The Economic Populist
Speak Your Mind 2 Cents at a Time
Most Popular
Studies show, Congress Favors the Rich
- 86967 reads
The war on the middle class
- 324332 reads
March global oil surplus at 17.7 million barrels per day; 2nd qtr surplus to be at 6.2 million bpd despite OPEC-led cuts
- 88341 reads
Manufacturing Monday: Belgium drinks up Budweiser
- 16375 reads
US oil supplies at a 36½ year low, SPR at a 39 year low; oil+products supplies at an 18½ year low
- 196678 reads
Trump Does Right On H-1B Reform
- 66851 reads
Related Content
User login
Recent comments
Poll
Studies show, Congress Favors the Rich
- 86967 reads
The war on the middle class
- 324332 reads
March global oil surplus at 17.7 million barrels per day; 2nd qtr surplus to be at 6.2 million bpd despite OPEC-led cuts
- 88341 reads
Manufacturing Monday: Belgium drinks up Budweiser
- 16375 reads
US oil supplies at a 36½ year low, SPR at a 39 year low; oil+products supplies at an 18½ year low
- 196678 reads
Trump Does Right On H-1B Reform
- 66851 reads
The Golden Rule
- 1833192 reads
Will the NY Attorney General Bring Doomsday Charges Against Wall Street? If So, How Long Will He Survive?
- 1218376 reads
New York Post Claims Census Falsifies Unemployment Figures
- 957476 reads
How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth?
- 367418 reads
VAT or Value Added Tax is Getting a Look in D.C.
- 351633 reads
U3 and U6 Unemployment during the Great Depression
- 324566 reads
The war on the middle class
- 323379 reads
House discusses 401k/IRA confiscation
- 320570 reads
Tax Cuts for the Rich Do Not Generate Jobs
- 281344 reads
.
and critique the work of others, you must be prepared to present support for your argument.
Yes, that's not happening.
Specifically talking about the state tax situation, state estimates don't see the revenue situation improving in the next year.
Most states have balanced budget articles in their constitutions, which means that carrying the problem over years is not an option.
In the long run, things may work themselves out. But this isn't an option when there are legal constraints that force the issue to be resolved this year.
Today database to get numbers, so I think that the MSM was covering it.
Just not particularly well.
I still think that there is a huge problem.
I understand that the immediate concern was to get money into the system to kick start the economy. I just think that the money wasn't well targeted.
A targeted recovery that focused on putting those out of work back to work would be much more effective than an ad hoc cash dump into the economy.
State Tax Receipts are coincident indicators, and on a YoY basis they lag.
All of the gloomy points you make above could also have been made exactly at the bottom of the Great Depression. Things don't suddenly get good, they improve by getting less bad.
And I'm not predicting an "L" shaped recovery. It is likely to be a "jobless recovery" but there is a surprisingly strong contrary argument to be made, on which more in about one minute.
Supply doesn't create its own demand, regardless of what JB Say (and the Reaganites) say.
If you are going to suggest that 2002 is a predictor for now, then you have to show what the sector that leads us out is.
In 2002, it was housing, and it was a bubble. Where's the bubble now? We are already maxed out as a nation. Debt driven growth isn't going to work.
So tell us NDD, what is out there that's going to take us out of the recession.
I'd suggest that at the moment we can only judge on the basis of the past.
The recession started in December 2007, and it was recognized until late summer of 2008.
I'd suggest that it's likely going to take the same amount of time to see a recovery. And that breaking out the champagne is a little premature until we have a least a quarter of positive GDP growth.
The burden of proof doesn't lie with the brown shoots crowd who point to a continuing trend. It lies with the green shoots crowd who are claiming that things are changing.
And, more I don't think that Bob is making a prediction here, just an observation.
Even yourself and Bondad are suggesting an L shaped "recovery", which means that we aren't going to see a rebound in state tax revenues.
The question then is how states will deal with that. And that opens up the door to a whole world of further problems that could hamper a future rebound.
What's that you say? There was no "Great Recession of 2002"?
You wouldn't know that from the tax receipts info given above. Here the same graph in its original form as propogated around the internet the last few days:
Notice that YoY collections bottomed in Q2 2002. Of course you wouldn't have known that Q2 was the bottom until you saw the rebound in Q3 that would have been reported in Q4 2002 -- almost a year after the November 2001 end of the recession.
Tax revenues are NOT "dropping like a stone." The graph tells us that they did drop like a stone in Q1 and Q2 compared with Q1 and Q2 2008 -- telling us what we already knew, namely, that the economy was in free fall in Q4 2008 and Q1 2009. They tell us nothing about events going forward.
Now, if you tell me that seasonally adjusted, month over month tax revenues are still dropping, you've got a great point about the economy now.
Check out this New York Times story, (h/t CR) revolving scum moves from subprime to refinance
has now started providing U1-U6 figures trended for a 3 month period at the state level.
As you say the U-6 number is very high. Through the 1st quarter of '09, the Michigan U6 was 17.2% that at a time when the U3 for the state was calculated at 9.5%.
The U-3 in Michigan for June has now topped 15%, so god only knows how high the U6 figure would be.
I never saw Obama as a S. South Sider. I saw him moving into the Harvard elite power circles, as well as the University of Chicago economic insanity school.
But ya know, too late now, gotta focus on policy, stats, legislation, bills.
as a direct adviser although you can be sure he was pulling some strings, but she also had a host of very Progressive advisers. Biggest thing I noticed was she really was paying attention to manufacturing.
But that said, there were many people who I just couldn't believe the denial, real experts.
So, my sum was Obama did Bill better than Bill and Hillary had a lot of positions different than Bill but no one realized it and she also knew where the power is too. That said, these politicians give this financial oligarchy power.
I think the key is to understand PR and marketing techniques vs. reading Senate votes, white papers, and who is talking to who.
The problem is that their current business model is not sustainable in current market condition. They have very very little deposit base. They rely almost exclusively on securitization.
Their problem is that they strayed too far from their expertise. They tried to become a Wall Street financial conglomerate but failed. Unfortunately many small businesses are going to have a tough and stressful time in the near term with the uncertainty of their credit situation.
in the primary and general election, I felt that Obama was going to bring "Change". I thought that meant new blood and new way of thinking in Washington. I don't believe I was being too idealistic. Now, it was a little disconcerting when Summers was picked to be an advisor after the primary. But when he picked Summers and Geithner I knew things were not good.
Hillary Clinton, who had Robert Rubin and the rest of the DLC establishment behind her, I didn't believe would push for the change that was necessary.
Obama had the momentum and political capital to achieve great change a very short time ago but he squandered that momentum on unnecessary compromises.
He often talked during the campaign about being from the Southside of Chicago and how Chicago politics was a tough business. I agree. I was born, raised and lived a good portion of my adult life on the Southside of Chicago. President Obama doesn't act like he is from the Southside of Chicago. Mainly, he should know that when an opponent is weak such as the GOP you bury them. And when you have people in your party - centrist Democrats - you make sure they understand who is the boss - you don't compromise with them.
My gosh it is no different than what Bush II except, I thought, Obama would be doing it for working class and middle class families across America. So far, I have been wrong.
That was an excellent description of how unemployment stats are applied. I was glad to see that you included the % that collect UE by state. Each state has its own set of rules and payouts that make it even more difficult to sort out the real unemployment rate. Monthly claims are advertised using U3 numbers, but a more realistic number would be U6, which is approaching 17%. And if you include the SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate used by John Williams at shadowstats.com the UE rate is above 20%.
I believe Tuesday. But if you notice, no media spotlight, no coverage and even worse, what little was managed, i.e. a financial consumer protection agency is getting hammered by corporate lobbyists.
So, this is one for the blogs because I don't think I read hardly anything about the absolute block in the Senate, even introducing the Fed. Reserve audit bill.
has an article up right now about this.
I wonder if there is going to be full coverage of it.
