"Initial U.S. Jobless Claims Rise; Drop in Benefit Rolls Signals Turnaround"
"The average number of claims over the last four weeks fell to the lowest level in four months, an indication that the U.S. economy is stabilizing after the worst recession in fifty years." (Bloomberg article)
Who writes this trash? Stabilizing my ass. 150K more people falling off the backside of the Unemployment Check Wagon. They didn't go back to work - their checks just stopped & and they landed in "TransparencyLand"
.........thank goodness the veggies are coming in good.
CR - are there any stats that capture how many people just fell off the benefits roll without finding jobs? With 605K new claims, that drop suggests a lot more than 148K using up their benefits.
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 554,405 in the week ending June 13, a decrease of 26,791 from the previous week. There were 349,255 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008.
In 2008 349,255 was adjusted to 390,000 [1.11667]
In 2009 554,405 was adjusted to 608,000 [1.09667]
IF 2009 had used the same seasonal adjustment then the figure would have been 619,000.
Check out this comment someone left on Krugman's blog. Probably left by a disgruntled "Wright Model B" believer.
Dear Dr Krugman,
I was recently perusing your old articles, when I came upon this little gem, entitled ‘Dubya’s Double Dip?’ (August 2, 2002).
This part is especially prophetic, for all the wrong reasons:
“To fight the recession the Fed… needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble”
It’s nice to know that you were pushing for a housing bubble back in 2002. It must have seemed like a good idea at the time. Although unfortunately, it didn’t seem to work very well now, did it?
Don’t worry Dr Krugman, I’m sure most of your readers’ memories are too short for you to be too concerned about this little faux pas.
Krugman was apparently so pissed or embarassed at that comment that he wrote a blog entry stating that the 2002 article was analysis, not a recommendation. Whatever...
Why do you show the four-week moving average for the initial claims but not for the continuing claims?
The four-week moving average for continuing claims actually went up!
Saint Sebastian (died c. 288) was a Christian saint and martyr, who is said to have been killed during the Roman emperor Diocletian's persecution of Christians. He is commonly depicted in art and literature tied to a post and shot with arrows. Because of the strange nature of his martyrdom, he is often considered to have been martyred twice.
[T]he level of new claims is basically an indicator of the rate of change of employment
This makes sense, but how do you get a decline in continuing claims when the "rate of change" is still monstrously high?
Based on the rate of change analogy I would expect continuing claims to start falling once new claims fell below a certain level much closer to 300k than 600k..
Sebastian was a frequent contributor on this blog. He had a Pollyana view of the world looking through his rose colored glasses saying all was well as the Titanic was sinking around him.
He did finally confess that he was wrong and that we were indeed in a recession.
You mean they manipulate these numbers? Shocking, just shocking!
Seriously, you don't have to go back a year to see the games they are playing. I've been tracking the initial claims versus revisions since early March and on average they are underreporting the initial claims by 4000 each week once they revise higher the following week. For instance this week's 3K increase was really an 8K increase when you compare the initial over initial.
The delta between "continued" and "new" claims increases steadily after the early 1970s.
In other words, it looks like the economy has less and less ability to absorb laid-off workers into new jobs.
There must be something wrong with me. So far from finding anything reprehensible in Krugman's 2002 observation, it raises my estimation of his analysis.
I don't see evidence he did anything other than to observe what was being done - a useful exposure, particularly if anyone had taken proper note at the time. I didn't know 'til now he was early and right. Now I do.
they are underreporting the initial claims by 4000 each week
It may not be an explicit conspiracy. It's likely that their methodology assumes a linear change, i.e. it doesn't account for the feedback effects of debt levels, effects which increase layoffs.
@burnside - I must have missed Krugman's admonishment to the gov't to not go down that road, that it would lead to a bigger crash within five or six years. You'd think he would have warned them.
TARP, I love your posts. But this time I see no 'sin of commission'.
If you call a sin of omission, then fine. I still hold he properly identified the strategem and rightly called it a bubble. And I think the NYT commenter presumes a great deal.
