Obamanomics

[B-Man]

 

Obama's regulatory tsunami is eroding America's competitive edge

 

President Obama's unprecedented regulatory agenda is driving both foreign and domestic capital out of the United States. For now, the U.S. fortunately is still the top destination for investment in the world. Foreigners have invested more than $3.5 trillion in the U.S. economy, more than triple the share of the next-closest economy. But that edge is slipping. In 2011, foreigners invested $227 billion in the United States. That dropped to just $147 billion in 2012, a drop of more than 35 percent. And the decline occurred during what was supposedly an economic recovery.

 

There are many reasons why investors are choosing to put their money in places other than the United States. Developing countries are growing faster, 95 percent of the world's population lives outside the U.S., and other countries are embracing free markets for the first time. But, as Cato scholar Daniel Ikenson notes in a new paper, some of that decline in investment is also due to the deteriorating business climate in the U.S. As recently as 2000, the U.S. ranked second in the annual Economic Freedom of the World Report. It fell to eighth by 2005, and all the way to 18th after just four years under Obama. The main driver of the fall is heightened regulation.

 

{snip}

 

According to the Heritage Foundation, Obama has inflicted nearly $70 billion worth of regulatory burdens on the U.S. economy since he was sworn into office, including $23.5 billion in new regulatory costs in 2012 alone. That number will only increase as Dodd-Frank and Obamacare come online. Obama's "war on coal" is also inflicting hundreds of billions in new regulatory costs.

 

Liberals will, of course, insist that it is wrong to focus on just the costs of new regulations, while ignoring their benefits. But Ikenson claims regulators routinely overestimate the benefits of new regulations. Worse, federal agencies only take the costs and benefits of new regulations into account when the least is known about them: before they go into effect.

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-obamas-regulatory-tsunami-is-eroding-americas-competitive-edge/article/2534999

[B-Man]

WEAK: +169,000 NEW JOB, MASSIVE DOWNWARD REVISIONS...

 

 

 

Work force rate at 63.%, lowest since 1978 ( and Jimmy Carter)

 

 

 

 

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DROPS TO 7.3%...

Edited September 6, 2013 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

WEAK: +169,000 NEW JOB, MASSIVE DOWNWARD REVISIONS...

 

 

 

Work force rate at 63.%, lowest since 1978 ( and Jimmy Carter)

 

 

 

 

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DROPS TO 7.3%...

 

How the hell do you revise last month's numbers of 160,000 downward by 60,000?

[B-Man]

How the hell do you revise last month's numbers of 160,000 downward by 60,000?

 

"Memory Hole" ?

 

 

 

Another version from that well known Right Wing "Rag"...The Washington Post;

 

 

LOUSY JOBS NUMBERS:

 

“The August jobs numbers are disappointing. The economy gained 169,000 non-farm payroll jobs, below the estimated figure of 175,000.

 

Much worse, however, were the downward revisions for past months. July’s job numbers went down 58,000. The total revision for June and July is 74,000 less than previously expected.

 

Then there is the labor participation rate: It dropped to 63.2 percent. It hasn’t been this low since 1978. Because so many people have left the work force, the percent of unemployed (i.e. those who haven’t checked out of the job market) went down to 7.3 percent.

 

 

It is long since past the time that we can attribute feeble job growth to the financial collapse in 2008. The ‘recovery’ started in the second half of 2009. What we see now is the Obama economy — more people out of the job market, minimal growth and tepid job creation.”

 

 

 

.

Edited September 6, 2013 by B-Man

[TakeYouToTasker]

How the hell do you revise last month's numbers of 160,000 downward by 60,000?

Employment data is obtained from a sampling of 560,000 work locations (single employers can account for multiple sites). The survey asks how many employees received pay during the pay-cycle that includes the 12th of the month. Many businesses, because of their various accounting methods and schedules, and because the BLS demands the information very quickly, do not have the necessary data available when the BLS collects it. Because of this, much of the data, often between 30% to 40%, is estimated by the agency rather than actually collected. The BLS, when reporting it's figures, makes the assumption that the business conditions for all firm's data uncollected is uniform with the data it actually has collected. When the actual data is received, the reports get revised.

