"The private sector is doing fine."

[Travis]

Originally Posted by ravdin

My favorite proposal to date is for the US Treasury to issue $852 quadrillion in bonds to build the Death Star. If we want to create 100% employment, why not do it in style?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/modest...ial-death-star

I'm sold.

I bet Lockheed Martin already has a prototype even.

[Cain]

Looking over the past fifty years, I'd have to say Obama's presidency has been the most recent...

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Cain

Looking over the past fifty years, I'd have to say Obama's presidency has been the most recent.

Your post is not the most recent.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

So, tell me, what exactly makes Alito or Roberts centrists?

You're right. I guess they are not centrists.

[RandFan]

The IEA report on fracking paints a pretty good picture and claims the risks are quite manageable but require oversight.

ETA: I would very much like to see a response by those in opposition to fracking but the report looks pretty good for fracking for a number of reasons including climate change.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by RandFan

The IEA report on fracking paints a pretty good picture and claims the risks are quite manageable but require oversight.

Exactly. It's like any other sort of extractive resource. There are side effects, and you have to manage them.

I am MUCH happier with fracking for pertroleum and gas than I am with mountain range removal for coal.

On the latter subject; I am QUITE certain I could design you a robotic system for extracting the 8" thick seams of coal they take down whole mountains for without taking down the mountains.

[maxpower1227]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Continuing this odd derail, Sotomayor was not imo a top tier candidate either, yet Republicans on the Judiciary Committee rolled over like whipped dogs instead of going into difficult questions for her.

Should she recuse herself from ACA deliberations (she was a white house connected attorney giving legal opinions on it) or join in a 6-3 unconstitutional decision I'll apologise for this comment.

I'm pretty sure you mean to refer to Kagan here.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Should she recuse herself from ACA deliberations (she was a white house connected attorney giving legal opinions on it) or join in a 6-3 unconstitutional decision I'll apologise for this comment.

And do you similarly call for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself on this case?

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Continuing this odd derail, Sotomayor Kagan was not imo a top tier candidate either, yet Republicans on the Judiciary Committee rolled over like whipped dogs instead of going into difficult questions for her.

Should she recuse herself from ACA deliberations (she was a white house connected attorney giving legal opinions on it) or join in a 6-3 unconstitutional decision I'll apologise for this comment.

I fear another Obama appointment unless the senate grows some balls to challenge.

On topic, no, the private economy is not doing fine, nor is the economy at less than 2%/yr GDP growth. It may work as a sop to unionistas; I hope not.

ftfm.

Neither do I like Sotomayor.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by maxpower1227

I'm pretty sure you mean to refer to Kagan here.

I did. Thank you.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

And do you similarly call for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself on this case?

Nope. Why should I?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Nope. Why should I?

To show that you're applying some sort of consistent principle and not just making a partisan plea.

Thomas' wife has been at least as involved in opposing the ACA as Kagan was in supporting it. If you were legitimately concerned about eliminating political bias, you would be demanding Thomas' recusal as well.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by AlBell

On topic, no, the private economy is not doing fine, nor is the economy at less than 2%/yr GDP growth.

Again "private sector" is not the equivalent of "the economy".

And I have no idea what you mean by "the private economy". The private sector is a part of the U.S. economy. ( There aren't several separate "economies".) And the private sector is doing fine (in the context of adding jobs*). It's got everything it needs already by way of incentives to invest and expand.

In fact the only condition that might be hampering further expansion within the private sector is uncertainty wrt government issues (the budget, the debt ceiling, etc.) In other words, the only other thing that could help the private sector is to resolve public sector issues.

*And this most definitely was the context of Obama's remarks. Here are several excerpts:

Quote:

"Keep in mind that the private sector has been hiring at a solid pace over the last 27 months. But one of the biggest weaknesses has been state and local governments, which have laid off 450,000 Americans. These are teachers and cops and firefighters. Congress should pass a bill putting them back to work right now, giving help to the states so that those layoffs are not occurring.

"In addition, since the housing bubble burst, we've got more than a million construction workers out of work. There's nothing fiscally responsible about waiting to fix your roof until it caves in. We've got a lot of deferred maintenance in this country. We could be putting a lot of people back to work rebuilding our roads, our bridges, some of ours schools.

"There's work to be done. There are workers to do it. Let's put them back to work right now. The housing market is stabilizing and beginning to come back in many parts of the country, but there are still millions of responsible homeowners who've done everything right, but still struggle to make ends meet. So, as I talked about just a few weeks ago, let's pass a bill that gives them a chance to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing their mortgage and taking advantage of these historically low rates. That's something we can do right now that would make a difference.

"Instead of just talking a good game about job creators, Congress should give the small-business owners that actually create most of the new jobs in America a tax break for hiring more workers.

"These are ideas that, again, have gotten strong validation from independent, nonpartisan economists. It would make a difference in our economy. And there's no excuse for not passing these ideas. We know they can work."

"The truth of the matter is that, as I said we've created 4.3 million jobs over the last two -- 27 months; over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine.

"Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government, oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.

"And so, you know, if -- if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry.

But feel free to join with Romney in purposely misconstruing the meaning of Obama's statement by stripping it of this context and pretend he meant something he clearly and obviously did not.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...or-doing-fine/

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Again "private sector" is not the equivalent of "the economy".
...

His argument disappears if he agrees with you, though.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

His argument disappears if he agrees with you, though.

The accounting fiction that govt expenditures add to GDP is imo a joke, since in fact that is a decline. What wealth does the govt add?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by AlBell

The accounting fiction that govt expenditures add to GDP is imo a joke, since in fact that is a decline.

You think government jobs are a fiction?

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

You think government jobs are a fiction?

I think govt payroll is too big.

Fiction? No, but what wealth do they create?

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by AlBell

I think govt payroll is too big.

Fiction? No, but what wealth do they create?

They create all of it by keeping the country running.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AlBell

I think govt payroll is too big.

Fiction? No, but what wealth do they create?

As I've said before, this a silly argument. As an auditor and finance programmor I've often heard CEOs say things like, "but the accounting department does not generate a dime of revenue". But none ever get rid of the accounting departments. If you can figure out why every medium to large business has an accounting department in spite of the cost of labor and in spite of the fact that accounting does not generate revenue then you will understand why govt is important (or you could move to Somalia).

Government should be adequate to meet the needs of citizens and businesses. Just asserting that you think payroll is too much doesn't advance the discussion.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally Posted by RandFan

As I've said before, this a silly argument. As an auditor and finance programmor I've often heard CEOs say things like, "but the accounting department does not generate a dime of revenue". But none ever get rid of the accounting departments. Government should be adequate to meet the needs of citizens and businesses. Just asserting that you think payroll is too much doesn't advance the discussion.

Maybe we could privatize elections?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by AlBell

I think govt payroll is too big.

Too big for what? Do you think Obama is "out of touch" with laid off public sector employees?

Quote:

Fiction?

It was your word. Doesn't bother me if you have no interest in defending it.

Quote:

No, but what wealth do they create?

What are you talking about?

Obama was talking about jobs.

Now you're claiming that government payroll shouldn't count into GDP. Why not? GDP is a measure of all goods and services produced within a country.

Are you now claiming that the public sector is not part of the economy? That seems as indefensible as your "fiction" claim.

ETA: So let's get to specifics. Would you exclude municipal garbage collection from GDP? Public school teacher salaries? Police officers? Judges' pay? Medical goods and services paid for by Medicare, Medicaid or even the VA? Military contracts?

And why? Repeating your silly question, "What wealth do they create?" is not an answer. It doesn't say at all why you think these services should be excluded from GDP. And none of this defends your absurd position that Obama's remark about the private sector is somehow inconsistent with a recognition that the economy is still in trouble.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by RandFan

The IEA report on fracking paints a pretty good picture and claims the risks are quite manageable but require oversight.

ETA: I would very much like to see a response by those in opposition to fracking but the report looks pretty good for fracking for a number of reasons including climate change.

“If this new industry is to prosper, it needs to earn and maintain its social license to operate,” said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, the report’s chief author. “This comes with a financial cost, but in our estimation the additional costs are likely to be limited.”

For a bit of perspective on this pretty good picture, let's have a fresh look at a picture that report's same author recently painted depicting the situation with regard to another important energy source, crude oil:

"When we look at the oil markets the news is not very bright. We think that the crude oil production has already peaked in 2006".
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3201781.htm

Sure, there's lots of natural gas. Good thing, too, because it drives the turbines that provide roughly a fourth of our electricity, as well as providing the feedstock for most of the nitrogen fertilizers upon which so much of our food supply depends. As a transportation fuel, it's not as efficient as oil-derived liquid fuels, but it starts looking better and better as those get more expensive, so there definitely will continue to be a future in extracting and selling it. But I think anyone anticipating continued economic growth driven by the ushering in of a "Golden Age of Gas" is going to be bitterly disappointed.

The thing about Golden Ages is that most of the gold ends up in the hands of a select few -- a select few who may reasonably be said to be "doing fine", even though many of the rest are struggling to make ends meet.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

“If this new industry is to prosper, it needs to earn and maintain its social license to operate,” said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, the report’s chief author. “This comes with a financial cost, but in our estimation the additional costs are likely to be limited.”

For a bit of perspective on this pretty good picture, let's have a fresh look at a picture that report's same author recently painted depicting the situation with regard to another important energy source, crude oil:

"When we look at the oil markets the news is not very bright. We think that the crude oil production has already peaked in 2006".
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3201781.htm

Sure, there's lots of natural gas. Good thing, too, because it drives the turbines that provide roughly a fourth of our electricity, as well as providing the feedstock for most of the nitrogen fertilizers upon which so much of our food supply depends. As a transportation fuel, it's not as efficient as oil-derived liquid fuels, but it starts looking better and better as those get more expensive, so there definitely will continue to be a future in extracting and selling it. But I think anyone anticipating continued economic growth driven by the ushering in of a "Golden Age of Gas" is going to be bitterly disappointed.

The thing about Golden Ages is that most of the gold ends up in the hands of a select few -- a select few who may reasonably be said to be "doing fine", even though many of the rest are struggling to make ends meet.

As has always been the case. The worry is without nat gas to run turbines, will most of us be doing so with no electricity in the grid? The "Green Dream".

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Now you're claiming that government payroll shouldn't count into GDP. Why not? GDP is a measure of all goods and services produced within a country.

Are you now claiming that the public sector is not part of the economy? That seems as indefensible as your "fiction" claim.

GOP meme. Seems that govt employees TAKE money out of the system and provide no services whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Bill Maher Show

(referring to a woman who has a govt job)

FOREMAN: What Ann means, she's not a revenue producer. She’s not a revenue producer.


COULTER: Right. She’s a revenue taker.


FOREMAN: No, she’s gainfully employed, but she’s not a revenue producer.


COULTER: No, it's worse than not having a job, having a government job, because you have somebody doing something nobody wants, taxpayers pay for it, and they can never get rid of them.

This is where this BS bubbles up from. Idiots like Coulter haven't the intelligence to understand the correlation between high functioning govts in prosperous nations and dysfunctional ones like Somalia. And what about her precious military? Are those jobs no one wants?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by RandFan

GOP meme. Seems that govt employees TAKE money out of the system and provide no services whatsoever.

And presumably, government employees (which BTW do not comprise the total of the public sector) spend or invest none of their pay in the U.S., but send 100% of directly to their Cayman Island accounts.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by AlBell

As has always been the case. The worry is without nat gas to run turbines, will most of us be doing so with no electricity in the grid? The "Green Dream".

I really don't see that as the worry at all, and I certainly would not be so quick to assume that eliminating the use of natural gas in electricity generation is part of anybody's "green dream", considering that a much greater portion still comes from an even dirtier source (coal). The "dream" -- the fantasy -- is that any energy source has the potential to permit a continuation of the automobile-centric lifestyles and oil-powered economic growth of the previous 50 years. Elements within "the private sector", painfully aware of this, are now vacuuming up the last of the oil-driven wealth, because they plan to continue doing fine regardless of what happens to the rest of us.

[shuize]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I've already explained it to you. When he said that the private sector was fine he meant that the recovery for the private sector was going well. Now, that works either alone or with the other statement. I'm really not sure why that is so difficult to understand.

