Jobs Are Booming in Trump Country

[Oneuli]

Does Grock give you the impression that he can understand one word you wrote?

I don't see it.

Hehe. The hope is there are lurkers who can.

 

[Oneuli]

Total BULLSHIT. Obama PRINTED HIS WAY through....with the most QUANTATIVE EASING in US history..by far.


All he did was make the MARKETS , BANKS and INSURANCE CONGLOMORATES RICHER...with OUR MONEY.

Again, the only reason the Fed even resorted to quantitative easing is the Bush era had left us with no ability to lower interest rates, but an economy absolutely screaming out for a boost of money supply. So, the Fed had to experiment with less effective methods to try to stimulate the economy.

 

[Oneuli]

Interest rates went close to zero right as Obama took office.

Incorrect. First, as you presumably know they never went to zero. The target federal funds rate was lowered to between 0 and 0.25%, but the actual rate never made it to zero. Second, the target wasn't lowered "as Obama took office." It was lowered to that level in Bush's second-to-last month in office.

I find it amazing how willing right-wingers are to simply make up "facts" to support their arguments. That level of shameless spin is just not something you see on the left.

There were three rounds of QE while he was in office and rates were raised maybe twice by 25 bps at the end of his term and you are trying to claim somehow he was a victim in this scenario?

The FACT is that interest rates rose on Obama's watch. The facts hurt right-wing feelings, for obvious reasons, but they're not going anywhere. This wasn't a situation like the Reagan or Bush years when a relative easing of money supply over the course of a presidency boosted total economic growth. It was more like the Clinton years, when we had nearly across-the-board economic improvement even with the slight handicap of rising interest rates.

 

[cawacko]

No, obviously it isn't. It's considered the Fed having so few tools left on the shelf to deal with the crisis Bush left that they were forced to work with untested and unorthodox means to do things that would have been easily done simply by lowering interest rates in another era. It's a bit like a starving man who has eaten all the food in the pantry, and so he boils up his shoes and belt and eats those. Sure, a complete imbecile could look at that and say those three rounds of leather-eating super-charged his diet, but the fact he would even have considered something that extreme underscores the difficulty of the situation he was trying to overcome and the absence of more usual options for doing so.



The fact Obama had interest rates rise during his term is regarded, as rising interest rates ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, as a drag on the economy caused by the Fed. This was never a controversial perspective before, but right-wingers are willing to throw away even the most long-established and uncontroversial principles, if that's what's needed to push their partisan bullshit. They are utterly shameless liars (or spinners, if you prefer).

Don't write what you just wrote and call others partisan or liars. Look in the mirror first.

For starters the The Fed was the driver of the great recession so not sure why you are trying to make them victims here. And three rounds of QE and leaving rates at zero for six years was MASSIVE monetary stimulus. It was monetary policy on steroids. And you are clearly very young if you think the Fed raising rates twice and still having then be under 1% is somehow a drag on the economy. Rates were still at essentially historical lows when he left office. They're still close to historical lows today even after having been raised a handful of times over the past couple of years.

 

[Oneuli]

Don't write what you just wrote and call others partisan or liars.

If you don't want me calling you a partisan and a liar, the solution is not to stamp your little feet and throw a tantrum when I do. The solution is to take a hard look at yourself and realize what a hack you've become. I'm simply listing facts, and yet they're causing you to melt down. What does that tell you?

For starters the The Fed was the driver of the great recession so not sure why you are trying to make them victims here.

As you're well aware, I never said anything to imply the Fed was a victim. That's just a bizarre bit of misdirection you're using to distract from the facts that I laid out.

It was monetary policy on steroids

Certainly that was the meme the right-wing know-nothings were pushing at the time -- assuring us all that massive monetary action was going to result in sky-high inflation. Of course, they all became national laughing stocks when, in fact, that supposedly massive stimulus was followed by the lowest sustained inflation in modern American economic history.

And you are clearly very young if you think the Fed raising rates twice and still having then be under 1% is somehow a drag on the economy

My being young isn't the reason I understand economics so much better than you. It's because I draw my economic principles from an examination of the facts, whereas you simply assert counter-factual claims that line up with your economic prejudices (like that time you lied and said interest rates had fallen near zero as Obama was taking office, when it fact it was before that).

Rates were still at essentially historical lows when he left office.

