Printable View
You said government hiring would stem unemployment from reaching 10%. It didn't. The government, especially at the state level, was also trimming payrolls. Government hiring had nothing to do with preventing unemployment from reaching 10%.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
the yen? Cherry pick much?
Wrt your policy suggestions, The only thing you got close on was a slashing the fed rate, which was pretty much a given tbh.
The data just doesn't support your argument. Go to Census.gov and you'll see increase in government employment, both federal and state, starting in 2008. The increase in especially pronounced when looking at payroll as it increased over 10% while private sector payrolls shrank. btw, I'm not arguing for or against the policy. If private payrolls shrank and public sector payrolls increased per Census.gov, not sure how you can argue government hiring had nothing to do with stemming unemployment from exceeding 10%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
It's an apples to apples comparison. Both are Sovereign, so no Cherry picking.Quote:
the yen? Cherry pick much?
The administration took aim at boosting the stock market. I suggested capital gains cuts and accelerated depreciation, the Fed decided on QE and bank stock purchases. 6 in one hand half a dozen in the other imo. The FHA 235 program was aimed at helping main street with underwater mortgages. The administration decided on Harp and Loan Modifications. Same shit but my idea would have been better.Quote:
Wrt your policy suggestions, The only thing you got close on was a slashing the fed rate, which was pretty much a given tbh.
Again, hindsight I would have added a reduction in FICA as part of my recommendation.
Awesome GDP print today. -2.9.
Stocks are green of course.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...fore-data.html
Banksters Great (Jobs) Depression killed 8M jobs.
How many Ms did Fed govt hire since 2008?
CNBC’s Tea Party Mad-Prophet Rick Santelli Loses It; Gets SMACKED Down!
Outspoken (and many would say empty headed polemicist and attention hound) CNBC reporter Rick Santelli gets into one of his most-heated arguments ever with economics reporter Steve Liesman and a panel of four other financial reporters over Fed policy, inflation and interest rates.
Santelli's CNBC colleagues do not seem even remotely amused. Watch it here. It gets heated about 2:30 in, really boils over at around 6 minutes,.
Whoa.
We’re used to seeing CNBC reporter Rick Santelli rant, and rave. He established it as part his brand at the start of the financial crisis, in a tirade against the bailout that called for a new “tea party” protest. But he has been given a lot of wiggle room by his fellow reporters, and at times, open admiration for "telling it like it is." Not this time.
Steve Liesman seems to have lost all patience with him and summed up the opinion of the panel and Paul Richards at UBS:
“Rick, there is no single piece of advice you’ve given that’s worked, Rick. Not a single one. It is impossible for you to be more wrong. Your call for inflation, the destruction of the dollar, the failure of the U.S. economy to rebound. Every single bit of advice you have given would have lost people money.
Santelli walks off camera at about 11 minutes.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/14/1314024/-CNBC-s-Tea-Party-Mad-Prophet-Rick-Santelli-Loses-It-Gets-SMACKED-Down?detail=email
These right-wing assholes makes all kinds of claims, and NEVER get called out like that.
Hey, Yoni, tell us again how CRA/govt FORCED banks to make all those toxic loans to black people! :lol
hehehehehehehhehehehe...Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
scott needs to see this one. it is funny.
ROFL.... that shit is comedy gold. for nerds. who like economics.
http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/...nbcplayershare
Eyup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
Troll based hysteria, however, he has down pat. ;)