Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
This isn't addressed to you so much as to Ty (and partially to AG, whose response seems to put him in with Ty), but, hey guys, do you not understand that unemployment is termed a trailing indicator for a reason?

The very last thing you do when adding capacity is adding body count.

Sort of my point. The data isn't so much important for how it portends to unemployment, but is important for purposes of the market and, in turn, future expansion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sort of my point. The data isn't so much important for how it portends to unemployment, but is important for purposes of the market and, in turn, future expansion.

It's kinda important to the people who are looking for work right now, and are more interested in working now than they are in the prospects for future expansion. For those people, it's not a question of what it "portends" for unemployment, but for whether they are working right now.

This is not rocket science.

At the risk of being flip, your view is a little like saying that a decline in a city's murder rate is good because it's the sort of thing that increases property values, which leads to a reduction in crime.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Read the last line of the article. The secret service does not think this is a big deal. My guess is that some reporter looking to creat a story took the lyric to the SS and asked for a quote.

I agree with your second sentence, but the third is going too far. The SS said that they were aware of the lyric and determining what, if any, action to take. But whatever. Maybe two reporters worked in concert to elicit the response -- one tipped them off to the lyrics a week ago, and then a buddy called to ask what the deal was. Maybe Tipper was monitoring lyrics and tipped off the SS.

It is amusing to call them the SS, no? Actually, the dad of a friend of mine when I was a kid was SS. I think I maybe was not supposed to know that, but who knows.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
its not crazy Larry. I'm subject to hyperbole. Mea culpa!
I think political promises to do politically motivated antitrust actions are a-okay! Dean is just being business-like really. how could any true Republican blame him for that?

oh, before I forget, some of my friends from Justice wanted me to throw up a trial balloon:

do you think the American public would react negatively if justice indicted all the children, grandchildren and great grand children of joseph Kennedy on a RICO count? i need to hear any no-go votes by monday at 2 EST.

Maybe that should be your new submoniker tagline: "subject to hyperbole".

Perhaps my question was not clear. The [Republican controlled] Congress just did the same thing that he is talking about doing through the FCC. Was that a politically motivated "antitrust action"? Should the "true Republicans" be irate at them as well?

This is a real question actually. I'm just curious as to whether you or Mr. Krauthammer would have a problem if President Dean used his appointments to the FCC to further his point of view, or if your problem was really with the way Dean appeared to be putting a contract out on Fox News in that rather misleading paraphrase in the article you posted.

I'll look for your response after there's been enough time for you to laugh at the phrase "President Dean."

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Kevin Drum goes after the LA Times for crappy reporting:

Speaking of AS, this article from Friday's Chronicle was pretty interesting in illustrating how hard a task he has.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGRQ3GURF1.DTL

I don't really agree with the apparent tone of the article in saying that AS has been "contradictory"; I think it's just that he's faced with a very uncertain budget situation and some pretty impossible deadlines for putting measures on the March ballot.

I'm hopeful that he can find a way to get this done, but I fear that even in his minimalist campaign the promises he made are going to perhaps keep him from making the best choices now that he's Gov.

Aside from that I find it quite amusing that his big prop during his barnstorming tour is a giant cardboard credit card that he cuts in two, and yet his plan for balancing the budget is to ask the voters to ok a $15 billion bond.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Eminem may be a threat to President Bush.

he ain't no threat. everytime he's been caught with a gun its unloaded.

And so I understand, the numbers on employment q., you guys says 150K new people enter the market every month, so because less jobs were created, then some huge numbers quit, which is why the overall percentage went down.

I'm not questioning whether that is true, but it is silly. Is all economic prediction that flimsy? you Assume 100k people quit looking last month?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Is all economic prediction that flimsy?

Who's talking about prediction? It's an empirical question.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
he ain't no threat. everytime he's been caught with a gun its unloaded.

And so I understand, the numbers on employment q., you guys says 150K new people enter the market every month, so because less jobs were created, then some huge numbers quit, which is why the overall percentage went down.

I'm not questioning whether that is true, but it is silly. Is all economic prediction that flimsy? you Assume 100k people quit looking last month?

I think the 150K number is an average, and it may well be outdated. For example, I'd imagine we have far more entrants in May and June than in March and April. I hope nobody asks me to explain why. We've also got immigrants (including illegal democratic immigrants), returning workers, democratic high school dropouts, democrats getting released from prison, and so on and so on. Except for graduates of this or that, I'd guess its pretty well spread out over the year.

It may be outdated, but I suspect that the population is growing, and the workforce grows with it. Why is it silly to question if the denominator isn't growing as quickly as we'd expect and, if not, why?

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

OK, I really don't know if these guys are democrats, but tell me you don't/didn't get pissed reading this article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art..._son_on_theft/

A probationary fireman has his car stolen and crashed in Boston. The police catch the 2 criminals. Next thing you know, the probationary fireman is being asked to write a letter of apology to the chief.

