New Unemployment Claims Rise "Unexpectedly"

[RecycleMichael]

I don't really think you hate America...but you do seem obsessed with posting more and more negative news than before. You also have started many threads about any Democrat you can make fun of.

When did you become so partisan? Why the need to find anything negative about the economy or the President?

[guido911]

When did you become so partisan? Why the need to find anything negative about the economy or the President?

If you want this debate, we can start another thread. Just this, please link to all the positive things you said about Bush because I have given Obama his due when I thought he deserved it.

[Conan71]

Why do you feel compelled to constantly post bad economic news? Why do you start threads about any Democrat who has any trouble (including divorce)?

You just want to focus on the negatives, especially when you believe it hurts Democrats.

Uh, you weren't even through the second sentence of a thread you created on the governor's race before you mentioned 12 year old allegations of an affair by a GOP gubernatorial candidate.

You've been a pretty good pot-stirrer when it's gone the other way.

It's our turn now. 

[Townsend]

Why give any time to any economists being surprised about anything?

Does anyone really think they're able to see the future of the economy?

Every time something happens with any part of the economy..."surprise"...

[Gaspar]

I would like to see some good economic news.  I just spent 10 minutes looking and besides the 19% public sector growth numbers and 5% public sector salary increase numbers, I don't see any. 

That kinda sad.

I'd like to have some good economic news if someone would be so kind as to share.

[Conan71]

Dems had no trouble beating down the economy until Bush left office.  Heck, President Obama and Secretary Geithner continued to beat it down for a couple of months after assuming office as if they were still campaigning against President Bush, whom they never ran against to start with.  That's the difference between a campaigner and a leader.  I'll let you guess which I think President Obama is.

Much of a recession is psychological.  Bad news or creating fear will get businesses and consumers to start hoarding cash which helps create a self-fullfilling prophesy. I realize there are real-world issues at work in the run-up to a recession, but constant harping on impending doom does not help.

[nathanm]

I'd like to have some good economic news if someone would be so kind as to share.

Check the latest inflation numbers. They're not "deflation numbers," so that's excellent news.

[Gaspar]

Dems had no trouble beating down the economy until Bush left office.  Heck, President Obama and Secretary Geithner continued to beat it down for a couple of months after assuming office as if they were still campaigning against President Bush, whom they never ran against to start with.  That's the difference between a campaigner and a leader.  I'll let you guess which I think President Obama is.

I guess it's really relative.  I suppose there are many relish public over private sector growth and view this economy as some form of revenge.  It is "Change."

[nathanm]

I guess it's really relative.  I suppose there are many relish public over private sector growth and view this economy as some form of revenge.  It is "Change."

I guess you haven't noticed pretty much everybody expressing a desire for the private sector to "take up the slack"?

[Gaspar]

Check the latest inflation numbers. They're not "deflation numbers," so that's excellent news.

You're correct.  That is good for now, or at least it doesn't suck.  I like to look at inflation by sector, rather than the larger conglomerate number.  Fuel and materials cost is the major factor when you look at inflation as a whole.  Demand doesn't change much on consumables like food, and those have risen by about .2%.

Unemployment also affects demand (like I'm telling you something you don't know).  With our growing unemployment inflation/deflation is a far less important statistic.  A $100 grocery bill is little different from a $102 grocery bill if you can afford neither.

It's kinda like saying Mr. Gaspar you have cancer, and 1 month to live, but your hair smells terrific.

[Conan71]

I guess it's really relative.  I suppose there are many relish public over private sector growth and view this economy as some form of revenge.  It is "Change."

Sure: "Let's hope for the absolute worst outcome for as many Americans as possible so we can win enough votes to regain power."

[Gaspar]

I guess you haven't noticed pretty much everybody expressing a desire for the private sector to "take up the slack"?

Oh, no I have, it's just that the private sector cannot print money or take it by force.  The private sector must be free to produce in order to "take up the slack." 

The banks are so afraid of "THE GREAT REGULATOR" that lines of credit have been frozen or suspended, and operating capital tied to credit is very slim or non-existent.

No pay, produce, no work, no demand, no pay, no produce, no work. . .

At the risk of repeating myself. . .IT'S SIMPLE.

[guido911]

Why give any time to any economists being surprised about anything?

Does anyone really think they're able to see the future of the economy?

Every time something happens with any part of the economy..."surprise"...

Bingo. You hit the nail right on the head. Like I posted a while back; just post the facts and don't editorialize/embellish them. We adults can easily figure things out without a political spin one way or the other.

[nathanm]

Oh, no I have, it's just that the private sector cannot print money or take it by force.  The private sector must be free to produce in order to "take up the slack." 

The banks are so afraid of "THE GREAT REGULATOR" that lines of credit have been frozen or suspended, and operating capital tied to credit is very slim or non-existent.

No pay, produce, no work, no demand, no pay, no produce, no work. . .

At the risk of repeating myself. . .IT'S SIMPLE.

The regulators have nothing to do with the banks being unwilling to lend. Banks failing left and right due to bad loans and IBs like Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch going bust put the fear of God into bankers. That's why they refuse to lend.

What the hell can the government do more than they have? They backstopped big institutions and have been trying to give away money for next to free left and right so the bankers can make a killing on their lending book, but they still refuse.

Well, actually, I'm lying. They aren't refusing so much anymore. In the last six months I've seen a major easing of both consumer and small business lines. They're much more concerned about credit risk than they used to be, though. The government isn't doing that.

Funny how no matter what we're talking about, it's the government's fault.

[we vs us]

Oh, no I have, it's just that the private sector cannot print money or take it by force.  The private sector must be free to produce in order to "take up the slack." 

The banks are so afraid of "THE GREAT REGULATOR" that lines of credit have been frozen or suspended, and operating capital tied to credit is very slim or non-existent.

No pay, produce, no work, no demand, no pay, no produce, no work. . .

At the risk of repeating myself. . .IT'S SIMPLE.

I really can't help but wonder where you get your information.  You're describing a situation that doesn't exist.  In fact, there has been no new regulation yet, aside from whatever structure was put in place around the TARP funds and most of the regulation in place -- in some cases by admission of the regulators themselves -- has been bent, corrupted, and in some cases out and out ignored for years. In other words, almost all the reporting and scholarship about the crash to date has indicated that the financial industry wasn't regulated enough, and in some cases (as with derivatives) not at all. 

So I'm actually interested if you can point me to something that talks about how are regulatory system is choking off investment.