Jobs Report: What It All Means

 

The April jobs report, released Friday morning, found that the U.S. economy created a disappointing 115,000 jobs for the month. On several levels, the jobs report offered more of the same.

Disappointingly weak job trend. The poor job market has been discouraging workers. The household survey, in which BLS calls up people and asks them about their employment status, produced several disappointing data points. The unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent in April from 8.2 percent in March, but that's largely because the labor force shrank by about 350,000 people in April. The labor force participation rate, the employment-to-population ratio, and the number of people who said they are employed all fell in the month.

Companies rule, workers drool. A big feature of the current expansion has been that companies, empowered by access to global markets, declining unions, and a slack labor market, have been able to reap significant gains without having to share them with employees. In April, in the midst of another positive earnings season, we saw more of the same. Average hourly earnings bumped up by a single penny in the month, to $23.38. Because average hours worked stayed the same in April, wages basically stagnated. Over the past year, average annual wages have risen 1.8 percent, while average weekly wages have risen about two percent.

The trend is your friend. Each month, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the data, it revises the figures for the previous two months. For the last few years, BLS has tended to revise the previously reported data higher. April brought more of the same. The February jobs total, originally reported as a 227,000 gain in March, was revised to a gain of 240,000 in April. Today, BLS revised the February total up again — to an increase of 259,000. The March figure, originally reported as a gain of 120,000, was revised sharply upward — to a gain of 154,000. Add it up, and BLS discovered an additional 52,000 payroll jobs that it had missed the first time around. That might not sound like much. But 52,000 jobs at an average weekly salary of $806 is an extra $1.7 billion in monthly compensation flowing into the economy.

Conservative recovery. For much of the past few years, the private sector has consistently added jobs while the public sector — state, local and federal government — has consistently cut jobs. The private sector in April created 130,000 jobs while government hacked another 15,000 jobs. The long-term trend is unavoidable and unmistakable. Since May 2010, government has reduced employment by 1.028 million. Since February 2010, the private sector has created 4.247 million jobs. The last time the government employed this few people was in June 2006. FYI: between January 2001 and January 2009, the government sector added 1.74 million jobs.

Political football. The monthly jobs numbers have become a major political talking point — as well they should be. The election is only six months away. This report offers some fodder for both sides. The major presidential candidates will be asking citizens if they are better off today than they were four years ago. Plainly, the labor market isn't. But with each passing month of gains, the question becomes a bit more complicated. In April 2012, there were 111.02 million private sector payroll jobs in the U.S. That's higher than the 110.985 million total from January 2009. In other words, the private sector has clawed back all the jobs it shed under the Obama administration. Alas, there remains the problem of the 4.62 million jobs lost between December 2007 and January 2009. And in a nation whose population grows every month, simply treading water isn't good enough. Taking into account the public-sector job losses, there were 572,000 fewer payroll jobs in the U.S. in April 2012 than there were in January 2009.

Those who think poor jobs numbers dictate electoral destiny would be well advised to spend some time looking through the BLS Web site. When President George W. Bush entered office in January 2001, there were 132.466 million payroll jobs. In November 2004, there were 132.182 million payroll jobs. He was the first president in recent memory to be re-elected after having seen net job losses over the course of his presidential term.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 963
Date: May 4, 2012
Permalink  
 

"But my plumber also has a nice beard and I would not trust him to play God with the economy. ".... apologies for the non-sequitor, but that line always comes to mind when Bernanke's name comes up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k\

------------------------------------------------------------

Is a "hypothetical" president something like a "living in fantasyland" president?  A "builder of straw men" president?  A "composite" president? Or, perhaps, a "lying sack of crap" president?

I'll go with "fantasyland", for $500.

Don Quixote's spinning his windmills out of thin air, true, and Biden's playing an especially dense Sancho but it's a kind of Camelot.

If you squint real hard.



-- Edited by catahoula on Friday 4th of May 2012 08:53:19 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: May 4, 2012
Permalink  
 

I would slightly disagree with the cite and Benake's characterization of the two busts.

IMO:

Dot-com bust affected, 1) Those who had investment dollars in the equity markets which primarily affected traders (professional and day traders); 2) Those who had 401 and IRA's, no pensions (me, me); 3) Internet and High-tech industries (me)(Internet expections got too far ahead of reality and hardware was undergoing another technological quantum leap.)

The Credit balloon affected, 1) Damned near everyone. 2)Boomers who then were in the late 40's and 50's saw themselves behind on their retirement goals. They had to invest and save quickly, some through real estate and some through blue chip stock and AA bonds;  3) Since most American's wealth is in their homes and various housing, what better way to collaterize investment than through their ever rising home equity. After-all, people got to live somewhere, don't they? 

Personally, this family, continued to make investments during W's watch, although much more so through 401k and IRA catchup provisions. We didn't borrow other than the low interest student loans, and we didn't invest in high risk stock/bonds, so we thought. We didn't refi or take HELOC. Who would have thought that GM, AIG, C, BAC, JPM, FNM, SLM, PG, had all invested in the same blue chip/AA bonds that we had and had pyramided their risks.  We still lost 40% and by 2009, too late in our lives, to never to make up the lost. 

So do we have extra money to invest in this economy? 

What do you think, non Boomers?



-- Edited by longprime on Friday 4th of May 2012 12:28:23 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 660
Date: May 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

Perhaps this is why some underestimated the impact of the financial meltdown in 2008:

Bad Models Mistook Housing Bust for Dot-Com Bubble

 

In a speech last month about the financial crisis, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke trenchantly noted that the initial losses from the dot-com bust were about the same size as those from the housing meltdown -- yet the two episodes had very different economic consequences.

What Bernanke didn’t say was that the reason the Fed, along with every other official forecaster, underestimated the depth of the latest downturn so badly is that its models effectively treated the housing collapse as if it were merely dot-com bust 2.0. And only modest progress has been made toward avoiding that same mistake in the future.

Bernanke said in his speech on April 13, at a conference sponsored by the Russell Sage Foundation and the Century Foundation, that “any theory of the crisis that ties its magnitude to the size of the housing bust must also explain why the fall of dot-com stock prices just a few years earlier, which destroyed as much or more paper wealth -- more than $8 trillion -- resulted in a relatively short and mild recession and no major financial instability.”

He then pointed to the concentration of losses in the financial industry from the housing bust, as opposed to the broad dispersion of fallout from the bursting of the dot- com bubble, as the “principal explanation of why the busts in dot-com stock prices and in the housing and mortgage markets had such markedly different effects.”

The Fed chairman is right: The housing crisis was much more damaging because the initial impact was concentrated in a highly leveraged financial sector and then substantially amplified as those losses cascaded.

Imperfect Models

The problem is that the macroeconometric models used by the Fed -- like those used by the Congressional Budget Office, the White House and others -- had at best a very rudimentary financial sector built into them. As a result, they took into account the macroeconomic impact from the housing bust -- but for the most part didn’t reflect the concentrated loss of wealth and degree of leverage in the financial industry.

In other words, the official models effectively ignored the very distinction that Bernanke highlighted as being crucial to distinguishing the housing collapse from the tech bust. And so the models completely missed the recession’s severity.

In late 2007, for example, the midpoint of the range that the Fed projected for real gross-domestic-product growth in 2008 was more than 2 percent. Instead, real GDP declined by more than 3 percent that year. In early 2008, the Fed projected the economy would expand 2.4 percent in 2009. Instead, real GDP fell 0.5 percent. Those are big forecast errors: The 70 percent confidence interval for one-year-ahead projections is plus or minus 1.2 percentage points. The 2007 projection for 2008 was off by more than five percentage points.

The Fed was far from alone in being overly optimistic; every formal macroeconometric model that I’m aware of made the same mistake. In early 2008, for example, forecasts for 2009 from both the Congressional Budget Office (which I ran at the time) and the Bush administration were roughly in line with, and therefore just as wrong, as the Fed’s.

A paper delivered at the same conference where Bernanke spoke last month suggests one way to address the problem. The economists Simon Gilchrist of Boston University and Egon Zakrajsek of the Fed staff augmented a traditional macroeconomic model with a measure of stress in the financial industry: credit spreads on bonds issued by financial institutions. Those spreads barely moved following the tech bust, but they widened substantially after the housing collapse.

Accounting for Stress

This model, the authors conclude, “can account for the broad movements in consumption, investment, hours worked and output observed during this period.” And since 2007, some progress has been made in incorporating metrics of financial stress into macroeconometric models. But the progress remains inadequate.

So here’s a rough rule of thumb: Whenever a reasonable financial-stress index, such as that produced by Gilchrist and Zakrajsek, is particularly elevated, be very skeptical of economic forecasts from models that pay scant attention to the financial industry. They will be making the housing- meltdown-is-just-like-the-tech-one mistake all over again.