I'm not a big fan of Krugman's current calls for ever larger stimulus packages, but I have to admit he sounded pretty prescient in that 2002 piece when I read it.
Particularly noted:
"Bear in mind that business forecasters are under enormous pressure to be cheerleaders: ''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com. We should never forget that Wall Street basically represents the sell side.
Bear in mind also that government officials have a stake in accentuating the positive. The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble."
Isn't this exactly what we all have been complaining about from the Fed, Treasury and MSM? Green shoots and all.
But I still think he's wrong with his current policy recommendations.
Quote from AP article on todays unemployment data
"But many economists want to see it fall further. Bruce Kasman, chief economist at JPMorgan Chase, said Tuesday that a drop in the four-week average to 580,000 by next month would be sufficient to declare the recession over." These people are nuts!
CR, I read about this in the WSJ, and as a testament to your blog, came over here to decipher what the numbers really meant.
The WSJ article has this in it:
"Including extended benefit and other federal programs, the total number of people collecting jobless benefits was almost 8.8 million in the May 30 week, up from about 8.5 million the previous week."
Any idea what this number is called/how this is reported? Does that mean the people on extended benefits are not included in the continuing claims number? This number seems more important than the headline number.
@burnside - I'm saying that Krugman advocates the bubble policies in his writings, then, as now, when he advocates the current bailout/stimulus policies. For him to claim he doesn't is bs. That doesn't make the bubbles are his fault.
I don't even have a problem with Keynesian theory. The problem I have is that the 'bad times' debt never gets paid off in the good times, as would be required for it to work. Other economic models have big flaws too.
Does that mean the people on extended benefits are not included in the continuing claims number?
That is correct. It makes sense, too, if we want to compare continuing claims over time, not to include temporary expansions of benefits in the headline number.
Some of you were wondering how many were simply dropping off the back end of their ordinary unemployment benefits. This might give a clue.
Well, yeah. We've noted that before but it bears repeating. In good times, you can't stop the party and in bad, you can't afford to. That's not really JMK, but it's done in his name. Poor guy should have lived much longer.
I see your point regarding the attitude behind recommending more stimulus, in fact will say you're right. Nonetheless, the comment in the Times was both wrong and mean-spirited.
Arizona's meteoric fall in personal income tax collection, combined with an anything goes gun policy ought to pay some interesting dividends, socially.
(Bruce Kasman, chief economist at JPMorgan Chase, said Tuesday that a drop in the four-week average to 580,000 by next month would be sufficient to declare the recession over.)
Analysts at JPM further announced that if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
@Yalt - except the extended benefits number doesn't capture those who drop off of the extended benefits roll.
That it's increasing by 300K while benefits went down by 148K is significant, though. Two million unemployed who would have no benefits without the extension.
"Arizona's meteoric fall in personal income tax collection, combined with an anything goes gun policy ought to pay some interesting dividends, socially."
Arizona -- new state motto: We take the Darwin Award competition seriously!
Think we'd better hope those unemployment figures get better and soon. How are states to pay their unemployed, their pensioners, and current employees on falling receipts?
Whoops! That is a nice start for the 10-year today. I wonder how long the lag is from the recent rinse in interest rates is from the time it will impact reported house prices. The non-conforming, jumbo, high end should be interesting.
In 2002, Krugman was advocating bubble-eCONomics. He's advocating the same policies today - senseless credit creation to perpetuate ponzi (non-economic) debt.
Krugman's response is tripe. Krugman type expansionary credit policies have impoverished the majority of Americans with debt. Most will never recover. Our economy was a mess in 2002 yet it is in far worse shape today.
Hey Krugman, when did you stop being wrong?
What should be done? Let non-economic debt fail. The sooner the better. The government can provide a safety net. I can accept higher taxes and government debt to help the needy, but never to bailout fraud and the wealthy.
"Think we'd better hope those unemployment figures get better and soon. How are states to pay their unemployed, their pensioners, and current employees on falling receipts?"
Easy!
FED Computer (FEDC): Hello there, what you want?
print money
FEDC: How much?
25 000 000 000
FEDC:Which state?
CA
FEDC:Better make it double
ok
start printing
FEDC: printing successful, 50 billion dollars sent to CA.
Juvenal Delinquent (profile) wrote on Thu, 6/18/2009 - 6:39 am
Arizona's meteoric fall in personal income tax collection, combined with an anything goes gun policy ought to pay some interesting dividends, socially.
There are those of us who contend Arizona's gun policy will ameliorate any social dysfunction. Or at least "contain" it.
Interesting seeing the state income tax numbers followed by the unemployment numbers. Makes you really think about how many people are underemployed in addition to unemployed. U6 is vaaaary scaaaary.
"What the figure [see Krugman's graph] suggests is that to stabilize employment, we’d have to see new claims drop below 400,000 or so."
...and Krugman thinks the best way to accomplish this is to raise taxes on those greedy, successful small businesses.
"That should do wonders for a state already mired in deficits, with a clown show to beat anything in Sacto going on in Albany."
They're working on a pretty impressive royal clusterfuck there -- no lt. gov to break ties in the Senate, and no clear majority party. Now we've got plummeting revenues - the only thing that's missing is natural disasters.
Gary,you are welcome.Paul Bombige is a realtor who specializes in that region and who has a good reputation.He will of course encourage anyone to buy now since he lives on commission,but he does know that market well.And no,dammit he won't give me kickback.
From the context it seems clearly to be analysis.
For it to be a recommendation Krugman would need to be advocating successive bubbles as a good thing to do economically, as opposed to a technical way of accomplishing the apparent goal of avoiding a recession at that time.
I think it is pretty clear that the Fed through the last decade started to manipulate the economy to avoid politically inconvenient recessions - seeking to postpone cyclic recessions in election years, or altogether during 2001-2009, when a long term strategy to permit mild short cyclic recessions might have averted the longer term damage.
Take back the trillions of $$$ given to the banks, who just sit on it and make it totally ineffective then start government incentive to create realistic industries that give employment and generate real productive income, some of which would hopefully be from exports.
Every other country, especially China and most of Europe have goverment incentives to protect it's industries. No matter what you call it it's a form of protectionism and its inevitable. We should stop being naive and take care of our own house. The only ones who win if we don't are the multinational corporations who don't care where they get their hand out.
Every other country, especially China and most of Europe have goverment incentives to protect it's industries. No matter what you call it it's a form of protectionism and its inevitable. We should stop being naive and take care of our own house. The only ones who win if we don't are the multinational corporations who don't care where they get their hand out.
hah!
Are there people who have been on Unemployment for 33 weeks and now simply drop out w/o finding a job ?
Gotta love Bloomberg - the drop in overall UE recipients is a green shoot.
How many of those 148,000 got new jobs, and how many have just used up all of their benefits.
When the U6 starts declining for, oh, 6 months straight, I'll believe in green shoots.
Remember also that "steady" employment is not zero but somewhere near +300k/mo to cover population growth.
"Initial U.S. Jobless Claims Rise; Drop in Benefit Rolls Signals Turnaround"
"The average number of claims over the last four weeks fell to the lowest level in four months, an indication that the U.S. economy is stabilizing after the worst recession in fifty years." (Bloomberg article)
Who writes this trash? Stabilizing my ass. 150K more people falling off the backside of the Unemployment Check Wagon. They didn't go back to work - their checks just stopped & and they landed in "TransparencyLand"
.........thank goodness the veggies are coming in good.
@Dawg - how many more jobs is that @ 31hrs/wk?
I'm also wondering if the continued claims drop is people falling off the rolls.
if the census just paid everyone to count themselves, we'd have full employment.
@Basel Too - kinda like the OER survey?
Indeed there is a lot of misinformation when it comes to unemployment.
I recently wrote an article about unemployment on Seeking Alpha. Check it out! The Case for Depression, Part 1: Unemployment -- Seeking Alpha
CR - are there any stats that capture how many people just fell off the benefits roll without finding jobs? With 605K new claims, that drop suggests a lot more than 148K using up their benefits.
I think Krugman needs to go to CR's school-of-clear-graph-making. That's one of the worst graphs I've ever seen published.
Cute:
UNADJUSTED DATA
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 554,405 in the week ending June 13, a decrease of 26,791 from the previous week. There were 349,255 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008.
In 2008 349,255 was adjusted to 390,000 [1.11667]
In 2009 554,405 was adjusted to 608,000 [1.09667]
IF 2009 had used the same seasonal adjustment then the figure would have been 619,000.
Like I said, cute.
Check out this comment someone left on Krugman's blog. Probably left by a disgruntled "Wright Model B" believer.
Dear Dr Krugman,
I was recently perusing your old articles, when I came upon this little gem, entitled ‘Dubya’s Double Dip?’ (August 2, 2002).
This part is especially prophetic, for all the wrong reasons:
“To fight the recession the Fed… needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble”
It’s nice to know that you were pushing for a housing bubble back in 2002. It must have seemed like a good idea at the time. Although unfortunately, it didn’t seem to work very well now, did it?
Don’t worry Dr Krugman, I’m sure most of your readers’ memories are too short for you to be too concerned about this little faux pas.
— Sebastian
This doesn't sound good. Farm Aid Concerts coming back?
North Platte Nebraska's favorite newspaper - The North Platte Bulletin
CR -
the graph for the previous post is missing data for South Dakota. Maybe not worth doing anything about at this point though.
Krugman was apparently so pissed or embarassed at that comment that he wrote a blog entry stating that the 2002 article was analysis, not a recommendation. Whatever...
Gotta start somewhere.....and agreed on Krugman's chart - CR should tutor....
Alright. Fess up. Who put the Sebastian comment on Krugman's blog?
Thanks for saving it Angry Saver. I bet it doesn't stay up.
Why do you show the four-week moving average for the initial claims but not for the continuing claims?
The four-week moving average for continuing claims actually went up!
Who is/was Sebastian?
Didn't they do a PBS documentary on Sebastian?
Who is/was Sebastian?
Saint Sebastian (died c. 288) was a Christian saint and martyr, who is said to have been killed during the Roman emperor Diocletian's persecution of Christians. He is commonly depicted in art and literature tied to a post and shot with arrows. Because of the strange nature of his martyrdom, he is often considered to have been martyred twice.
Comrade Dazed and Amused, I'll probably redo Krugman's graph ... I think it is interesting.
Angry Saver, Krugman responded to that
And I was on the grassy knoll, too - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
bbartlog, I didn't notice South Dakota wasn't in the report ... probably "no data"
best to all
ga just posted 9.7 highest ever
[T]he level of new claims is basically an indicator of the rate of change of employment
This makes sense, but how do you get a decline in continuing claims when the "rate of change" is still monstrously high?
Based on the rate of change analogy I would expect continuing claims to start falling once new claims fell below a certain level much closer to 300k than 600k..
Sebastian was a frequent contributor on this blog. He had a Pollyana view of the world looking through his rose colored glasses saying all was well as the Titanic was sinking around him.
He did finally confess that he was wrong and that we were indeed in a recession.
BTW, just looking at the graph it doesn't look to me like initial claims is really the rate of change of continued claims.
"He did finally confess that he was wrong and that we were indeed in a recession."
Does he qualify as the first CR martyr?
Dawg,the goobermint improved their methodology to reflect a smiley face.Simple.
Dawg,
You mean they manipulate these numbers? Shocking, just shocking!
Seriously, you don't have to go back a year to see the games they are playing. I've been tracking the initial claims versus revisions since early March and on average they are underreporting the initial claims by 4000 each week once they revise higher the following week. For instance this week's 3K increase was really an 8K increase when you compare the initial over initial.
The delta between "continued" and "new" claims increases steadily after the early 1970s.
In other words, it looks like the economy has less and less ability to absorb laid-off workers into new jobs.
There must be something wrong with me. So far from finding anything reprehensible in Krugman's 2002 observation, it raises my estimation of his analysis.
I don't see evidence he did anything other than to observe what was being done - a useful exposure, particularly if anyone had taken proper note at the time. I didn't know 'til now he was early and right. Now I do.
broward - +1
Maybe we're going to replace the 'jobless recovery' with the 'less jobs recovery'
they are underreporting the initial claims by 4000 each week
It may not be an explicit conspiracy. It's likely that their methodology assumes a linear change, i.e. it doesn't account for the feedback effects of debt levels, effects which increase layoffs.
Expected Returns nailed it in his linked article above. It revolves around their Birth/Death Model. Like broward sez--methodology.
@burnside - I must have missed Krugman's admonishment to the gov't to not go down that road, that it would lead to a bigger crash within five or six years. You'd think he would have warned them.
Krugman may have been over rating the intelligence of his audience.
BHO Promised to save only 6 million so jobs... the other 50 million jobs are on their own.
the birth-death model isn't applied to the weekly report, is it?
TARP, I love your posts. But this time I see no 'sin of commission'.
If you call a sin of omission, then fine. I still hold he properly identified the strategem and rightly called it a bubble. And I think the NYT commenter presumes a great deal.
only in California:
L.A. County officials offer a novel idea to save millions -- latimes.com
I'm not a big fan of Krugman's current calls for ever larger stimulus packages, but I have to admit he sounded pretty prescient in that 2002 piece when I read it.
Particularly noted:
"Bear in mind that business forecasters are under enormous pressure to be cheerleaders: ''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com. We should never forget that Wall Street basically represents the sell side.
Bear in mind also that government officials have a stake in accentuating the positive. The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble."
Isn't this exactly what we all have been complaining about from the Fed, Treasury and MSM? Green shoots and all.
But I still think he's wrong with his current policy recommendations.
Quote from AP article on todays unemployment data
"But many economists want to see it fall further. Bruce Kasman, chief economist at JPMorgan Chase, said Tuesday that a drop in the four-week average to 580,000 by next month would be sufficient to declare the recession over." These people are nuts!
CR, I read about this in the WSJ, and as a testament to your blog, came over here to decipher what the numbers really meant.
The WSJ article has this in it:
"Including extended benefit and other federal programs, the total number of people collecting jobless benefits was almost 8.8 million in the May 30 week, up from about 8.5 million the previous week."
Any idea what this number is called/how this is reported? Does that mean the people on extended benefits are not included in the continuing claims number? This number seems more important than the headline number.
Thanks
gfi.
Maybe we're going to replace the 'jobless recovery' with the 'less jobs recovery'
My money's still on the 'jobless non-recovery'.
And I rewrote the definition of TARP.
I re-read "The Devil's Dictionary" last night and was feeling particularly snarky.
Anyone know how often TrimTabs releases its estimates on unemployment?
@burnside - I'm saying that Krugman advocates the bubble policies in his writings, then, as now, when he advocates the current bailout/stimulus policies. For him to claim he doesn't is bs. That doesn't make the bubbles are his fault.
I don't even have a problem with Keynesian theory. The problem I have is that the 'bad times' debt never gets paid off in the good times, as would be required for it to work. Other economic models have big flaws too.
the jobless recovery should be the not gonna buy anything recovery too.
Does that mean the people on extended benefits are not included in the continuing claims number?
That is correct. It makes sense, too, if we want to compare continuing claims over time, not to include temporary expansions of benefits in the headline number.
Some of you were wondering how many were simply dropping off the back end of their ordinary unemployment benefits. This might give a clue.
Well, yeah. We've noted that before but it bears repeating. In good times, you can't stop the party and in bad, you can't afford to. That's not really JMK, but it's done in his name. Poor guy should have lived much longer.
