By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why can't the media call it like they see it?

NJ5 on 07 August 2009

Always look at U6 unemployment, not U3 (the one quoted by the media).

U6 unemployment is flat this month, not going down... at a time when usually tons of jobs are created due to tourism and other seasonal factors.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
sguy78 on 07 August 2009

Um, the press are biased.



NJ5 on 07 August 2009

A clear explanation of the problems with the "unemployment rate":

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODUyZGMyNTExYzNlNTUyNzA1ZmIwMzc3MmMxNzEzYWM=

Conclusion:

The unemployment rate declined from month to month, even though the total number of Americans employed with a job decreased. If you don't find that a signal that the happy headlines are misleading, I don't know what else to tell you.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

HappySqurriel on 07 August 2009
CrazyHorse said:
HappySqurriel said:
Crashdown77 said:
Shouldn't this thread be titled "Why can't the media call it like I see it?"

Fairly off topic: I have a question for Mafoo and Squirrel, since you are both pretty negative on Obama. Do you think that this is all attributable to him? I mean should this have all swung around in 8 months if his programs were going to work? Can we call him a failure already? I've found that the ecomony swings pretty much up and down almost regardless of who is in charge and the administration can only affect the lengths and depths of the lows and heights of the highs, but those swings are MUCH longer than 8 months long. I need help on what we're thinking he has failed at so far.

The problems we're facing today have little to do with Obama, and he has almost no ability to prevent them or lessen them, they're caused by decades of the government being overly involved in the economy and being unable to understand that a free market that isn't hampered by high taxes, high inflation, rampant corruption and a large debt load will correct itself.

The problems will will face in a couple years will have a lot to do with Obama because few economies can perform well when they're hampered by high taxes, high inflation, rampant corruption and a large debt load which (with the exception of corruption which hasn't changed much) have all been made dramatically worse by Obama.

Really? I don't claim to be an economics expert but I would argue that governemnt hasn't been involved enough over the last few decades. Unregulated banks have been able to gamble with our money in the pursuit of continued high profits resulting in the issue of loans to people who were clearly unable to pay back their debt. This created vast amounts of toxic loans which the taxpayers (in the UK at least) have now had to buy off them. If stricter regulations were in place then maybe we wouldn't be having this debate now. I'm all for a largely free market but I do feel that certain laws should be in place to prevent unregulated greed and risk taking (especially as it us who pays the price). Without any regulations I fear boom and bust economics will forever be associated with capitalism.

I don't think you understand how the toxic assets got created ...

If it wasn't for Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac "Reducing the risk", the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates at artificial lows, the government "encouraging" banks to take on unqualified lenders to encourage home ownership, lawyers suing banks that actually declined people who were unqualifed, greedy home buyers and speculators, and rampant mortgage fraud nothing the banks could do would have been able to have put the system into such a crisis point. You can blame the banks for their exotic mortgages all you want (they certainly deserve some of the blame) but the government and individuals have an equal (if not greater) part in this mess.



CommunistHater on 07 August 2009

If it wasn't for Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac "Reducing the risk", the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates at artificial lows, the government "encouraging" banks to take on unqualified lenders to encourage home ownership, lawyers suing banks that actually declined people who were unqualifed, greedy home buyers and speculators, and rampant mortgage fraud nothing the banks could do would have been able to have put the system into such a crisis point. You can blame the banks for their exotic mortgages all you want (they certainly deserve some of the blame) but the government and individuals have an equal (if not greater) part in this mess.

Good Summary^ You forgot credit card debt



Repent or be destroyed

Around the Network
CrazyHorse on 08 August 2009
HappySqurriel said:
CrazyHorse said:
HappySqurriel said:
Crashdown77 said:
Shouldn't this thread be titled "Why can't the media call it like I see it?"

Fairly off topic: I have a question for Mafoo and Squirrel, since you are both pretty negative on Obama. Do you think that this is all attributable to him? I mean should this have all swung around in 8 months if his programs were going to work? Can we call him a failure already? I've found that the ecomony swings pretty much up and down almost regardless of who is in charge and the administration can only affect the lengths and depths of the lows and heights of the highs, but those swings are MUCH longer than 8 months long. I need help on what we're thinking he has failed at so far.