Perhaps fiscal and monetary policy were unaffected by the substantial forecast errors made at the beginning of this crisis. In other words, perhaps if the model predictions had been more dire, the response to the crisis would have been no different. But I doubt it.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: May 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

(CNN) -- During the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday night, Jimmy Kimmel made a joke that President Obama laughed at, but that you could see was just killing him inside.

"Mr. President, do you remember when the country rallied around you in hopes of a better tomorrow?" Kimmel asked. "That was hilarious. That was your best one yet."

Yeah it was.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/01/opinion/granderson-hope-and-change/index.html?hpt=op_t1



__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: May 2, 2012
Permalink  
 


And "Hope" isn't even a hypothetical. It's a nothing.

He may as well have run on "fun," or "happy," or "sunny," or "cuddly," "magic beans."

But then again, millions of people bought his "magic beans" so, you know, what do I know?



__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: May 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

"Here are some things I know for certain: In the absence of the stimulus, I think our recession would be much worse."

He's not saying that he knows for certain that the recession WOULD be worse.

He's only saying he knows for certain that he THINKS it would be worse.





__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 227
Date: May 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

Is a "hypothetical" president something like a "living in fantasyland" president?  A "builder of straw men" president?  A "composite" president? Or, perhaps, a "lying sack of crap" president?



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: May 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

IMO

MR could have said something different but didn't. IMO, for someone to second guess a Presidential decision is foolish unless modified with disclaimers. I disagreed with many of W's decisions, however, I would never say that his decisions were the right or wrong decisions. 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 963
Date: May 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

I'd really like to claim credit for that title but Harsanyi thought of it first.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Plenty of Americans believe that the president's rhetoric runs counter to facts, but actually, it's the president's own counterfactual arguments that matter most.

Which is to say, nearly the entire case for President Barack Obama's second term is based on not what has happened but what could, would or might under different circumstances. Things, as you've surely heard from one official after the next, would have been a whole lot worse without the president's guidance.

When the Obama campaign intimates that Mitt Romney would have been less decisive to knock off Osama bin Laden -- "Which path would Romney have taken?" a campaign video pretends to ponder -- we aren't seeing anything new. This is another Obama hypothetical. Libyan intervention without congressional approval? We averted a future atrocity. The passage of Obamacare? We avoided higher infant mortality rates and lower life expectancy. The president has, by his own account, prevented countless disasters and tackled an incalculable number of problems that don't exist yet.

Without a hypothetical, after all, there is no room for the false choice. Do you want an apocalypse or Cash for Clunkers?

Then there is economic policy. On this, we have Obama's shiny new 17-minute campaign documentary, "The Road We've Traveled," masterpiece of counterfactual scaremongering -- brought to us by Academy Award winners Davis Guggenheim ("An Inconvenient Truth") and Tom Hanks ("Bachelor Party").

The film's plot revolves around a brave soul -- thrust into the unequaled historical turmoil (well, a bad recession) -- who, with no thought to his own well-being, sends hundreds of billions of your dollars to politically favored institutions on the say-so of an economic theory. Without this very specific policy, deployed by this very president, the United States would have surely crumbled. (I know this because in "The Road We've Traveled," Hanks uses a grave tone to communicate this to me.)

If he's not acting, then Hanks is placing an immense amount of faith into the state. Put it this way: When the administration attached specifics to one of its counterfactual arguments -- the stimulus -- it made an embarrassing prediction about job gains with/without the policy. The administration didn't come close when it came to the number, yet the president said, "Here are some things I know for certain: In the absence of the stimulus, I think our recession would be much worse."

Not "might" or "may" but rather the president, like the fundamentalists and ideologues he pretends can only exist among his fanatical detractors, knows this for certain. Obama even stated around this time that there was "no disagreement" on the matter of his Keynesian stimulus -- even though 200 economists took to the pages of The New York Times in an ad to say otherwise, and thousands of others disagreed.

Obama may be Nostradamus, but counterfactual arguments, fortunately, can be deployed both ways and by anyone. For instance: Doing nothing would have been more effective than doing something stupid. Without the stimulus, we'd be out of this mess already. Passing free market-oriented reforms would have allowed this recovery to resemble the "Reagan recovery" of the '80s. And so on.

As a political matter, "Things could have been worse, you know" is a far cry from "Hope." That's probably why the Obama campaign has settled on the slogan "Forward." That's not to say that the counterfactual tactic is unusual in politics -- we are, after all, engaging in some serious guesswork -- but rarely is the justification for re-election based almost entirely on a gigantic hypothetical. When there is no tangible accomplishment to grab, I guess you're left with few alternatives.

 



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard