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

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I agree we should get the hell out of Afghanistan. We should have got out in 2003. I can't blame Obama too much for taking a final shot to make the best out of the mess he inherited, but I certainly agree we should pull the troops out.

It was foolhardy to have invaded the country. It was just as foolhardy to have escalated the war. There on now 90,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan accomplishing nothing except running the risk of death.

Between Iraq and Afghanistan there have been many unforeseen consequences. The worst of which is the fact that the political fabric of this country has been ripped apart. An empire has been lost, and now the country itself is in danger of coming apart psychologically. The last eleven years have been astonishing.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Jeez, what the hell would you think I mean? Death of jobs, death of businesses, death of wealth, death of economic growth and parts of the economy.

You typed the following:

'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.'

Do not jobs/businesses/wealth/parts of the economy 'die' all the time - in good and bad times?


And you typed: 'death of economic growth'?

What does that mean?

That there will never be growth again?

For it to die - that means it ceases. It is gone forever.

Are you certain you meant 'death'?

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.

Surely you realize that you can find evidence to support ANY idea/conclusion.

The sky is falling, the Earth is flat, etc..


I am not interested in 'evidence'.

I am only interested in factual proof.


And you cannot provide ANY factual proof that the various Stimuli/QE's have rendered the U.S. economy ANY better now then it would have been had these spending policies never taken place.

True or false, please?

BTW - between October 2008 and today, the total U.S. civilian labor force has gone DOWN (despite the fact the population has grown by 10+ million in that time):

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/dat...00000:sad:rev)

The housing market is worse.

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/cenc25/c25q07

Food stamp usage is at a record high (70% higher then it was in 2007)

http://www.inquisitr.com/222869/food...70-since-2007/


So less people are working/looking for work, more people are starving on their own and most people's houses are worth less since 2008.

Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo

It was foolhardy to have invaded the country. It was just as foolhardy to have escalated the war. There on now 90,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan accomplishing nothing except running the risk of death.

Easy to say in hindsight. Again, I can't blame him too much for taking a shot at trying to make a decent result out of the disaster he inherited.

Between Iraq and Afghanistan there have been many unforeseen consequences. The worst of which is the fact that the political fabric of this country has been ripped apart. An empire has been lost, and now the country itself is in danger of coming apart psychologically. The last eleven years have been astonishing.

No disagreement here.

Originally Posted by DA60

BTW - between October 2008 and today, the total U.S. civilian labor force has gone DOWN (despite the fact the population has grown by 10+ million in that time):

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/dat...00000:sad:rev)

The housing market is worse.

Food stamp usage is at a record high (70% higher then it was in 2007)

http://www.inquisitr.com/222869/food...70-since-2007/


So less people are working/looking for work, more people are starving on their own and most people's houses are worth less since 2008.


That is what over $7.5 trillion in extra debt (from various Stimuli, gov't deficits, QE's, etc.) since 2008 has done for the U.S. economy.

1) What is the basis for your assertion that the Govt intervention cost 7.5 trillion.

2) What is your argument that that caused a decrease in the labor market, housing market, and food stamp usage?

Pull our troops out of Afghanistan we'll be needing them in Iran.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

1) What is the basis for your assertion that the Govt intervention cost 7.5 trillion.

I removed that from my post.

But between the government deficits/QE's/Operation Twist ($5+T/$2.3T/$0.4T respectively) since 2008 - the total is over $7.5 trillion....all in debt...that was poured into the economy (directly/indirectly).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...ebt_chart.html

2) What is your argument that that caused a decrease in the labor market, housing market, and food stamp usage?

I was not arguing anything here...I was merely posting facts.

If you seriously wish to understand the theory (and I severely doubt you do) then there are any number of Austrian School 'economists' I could recommend...Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff, etc..

To get into the theory here would take too much time and besides, I SEVERELY doubt your mind is open on this issue - and wasting my time is not a passion of mine.


And you seem to have missed /avoided this question:

And you cannot provide ANY factual proof that the various Stimuli/QE's have rendered the U.S. economy ANY better now then it would have been had these spending policies never taken place.

True or false, please?

Originally Posted by DA60

You typed the following:

'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.'

Do not jobs/businesses/wealth/parts of the economy 'die' all the time - in good and bad times?

Sure. Do net 700,000 jobs die when the economy is good?

And you typed: 'death of economic growth'?

What does that mean?

Economic growth stoppes and contraction stops.

That there will never be growth again?

No.

For it to die - that means it ceases. It is gone forever.

Only if you apply the literal sense. However, the unnecessary destruction of the economy may result in some businesses and jobs being lost forever.

Are you certain you meant 'death'?

Sure.

Any other inane comments you want to make?


[quyote]
Surely you realize that you can find evidence to support ANY idea/conclusion. [/quote]

No I don't realize that, and even so, that does not mean that evidence is equally strong on both sides.

I am not interested in 'evidence'.

Clearly.

I am only interested in factual proof.

Good for you. So what?

And you cannot provide ANY factual proof that the various Stimuli/QE's have rendered the U.S. economy ANY better now then it would have been had these spending policies never taken place.

True or false, please?

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

The fallacy of your 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.

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.

Originally Posted by DA60

I removed that from my post.

But between the government deficits/QE's/Operation Twist ($5+T/$2.3T/$0.4T respectively) since 2008 - the total is over $7.5 trillion....all in debt...that was poured into the economy (directly/indirectly).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...ebt_chart.html




No idea what you are asking here.


And you seem to have missed /avoided this question:

And you cannot provide ANY factual proof that the various Stimuli/QE's have rendered the U.S. economy ANY better now then it would have been had these spending policies never taken place.

True or false, please?

Let me clarify it for you.

You stated: "That is what over $7.5 trillion in extra debt (from various Stimuli, gov't deficits, QE's, etc.) since 2008 has done for the U.S. economy." You were referring to the labor force being down, the housing market being worse and food stamp usage being up.

So my questions to you is, and I will rephrase it in your own words so that you can understand:

What is the factual proof that the $7.5 trillion in extra debt has done that for the US economy?

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Let me clarify it for you.

You stated: "That is what over $7.5 trillion in extra debt (from various Stimuli, gov't deficits, QE's, etc.) since 2008 has done for the U.S. economy." You were referring to the labor force being down, the housing market being worse and food stamp usage being up.

So my questions to you is, and I will rephrase it in your own words so that you can understand:

What is the factual proof that the $7.5 trillion in extra debt has done that for the US economy?

Please re-read my quoted response.