Even if Obama was trying to distinguish between the "private sector recovery" and "overall economic recovery," I still do not see how someone can logically relegate the private sector to such a minor role in the economy to be able to say "the private sector is doing fine" but "it is absolutely clear the 'economy' is not doing fine."

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by shuize

Even if Obama was trying to distinguish between the "private sector recovery" and "overall economic recovery," I still do not see how someone can logically relegate the private sector to such a minor role in the economy to be able to say "the private sector is doing fine" but "it is absolutely clear the 'economy' is not doing fine."

It's jut not all that difficult. I've made it as crystal clear as I can. He didn't relegate the private sector to a minor role in the economy. The recovery of the private sector could be good but the overall economy not fine. Perfectly logical.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

The recovery of the private sector could be good but the overall economy not fine. Perfectly logical.

Yes, it's logically possible, it's just not true. The private sector of the economy is still suffering badly. Worse than the public sector, as those sector-specific unemployment numbers I posted before indicate.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yes, it's logically possible, it's just not true. The private sector of the economy is still suffering badly. Worse than the public sector, as those sector-specific unemployment numbers I posted before indicate.

No, it's not. The entire effect you see would go away if government resumed it's activity.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yes, it's logically possible, it's just not true. The private sector of the economy is still suffering badly. Worse than the public sector, as those sector-specific unemployment numbers I posted before indicate.

Naturally, you're going to get a different picture if you use unemployment numbers rather than what the President was obviously talking about: record corporate profits and CEO pay (not to mention the nifty tax breaks the wealthiest Americans are still enjoying). It is beyond ludicrous to attempt to mischaracterize the President's statement as him saying that he sees all of the poor slobs who do the actual work involved in creating all of that wealth as "doing fine". Everything he has said and done since he took office -- or attempted to do, with Republicans stubbornly obstructing those efforts every inch of the way -- indicates that he is acutely aware that the American worker is not "doing fine".

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

No, it's not. The entire effect you see would go away if government resumed it's activity.

Uh, no. No, it wouldn't. Government spending is very high right now, government unemployment is very low. Government doesn't need to resume doing anything, because it's still doing as much of that as before the recession.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

Naturally, you're going to get a different picture if you use unemployment numbers rather than what the President was obviously talking about: record corporate profits and CEO pay

CEO pay is a red herring. It's a drop in the economic bucket, and the only purpose of raising it here is to engage in class warfare rhetoric. The only people who should care about CEO pay are the shareholders of the company in question. And corporate profits rise when you stop reinvesting that money.

Quote:

(not to mention the nifty tax breaks the wealthiest Americans are still enjoying).

Since when are tax breaks a measure of economic health? This is a complete non-sequitor.

Quote:

It is beyond ludicrous to attempt to mischaracterize the President's statement as him saying that he sees all of the poor slobs who do the actual work involved in creating all of that wealth as "doing fine". Everything he has said and done since he took office -- or attempted to do, with Republicans stubbornly obstructing those efforts every inch of the way -- indicates that he is acutely aware that the American worker is not "doing fine".

Those workers are part of the private sector. So by your own standard, the president misspoke. You really can't keep your own story straight.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Government spending is very high right now...

I hope you're not referring to the "Obama spending spree" -- the one that isn't actually happening, with annualized growth of federal spending rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower administration.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yes, it's logically possible, it's just not true. The private sector of the economy is still suffering badly. Worse than the public sector, as those sector-specific unemployment numbers I posted before indicate.

But again, read Obama's remarks. The context was job creation. The private sector is adding jobs, and they have all they need to create more. (I'm not sure what figures you're talking about, but the private sector is adding jobs and the public sector is still losing them. See the chart here.)

What more would you do for them? Cut taxes on the "job creators" still further? Make money even cheaper?

Again, the only thing they need is some stability and predictability wrt issues the government faces (debt ceiling, federal budget, etc.)

Romney was entirely wrong to pretend Obama's remarks meant that the economy is doing fine. Obama even pointed out that his recognition that the economy is not doing fine is the very reason he had the press conference.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And corporate profits rise when you stop reinvesting that money.

Good point. It has been said that elements within "the private sector" are now vacuuming up the last of the oil-driven wealth, because they plan to continue doing fine regardless of what happens to the rest of us.

