Thread: Gallup: Unemployment drops down to 8.1%, lowest level yet.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I use the quarter before and the quarter after Reagan took office, where the rate of real GDP growth was over 7%, and that is cherry picking to show Reagan came to office with a strong economy?

I disagree. 7+% real GDP growth is strong by any objective measure.

It's quite annoying and disturbing when progressive Liberals "cherry pick" economic data to support their partisan statements. Here's what Ronald Reagan, "The Great Communicator" inherited from Jimmy Carter and a Democratic lead controlled congress:

1) Prime rate lending 20.5%, nearly six times higher in 1980 compared to 2012.

2) Core inflation 13.6%, approximately six times higher in 1980 compared to 2012.

3) 18.5%/30 year mortgage rate, roughly 4 times higher in 1981 compared to 2012.

4) 17.4%/48 month car loan rate, estimated 2.5 higher in 1981 compared to 2012.

5) In 1980/1981, real gas prices 32% higher compared to 2011.

6) A notably high 7.5% nation wide unemployment rate.

7) An economy that retracted in Real GDP growth by -0.3% in fiscal year 1980.

Jimmy Carter's Misery Index score: 16.27 (highest in U.S. history)

Originally Posted by REDRUM

It's quite annoying and disturbing when progressive Liberals "cherry pick" economic data to support their partisan statements. Here's what Ronald Reagan, "The Great Communicator" inherited from Jimmy Carter and a Democratic lead controlled congress:

1) Prime rate lending 20.5%, nearly six times higher in 1980 compared to 2012.

2) Core inflation 13.6%, approximately six times higher in 1980 compared to 2012.

3) 18.5%/30 year mortgage rate, roughly 4 times higher in 1981 compared to 2012.

4) 17.4%/48 month car loan rate, estimated 2.5 higher in 1981 compared to 2012.

5) In 1980/1981, real gas prices 32% higher compared to 2011.

6) A notably high 7.5% nation wide unemployment rate.

7) An economy that retracted in Real GDP growth by -0.3% in fiscal year 1980.

Jimmy Carter's Misery Index score: 16.27 (highest in U.S. history)

High interest rates are a result of monetary policy, the result of the actions of Fed Chairman Volcker, appointed by Carter, to break the inflation cycle. Which it did.

None of which change the fact that economy was growing at a 7% real rate when Reagan took office.

Obama was handed an economy with 7.8% unemployment (which was skyrocketing up) and a -9.2% GDP rate.

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Why we do not rely on Gallup for actual unemployment numbers...

To the contrary. Many of our conservative friends have posted Gallup unemployment numbers, citing them as a reliable alternative to the Govt numbers.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

We bottomed out in 2008 and the growth we had in 2009-present wasn't in anyway effected by the two trillion dollars of government spending and tax cuts.

I completely disagree. Money that was spend saving the banking system and automobile industries from collapsing and millions more Govt employees from being fired arguably had an immediate impact on putting a floor on the recession and turning the economy around.

Equally critical is the psychological effect. A serious recession creates a "death spiral" where layoffs result in fear, fear resultsd in less spending, less spending results in production contraction, which results in more layoffs, which result in more fear and panic. Add to that a stock market and real estate market crash, and you have a recipe where the economy destroys itself in this cycle of fear and destruction.

Massive government intervent and plans for intervention, even to the extent it does not result in an immediate injection of money (and a lot of the Govt intervention was immediate) can and (despite the best efforts of conservative outlets like Fox to promote economic malaise for political purposes) did reduce the panic and fear, which is crucial to break the recessionary death spiral.

You cannot prove anything absolutely in economics, but IMO, it is not just some gigantic, massive coincidence that despite the collapse of the credit and real estate and stock market and automotive industries, the economy bottome out and started turning around when this massive Govt intervention occured.

And for that we should all be thankful to Bush and Paulson and Bernanke and Geithner and Obama and the Democrats who supported these actions.

In reality the artificial suppression of interest rates which reduced income to tens of millions of retirees has adversely affected our economic recovery more than the TARP spending to bailout millionaires, Wall Street and that failed related to the auto industry (GM and Chrysler still went bankrupt) or the Stimulus which lined the pockets of millionaire constrution company owners that build our "infrastructure" projects. The Stimulus spending did extend some state government jobs for almost a year but then those individuals ended up joining the unemployment lines extended the high unemployment rates longer than what would have happened otherwise.

That is simply a baseless and unfounded assertion. Lower interest rates I agree affects those who rely on interest rates for income, but SS is the most important leg for most retirees, and to argue that had more of an economic effect than seeing the economy continue to tank is simply baseless conjecture.

All of the federal spending and tax cuts have resulted in nothing more than an increase in the national debt to the point were we face future federal bankruptcy if interest rates return the the levels of the early 1980's. The federal government will not have the money to even pay the interest on the national debt if that happens and that will cause the federal government to declare bankruptcy or the inflate the money supply by so much that it will destroy every middle class American's personal assets to the point that they become virtually worthless.

Yet another baseless claim. This one is directly rebutted by numerous studies that have found that Govt intervention prevented the recession from being far worse and saved millions of jobs.

I agree that the deficit is a problem. Tell your Tea Party and Republican reps to compromise on a tax increase to get a budget deal done. That is the most effective way to address that problem.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I completely disagree. Money that was spend saving the banking system and automobile industries from collapsing and millions more Govt employees from being fired arguably had an immediate impact on putting a floor on the recession and turning the economy around.