The problems we're facing today have little to do with Obama, and he has almost no ability to prevent them or lessen them, they're caused by decades of the government being overly involved in the economy and being unable to understand that a free market that isn't hampered by high taxes, high inflation, rampant corruption and a large debt load will correct itself.

The problems will will face in a couple years will have a lot to do with Obama because few economies can perform well when they're hampered by high taxes, high inflation, rampant corruption and a large debt load which (with the exception of corruption which hasn't changed much) have all been made dramatically worse by Obama.

Really? I don't claim to be an economics expert but I would argue that governemnt hasn't been involved enough over the last few decades. Unregulated banks have been able to gamble with our money in the pursuit of continued high profits resulting in the issue of loans to people who were clearly unable to pay back their debt. This created vast amounts of toxic loans which the taxpayers (in the UK at least) have now had to buy off them. If stricter regulations were in place then maybe we wouldn't be having this debate now. I'm all for a largely free market but I do feel that certain laws should be in place to prevent unregulated greed and risk taking (especially as it us who pays the price). Without any regulations I fear boom and bust economics will forever be associated with capitalism.

I don't think you understand how the toxic assets got created ...

If it wasn't for Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac "Reducing the risk", the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates at artificial lows, the government "encouraging" banks to take on unqualified lenders to encourage home ownership, lawyers suing banks that actually declined people who were unqualifed, greedy home buyers and speculators, and rampant mortgage fraud nothing the banks could do would have been able to have put the system into such a crisis point. You can blame the banks for their exotic mortgages all you want (they certainly deserve some of the blame) but the government and individuals have an equal (if not greater) part in this mess.

I'll freely admit I don't fully understand everything behind the economic situation (I'm sure there are very few who do) and you raise some good points. I didn't intend to place the whole blame on the banks as consumers obviously have to take some blame for overspending and acquiring unmanageable amounts of debt. I still stand by government intervention though, as, if there were regulations in place to prevent excessive lending to those clearly unable to afford it then a large part of this mess could have been avoided as many of the factors you mentioned would become irrelevant. Back on topic a little, the media are also a large part of the problem as their scaremongering and sensationalization damaged consumer confidence even more and put off the people who could afford to spend money from doing so.



Rath on 08 August 2009

Another part of this problem lies not with banks, consumers or the government. But with the economists.

Essentially they also screwed up royally by not predicting this mess before it happened and reminded us that the economy, along with the weather, is one of the most chaotic and least understood systems that affects mankind.



Squilliam on 08 August 2009

^ A lot of people predicted problems... Its just that the problems had a frightening tendency to not arrive when expected so a lot of people didn't take them seriously.



Tease.

TheRealMafoo on 08 August 2009
Rath said:
Another part of this problem lies not with banks, consumers or the government. But with the economists.

Essentially they also screwed up royally by not predicting this mess before it happened and reminded us that the economy, along with the weather, is one of the most chaotic and least understood systems that affects mankind.

The Federal Government pays an outside accounting firm to look at the books of Fanny and Freddie (the spark that started it all).

The firm was telling Congress for years that they need to stop what they are doing, or the market was going to crash. In turn, congress yelled at them, and told them the only reason they were saying what they were saying, is because they don't like poor people.

We elect who we like, not the people who have a clue how to run a government (our current and past president are great examples of this).

The greatest man we have ever had as a President, is John Adams, and he was not a very likable man. Being very good at governing used to be important. Not anymore.



NJ5 on 08 August 2009

Forbes is reporting the truth behind the jobs numbers:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/08/jobs-unemployment-layoffs-business-washington-figures.html

The Labor Department Friday reported seasonally adjusted nonfarm payrolls fell by 247,000 in July, the lowest loss in nearly a year and better than economists had expected. Take out the weird math, Williams says, and those payrolls shrunk by more than double that number, perhaps as much as 600,000.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957