I see your point regarding the attitude behind recommending more stimulus, in fact will say you're right. Nonetheless, the comment in the Times was both wrong and mean-spirited.
If you put the state income tax drop chart with unemployment figures, what do you get?
Allot more unemployed than are accounted for.
The income tax drop also accounts for lower wages and fewer hours worked. So those people are employed, but not making ends meet.
Recession is over and we'll get a mini jump upwards. Few months from now the real Depression starts...
Arizona's meteoric fall in personal income tax collection, combined with an anything goes gun policy ought to pay some interesting dividends, socially.
(Bruce Kasman, chief economist at JPMorgan Chase, said Tuesday that a drop in the four-week average to 580,000 by next month would be sufficient to declare the recession over.)
Analysts at JPM further announced that if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
@Yalt - except the extended benefits number doesn't capture those who drop off of the extended benefits roll.
That it's increasing by 300K while benefits went down by 148K is significant, though. Two million unemployed who would have no benefits without the extension.
Dodd needs to crawl back under the rock from which he came.... Whats his mortgage rate again? 2.25%? Loser....
"Arizona's meteoric fall in personal income tax collection, combined with an anything goes gun policy ought to pay some interesting dividends, socially."
Arizona -- new state motto: We take the Darwin Award competition seriously!
Ten bucks says he's getting paid to hold up the The Washington Post... whore....
Think we'd better hope those unemployment figures get better and soon. How are states to pay their unemployed, their pensioners, and current employees on falling receipts?
he's getting paid to hold up the The Washington Post..
Arizona social dividends already kicking in!
@burnside - agreed - there's no need for the venom over differences of opinion on economics.
watch GE...already down 6% or so...
Ciao
MS
Yalt and TARP,
Where are you guys getting the extended benefit data? That is is growing more than continuing claims are dropping does seem significant.
The BoE just announced its going to provide more capital to its financial system and still the Pound is up a point and a quarter... Odd....
I have a friend in California that likes to drive to Arizona so he can strap one on...
Whoops! That is a nice start for the 10-year today. I wonder how long the lag is from the recent rinse in interest rates is from the time it will impact reported house prices. The non-conforming, jumbo, high end should be interesting.
CR,
In 2002, Krugman was advocating bubble-eCONomics. He's advocating the same policies today - senseless credit creation to perpetuate ponzi (non-economic) debt.
Krugman's response is tripe. Krugman type expansionary credit policies have impoverished the majority of Americans with debt. Most will never recover. Our economy was a mess in 2002 yet it is in far worse shape today.
Hey Krugman, when did you stop being wrong?
What should be done? Let non-economic debt fail. The sooner the better. The government can provide a safety net. I can accept higher taxes and government debt to help the needy, but never to bailout fraud and the wealthy.
Ponzi debt must end.
Did the FED quit buying the 10 year today?
PPIP hurrah?
"Think we'd better hope those unemployment figures get better and soon. How are states to pay their unemployed, their pensioners, and current employees on falling receipts?"
Easy!
FED Computer (FEDC): Hello there, what you want?
Am I reading this right? Are approximately 600-650k people losing their jobs per week???
Juvenal Delinquent (profile) wrote on Thu, 6/18/2009 - 6:39 am
Arizona's meteoric fall in personal income tax collection, combined with an anything goes gun policy ought to pay some interesting dividends, socially.
There are those of us who contend Arizona's gun policy will ameliorate any social dysfunction. Or at least "contain" it.
Did the FED quit buying the 10 year today?
No, the Chinese did.
"33 Weeks Later"
Go ahead Hollywood, steal the title. It's a slasher flick-horror story economically with no more benefits in sight, or jobs.
The night of the living debt come to life...
@Chainsaw - WSJ via ghostfaceinvestah
nades - isn't the pound down $0.0113?
From Bloomberg home page:
Breaking News
•Initial U.S. Jobless Claims Rise; Drop in Benefit Rolls Signals Turnaround
Scratch another MSM outlet. Did Obama invite them to dinner too?
@JD - don't forget they'll be able to have the extended benefits sequel.
Interesting seeing the state income tax numbers followed by the unemployment numbers. Makes you really think about how many people are underemployed in addition to unemployed. U6 is vaaaary scaaaary.
"...there are indications that the severest phase of the recession is over..."
- Harvard Economic Society (HES) Jan 18, 1930
(404 Not Found
"What the figure [see Krugman's graph] suggests is that to stabilize employment, we’d have to see new claims drop below 400,000 or so."
...and Krugman thinks the best way to accomplish this is to raise taxes on those greedy, successful small businesses.
TARP - I'm a knucklhead... I read it wrong... it was GBP - USD not vise versa... Good call... thanks...
I have a friend in California that likes to drive to Arizona so he can strap one on...
Strap one on? Okeeedokee. Maybe tie one on?
Am I reading this right?
Hudson: 9 meters, 7, 6.
Ripley: That can't be, that's inside the room.
Hudson: It's reading right man, look.
Juvenal,I thought for a moment that was a post by Broward.
I have a friend in California that likes to drive to Arizona so he can strap one on...
Strap one on? Okeeedokee. Maybe tie one on?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some steely dans are of the high velocity type...
@nades - it'll probably be up by the end of the day. Give the PPT time to get going. They party late, so morning starts at about noon.
Is this morning's bond play so far all about the rollover?
nice little bear trap there...on GE at least...
Ciao
MS
It's great to see that the jobless claims seem to have stabilized. Perfect timing for the coming cutbacks in state, county, and municipal workers.
Is this morning's bond play so far all about the rollover?
Marketwatch saying bonds are selling off because of drop in continuing claims.
Is this guy Jas's cousin?
Investor Daily: Reassessing inflation fears - Jun. 18, 2009
.....
Mish has a nice post on falling personal income tax revenues....
"55.9% of New York's Tax Revenue from PIT. Collections off 31.8%"
That should do wonders for a state already mired in deficits, with a clown show to beat anything in Sacto going on in Albany.
@MLM - bond investors must be doing green shots to see green shoots there.
The dole and a bread line ... it's only a matter of time and formalities (a clever name, for example) for the American Idle.
Tom Stone, thank you for the message re: Russian River Valley.
"That should do wonders for a state already mired in deficits, with a clown show to beat anything in Sacto going on in Albany."
They're working on a pretty impressive royal clusterfuck there -- no lt. gov to break ties in the Senate, and no clear majority party. Now we've got plummeting revenues - the only thing that's missing is natural disasters.
Gary,you are welcome.Paul Bombige is a realtor who specializes in that region and who has a good reputation.He will of course encourage anyone to buy now since he lives on commission,but he does know that market well.And no,dammit he won't give me kickback.
From the context it seems clearly to be analysis.
For it to be a recommendation Krugman would need to be advocating successive bubbles as a good thing to do economically, as opposed to a technical way of accomplishing the apparent goal of avoiding a recession at that time.
I think it is pretty clear that the Fed through the last decade started to manipulate the economy to avoid politically inconvenient recessions - seeking to postpone cyclic recessions in election years, or altogether during 2001-2009, when a long term strategy to permit mild short cyclic recessions might have averted the longer term damage.
Take back the trillions of $$$ given to the banks, who just sit on it and make it totally ineffective then start government incentive to create realistic industries that give employment and generate real productive income, some of which would hopefully be from exports.
Every other country, especially China and most of Europe have goverment incentives to protect it's industries. No matter what you call it it's a form of protectionism and its inevitable. We should stop being naive and take care of our own house. The only ones who win if we don't are the multinational corporations who don't care where they get their hand out.
good articles: Financial Opinions Updated Daily iamned.com
agree completely
Every other country, especially China and most of Europe have goverment incentives to protect it's industries. No matter what you call it it's a form of protectionism and its inevitable. We should stop being naive and take care of our own house. The only ones who win if we don't are the multinational corporations who don't care where they get their hand out.