Job Growth
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-13/job-growth
Candidates vying to be the Republican presidential nominee for 2012 square off tonight in a debate in New Hampshire. They’ll cover a wide range of topics, but for many voters the economy remains the key issue. Last week the stock market took another plunge, the sixth consecutive week of decline, and in many parts of the country the number of people looking for work remains alarmingly high. There are some relatively bright spots: Texas, for instance, leads the country in the net number of new jobs created over the last two years. A look at the kinds of jobs being created today, where and why.
Guests
Richard Fisher
president, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Mark Zandi
chief economist of Moody's Analytics and author of "Financial Shock" and the forthcoming book, "Paying the Price."
Jim Tankersley
reporter, National Journal
Susan Lund
director of research, McKinsey Global Institute
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I would prefer to see natural gas which is clean fuel and employes many people to somehow be made to run cars or more industries. This would not only help in reducing high unemployement as I stated in my previous post but help many of our states coffers through the different taxes coming from refining to our gas tanks. It would also increase the wealth or GDP of this country which is needed in paying the high deficits to the bond holders (China).
Haven't been sold that Green Energy will provide the needs of this countries. It does not have the same "kick" that carbons produce. In other words it has been blown way out of portion in meeting any countries needs. Germany relies on nuclear energy and carbons for most of their energy needs and I've seen the pictures in the northern Germany of people protesting more of those wind farms.
Dear meangreen:
Something very odd happened. I was suddenly unable to post Comments here, which is why there's been a delay in responding to your comments.
It started after my Comment of June 14, 2011 @ 1:35 am, so some of the comments I'm posting now actually should have appeared before your Comment of June 14, 2011 @ 8:29 am. I'm going to try and re-post them in the order they should have appeared. Hope that won't be too confusing.
This also explains the "change of name". Rest assured, whether 1 or 2, I'm still Shrdlu!
meangreen on June 13, 2011 @ 11:45 pm wrote: “Perhaps Obama isn't any different from those guys or gals from Moody's with "real world" experience as we are presently seeing. Proof is in the pudding Etaoin.”
And you managed to answer my question before I even asked it! Reagan is allowed plenty of time to deal with the economic mess Carter left behind (which was far less than Bush’s mess), but Obama’ failure to work a miracle “overnight” is proof (of what, pray tell?).
Oh, and just for the record, during Reagan’s first two years in office he managed to increase the deficit by 73% over Carter, and the National Debt rose by 25.8%. When Reagan took office in January of 1981 unemployment was at 7.5%, but by June of his third year (1983) it had soared to 10.1% (which I believe is worse than the current rate).
Is that what you meant by “overnight”? And, if so, why so quick to condemn Obama when you are so willing to “forgive” Reagan’s “little” failing?
Oh, yes, my sources? Some of this comes from my “old reliable” - The World Almanac of 2010. The unemployment figures comes from the U.S. Department of Labor (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt).
P.S. - I’d say your “pudding” recipe needs to be revised.
meangreen on June 13, 2011 @ 11:53 pm wrote: “Mac; . . . . Don't believe that BS that 100sq miles is going to employ 15 million people.”
I’m a little skeptical of that claim too. (The rest I make no comment on.)
Dear meangreen, writing on June 14, 2011 @ 8:29 am:
(And now we’re back in “real time”.)
Either you left out a question, or what you term "Question 1" is actually what I called a "Compliment".
Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest this is the only time I've complimented you, though I think it is the first time I ever employed both the terms "cogent" and "informed". (Glad to see you're keeping track of the occasions on which we've agreed. I admit I haven't!)
As for your response to my actual question (which you called "question 3): now that I’ve been able to post those two prior Comments, I trust you'll see what's wrong with the answer you've just given. (Namely not only are you painting an unjustified "rosey scenario" for Reagan, but more importantly, you're crediting him for events in 1985 the start of his second term in office!)
So, let me revise my question: Does this mean you are willing to wait until 2013 before judging Obama’s success? Fair is fair, you know!
P.S. - Nothing wrong with giving an answer off the top of your head, as long as you recognize your data may be faulty. I’ve been guilty of that too, sometimes. By the way, according to The World Almanac the unemployment rate in 2008 was 8.924%. I don’t have the rate at the start of 2009 (when Obama took over), but I’m pretty sure it was even higher. As far as interest rates go, I believe “accountant” pointed out that the Federal Reserve actually has control over that.
Drew Kelly on June 13, 2011 @ 11:51 pm wrote: "It's nice to know there is intelligent life on Earth, . . . ."
Really? Where?
;-)
Thanks.
meangreen on June 14, 2011 @ 10:47 pm wrote: “I would prefer to see natural gas which is clean fuel . . . . Haven't been sold that Green Energy will provide the needs of this countries.”
Oh no! We’re agreeing again.
;-)
I also think natural gas has a big part to play, but I am concerned with issues surrounding its extraction. (Time magazine did a sobering story about it awhile back.)
On the other hand, I don’t think anyone seriously suggests that “Green Energy” can solve all our energy needs, and certainly not right away.
On the other hand, there are vast tracts of empty land in sunny parts of the country (Arizona, for example) which could be perfect for solar energy. (Some enthusiasts claim Arizona could be the “Saudi Arabia” of solar power. But all such “boosterism” should be taken with a grain of salt, maybe a boulder.)
There could also be a role for other alternate sources of energy (bio fuel, geothermal, etc.).
My own view has been we should divide our energy investments (I mean government funding, including tax subsidies) three ways: 1) to find more sources of “traditional fuels” (oil, natural gas, coal, etc.); 2) to improve nuclear power and make it safer (NPR did a report on “small nukes”, small nuclear plants as power sources instead of the monster size ones that hold such potential danger, like in Japan); and 3) to develop renewable energy. The point being to develop the first and second, but with the plan that the third will gradually replace them (if possible).
And we shouldn’t be scared by the idea of government involvement. The fact is that almost all of the other types of energy were developed with government assistance.
Ciao.
Etaoin:
The so call mess that Bush II left behind only happened in the last two year of his administration. You and other libs always talks about the 8 yrs of Bush policies without looking at what was behind it. You did the same with Reagan.
Go to your World Almanac Book see what the unemployement rate was in 2006. 4.7%.
Let nots mention that house purchases was the greatest under Bush. Being that you have the time to find sources, look it up under the archives in the New York Times.
There were to "many disinfanchised and poor" that should of never gotten gotten a mortgage because the couldn't afford it. Let them stay renters, at least they have a roof over their heads. Does that sound "mean spirited"? Presently this Administration is heading in the same direction in making loans to people who are "disinfanchised and poor" that should not be owners of property. That 29 Billion dollars that Obama set aside for people not to lose their homes, guess what only 1.2 Billion has been lent out. One of the main reason for this is that these people who are looking for a bailout from us taxpayers is because they don't or can't find the paperwork to fill out the application.
We were at war due to 9/11 which cost money. And yes I am glad we got rid of Saddam something that Clinton did not do. I am also glad Bush for going to Iraq and Afganistan.
During Reagan term spending went up because Carter cut the defense budget and we were still in the Cold War. Do you remember that?
The problem with Obama is that he has no clue on the concerns that small business has because he has never run a small business. Those 16 tax break that the president has mentioned is just window dressing, PR stuff. These businesses do not know what kind of tax bill they will be paying due to the deficit, no tort reform, inflation due to paper money being created out of nowhere and Health Care Reform.
But once Etoain, I don't believe you have ever worked in the private sector.
Etaoin:
Great article of a "do nothing or doesn't know what to do" POTUS Obama.
"Shove ready not so shovel ready".
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Democrats-union-team-up-against...
P.S.Need to take those dark glasses off and see what really is happening today.
Etaoin:
I do not think that the economy is going to get better by 2013 to judge what Obama has done. I've heard some reports it may take 7yrs to get this stubborn unemployement down which just went up again.
Now in comparing Reagan to Obama on the economy, true, uemployement and the deficit did go up. However it had alot to do with Reagan's personality that won over people not just in winning 48 states in 84 but he was able to convince a Democratic congress. People trusted him and because of his self confidence he stood to his guns when it came to policy that he want passed.
There are inconsistencies in this present administration and somehow unconsciouly the American people pick it up. In other words their is uncertainty in his discision making process. For example in November when the Republicans picked up 63 seats, one of his first discissions was to give that payroll tax credit, something that he was totally against and then to justify this policy, he came back with the response "I hate giving tax credits to the rich. Reagan who at one time was a Democratic while governor of California would have never had done this if in Obama's shoes. I have heard that Obama is very fond of Reagan, it would not be his idealogy but how he was able to bring people together with different beliefs, parties, religions,etc. This is something Obama has not be able to do.
Part II
The biggest mistake that Obama did was misinform the public that the Recovery Act if not passed would lead to unemployement of over 8%. Remember "Trust Me".
Now for ever you are or what communication you have with the people in power, remember something, the American people have a forgiving spirit, but if you fool them "it the economy stupid" it going to be very difficult to recover that trust.
Just look at the polls and every Republican is either running ahead or neck in neck with The Mighty One. However I personally believe that if Mitt Romney is the candiate he will lose because that are many social conservatives that do not agree him. Though I admired McCain, I knew he would of never won even without Palin because he was not a true conservative. There was even talk that he wanted to switch parties. I know Kerry wanted him as his VP.