The stock market isn't subsidized by the government. I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Stock is the value of whatever increment of a company, determined by trade firms. It being up 200% shows that companies in NASDAQ and the NYSE are valued cumulatively 200% of what they were since Obama became president. Now where did you develop this outrageous misinformation?
Still, total non-farm employment dropped from 132.5 million in Jan 2001 to 130 million in June 2003 before increasing over the next 56 months. How can you claim we were at full employment during 52 of those months after 2.5 million lost their jobs? Misrepresenting the other person's position is considered bad form in a debate, so let me remind you EXACTLY what PT Again said, in context too. Please note that the subject was GDP, and not employment. Are you going to back his denial that GDP grew for the 96 months before Bush took office?
See you said the current dollar GDP was 6.01% now your are saying the change in current dollar GDP is 6.01 percent. I assume you are smart enough to understand the difference. But then again maybe not. Or maybe the light in the mail room just isn't very good.
When someone current dollar GDP was 6.01%, what exactly do you think that means? I can't tell if you're intentionally being obtuse or if you are really this inept, but your ignorance was pointed out about a week ago. You'd think one would quit while they were behind...
So... that means everybody's standard of living goes up 4%. It means if you've got a McJob, you get a 4% raise?
ROFL this one certainly has been you don't know what you are talking about. What are we on now QE3? Yes because Bernake has been flooding the markets with cash and keeping interest rates so low as to almost not even have them. But do tell me this what credit are you trying to give to Obama for this increase, what specifically are you saying he did to cause it?
DUH it slowed down even before then, the slowdown began in the 3rd quarter of 2000 before Bush even won the nomination let alone the office. After his tax rate cuts went into full effect and we entered the full recovery in 2004 we had a 52 month sustained period of growth and full employment. "Full employment is an economics term that refers to the lowest unemployment rate that doesn't cause unstable inflation. There is no "magic number" for full employment, though; according to "The New York Times," most economists estimate that full employment occurs with an unemployment rate between 5 and 6 percent." That is a little broad, some say 5.8 and lower some 5.5 and lower at the bottom end. Read more : http://www.ehow.com/facts_7475869_full-employment-rate.html
Don't talk about economics if you can't use terminology correctly. What does quantitative easing have to do with the stock market? You have this knack for confusing the stock exchange with banking. Could we say banking takes a toll on the value of a company? We can, but to make such a bad attribution is foolish. I wasn't aware that interest rates had a direct effect on stock value. Are you sure you're not confusing stock with commodity and derivative exchanges? Stock markets up 200% under Obama is a better way to phrase this sentencing. Markets are intertwined with every action in the nation. Maybe the president isn't responcible for the massive growth in our economy, but he certainly isn't heading us backwards. Now shut up if you're going to say silly things you don't understand
Don't talk them if you don't understand the correlation and the fact it is causing an inverse reaction in the stock market to market conditions and economic growth news. Who said direct? Are you denying the indirect? Yes are you sure you understand the difference how how all make up Wall Street? OK So what, still just above the highs of 7-8 years ago. Well make up your mind you seem to be saying quite the opposite in the above as you try to toss out symbolic terms, It hasn't been massive in the least and has taken 6 years to crawl back to where it was heading before the Democrats took the balance of power. Oh that's a great accomplishment after 6 years. Kiss off...................when you can be civil again let me know, your tough guy fools no one and does not substitute for intelligent debate.
The last recession started in December 2007 so backing up 52 months puts us in August 2003, when total employment was at it lowest and the unemployment rate was at it highest. How can you say we had full employment under those conditions?
You are conflating GDP with unemployement rate. We had full employment 6 some would say 7 months into 2008. And let's not forget that thanks in part to the Bush tax rate cuts and NOT injecting government into the markets peak unemployment during the 2000/2001 recession, Dot.com bubble bust, 9/11 attacks was 6.3% while under the Obama policies it has been horrible shooting up to 10% and staying above the WORST 2000/2001 for 66 months and just now getting back to that WORST level and only there because so many have simply given up looking.
On the contrary, I'm trying to correlate full employment directly to the total number of people working. Total nonfarm employment peaked in January 2008 and six months later there were almost 1 million less people working. Likewise, 52 months earlier the labor market had just lost 2.5 million jobs. How can either of these be considered "full employment" by any definition?
It is the unemployment RATE try looking at what you are trying to talk about and it's the months in between.
The definition of full employment is simply total labor force minus frictional unemployment. Shouldn't the fact that economists cannot agree on what the proper frictional unemployment rate should be tell you that unemployment is not a good measure of full employment? Search the internet and you'll see estimates anywhere from 2% to 7%. Unless you believe that 2.5 million people in 2003 and 1 million people in 2008 were either retiring or just looking for a better job, we could not have been at full employment.
Full employment is general agreed to be between 4.5% and 6% in the broadest measure around 5.5% and below on average. There are always new people entering the job market, layoffs and people simply switching jobs so it never gets to zero. We had 52 months of that during the Bush term when the Republicans controlled the Congress. PERIOD, I can't be any clearer nor have to keep repeating it.
But full employment is just an estimate, not a fixed number, hence the wide range of values. Economic textbooks say that when full employment is reached, demand for workers grows causing wages and inflation to increase. Yet despite 10 months between 2006 and 2007 with unemployment around 4.5%, inflation actually dropped from 4% to around 2%. Doesn't this tell us that natural unemployment at that time was somewhere lower than 5.5%?
So, after all the above Dimocrap hype, here's some REAL news! Unemployment dips to 7%, most new jobs are part-time Did any of you Dimbocrap supporters read the last part of the sentence? Not full-time. Part-time. That means no benefits. No vacations. No medical coverage. No IRA or retirement program. And generally low paying. But, let's forget all that because we all know how our Dear Leader is responsible for the great economic recovery we're in the midst of. Read the article @ http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/unemployment-dips-to-7-most-new-jobs-are-part-time-1.2731006?cmp=rss
