266,000 jobs added in November

Say you are correct. And you actually have a good point. Why did the Democrats fight Bush furiously when he sought this from Congress?

I do not believe the thugs in our congress ever plan to improve business. Thank God trump has that on his agenda.

 

On regulations and the Democrats.

A good measure is .... how long was the market working perfectly without those regulations? IF it was a few months, perhaps then the regulations may improve things. But in the case of housing, the regulations that worked for decades were not revoked. Bush rather went to Congress seeking more regulations. And was rebuffed. By Democrats.

Say your claim is that the down payment is too small so it ruined the market. Trouble is that post WW2, we had both the zero down VA loan and the ultra cheap low down payment loan from FHA., Thus that can't be the reason the market fell in 2008.

Why did the market also virtually collapse in 1980? And why again in the early 1990s under Clinton? Surely the smart heads came up with solutions?

So it was subprimes? To a degree sure. But only to a degree. What happened was widespread all the way into Europe.

Bush tried hard to get Congress to make new laws. But they slapped him in his face by defending Fannie and Freddie.

 

Look that is simply your theory. Still the Democrats resisted regulations. Of the GSE that needed more regulations since they got greedy. Democrats ensured they kept endorsing lousy loans.

 

Fannie and Freddie flat out dominated the home lending market. I am simply attempting to help you understand and as a very long term professional, resistance is futile and is not helping you.

 

Look, not to be cantankerous, but you clearly do not grasp the picture of the home lending industry.

I would never solely blame Fannie and Freddie but they were at least into the 90 percent of who to blame. Why do you fight to defend Fannie and Freddie?

 

Okay, I am 11 mins into listen to his podcast and he brings up that that we really shouldn't be calling it a 50 year low because of the methodology changes in the CPS were different 50 years ago. This for the most part is true; however, the reported U-3 number never changed in it's calculation, which is Total Unemployed / Labor Force. In fact, U-3 used to be referred to as U-5, but they were both the headline number reported by BLS.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

The only thing we really changed about the U-3 (formally U-5) number are the types of questions we used to classify the unemployed. Estimates in the change in methodology resulted in 0.5% increase in the overall unemployment rate, and 0.7% increase specifically for women.

https://www.bls.gov/osmr/research-papers/1994/pdf/cp940030.pdf

He also goes on to say that the reported non-farm payrolls in CES shows 266K on net, while total employment in CPS shows on net 86K on net. Not wrong, but he doesn't seem to understand the important differences in these two surveys. CES samples 160,000 firms of all sizes, which covers more than 400,000 worksites; CPS only samples 60,000 households. CPS provides important insight into the true nature of the labor market, but there is no reason to believe it will be more accurate when determining the number of jobs created in the economy.

 

We have the largest corporations in the world paying some of the lowest tax rates and enjoying some of the least regulation. What more improvement do they need?

 

I enjoy the headline too much. 266,000 new USA jobs in one month say it all. Aren’t you happy ‘bout it?

 

Some of the lowest yet not the very best. As to low regulation, this topic I am not as much an expert in so give me all the proof you have at hand.

I believe if we went back to the ACRS, the employment can actually be such we must import a lot of labor. We are not there at all.

With the low unemployment coupled with the high labor participation rate, I see nothing but high wages and bonus for workers. This the Democrats allege they want. They simply do not want it done for us by Trump. Him they want to recall from his job.

ACRS to the economy is like a blow torch to a campfire. We still have the remnants of the ACRS installed by Reagan so on that score he gets some credit.

 

Relax. It's just one month...

 

Thank you for this, President Trump.

 

I’ll relax when Trump is re-elected.

You?

 

I'm not sure why you're so worried that he won't...

Unless you believe he won't for whatever reason...

 

That's the saddest part of the whole thing. It's like some sort of disease that cannot to be cured. Logic and fact has no place on the table.

 

Do I sound worried? I really am not.

 

You just said that you'll relax once he was re-elected. That sounds like something a person who is worried would say...

 

Wrong. I’m pointing out that every economic metric trend has remained unchanged since 2010, and you crediting trump for anything is retarded.

 

I understand why you refuse to answer the question. It would make you look quite silly to claim the BLS faked 10 years of data. Lol

 

I understand perfectly what I’m saying. It’s a demonstrable fact that every economic metric trend has remained the same since 2010. Every economist who has looked at the data agrees.

 

Hahaha! Dream on! The Trump-conomy is kicking ass....the obama-conomy sucked ass.

 

All economic data from 2010 to present shows your statement to be utter bullshit

 

Eh, no. That's how it's been for a very long time.

 

Nope...

 

Uh, that graph supports what I said. Lol

 

Incorrect. The trend from 2010 - 2016 was flat. The trend now is different.