CR (WSJ)
It is a shame that some Americans are so gullible, to the outlandish propaganda and lies spat in the newspapers, television and radio about Obama’s health care agenda. They have demonized the British, Canadian and other worthy plans. Hidden under a disguise cover, these radical entities are determined to keep the special interest organizations in absolute power. Comprising of the money-draining profitable insurance companies and their rich stockholders. They don't want any changes to the broken system of medical care, because it will hurt the status quo. I was born in England, in the county of Sussex and until the inception of the European Union and the European Parliament dictating to Britain. That they must accept millions of foreign workers, the nations medical system was exemplary. I never had to wonder if I would have to file bankruptcy, to pay my medical bills, or listen to the incessant ring of debt collectors on the phone.
On several occasions I ended up in the cottage hospital and their was never a cost applied to it, never a ream of paperwork. Incidentally, I choose my own doctor where I Lived. The longest I waited for surgery was three months, as it was not an emergency. No doctor, no hospital or specialist asking me for my Social Security number, drivers license or if I was covered by a predatory for-profit insurer. No premiums, no-cops and pre-existing condition clauses. Yes! Didn't have a private room, but who cares? Today the British Isles is being submerged under a barrage of legal and illegal immigrants, who have never paid into the system, have caused some rationing. Prior to the importation of foreign labor my trips to doctor, to hospital, the eye or a dentist was paid from my taxation. Unless we pass a national health care agenda, Americans will never know what it's like to breeze through their lives, without worrying about paying for health care? Tell your Senators and Congressman you want an alternative to the--GET RICH-- insurance companies, before a Universal health care is killed. 202-224-312 REMEMBER THE INVESTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS DON'T WANT THEIR PIECE OF THE $$$TRILLION$$$ DOLLAR PIE DISTURBED. EVEN SOME POLITICIANS HAVE THEIR DIRTY FINGERS IN THE PIE?
AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE PRIVATE HEALTH CARE, A GOVERNMENT SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM WILL ASSIST IN REVITALIZING THE WILTING US ECONOMY.
Here's the thing that kills me, anyone, anyone at all, digging around into policy positions to backgrounds to advisers could clearly see Obama was the #1 guy for the Corporatists, the Rubin agenda.
Even worse, so called Progressives wrote piece after piece denying this and tried to claim Hillary was the ultimate corporate front guy.
Now, I would never call Hillary a real Progressive but I went through her policy papers, some of the advisers she was using, on and on and came up with the conclusion she had superior positions on a host of trade, economic, labor, health care positions.
I mean I can understand why no one trusted her, especially with her beyond the pale ties to Indian outsourcers...
but I mean why is this such a surprise? To me the entire blogosphere should hang their heads in shame for jumping on the bus, writing so much information to the point you couldn't even go on DK without being troll rated or banned to point out policy differences, Senate vote differences and so on....
I had one person, who was such an Obamanut, he literally got royally pissed at me and claimed I didn't know jack shit. Ok, that's fine, I'm just a voice in the wilderness...but now that we're over 6 months into this and Larry Summers is running this show....
I've yet to be proved wrong on my from the sidelines examination of stuff out on the Internets to reach the conclusion I did...
so I don't get it. These people are supposed to be aware, reading policy papers, paying attention, tracking money....not being blinded by star power....where the hell were they and why is anyone so surprised?
Seriously!
is the MSM now reporting on what you researched.
Analysis: States Hit Hardest getting least Stimulus funds.
I swear, we need some $$$$ because come on, a full two months after you work this all out, for free and only then comes a MSM report and they don't even link over to this?
When I see "drag" I see something else, i.e. a negative value absolute, not slope, rate of change so just a terminology thing. What they are saying is valid to me.
A lot of this is true, but Stiglitz revisited NAFTA and showed it was not beneficial, i.e. he was dead wrong.
But more to your point, I think there is kind of a rock star thing going on in econ and it should be by theory, work, Academic research that actually makes sense and improves/advanced the theory by on the ground reality.
I have to agree with you the Nobel Prize team seem to have a highly political motivator in a lot of their prize awards....
So, we can use EP to highlight some of the better work out there.
I was thinking of adding LaTEX for equations, as far as I know I'm the only one who can use it but if you can too, let me know.
Pages