Bureau of Labor Statistics overstated job growth by over 500,000 2018-19

A direct result of republican incompetence, as I’ve repeatedly proven.

 

1.6 averaged over 8 years. 2.7 averaged over 2 years. See the difference? Probably not.

 

It doesn't matter how you count it, the government either collects $320 billion less or spends $320 billion more, or a combination of the two, compared to 2016. That money is injected directly into the economy. It represents 1.6% of GDP. Guess what GDP growth would be if that money was not injected?

You are a Mathematician, you should understand this?

 

Huh? Where are you getting lost? Every economic metric has been on the exact same trend since 2010.

 

Wait...you are using the Barney Frank memo, that you don’t even know was from Barney As your proof? Hahaha

 

None of this is occurring the way you think it does. GDP growth is measured in a net figure, you'll looking at an aggregate figure. Also, when the government "spends money" doesn't mean that it goes towards economic output. Government contributes to economic output when the provide services to the public or when they invest in capital. The mere existence of a deficit (or any outlays at all) doesn't necessarily represent output created by the government sector.

 

Well, maybe you can tell me how you think it works instead of telling me how it doesn't work. I have a PhD in Physical Chemistry, I think I can follow reasoning.

What I think, however, is that the $320 billion the government doesn't collect or spends in deficit goes to somewhere, either in the pockets of the people who got the tax cuts, or in the pocket of the people who receive government benefits, or a combination of the two. This money is then spent into the economy, contributing to GDP -- unless it is stuffed under the mattress, which also wouldn't be unsurprising, because the majority of the tax cuts went to the wealth, who have no incentive to spend.

 

Nope. As you know, I’m using the congressional voting record from 2001-2007 in which republicans killed every single bill attempting to regulate fanny/Freddy.

 

I actually produced the voting record...you have Barney’s memo

 

And you are fully aware your statement is false.

 

I understand what you are getting at; I'm only pointing out that the conclusion that you've arrived at (mathematically) isn't correct. Output from the federal government contributed 1.4 Trillion to overall GDP, which includes Defense and Not Defense. the $320 billion might represent spending, but it may or may not represent a service, structure or software.

For example, the uptick in the budget deficit may represent an increase in transfer payments. Since transfer payments breaks the cardinal sin of double counting, they are not counted as production and are excluded from the NIPA measure of government consumption expenditures in GDP. Transfer payments are also a significant portion of government outlays.

 

Of course, my math is highly oversimplified. However, I believe in the law of conservation of matter, and money (to some extent). That deficit spending money is going somewhere. And if it is not, we get a real bad deal on taking on all that additional government debt. If you think about it, that's the actual reason why politicians like to deficit spend, because the additional debt is injected into the economy and leads to short term increase in the GDP. Maybe not all of it, or maybe even more due to the multiplier effect, but the concept remains the same.

Just think about what would happen to GDP if the tax cuts had been revenue neutral (accompanied by an equal cut in government spending)? They would have given the people who got the tax cuts more money in the pocket to spend, but would have taken away the same amount from people who receive government services, who then have less money to spend into the economy. The net effect would be neutral in the short term (in the long term there may be some minor effect due to better efficiency in the private sector).

That's the exact reason why the GOP always cuts taxes first, and THEN wants to cut spending (actually, they only want to cut spending when a Dem is in office). Why? Because they know that revenue neutral tax cuts would be useless, but that spending cuts hurt the economy, which they like to do to Dem presidents to score political points. Country be damned.

 

hahhaha no man, you produced one memo from Barney...and you didn't even bother looking at the Congressional Record of the few pieces of legislation he cited. It's sad man...but I don't want to pick on you too much,....don't want you walking down the street to your local gun shop and buying a machine gun

 

And most people have to work 3 or 4 of those new jobs just to cover the salary they lost from the 1 old one when the republicans crashed the economy with unpaid for wars, and tax cuts that were not revenue neutral.

 

You are fully aware your statement above is false.

 

I'm fully aware that's the only thing you have produced

 

There are more jobs than people out of work, something the American economy has never experienced before

People are working multiple jobs for different reasons. The McKinsey Global Institute estimates “independent workers”—those who are paid by task, assignment, or sales and are more autonomous than typical full-time, one-job employees—to be 20 to 30% of those employed in the U.S. and EU. Those workers fall into four categories:

• 30% are “free agents” who make most of their money from their gig work
• 40% are “casual earners” who choose to do gig work to supplement their income
• 14% are “reluctants” who make most of their money from gig work but would prefer a traditional job
• 16% are “financially strapped” and do gig work out of necessity

"Those who actively chose to work gigs were happier than people in traditional jobs by every measure,” according to Susan Lund of McKinsey, but those who were reluctant or strapped were not.

 

You are fully aware this statement is also false.

 

Your anger is growing. I think you need to add "false" to your list of words as well.

 

I guess you haven't seen the revise economic data that puts 2018 at or below 2% GDP growth.

 

You were proven wrong, and you know that.

 

Proven is yet another word for your list

 

You of course know you were proven wrong.

 

Yes of course add to your list

 

You were proven wrong.