Unemployment inaccurate?

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
In my town a restaurant went out of business last year, yet here is a new restaurant in the same location. Doesn't PJ believe that a start up company would have bought the modern GM facilities, OR don't you believe that one of the many foreign companies with a US presence would have bought those facilities.

We'd be making just as many cars today and the companies would be far better suited to succeed.


Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Just think how many more jobs we'd have right now if we followed our resident conservatves' prescription back in 2009?

- Sink the auto sector and all its downline part suppliers and all their employees
- Sink all the banks and their employees
- Sink all local businesses in towns anchored by sunken banks/auto employers.
- Cut federal government employee workforce by 20%
- Then cut food stamps and unemployment for all those unemployed people.
- Give a blank check to Haliburton to continue rebuilding Baghdad and Afghanistan ...and ignore AMerica.

I love sour grapes.



Your prescription would have put unemployment near 20%...which begs the question ....who would be in the market to buy cars?

Maybe thats why even W didn't sink those companies....and even Mitt had to change his mind too.
You nor I have any way accurately predict how things would have turned out if not for the bailouts. I believe that our unemployment would be lower.

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
In my town a restaurant went out of business last year, yet here is a new restaurant in the same location. Doesn't PJ believe that a start up company would have bought the modern GM facilities, OR don't you believe that one of the many foreign companies with a US presence would have bought those facilities.

We'd be making just as many cars today and the companies would be far better suited to succeed.


Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Just think how many more jobs we'd have right now if we followed our resident conservatves' prescription back in 2009?

- Sink the auto sector and all its downline part suppliers and all their employees
- Sink all the banks and their employees
- Sink all local businesses in towns anchored by sunken banks/auto employers.
- Cut federal government employee workforce by 20%
- Then cut food stamps and unemployment for all those unemployed people.
- Give a blank check to Haliburton to continue rebuilding Baghdad and Afghanistan ...and ignore AMerica.

I love sour grapes.



Your prescription would have put unemployment near 20%...which begs the question ....who would be in the market to buy cars?

Maybe thats why even W didn't sink those companies....and even Mitt had to change his mind too.


Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
You nor I have any way accurately predict how things would have turned out if not for the bailouts. I believe that our unemployment would be lower.



I dont have to predict what the effect of the bailouts were...6.4% unemployement as of the most recent report.

Your adivce directly unemployed millions of people. Thats what happens when companies go out of businesss....their employees dont work there anymore. You speculate that somehow, someway those people and many others on top of it would be working now if we implemented your austerity plan that took their jobs away. its that "somehow, someway" part thats so elusive. It eluded Herbert Hoover too.

We'd be lower than 6.4% and more folks would be working full time jobs. I don't consider working one hour per week as "employed", but Obama and and PJ do.


Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
You nor I have any way accurately predict how things would have turned out if not for the bailouts. I believe that our unemployment would be lower.



I dont have to predict what the effect of the bailouts were...6.4% unemployement as of the most recent report.

Your adivce directly unemployed millions of people. Thats what happens when companies go out of businesss....their employees dont work there anymore. You speculate that somehow, someway those people and many others on top of it would be working now if we implemented your austerity plan that took their jobs away. its that "somehow, someway" part thats so elusive. It eluded Herbert Hoover too.



Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
We'd be lower than 6.4% and more folks would be working full time jobs. I don't consider working one hour per week as "employed", but Obama and and PJ do.



I dont consider the direct act of removing people from their jobs to be stimulative to the employment rate. Those two things are mutually exclusive...unless you took economics at Purdue, apparently.



Companies do not like government debt, and our government is racking this up at a magnificent rate. This is one of many reasons that employment sucks, regardless of all of the people working one hour a week.


Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
We'd be lower than 6.4% and more folks would be working full time jobs. I don't consider working one hour per week as "employed", but Obama and and PJ do.



I dont consider the direct act of removing people from their jobs to be stimulative to the employment rate. Those two things are mutually exclusive...unless you took economics at Purdue, apparently.


Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Companies do not like government debt...
And - good news - the deficit fell faster last year than just about any time for the last 50. But I'm sure this is just a coincidence:




There has been no president in history that has had a deficit on his watch any larger than Obama's smallest deficit. In fact, it's not even close.


Obama's batting average was 10, and now it has skyrocketed to 20. It's up 100%, and it still sucks.


Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Companies do not like government debt...
And s- good news - the deficit fell faster last year than just about any time for the last 50. But I'm sure this is just a coincidence:





Let's just settle this now, Chilly. Would you vote for a socialist candidate?
Why is the US still subsidizing oil & gas companies with record profits while sustainable energy isn't?

I just finished watching a PBS show called "We’ve Got the Power" which shows viewers how the United States can replace fossil fuels with clean energy in a way that is economically beneficial to consumers and businesses alike, and ensures a safer environment for future generations.

It shows a solar power plant in Spain built with American engineered technology (before the US went to a functional/commercial scale) funded in part by the UAE (I believe), one of the oil producing countries.

Maybe without the oil & gas subsidies the economy would change.

Okay, politicos, argue.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now