New Unemployment Claims Rise "Unexpectedly"

[Cats Cats Cats]

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. 

He is saying that the possibility that some day there might be regulation the banks think it is better to not make money.

[Gaspar]

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

By "The Great Regulator" I was alluding to President Obama and the gavel he threatens over private industry.  And Trog, the threat is important.

You are correct it is currently skittishness on credit that is causing the reluctance on the part of the banks.  It is also, as Bank of America President Ken Lewis mentioned, not knowing the timing of the recovery or when unemployment will peak.

Again, no pay, produce, no work, no demand, no pay, no produce, no work. . .

If we were to (heaven forbid) lower taxes on businesses, we would do far more reduce unemployment, lower prices, increase profits, increase production, and spur additional enterprise than by increasing taxes.  When banks see businesses growing they want to be part of that.  They're not seeing any of that now.

[nathanm]

If we were to (heaven forbid) lower taxes on businesses, we would do far more reduce unemployment, lower prices, increase profits, increase production, and spur additional enterprise than by increasing taxes.  When banks see businesses growing they want to be part of that.  They're not seeing any of that now.

You missed that part of the stimulus bill, I take it?

[RecycleMichael]

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.

April 20th of this year in a thread about Tea Party Activists, I wrote, "I also think of myself as a good liberal and I really appreciated Bush's stance and actions on immigration. He tried to find ways to create jobs and get illegal citiizens paying into the system and become legal."

Your turn.

[Cats Cats Cats]

By "The Great Regulator" I was alluding to President Obama and the gavel he threatens over private industry.  And Trog, the threat is important.

You are correct it is currently skittishness on credit that is causing the reluctance on the part of the banks.  It is also, as Bank of America President Ken Lewis mentioned, not knowing the timing of the recovery or when unemployment will peak.

Again, no pay, produce, no work, no demand, no pay, no produce, no work. . .

If we were to (heaven forbid) lower taxes on businesses, we would do far more reduce unemployment, lower prices, increase profits, increase production, and spur additional enterprise than by increasing taxes.  When banks see businesses growing they want to be part of that.  They're not seeing any of that now.

First companies hire and keep employees because they need them to do the work.  If they don't need them then they can get rid of them.  If try do need them and get rid of them then they will make less money.  A company doesn't care about an employee as they are only liabilities that the company must have in order to create profit.  What threatened regulations are you claiming makes banks unwilling to lend money?  

[guido911]

April 20th of this year in a thread about Tea Party Activists, I wrote, "I also think of myself as a good liberal and I really appreciated Bush's stance and actions on immigration. He tried to find ways to create jobs and get illegal citiizens paying into the system and become legal."

Your turn.

I applauded Obama's visit to Iraq shortly after his inauguration, I applauded his initial reaction to the AIG bonuses, his praise for Gen. when he passed, and that he donated his Nobel prize winnings to worthy charities. Your turn.

[RecycleMichael]

group hug

[Red Arrow]

If we were to (heaven forbid) lower taxes on businesses, we would do far more reduce unemployment, lower prices, increase profits, increase production, and spur additional enterprise than by increasing taxes.  When banks see businesses growing they want to be part of that.  They're not seeing any of that now.

But I thought inflation was good.  At least that is what is expressed here.  Aren't lower prices deflation?  You guys are confusing me.

[Red Arrow]

group hug

I think I'll pass.

[guido911]

131K jobs lost in July and nearly 90K more jobs lost than originally reported in June. I am unsure if those numbers were expected or not.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

If memory serves, the increase in jobless claims released yesterday was unexpected, though.

[Gaspar]

Actually "TurboTax" was interviewed the other day and said that unemployment was expected to rise unexpectedly.

[Gaspar]

. . .and Woop there it is.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week to the highest level since early April, highlighting a weak labor market and the fragile economic recovery.

[RecycleMichael]

I don't know why you guys feel so compelled to get your one-sided claims of the "sky is falling" posted here so regularly. You are obsessed with finding any claim of how the economy is tanking, obviously just so you can blame the democrat President.

I read a more balanced report on July jobs.

CNN said this...

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Two employment reports released early Wednesday gave a mixed picture, showing better-than-expected job growth in the private sector but continued weakness in government and non-profit payrolls.

Private-sector employers added jobs for the sixth month in a row in July, according to a report by payroll processing firm Automatic Data Processing (ADP). ADP said private-sector employers added 42,000 jobs to their payrolls during the month, following an upwardly revised 19,000 increase in June.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/04/news/economy/job_cuts_challenger/index.htm

Less government jobs (especially the 500,000 census workers being laid off) and more private sector jobs.

...you see and hear only what you want to see and hear...

[Gaspar]

I don't know why you guys feel so compelled to get your one-sided claims of the "sky is falling" posted here so regularly. You are obsessed with finding any claim of how the economy is tanking, obviously just so you can blame the democrat President.

I read a more balanced report on July jobs.

CNN said this...

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Two employment reports released early Wednesday gave a mixed picture, showing better-than-expected job growth in the private sector but continued weakness in government and non-profit payrolls.

Private-sector employers added jobs for the sixth month in a row in July, according to a report by payroll processing firm Automatic Data Processing (ADP). ADP said private-sector employers added 42,000 jobs to their payrolls during the month, following an upwardly revised 19,000 increase in June.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/04/news/economy/job_cuts_challenger/index.htm

Less government jobs (especially the 500,000 census workers being laid off) and more private sector jobs.

...you see and hear only what you want to see and hear...

It has nothing to do with unemployment, we expect that to get worse.

It's the use of the term "Unexpected" in every report.  All of the indicators are there, but the media feels compelled to insert the word "Unexpected."  It's just plain funny.

[Townsend]

It has nothing to do with unemployment, we expect that to get worse.

It's the use of the term "Unexpected" in every report.  All of the indicators are there, but the media feels compelled to insert the word "Unexpected."  It's just plain funny.

No, RM's correct.  It's why Guido posted it.