 

In short, the jobs report is a political tool rather than a definative metric; and upon initial reporting should always be ignored, because it isn't an indicator constructed of hard data.

Edited September 6, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

WEAK: +169,000 NEW JOB, MASSIVE DOWNWARD REVISIONS...

 

 

 

Work force rate at 63.%, lowest since 1978 ( and Jimmy Carter)

 

 

 

 

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DROPS TO 7.3%...

 

But the real measure isn't how many jobs were created. It's how many jobs were created or saved.

 

 

Man, I miss the days of Bush's "jobless recovery."

[IDBillzFan]

Employment data is obtained from a sampling of 560,000 work locations (single employers can account for multiple sites). The survey asks how many employees received pay during the pay-cycle that includes the 12th of the month. Many businesses, because of their various accounting methods and schedules, and because the BLS demands the information very quickly, do not have the necessary data available when the BLS collects it. Because of this, much of the data, often between 30% to 40%, is estimated by the agency rather than actually collected. The BLS, when reporting it's figures, makes the assumption that the business conditions for all firm's data uncollected is uniform with the data it actually has collected. When the actual data is received, the reports get revised.

 

In short, the jobs report is a political tool rather than a definative metric; and upon initial reporting should always be ignored, because it isn't an indicator constructed of hard data.

 

Fine, but as a comparative number to, say, the past year or two,, that revision is pretty astonishingly off, no?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Fine, but as a comparative number to, say, the past year or two,, that revision is pretty astonishingly off, no?

That's like comparing the length of two invisible unicorn horns.

[DC Tom]

That's like comparing the length of two invisible unicorn horns.

 

Isn't that the basis of Obamanomics?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Isn't that the basis of Obamanomics?

No, because Obamanomics insists that you don't compare our current economic climate to anything else. It's the New Normal, baby. Get down with it!

Edited September 6, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[Doc]

Just be thankful that he (and only he alone could have) prevented a depression.

[Tiberius]

Just be thankful that he (and only he alone could have) prevented a depression.

So rejecting the stimulus like many republicans wanted would have been better?

[DC Tom]

So rejecting the stimulus like many republicans wanted would have been better?

 

Yes.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Yes.

Man... you just know this is going to lead to a conversation about how bond markets work.

 

I can't wait to read his analysis.

[B-Man]

Ignore the headlines. This was a very bad jobs report.

 

 

 

 

BOOTS OFF THE GROUND: America’s Workforce Loses Another 300,000 People.

 

 

 

The Student Loan Bubble Is Starting To Burst.

 

The largest bank in the United States will stop making student loans in a few weeks.

JPMorgan Chase has sent a memorandum to colleges notifying them that the bank will stop making new student loans in October, according to Reuters.

 

The official reason is quite bland.

 

“We just don’t see this as a market that we can significantly grow,” Thasunda Duckett tells Reuters. Duckett is the chief executive for auto and student loans at Chase, which means she’s basically delivering the news that a large part of her business is getting closed down.

 

The move is eerily reminiscent of the subprime shutdown that happened in 2007. Each time a bank shuttered its subprime unit, the news was presented in much the same way that JPMorgan is spinning the end of its student lending.

[DC Tom]

Man... you just know this is going to lead to a conversation about how bond markets work.

 

I can't wait to read his analysis.

 

That and bank bailouts...

[Tiberius]

Yes.

 

Go back to translating Russian

 

Man... you just know this is going to lead to a conversation about how bond markets work.

 

I can't wait to read his analysis.

Stop! You really need to stop showing how you don't know dick about anything!

[B-Man]

So rejecting the stimulus like many republicans wanted would have been better?

 

 

Forget those economic theories and in-depth articles that those others have posted...............

 

here's something bright and shiny for you to look at,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited September 6, 2013 by B-Man

[Tiberius]

Forget those economic theories and in-depth articles that those others have posted...............

 

here's something bright and shiny for you to look at,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Oh, I'm sure those two 1% really hit the nail on the head about how less money in the economy would have made things better

 

Oh, and you are a complete moron

[Chef Jim]

Oh, I'm sure those two 1% really hit the nail on the head about how less money in the economy would have made things better

 

Oh, and you are a complete moron

 

So explain how the stimulus put more money in the economy.