Obama's destruction of the economy is complete.

[Nice Squirrel]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/06/news/economy/jobs-report-october/index.html

It was the best monthly gain of 2015.
The unemployment rate also fell to 5%, its lowest level since 2008 and half of the 10% rate in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
Before Friday's good job news, the concern had been that the global economic slowdown was starting to affect hiring in the United States. Job growth has slowed down considerably since July.
But Friday's strong number tones down those fears -- for now.
"This is the best jobs report of this year," says Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor. "It was a very positive jobs report."
Hiring was across the board between too. Health care added 45,000 jobs, professional and business services gained 78,000 jobs and construction added on 31,000 new jobs.

Thanks Obama!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Thanks Obama!

Obama isn't responsible for this. He's only responsible when it's bad news.

Hmph.

 

[dismal]

I guess this means US capitalism has now successfully rebounded from every recession ever.

Hooray for capitalism!

 

[Horatio Parker]

And this:

I'll eat my hat if we are anywhere near a global recession

For the first time in half a decade of stagnation, government policy has turned expansionary in the US, China and the eurozone at the same time. Fiscal austerity is largely over. The combined money supply is surging.
Such optimistic claims are perhaps hazardous, given record debt ratios in most areas of the world and given that we are six-and-a-half years into an aging economic cycle that might normally be rolling over at this stage. It certainly feels lonely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...we-are-any-where-near-a-global-recession.html

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The pretend unemployment rate is 5%. The real one is higher.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The pretend unemployment rate is 5%. The real one is higher.

For a while I wasn't certain if you weren't gonna show. Thank you for the insight.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I guess this means US capitalism has now successfully rebounded from every recession ever.

Hooray for capitalism!

You'd have to demonstrate that the stimulus had nothing to do with it. Seems like a tall order.

 

[untermensche]

I guess this means US capitalism has now successfully rebounded from every recession ever.

Hooray for capitalism!

Yeah, the last time it crashed only about a trillion in wealth vanished and millions were harmed greatly.

But with incredible measures they got old capitalism running again.

Isn't the old bag that constantly breaks down, each time ruining the lives of millions, great.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I guess this means US capitalism has now successfully rebounded from every recession ever.

Hooray for capitalism!

Yeah, the last time it crashed only about a trillion in wealth vanished and millions were harmed greatly.

But with incredible measures they got old capitalism running again.

Isn't the old bag that constantly breaks down, each time ruining the lives of millions, great.

It's a feature, not a bug.

 

[arkirk]

I guess this means US capitalism has now successfully rebounded from every recession ever.

Hooray for capitalism!

Looks like a negro rescued your sacred capitalism. We ought to see if it can also be rescued by a sex pervert or perhaps a Mexican. 2016 is right around the corner and we have folks to fill those slots...all pre approved by corporate America.

 

[dismal]

I guess this means US capitalism has now successfully rebounded from every recession ever.

Hooray for capitalism!

Looks like a negro rescued your sacred capitalism. We ought to see if it can also be rescued by a sex pervert or perhaps a Mexican. 2016 is right around the corner and we have folks to fill those slots...all pre approved by corporate America.

I think you grossly underestimate the economy's ability to right itself. The country managed to get through 23 of 23 economic recoveries before we had Saint Barack to lead us from the depths. If anything this one took longer than most.

 

[Deepak]

The pretend unemployment rate is 5%. The real one is higher.

What pretend? The U3 rate is how unemployment was measured going at least as far back as the Reagan administration.

So what's the real rate then? I'd guess the U6 since that's what looks the worst and has the most effect.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2rxa

So the U6 differential to the absolutely fake book cooked U3 number is slightly < 5 percentage points. Compared to 7 percentage points or so in 2010 - and pretty consistent with historical measures.

Are we to believe that back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s before they logged more detailed data that the real number and the pretend number were the same number?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The pretend unemployment rate is 5%. The real one is higher.

What pretend? The U3 rate is how unemployment was measured going at least as far back as the Reagan administration.

So what's the real rate then? I'd guess the U6 since that's what looks the worst and has the most effect.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2rxa

So the U6 differential to the absolutely fake book cooked U3 number is slightly < 5 percentage points. Compared to 7 percentage points or so in 2010 - and pretty consistent with historical measures.

