The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on June 10, 2011, 04:32:55 PM
-
Donnachaidh (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-10-11 03:47 PM
Original message
If you want full employment, then roll up your sleeves
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/mike-whitney/36690/if-y...
When the recovery began 2 years ago, the rate of unemployment was 9.5 percent. Today it's 9.1 percent. Think about that for a minute. Doesn't that prove that the market isn't really self-correcting after all? I mean, if the market was self-correcting then unemployment would have gone down by now, right? But, it hasn't. Why?
There's a long answer for that, and a short answer. The short answer is that unemployment can stay high forever if the wrong policies are in place. If you don't believe that, then vote Republican in 2012 and watch what happens when they start hacking away at public spending. Unemployment will soar to 15 or 20 percent in the blink of an eye.
So, it's the policy that matters not the market. And when the wrong policies are in place, then demand stays weak, people get laid off, and the economy goes into a funk. The good news is that we know how to fix the problem and get the economy revved up again. The bad news is the politicians are not particularly interested in doing what it takes to put people back to work. In fact, unemployment doesn't even seem to be on their radar.
Maybe that's because some of their constituents don't really mind high unemployment; in fact, they kind of like it. It crushes big labor and puts pressure on wages. Maybe that's why no one's griping.
More at the link --
Get that?
We need interventionist government to keep unemployment down. No where is the thought that interventionist government is causing high unemployment because capital is being siphoned out of the economy and regulations are choking activity to a stand-still.
But it gets better.
First, a dim effort to engage in reason:
dkf (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-10-11 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Who is going to buy the bonds to fund this program?
Apparently the fed was buying 85% of the treasuries security offerings with QE2.
If we had a stronger balance sheet it would be easier.
Donnachaidh (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-10-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. How about tapping all those billionaires who offered to pay 50% of their worth?
That could certainly work -- but they'd really have to ante up the cash.
Golly. There are so many billionaires running around they could pay 50% of their worth once and forever cure $1.5 trillion deficits forever.
I blame Bush for creating all those billionaires!
Oh wait...that would equal prosperity.
And the 50% loss would be dems destroying wealth.
...
...
Hey! Wait a minute!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1271702
-
Want to see low unemployment? Send 15 million illegal aliens back where they came from, cut out welfare, stop foodstamps, government housing, make SSD recipients get their disability re-certified every 3 years, require unwed baby makers work at some kind of job or forego any type of government aid...you get the picture. Unemployment would soon be 1% and minimum wage would go up by necessity and not by government decree.
-
Unemployment was 7.6% when Obama took office. There never was a recovery.
-
Donna you ignorant slut. [/DanAkroydSNL1077]
That makes as much sense as saying that you can't be out of money because you still have checks.
-
I bet if you took a poll of how many people would like to go back to their financial/job situations pre 2007, before Democrats took control of the house and the senate, a great majority of people would jump at the chance.
I also bet if people were asked if they would rather have the economic conditions in the 12 years before 2007 when republicans were the majority in both houses rather than the next 12 years after Obama took control you would also get a large majority.
-
Donnachaidh (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-10-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. How about tapping all those billionaires who offered to pay 50% of their worth?
That could certainly work -- but they'd really have to ante up the cash.
After all,..... the primitives/liberals would love it for "someone else" to use their money to fix the U.S. economy problem. :mental: :mental: