For anyone interested in some very interesting data on unemployment in the US at the beginning of 2011, the following chart was suggested by someone.
It clearly shows that there is almost full employment for the college educated.
Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Barron's Up & Down Wall Street - Barrons.com
THE SAME OLD UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: Barron's Up & Down Wall Street - Barrons.com
What somehow never gets explained by all these upbeat types is "why is this time different (if not worse)"?
In other words, in the 1970's we had 'staglation' when the Feds share of GDP was over 19%. Now we're roughly at 25%.
If anything, the economic competitors to the US today (vs. the 1970's) would appear to be nothing if not more formidable. So, one would have to assume that American job creation would take even more capital???? (per job)
Some rather strong evidence supports this capital (and the ancillary rate of return) argument in terms of data showing the total output of goods and services in the US back to pre-bust levels with substantially fewer people working. Am I missing something here with the math?
What somehow never gets explained by all these upbeat types is "why is this time different (if not worse)"?
In other words, in the 1970's we had 'staglation' when the Feds share of GDP was over 19%. Now we're roughly at 25%.
If anything, the economic competitors to the US today (vs. the 1970's) would appear to be nothing if not more formidable. So, one would have to assume that American job creation would take even more capital???? (per job)
Some rather strong evidence supports this capital (and the ancillary rate of return) argument in terms of data showing the total output of goods and services in the US back to pre-bust levels with substantially fewer people working. Am I missing something here with the math?
Friday, February 4, 2011
Bernanke Says Policies Boost Stocks, Not Food Prices - Barrons.com
MORE ON THE FED: Bernanke Says Policies Boost Stocks, Not Food Prices - Barrons.com
Sometimes there are numbers that seem to linger - such as the percent of GDP spent by the Federal Government - and have consequent actions from time and time again.
It's sort of like separating the wheat from the chaff or separating the static from the transmission.
I'm not sure, but it would seem as though the size and weight of the Federal Government on the economy would logically have an impact on the economy.
Is the Fed's printing or non-printing of money an equal or subservient or dominant cause of conditionality? In the 70's, there was stagflation - in that case both a high GDP % and high money growth existed.
Now, we have an even higher share of GDP going to the Federal government, very strong money printing (which was abjured back in the 70's and early 80's (with warnings)) - so, what now?
Sometimes there are numbers that seem to linger - such as the percent of GDP spent by the Federal Government - and have consequent actions from time and time again.
It's sort of like separating the wheat from the chaff or separating the static from the transmission.
I'm not sure, but it would seem as though the size and weight of the Federal Government on the economy would logically have an impact on the economy.
Is the Fed's printing or non-printing of money an equal or subservient or dominant cause of conditionality? In the 70's, there was stagflation - in that case both a high GDP % and high money growth existed.
Now, we have an even higher share of GDP going to the Federal government, very strong money printing (which was abjured back in the 70's and early 80's (with warnings)) - so, what now?
Economy Added Few Jobs in January - WSJ.com
THE OLD GOVERNMENT SHARE OF THE ECONOMY: Economy Added Few Jobs in January - WSJ.com
If the share of GDP taken by the Federal Government's impact on the economy hasn't changed (and why would it????), then it's hard to see the economy doing anything but coping with the Scylla and Charybdis of stagnation and inflation.
We see the stagnation of a 25% GDP share (and the share taken by states has grown since the 70's and early 80's - so the Fed. share may need to be lowered from 19% (or vice versa).
Thus, the big picture is the macro driver of the weight of government on the economy.
How the individual players (e.g. inflation, jobs, etc.) perform their tasks seems to be playing out right now with the inflation much higher in the destination of the dollars being created by the Federal Reserve - i.e. developing country economies.
Liberal politicians live in a fantasy world where real money doesn't matter and entitlement spending (to the deserving) is all that matters. There are some Republicans (Tea Party) that would like to start confronting entitlements - but, can they really be serious enough.
Several years back, forecasters predicted an inflationary depression. Will it come to pass?
Clearly, the spin-masters are hoping to avoid it. But, 20-22% of Americans who would normally be looking for a job can't find one - yet, the government would like us to believe this number is only 9%. Hmmm?
If the share of GDP taken by the Federal Government's impact on the economy hasn't changed (and why would it????), then it's hard to see the economy doing anything but coping with the Scylla and Charybdis of stagnation and inflation.
We see the stagnation of a 25% GDP share (and the share taken by states has grown since the 70's and early 80's - so the Fed. share may need to be lowered from 19% (or vice versa).
Thus, the big picture is the macro driver of the weight of government on the economy.
How the individual players (e.g. inflation, jobs, etc.) perform their tasks seems to be playing out right now with the inflation much higher in the destination of the dollars being created by the Federal Reserve - i.e. developing country economies.
