Umemployment Rate Falls to 8.3%. Other Economic Data Rocking As Well

[howardroark]

I don't know if I agree that he is actively making it worse or preventing it from improving.

A majority of economists believed the stimulus was the right thing to do... I don't know if I agree, but I'm not an economist.

There was a poll of economists on this subject?

[tonymctones]

I don't know if I agree that he is actively making it worse or preventing it from improving.

A majority of economists believed the stimulus was the right thing to do... I don't know if I agree, but I'm not an economist.

a stimulus, not obamas stimulus...

a stimulus that focused on infrastructure and not social services...

not passing a health care bill that injects major uncertainty in operating costs for businesses and penalties, not passing a finance bill that has little details now and still is yet to be filled in injecting even more uncertainty into business costs...I could go on and on and on.

I can concede the stimulus but not the way the administration implemented the stimulus and what it was spent on.

I can agree with health care reform but not something that creates uncertainty in the business arena at a time when stability is sorely needed.

I can agree on financial reforms but not a bill that doesnt say what its going to do and is supposed to have the details filled in later.

sorry Tu obama has actively hurt this economy, he may have meant well but the path the hell...

[howardroark]

Let's get something straight - if you believe in stimulus then it doesn't matter WHAT it's spent on. The principle of stimulus is that there is not enough spending, so government must do something in order to increase total spending.

One of the great lost lessons of economics is the lesson of Say's law - that supply constitutes demand. Once you understand this, you understand how bullshit the very concept of "stimulus" is.

[tonymctones]

Let's get something straight - if you believe in stimulus then it doesn't matter WHAT it's spent on. The principle of stimulus is that there is not enough spending, so government must do something in order to increase total spending.

One of the great lost lessons of economics is the lesson of Say's law - that supply constitutes demand. Once you understand this, you understand how bullshit the very concept of "stimulus" is.

not at all, some govt spending can actually provide beneficial lasting impacts to the economy. Producing new roads, freeways that opens up consumers to other markets etc.

By the way, you increase supply by doing what? subsidies, tax breaks?

what happens to price when supply shifts right?

then what happens to the amount of suppliers and amount of supply?

[howardroark]

not at all, some govt spending can actually provide beneficial lasting impacts to the economy. Producing new roads, freeways that opens up consumers to other markets etc.

What you're talking about here isn't demand-side stimulus but long-run supply-side policies. If we are accept the notion that government's role is to build roads in order to facilitate commerce, then it should not focus all of its road-building activity all in a few months. In other words, it should not be used as counter-cyclical policy, but as a long-term, well planned out policy taking place over good and bad economic times.

By the way, you increase supply by doing what? subsidies, tax breaks?

Ideally, letting the market work.

what happens to price when supply shifts right?

Supply doesn't "shift right." Don't get lost in your graphs. It increases. And prices adjust in order to clear the market. If they do not, then multiple markets throughout the economy must remain in disequilibrium as a result; see Say's law and Walras's law.

then what happens to the amount of suppliers and amount of supply?

If supply increases then the amount of supply increases... hmmmmm  

[tonymctones]

What you're talking about here isn't demand-side stimulus but long-run supply-side policies. If we are accept the notion that government's role is to build roads in order to facilitate commerce, then it should not focus all of its road-building activity all in a few months. In other words, it should not be used as counter-cyclical policy, but as a long-term, well planned out policy taking place over good and bad economic times.

I agree with that but that doesnt negate the fact that using the back log of work that needs to be done to this end in times of economic hard shit is beneficial.

[howardroark]

I agree with that but that doesnt negate the fact that using the back log of work that needs to be done to this end in times of economic hard shit is beneficial.

So back to point one... what you're arguing for isn't investment in infrastructure and so on, since you just said that it shouldn't be used as a counter-cyclical policy but a long-term one. What you're arguing for is an increase in demand any-which way. So you agree with Keynes that a fine way of doing this would be paying people to dig holes and fill them up again - in other words, the quality of the work does not matter, as long as the government spends its money on something.

[tonymctones]

Ideally, letting the market work.

Supply doesn't "shift right." Don't get lost in your graphs. It increases. And prices adjust in order to clear the market. If they do not, then multiple markets throughout the economy must remain in disequilibrium as a result; see Say's law and Walras's law.

If supply increases then the amount of supply increases... hmmmmm  

The market is working thats why there is an equilibrium.

what does let the market work mean to you, specifically?

so youre saying increase the amount suppliers are willing to produce at a certain price or increasing the number of suppliers?

Id like to here specifics on how you believe you could go about this...rand is alot like ron paul great ideas that just get taken to far.

[tonymctones]

So back to point one... what you're arguing for isn't investment in infrastructure and so on, since you just said that it shouldn't be used as a counter-cyclical policy but a long-term one. What you're arguing for is an increase in demand any-which way. So you agree with Keynes that a fine way of doing this would be paying people to dig holes and fill them up again - in other words, the quality of the work does not matter, as long as the government spends its money on something.

Its still an investment in infrastructure whether its a long term or short term one...

What Im arguing for is creating roads and infrastructure where demand warrants the building of roads and infrastructure. We dont need bridges to no where but if you have small suburbs around a big city with no connecting freeway or you have highways that need to be expanded to accomodate increased use b/c of increasing suburbs then it doesnt really matter its going to help.

[Emmortal]

The only problem I have is pointing out comparisons when compared to "Took office".

That is a bullshit statement. The economy was on a downward slide that had started before he took office and was getting worse.

Remember, in 2009 the Dow was at 6700... It's almost double that now.

That's a positive thing (not huge).

I have no issue with hating Obamas policies... He's pissed me off with some of them as well and not doing other things he's said he would do, but I absolutely HATE comparisons to "when he took office".

If ANYONE had taken office at that time, it would still have gotten worse... The economy is a ship... a big one... and it takes a lot of time to turn it.

That's all I'm saying.

The market does not reflect the health of the economy and hasn't for decades.  While I agree, anyone who had taken office at the time would have been handed a big steaming pile of shit to deal with, the policies of this administration have only made things worse.

[blacken700]

Job Gains at U.S. Factories Show Manufacturers Driving Expansion

By Timothy R. Homan

Feb. 3 (Bloomberg) -- American factories added the most jobs in a year as they stayed at the forefront of the expansion, boosting employment opportunities in the rest of the economy.

Manufacturing payrolls increased 50,000 last month, exceeding the most optimistic forecast in a Bloomberg News survey and capping the largest two-year gain since 1985, Labor Department figures released today showed. Total employment across the economy jumped 243,000 in January as the jobless rate unexpectedly dropped to 8.3 percent.

- more -

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-03/job-gains-at-u-s-factories-show-manufacturers-driving-expansion.html

[Soul Crusher]

 .  We definately need more firty jobs.  The green bs is not working out.