As you know, rates had risen by the time he left office. The effective federal funds rate was up about half a point on his watch. That's not a huge drag, but it is an increase in rates, and contrasts dramatically with the big interest rate declines we saw under Bush and Reagan. Facts are stubborn things.

 

[cawacko]

If you don't want me calling you a partisan and a liar, the solution is not to stamp your little feet and throw a tantrum when I do. The solution is to take a hard look at yourself and realize what a hack you've become. I'm simply listing facts, and yet they're causing you to melt down. What does that tell you?



As you're well aware, I never said anything to imply the Fed was a victim. That's just a bizarre bit of misdirection you're using to distract from the facts that I laid out.



Certainly that was the meme the right-wing know-nothings were pushing at the time -- assuring us all that massive monetary action was going to result in sky-high inflation. Of course, they all became national laughing stocks when, in fact, that supposedly massive stimulus was followed by the lowest sustained inflation in modern American economic history.




My being young isn't the reason I understand economics so much better than you. It's because I draw my economic principles from an examination of the facts, whereas you simply assert counter-factual claims that line up with your economic prejudices (like that time you lied and said interest rates had fallen near zero as Obama was taking office, when it fact it was before that).



As you know, rates had risen by the time he left office. The effective federal funds rate was up about half a point on his watch. That's not a huge drag, but it is an increase in rates, and contrasts dramatically with the big interest rate declines we saw under Bush and Reagan. Facts are stubborn things.

Do you know who Paul Volker is? Do you know what he did to interest rates under Reagan to stamp out inflation? That's a rhetorical question because clearly you don't. And you mistake partisanship for economics. In your defense lots of people do.


And you are outright lying about the federal funds rates which anyone can look up with a google search. Rates were about 4% in Jan 2008. Rates were about 2% in August 2008. They were close to zero by Dec 2008. Obama enter office in Jan 2009. Saying rates had fallen close to zero as Obama took office is accurate. The numbers are the numbers. It has nothing to do with being right or left wing.

Saying QE is monetary policy on steroids has nothing to do with being right or left wing. Not sure how you can work in finance in NYC and you not be aware of that phrase.

 

[reagansghost]

meh, McDonalds is hiring ex coal miners, big whoop

Fact is Donny hasn't yet fucked up Obama's great jobs growth, but his trade war will turn that around lol



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/US_Employment_Trends_-_Indexed_v1.png

 

[Oneuli]

Do you know who Paul Volker is?

Who doesn't?

Do you know what he did to interest rates under Reagan to stamp out inflation?

I know what he did to interest rates under Carter and under Reagan. Do you? Here, I'll help: he began as Fed chairman on August 6, 1979. Between then and when Carter left office, the effective federal funds rate rose a staggering 8.61 points, creating a tremendous drag on the economy, just in time for the election, and helping to hand Reagan the election. Volcker remained the Fed chair until August 11, 1987. By then, the Fed had slashed the effective federal funds rate an even more mind-blowing 12.35 points relative to where they were in Carter's last month, helping to create a bubble economy that first reversed Reagan's early unpopularity to win him a second term, and then helped his VP waltz into the presidency after him. Volcker is perhaps the single most important factor that made Carter a single-termer and kept Reagan from being one.

Did you know that? That's a rhetorical question because clearly you didn't. But now you do. I've relieved you of some of your colossal ignorance of economic history. You're welcome. Here's a tip, though -- as long as you keep yourself greased up with unctuous partisanship, none of this knowledge is going to stick. It's going to slide right off your prejudices and down the memory hole.

Rates were about 4% in Jan 2008. Rates were about 2% in August 2008. They were close to zero by Dec 2008. Obama enter office in Jan 2009.

As you can see, I was telling the truth. As a reminder, I said rates had been lowered to that [near-zero] level" in "Bush's second-to-last month in office." Bush's last month in office was January 2009. His second-to-last month was December 2008. As you can see, the cut you're talking about happened in Bush's second-to-last month. So you're quoting numbers that confirm that my claim was correct, and calling me a liar on that basis. So, are you going to have the sense of honor to admit you were wrong to claim I was lying? It's a rhetorical question -- we both know you don't have it in you.

Saying QE is monetary policy on steroids has nothing to do with being right or left wing.

Your saying it has EVERYTHING to do with you being right-wing.

 

[cawacko]

Who doesn't?



I know what he did to interest rates under Carter and under Reagan. Do you? Here, I'll help: he began as Fed chairman on August 6, 1979. Between then and when Carter left office, the effective federal funds rate rose a staggering 8.61 points, creating a tremendous drag on the economy, just in time for the election, and helping to hand Reagan the election. Volcker remained the Fed chair until August 11, 1987. By then, the Fed had slashed the effective federal funds rate an even more mind-blowing 12.35 points relative to where they were in Carter's last month, helping to create a bubble economy that first reversed Reagan's early unpopularity to win him a second term, and then helped his VP waltz into the presidency after him. Volcker is perhaps the single most important factor that made Carter a single-termer and kept Reagan from being one.

Did you know that? That's a rhetorical question because clearly you didn't. But now you do. I've relieved you of some of your colossal ignorance of economic history. You're welcome. Here's a tip, though -- as long as you keep yourself greased up with unctuous partisanship, none of this knowledge is going to stick. It's going to slide right off your prejudices and down the memory hole.



As you can see, I was telling the truth. As a reminder, I said rates had been lowered to that [near-zero] level" in "Bush's second-to-last month in office." Bush's last month in office was January 2009. His second-to-last month was December 2008. As you can see, the cut you're talking about happened in Bush's second-to-last month. So you're quoting numbers that confirm that my claim was correct, and calling me a liar on that basis. So, are you going to have the sense of honor to admit you were wrong to claim I was lying? It's a rhetorical question -- we both know you don't have it in you.



Your saying it has EVERYTHING to do with you being right-wing.

Reagan won the election because of Paul Volker? Learn something new everyday. Volker drove the economy into recession to defeat inflation. Was he expected to leave the rates where they were once he was done?

And you are now complaining about the Fed and bubble economies in the '80's but one is only a right wing hack when they say that about the aught's and the 2010's?

All you are doing is trying to spin and weave an economic narrative to support your partisan political positions. It's not a position of principle on how the Fed should act and the effect of their policies.

 

[Sailor]

Reagan won the election because of Paul Volker? Learn something new everyday. Volker drove the economy into recession to defeat inflation. Was he expected to leave the rates where they were once he was done?

And you are now complaining about the Fed and bubble economies in the '80's but one is only a right wing hack when they say that about the aught's and the 2010's?

All you are doing is trying to spin and weave an economic narrative to support your partisan political positions. It's not a position of principle on how the Fed should act and the effect of their policies.

Well said.

 

[Oneuli]

Reagan won the election because of Paul Volker? Learn something new everyday.

Exactly. No need to thank me, though, since I already got out ahead of that one with a "you're welcome."

Volker drove the economy into recession to defeat inflation. Was he expected to leave the rates where they were once he was done?

No. Was there something in what I wrote that you misread to imply that? If so, what?

And you are now complaining about the Fed and bubble economies in the '80's but one is only a right wing hack when they say that about the aught's and the 2010's?

There was definitely a bubble economy in the aughts, and Greenspan's decision to dismiss that bubble had tragic consequences. But that's what you get when you put a right-wing hack into a position of authority. He wasn't analyzing the actual facts and figures. He was too busy burning incense at his altar of Ayn Rand.

All you are doing is trying to spin and weave an economic narrative to support your partisan political positions.

I'm explaining to you what facts led me to my beliefs. You, on the other hand, simply invent "facts" to back up your beliefs -- and then accuse me of lying, even as you lay out some actual facts that merely prove what I said. Weird stuff.

 

[cawacko]

Exactly. No need to thank me, though, since I already got out ahead of that one with a "you're welcome."



No. Was there something in what I wrote that you misread to imply that? If so, what?



There was definitely a bubble economy in the aughts, and Greenspan's decision to dismiss that bubble had tragic consequences. But that's what you get when you put a right-wing hack into a position of authority. He wasn't analyzing the actual facts and figures. He was too busy burning incense at his altar of Ayn Rand.



I'm explaining to you what facts led me to my beliefs. You, on the other hand, simply invent "facts" to back up your beliefs -- and then accuse me of lying, even as you lay out some actual facts that merely prove what I said. Weird stuff.

I'll repeat:

All you are doing is trying to spin and weave an economic narrative to support your partisan political positions. It's not a position of principle on how the Fed should act and the effect of their policies.

 

[Truth Detector]

Nobody I ever voted for or even thought of voting for ever implied I was stupid for voting for them, appears you can't say the same

That's because the people you vote for are morons and love low IQ dullards like you that buy into their lie filled ideology. Dunce.

 

[Truth Detector]

No, you're not being serious. You're quite aware that I'm bright -- or at least bright enough that I easily trounce you each time we argue. It really eats at you. And that's what makes you so funny. You offer very little in the way of substantive debate, but your emotional meltdowns are hilarious.

Obama INHERITED interests rates that were at or near zero, and then they rose by the end of his presidency. Thus, he wasn't one of those presidents that got the external boost of having interest rates fall on his watch. Quite the opposite.

No, it's real money. It's just that, over time, the money became scarcer on his watch, acting as a drag on the economy, whereas over time money became more easily available on the watch of Reagan or Bush, acting as a boost for the economy. This is Economics 101 material. Try to catch up.

Nothing says MORON better than dullards defending Obamunism.

Trump, as you know, has put us on a less sustainable footing, by greatly expanding the budget deficit. Facts matter.

Nothing says MORON better than dullards who defended Obamunism whining about budget deficits.

 

[Truth Detector]

Again, the only reason the Fed even resorted to quantitative easing is the Bush era had left us with no ability to lower interest rates, but an economy absolutely screaming out for a boost of money supply. So, the Fed had to experiment with less effective methods to try to stimulate the economy.

Why would the money supply need to expand in a contracting economy you brain dead moron? Printing money only boosted one part of the economy; speculators in Wall Street. The American people, not so much.

 

[Oneuli]

I'll repeat:

All you are doing is trying to spin and weave an economic narrative to support your partisan political positions.

Repeat all you want, but as you can see, one of use is citing actual real-world facts to back up a conclusion, while the other is just asserting counter-factual material in support of a rote right-wing economic mythology.

 

[cawacko]

Repeat all you want, but as you can see, one of use is citing actual real-world facts to back up a conclusion, while the other is just asserting counter-factual material in support of a rote right-wing economic mythology.

I posted the Fed numbers. Anyone can look them up. Those are fact. You are upset that I said rates are near zero at the end of '08. That's a fact. You want to spin that into a political narrative.

Edit: And I noticed in the other thread you never actually commented on three rounds of QE and whether you believe we needed them or not or if you even support what the Fed is doing now. I think it pretty apparent the reason you didn't respond.

 

[Oneuli]

I posted the Fed numbers. Anyone can look them up

Yes. And, as you now see, they confirmed exactly what I said -- you know, the thing I said that you dishonestly had characterized as a lie. I'm still having a good laugh about that.

You are upset that I said rates are near zero at the end of '08.

As you know, that's not what you said. You said they were as Obama was entering the presidency. You are just a deeply dishonest person, who now wants to deceive people about what he said, after the falsehood of his initial statement was pointed out. As you can see, I don't do that. I said they fell to that level in Bush's second-to-last month in office. I stand by that statement, which you now realize was correct. However, since the FACT hurt your feelings, you called it a lie (which is just a right-wing word that means "thing that I wish weren't true".) Spin all you want, but the exchange is preserved above and anyone can confirm.

 

[Grokmaster]

I posted the Fed numbers. Anyone can look them up. Those are fact. You are upset that I said rates are near zero at the end of '08. That's a fact. You want to spin that into a political narrative.

Edit: And I noticed in the other thread you never actually commented on three rounds of QE and whether you believe we needed them or not or if you even support what the Fed is doing now. I think it pretty apparent the reason you didn't respond.

They keep pretending that the ONEROUS QE didn't keep the market afloat then ,too...at TAXPAYER EXPENSE...

 

[reagansghost]

Trumponomics kickin in............


Industrial production slumps 0.5% in April
Source: MarketWatch

Industrial production slumps 0.5% in April

Published: May 15, 2019 9:19 a.m. ET

By STEVE GOLDSTEIN
D.C. BUREAU CHIEF

The numbers: Industrial production in April slumped 0.5%, the Federal Reserve announced Wednesday in a downbeat report that included downward revisions.

Capacity utilization fell sharply to 77.9% from an upwardly revised 78.8%.

Economists polled by MarketWatch expected a 0.1% drop for production and a decline in utilization fell to 78.6%.

What happened: Most major market groups reported worse production in April, the Fed said. There were drops in automotive, chemical products and consumer energy products.

The output of utilities fell 3.5% in April, as demand for heating decreased because of temperatures that were warmer than normal.