Liberal politicians live in a fantasy world where real money doesn't matter and entitlement spending (to the deserving) is all that matters. There are some Republicans (Tea Party) that would like to start confronting entitlements - but, can they really be serious enough.
Several years back, forecasters predicted an inflationary depression. Will it come to pass?
Clearly, the spin-masters are hoping to avoid it. But, 20-22% of Americans who would normally be looking for a job can't find one - yet, the government would like us to believe this number is only 9%. Hmmm?
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Planet Hunt Comes up With Host of New Candidates - WSJ.com
Planet Hunt Comes up With Host of New Candidates - WSJ.com
I guess we know how to cure the unemployment problem!
We might also consider this a warning that the 'frontier' has been opened. We can either go through it on our own or wait for others to come through to us. History suggests the latter is almost always unpleasant with very bad consequences.
I guess we know how to cure the unemployment problem!
We might also consider this a warning that the 'frontier' has been opened. We can either go through it on our own or wait for others to come through to us. History suggests the latter is almost always unpleasant with very bad consequences.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Consumers Going Into Their Shells - WSJ.com
DELUSIONS VIS-A-VIS THE CENTRAL BANK: Consumers Going Into Their Shells - WSJ.com
Some of this points to the dilemma that the above-the-regression-line economies face - i.e. to stay above the line, you have to have something extra. It can be more investment (read: capital), more education, better coordination and management, etc. But, it has to be something. That's what 'above the regression line' means - a higher income and standard of living.
If the schools don't push to provide a better education and every wage earner has to support a retiree and welfare recipient, that just drags down the real/effective wage of the worker.
Meanwhile, in developing countries, the worker has no one but themselves to support.
Add in taxes on the capital creators income in one country, but not the other, one can see how additional capital is created in the country with less social spending.
Meanwhile, the delusion of developed country prosperity may well be being sustained by central bank printing.
Some of this points to the dilemma that the above-the-regression-line economies face - i.e. to stay above the line, you have to have something extra. It can be more investment (read: capital), more education, better coordination and management, etc. But, it has to be something. That's what 'above the regression line' means - a higher income and standard of living.
If the schools don't push to provide a better education and every wage earner has to support a retiree and welfare recipient, that just drags down the real/effective wage of the worker.
Meanwhile, in developing countries, the worker has no one but themselves to support.
Add in taxes on the capital creators income in one country, but not the other, one can see how additional capital is created in the country with less social spending.
Meanwhile, the delusion of developed country prosperity may well be being sustained by central bank printing.
Rising Rates Fuel Boomlet in Buyouts - WSJ.com
DIFFERENT THIS TIME? MAYBE SOMEONE CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS: Rising Rates Fuel Boomlet in Buyouts - WSJ.com
The question that would seem reasonable to keep in the forefront of one's thinking would be the situation in the 1970's in which Fed share of GDP over 19% or so was credited with the 'stag' part of stagflation.
While some are lauding the lack of inflation in the US right now - i.e. the 'flation' part of the above - others credit CPI adjustments coming from housing (rent) as holding down the number.
An unadjusted number for CPI is clearly evident in China.
What does all this portend? Obviously there are differing points of view.
Some see the economy turning around (but what about the GDP % of 25 vs. 19?)
Some see no inflation (but there are the questions).
So, if things are 'really different' this time, can someone explain what the differences might be? (It would seem as though the production numbers now equal to 2007 but with some 15% greater unemployment (approx.21 - 5) now vs. then, would suggest we've had stunning productivity gains; or, we've subtantially increased the amount of capital behind each job (thus to create new jobs for some of the 21% unemployed or underemployed will take a lot more capital; etc.).
The questions just keep coming and the answers stay hidden or few.
The question that would seem reasonable to keep in the forefront of one's thinking would be the situation in the 1970's in which Fed share of GDP over 19% or so was credited with the 'stag' part of stagflation.
While some are lauding the lack of inflation in the US right now - i.e. the 'flation' part of the above - others credit CPI adjustments coming from housing (rent) as holding down the number.
An unadjusted number for CPI is clearly evident in China.
What does all this portend? Obviously there are differing points of view.
Some see the economy turning around (but what about the GDP % of 25 vs. 19?)
Some see no inflation (but there are the questions).
So, if things are 'really different' this time, can someone explain what the differences might be? (It would seem as though the production numbers now equal to 2007 but with some 15% greater unemployment (approx.21 - 5) now vs. then, would suggest we've had stunning productivity gains; or, we've subtantially increased the amount of capital behind each job (thus to create new jobs for some of the 21% unemployed or underemployed will take a lot more capital; etc.).
The questions just keep coming and the answers stay hidden or few.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