Why? Because the Chief's son is one of the offenders. And because the probationary fireman (can I just call him the victim? He is) gets into a shouting match with the chief's son after court/sentencing/whatever when the chief's son tells the probationary fireman that he will never see his $500 deductible, though the son's lawyer just promised the judge that the son or the chief would pay it.

I'm basically telling the whole story, but its still one worth reading. If the chief still has a job on monday morning, than I piss on Boston and all else that is wrong with the world.

Seriously, this is the most offensive fucking story I've read this week.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Seriously, this is the most offensive fucking story I've read this week.

This is like the stories for the last year (+) about the son of the current police chief of San Francisco, Alex Fagan. Young Fagan wasn't a probationary officer (or whatever) for all that long, but he used his tenure to rough up an astonishing array of people. One particular fight, notoriously involving three cops picking on two guys and a bag of fajitas, got the most attention, but Young Fagan seems to have left a trail of mayhem in his wake. To his credit, the chief, Pops Fagan I'll call him, has recused himself from anything relating to his son, although this may have been simply a practical realization that being the chief of police for a city this size would demand more of his time than he would have left over after he got through with Young Fagan's exploits. The son has since been let go by the department, and is now reportedly the subject of a federal investigation.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
This is like the stories for the last year (+) about the son of the current police chief of San Francisco, Alex Fagan. Young Fagan wasn't a probationary officer (or whatever) for all that long, but he used his tenure to rough up an astonishing array of people. One particular fight, notoriously involving three cops picking on two guys and a bag of fajitas, got the most attention, but Young Fagan seems to have left a trail of mayhem in his wake. To his credit, the chief, Pops Fagan I'll call him, has recused himself from anything relating to his son, although this may have been simply a practical realization that being the chief of police for a city this size would demand more of his time than he would have left over after he got through with Young Fagan's exploits. The son has since been let go by the department, and is now reportedly the subject of a federal investigation.

I remember that, and I've seen similar things with my own eyes in other places. It all pisses me off, but calling the victim in and asking him for an apology has got to take the cake.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's kinda important to the people who are looking for work right now, and are more interested in working now than they are in the prospects for future expansion. For those people, it's not a question of what it "portends" for unemployment, but for whether they are working right now.

This is not rocket science.

At the risk of being flip, your view is a little like saying that a decline in a city's murder rate is good because it's the sort of thing that increases property values, which leads to a reduction in crime.

Of course it is, but that is not the discussion we were having and the macro few is far more important both to those people and the country as a whole.

Another related point. It is unlikely we will hit the low unemployment numbers we had during the bubble anytime soon. Those numbers were a blip on radar screen. Instead we will steadily add net jobs over the course of the next year. Maybe it will be 60k/month, maybe 200K/month, we will have to see. But in any event, the Democrats will still be able to claim, and will claim, a net loss in jobs under Bush. This will be true even if we get down to historically good numbers (say 5.2%), because they will still be higher than under Clinton.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Of course it is, but that is not the discussion we were having and the macro few is far more important both to those people and the country as a whole.

Another related point. It is unlikely we will hit the low unemployment numbers we had during the bubble anytime soon. Those numbers were a blip on radar screen. Instead we will steadily add net jobs over the course of the next year. Maybe it will be 60k/month, maybe 200K/month, we will have to see. But in any event, the Democrats will still be able to claim, and will claim, a net loss in jobs under Bush. This will be true even if we get down to historically good numbers (say 5.2%), because they will still be higher than under Clinton.

I would like to think that this stuff is important in its own right, although I do recognize that this is the politics board. I have my own selfish reasons for wanting the economy to improve. OTOH, this Admininistration has taken a cynical strategy of doing things that will not help the economy particularly out of ulterior motives, and then hoping to claim vindication from the natural functioning of the business cycle. It would be irritating to see it work, as a political matter, since few self-respecting economists can try to justify the policies on their merits.

edited to add: You still seem to be missing the point that, because of demographic realities, adding 60,000 jobs in a month is not a net gain.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
this Admininistration has taken a cynical strategy of doing things that will not help the economy particularly out of ulterior motives, and then hoping to claim vindication from the natural functioning of the business cycle.

And that would be different from the Clinton Administration (which claimed credit for the bubble) how?

At least you can point to something that the Bush admin did (i.e., cut taxes) to help along the business cycle.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
edited to add: You still seem to be missing the point that, because of demographic realities, adding 60,000 jobs in a month is not a net gain.

But has the unemployment rate risen or fallen? [This is a real question. I haven't been following it closely.]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
And that would be different from the Clinton Administration (which claimed credit for the bubble) how?

At least you can point to something that the Bush admin did (i.e., cut taxes) to help along the business cycle.

If you don't see any real difference between the two, I'm not sure that anything I can say will help much. You might try subscribing to a newspaper -- I think Hank Chinaski was recommended the Wall Street Journal, but if you read another paper you can get some local news, too.

But has the unemployment rate risen or fallen? [This is a real question. I haven't been following it closely.]

It's really not hard to find this information if you want to.