It’s up to 10.2%. Trouble ahead. Trouble behind. The politics is going to be very tough. More pressure to “fix” the economy. The possibility that we are in the mess we are in because of past attempts to fix the economy is very alien to most politicians and most economists. Remember your Hayek:
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 62 comments }
← Previous Comments
yah…um, that depends if you're talking about a JFK Democrat or an Obama Democrat. Just as when talking about the GOP it matters if you're talking about a Bush or a Reagan GOP.
The current Democrats are dangerous as hell.
“The bounce itself could be an upward overreaction.”
True. Perhaps I'm being optimistic because I'm close to retirement and I need to be optimistic.
10.2
The stimulus must be working.
Otherwise we’d be at 25.
No doubt. You know the most breathtaking hypocrisy from the left today? They cite the 3.5% GDP growth figure as somehow proof that unemployment doesn't matter! However, when it was the Bush years(pre 2007 recession) and the GDP was growing, but unemployment was static or slightly increasing they said “TO HELL WITH GDP, ONLY EMPLOYMENT MATTERS”. I feel like it's 1984 every day with these folks – down the memory hole INCONVENIENT MEMORIES!
“You aren't seriously arguing that a Democratic congress that came into office in 2007 is responsible for the crash, are you?”
DK
No actually he was/is. And he is NOT being disingenuous Kuehn!
It's the squirminess of reality smacking up with ideology… they'll say whatever it takes to maintain the cognitive dissonance.
Yes, but we’ve created or saved 27 trillion jobs. Do not listen to the negative, greedy Wall Streeters whining about their unemployment.
And do not annoy the central scrutinizer…..
That 2 percentage points was data obtained objectively using his trade marked Unemployometer. It's accurate to with in 0.00000001%.
And what I don't understand is that that ideology and squirminess of reality isn't even necessary for a respectable libertarianism. I'm not sure why they do it. Maybe because they've committed and they feel like they can't back out now? I don't know.
And I should say to you, muirgeo, that talking as if Republicans are economic poison is ridiculous as well. Just something to keep in mind. Some Republicans can be just like some Democrats can be, but there's nothing about the party that is inherently dangerous for the economy.
Nothing? I voted for a Republican on Tuesday, so I'd hate for him to stumble on this blog and actually find out that I demonize him… so if you've discovered where I demonize Republicans, please let us know so I can address it.
Yes, it's uncertainty about the Democrats and the deficits (which everyone still seems perfectly happy to finance) that's spooking business. It couldn't possibly be the recession.
I know this is going to blow your mind… but a lot of the business community recognizes that deficit spending is necessary for macroeconomic stabilization right now. The business community isn't Austrian and it isn't libertarian.
I'm curious how you got to that 2% figure. It's surprisingly precise for such an abstract concern.
*And a note to anyone that wants to make that statement black and white or absolutist – OF COURSE I know there are some skeptics of the stimulus plan and the administration in the business community. I usually don't append that because IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING.
The only squirminess is in Yasafi's brain (and yours by proxy, if you agree with his assessment).
I may be the only registered Republican who is a regular at this Cafe, and about the only policies of Bush's that I've defended were income tax rate cuts, and on the necessity of combating Islamo-fascism. Other than those two policies, GW Bush was much more in line with Lyndon Johnson than with Ronald Reagan.
Yasafi only sees party affiliation. Yasafi sees the president as a King. Had Joe Lieberman been president for the past eight years, we'd have had virtually the same domestic and foreign policy, and Yasafi would be blaming the current recession on GHW Bush.
The only squirminess is in Yasafi's brain (and yours by proxy, if you agree with his assessment).
I may be the only registered Republican who is a regular at this Cafe, and about the only policies of Bush's that I've defended were income tax rate cuts, and on the necessity of combating Islamo-fascism. Other than those two policies, GW Bush was much more in line with Lyndon Johnson than with Ronald Reagan.
Yasafi only sees party affiliation. Yasafi sees the president as a King. Had Joe Lieberman been president for the past eight years, we'd have had virtually the same domestic and foreign policy, and Yasafi would be blaming the current recession on GHW Bush.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.