Quote:

Since when are tax breaks a measure of economic health?

When you're one of the wealthy private sector individuals enjoying those tax breaks.

Quote:

Those workers are part of the private sector.

And if the President considered them to be "doing fine", does it not fly in the face of all logic that he would be pressing so hard against the GOP resistance to his jobs plan? Around here, the "strawman" is considered one of the weakest forms of argument: argue against a mischaracterization of the opposing position rather than against the actual opposing position. Republicans have refined this into an art form, and since we do not reside in a nation of skeptics, it's often quite effective.

What I don't understand is how it gets traction with someone who, by participating in an online discussion forum dedicated to critical thinking and skepticism in general, implicitly declares himself to be a critical thinker. Either you are just pretending to accept the GOP story on this or you are just pretending to be a critical thinker. Which is it?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by shuize

Even if Obama was trying to distinguish between the "private sector recovery" and "overall economic recovery," I still do not see how someone can logically relegate the private sector to such a minor role in the economy to be able to say "the private sector is doing fine" but "it is absolutely clear the 'economy' is not doing fine."

Again, the context of Obama's remarks was job creation.

How is this relegating the private sector to a minor role?

Imagine a patient recovering from a severe trauma (say a double leg amputation). If the doctor notes that his heart is doing fine (but he's really concerned about the infection at the wound site that just hasn't been responding well to treatment so far, and which could lead to a systemic infection), does it follow that the doctor thinks the heart has a minor role in the patient's health?

Further, does it follow that the doctor thinks the patient's heart is strong enough for him to strap on prosthetics and run a marathon tomorrow?

Noting that the private sector is adding jobs in the recovery at a decent rate while the public sector is holding the recovery back is a perfectly reasonable observation. It shows us where our attention should be focused. More than anything, we need Congress to pass a compromise federal budget (preferably a multi-year plan that will address the long term debt crisis in such a way that we don't have the specter of government shut-down every year as part of budget negotiations).

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Uh, no. No, it wouldn't. Government spending is very high right now, government unemployment is very low. Government doesn't need to resume doing anything, because it's still doing as much of that as before the recession.

You forgot all those jobs. You always discount knock-on effects, and as somebody who actually did study economics at the University of Chicago, I can state unequivocally that is a dishonest exclusion.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

When you're one of the wealthy private sector individuals enjoying those tax breaks.

That might be relevant if your position is that wealthy individuals are the only part (or even the largest part) of the private sector. But since that's not the case, your point is irrelevant.

Quote:

And if the President considered them to be "doing fine", does it not fly in the face of all logic that he would be pressing so hard against the GOP resistance to his jobs plan?

I've never claimed to know what the President actually thinks. Nor do I particularly care. What he said was wrong. I'm not of the opinion that it's a huge deal (politicians make gaffes, it's seemingly unavoidable), but it's strange to see people trying desperately to defend what Obama himself already disowned.

Quote:

Around here, the "strawman" is considered one of the weakest forms of argument

Quote:

What I don't understand is how it gets traction with someone who, by participating in an online discussion forum dedicated to critical thinking and skepticism in general, implicitly declares himself to be a critical thinker. Either you are just pretending to accept the GOP story on this or you are just pretending to be a critical thinker. Which is it?

Your posts have not been coherent enough for me to even know what you think the "GOP story" is. But I do know that you've been avoiding addressing what I've actually been saying.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

You always discount knock-on effects

Oh, you mean the effects of public spending on the private sector? Is that the knock-on effects you're talking about? So in other words, public spending is high and public unemployment is low, but if we spent more then we could help the private sector through "knock-on" effects. But why would we need to do that, unless the private sector wasn't doing well?

You do realize that you're arguing that Obama was wrong, don't you?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

I hope you're not referring to the "Obama spending spree" -- the one that isn't actually happening, with annualized growth of federal spending rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower administration.

That "statistic" is crap. It involves severe mischaracterizations of a whole bunch of spending to attribute growth Obama is responsible for to Bush. But even lying with statistics, you can only claim that growth in spending, and not actual spending itself, is low, and that only because it attributes so much growth to Bush in 2009.