Equally critical is the psychological effect. A serious recession creates a "death spiral" where layoffs result in fear, fear resultsd in less spending, less spending results in production contraction, which results in more layoffs, which result in more fear and panic. Add to that a stock market and real estate market crash, and you have a recipe where the economy destroys itself in this cycle of fear and destruction.

Massive government intervent and plans for intervention, even to the extent it does not result in an immediate injection of money (and a lot of the Govt intervention was immediate) can and (despite the best efforts of conservative outlets like Fox to promote economic malaise for political purposes) did reduce the panic and fear, which is crucial to break the recessionary death spiral.

Please define 'recessionary death spiral'?

Specifically the use and meaning - in this case - of the word 'death'?

Death of what?

You cannot prove anything absolutely in economics, but IMO, it is not just some gigantic, massive coincidence that despite the collapse of the credit and real estate and stock market and automotive industries, the economy bottome out and started turning around when this massive Govt intervention occured.

And for that we should all be thankful to Bush and Paulson and Bernanke and Geithner and Obama and the Democrats who supported these actions.




That is simply a baseless and unfounded assertion. Lower interest rates I agree affects those who rely on interest rates for income, but SS is the most important leg for most retirees, and to argue that had more of an economic effect than seeing the economy continue to tank is simply baseless conjecture.



Yet another baseless claim. This one is directly rebutted by numerous studies that have found that Govt intervention prevented the recession from being far worse and saved millions of jobs.

I agree that the deficit is a problem. Tell your Tea Party and Republican reps to compromise on a tax increase to get a budget deal done. That is the most effective way to address that problem.

First you typed:

'You cannot prove anything absolutely in economics'.

Then you later typed:

'This one is directly rebutted by numerous studies that have found that Govt intervention prevented the recession from being far worse and saved millions of jobs'


By your own words, it is impossible to absolutely prove what would have happened without the Stimulus.

Impossible.


Thus, there is ZERO way to prove that the economy would not have improved FAR faster and greater (by now) without the Stimulus/QE's.


Roughly $7.7 trillion in debt spent in 5 years with no factual proof that it has actually improved the U.S. economy more then had it never been spent in the first place.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Several threads have been started by our conservative friends in the past citing Gallup for the unemployment number, arguing that while Govt unemployment numbers are manipulated or fixed, Gallup is reliable.

They will be interested to know that Gallup today posted the unemployment rate at 8.1%, lower than the Govt number of 8.2%, and the lowest it has been since Gallup started running an unemployment poll in early 2010.

Unlike the commonly referred to unemployment rate produced by the Govt, the Gallup poll is not seasonally adjusted.

A sign that the economy is continue to show the surprising resilience it has demonstrated over the past several months?

And bad news for the Republicans, which is why I am sure we will see several of them attacking this information.

Wow....8.1% unemployment instead of 8.2%. Yep, the economy is taking off like a rocket......a North Korea rocket, that is.

Even Obama said that if he can't fix the economy in 3 years, he doesn't deserve to be re-elected. I agree with him.

Four more American soldiers died in Afghanistan yesterday. That should make Obama happy.

Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo

Four more American soldiers died in Afghanistan yesterday. That should make Obama happy.

I'm sure it makes Bush and Cheney and the Republicans and Tea Parties estatic. Four less guys to pay for, right?

Originally Posted by Nunya D.

Wow....8.1% unemployment instead of 8.2%. Yep, the economy is taking off like a rocket......a North Korea rocket, that is.

Even Obama said that if he can't fix the economy in 3 years, he doesn't deserve to be re-elected. I agree with him.

I agree a .1% point change is in itself not a big deal.

However, a drop from 11.7% to 8.1% is a bigger deal, wouldn't you agree? As is the fact that this is the lowest unemployment level reproted by Gallup since it started tracking it in early 2010.

Originally Posted by DA60

Please define 'recessionary death spiral'?

I'll repeat my previos post, since you obviously did not read it:

Equally critical is the psychological effect. A serious recession creates a "death spiral" where layoffs result in fear, fear resultsd in less spending, less spending results in production contraction, which results in more layoffs, which result in more fear and panic. Add to that a stock market and real estate market crash, and you have a recipe where the economy destroys itself in this cycle of fear and destruction.

Specifically the use and meaning - in this case - of the word 'death'?

Death of what?

Death of a salesman? What else? Jeez.

First you typed:

'You cannot prove anything absolutely in economics'.

Then you later typed:

'This one is directly rebutted by numerous studies that have found that Govt intervention prevented the recession from being far worse and saved millions of jobs'


By your own words, it is impossible to absolutely prove what would have happened without the Stimulus.

Impossible.


Thus, there is ZERO way to prove that the economy would not have improved FAR faster and greater (by now) without the Stimulus/QE's.


Roughly $7.7 trillion in debt spent in 5 years with no factual proof that it has actually improved the U.S. economy more then had it never been spent in the first place.

The fallacy is you position is that you confuse the difference between absolute proof meaning there can be no evidence or proof. The fact that you cannot mathematically and absolutely prove something in a complex multivariable environment like economic does not mean that you cannot make rational arguments and deductions based on solid evidence.

So yes, I agree that it is impossible to absolutely prove that Govt intervention had an effect.

However, that does not mean there isn't lots of evidence and solid argument that it did, as I have presented.

And when faced with an argument based upon solid evidence and logic, versus one based on nothing, it is logical to conclude that the argument based on solid evidence and logic is more probable.