Are we to believe that back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s before they logged more detailed data that the real number and the pretend number were the same number?

Just because we've been using U3 since the Reagan era doesn't mean it's not a pretend number. U6 is the better number although I think we could do better by measuring it as a fraction rather than a binary.

 

[Deepak]

What pretend? The U3 rate is how unemployment was measured going at least as far back as the Reagan administration.

So what's the real rate then? I'd guess the U6 since that's what looks the worst and has the most effect.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2rxa

So the U6 differential to the absolutely fake book cooked U3 number is slightly < 5 percentage points. Compared to 7 percentage points or so in 2010 - and pretty consistent with historical measures.

Are we to believe that back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s before they logged more detailed data that the real number and the pretend number were the same number?

Just because we've been using U3 since the Reagan era doesn't mean it's not a pretend number. U6 is the better number although I think we could do better by measuring it as a fraction rather than a binary.

Sure, but regardless both numbers have dropped, and U6 has actually dropped by 2 more percentage points - which makes for an even more compelling story.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The benefits of W's tax cuts for the rich are finally trickling all over everyone.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think I need a shower.

 

[SimpleDon]

Looks like a negro rescued your sacred capitalism. We ought to see if it can also be rescued by a sex pervert or perhaps a Mexican. 2016 is right around the corner and we have folks to fill those slots...all pre approved by corporate America.

I think you grossly underestimate the economy's ability to right itself. The country managed to get through 23 of 23 economic recoveries before we had Saint Barack to lead us from the depths. If anything this one took longer than most.

Primarily because of the misguided application of fiscal austerity in the middle of the recession. Also recessions that are caused by financial sector malfeasance always take longer to recover from because the banks are less willing to lend.

Not to mention that for the first time in my memory the opposition party did everything in their power to delay the recovery, did everything they could to scuttle the recovery.

Yes, the economy has the ability to right itself. But there is no ability that we have ever seen for the economy to always seek a general equilibrium. That is an equilibrium that is at full employment and full capacity utilization of production facilities. What we have now the economy moving to a high profit, low labor participation and low or no wage growth resulting in low effective demand and low capacity utilization equilibrium.

Actually the kind of economy that we have had for all but a few years in the 1990's. Exactly the kind of economy that would be predicted from the adoption and continued application of supply side economic policies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just because we've been using U3 since the Reagan era doesn't mean it's not a pretend number. U6 is the better number although I think we could do better by measuring it as a fraction rather than a binary.

Sure, but regardless both numbers have dropped, and U6 has actually dropped by 2 more percentage points - which makes for an even more compelling story.

I'm not saying things didn't improve--they certainly did. I'm just saying they aren't the rosy picture that U3 paints.

 

[Ford]

I'd bet dollars to donuts that if Mittens the Pander Bear had won the 2012 election, and we were seeing economic indicators like this, conservatives would be shouting from the rooftops how President Romney "saved the economy."

Forgotten would be the refrain we've heard during the long recovery that the "President really doesn't have any control" over the economy. The "real unemployment rate" would be ignored as it was right up until the Obama administration, the 2 dollar a gallon gas prices would be hailed as an afterglow of smart energy policy on the part of President Mitt, and every uptick in the stock market would be another "see, I told you so" directed by every right wing pundit at those pesky liberals who thought a Democrat in the White House was actually a good idea.

 

[dismal]

P

I'd bet dollars to donuts that if Mittens the Pander Bear had won the 2012 election, and we were seeing economic indicators like this, conservatives would be shouting from the rooftops how President Romney "saved the economy."

Forgotten would be the refrain we've heard during the long recovery that the "President really doesn't have any control" over the economy. The "real unemployment rate" would be ignored as it was right up until the Obama administration, the 2 dollar a gallon gas prices would be hailed as an afterglow of smart energy policy on the part of President Mitt, and every uptick in the stock market would be another "see, I told you so" directed by every right wing pundit at those pesky liberals who thought a Democrat in the White House was actually a good idea.

If you must attribute massive causal power to a president in saving the economy, why not Bush?

Most of the bailouts and deficit blowouts started in his term.

Obama's term is largely characterized by shrinking deficits aka "austerity".