NP - The Myth of a Jobless Recovery

[Humberto Torofuerte]

Come to think of it...how would a jobless recovery even work?  It
would have to be export driven? Otherwise who would buy all the shit
that is now being made by robots and offshore software developers?

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:41 AM, alice wellintown
<alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't play your semantic game; the crisis we are in is,
> unfortunately, not uncommon. These kinds of financial crises are
> common. That is, while the bubble expanded we kept hearing about a
> paradigmn shift, a new normal, and, in fact, we still hear this kind
> of thing, but the truth is, this crisis is not so uncommon, but common
> enough for us to know the causes and how to prevent them and how to
> deal with them once they happen.  Indeed, when we look at how the US
> dealt with the Great Contraction or Great Recession, a crisis in the
> banks and housing markets that spread, as a contagion, causing a huge
> recession, we see that it was nearly textbook. And it worked. All the
> criticism of Bernake not following his Japan paper, is rot. He did
> what he said he would do given the crisis and it worked. Moreover, all
> the complaints about bailing this or that out is rot. It had to be
> done. Now what? Now we re-build and learn. All this crap about who
> makes or produces or builds is nonsense. Money, as Adam Smith taught
> long ago, is like a highway, it produces nothing. But we need a
> highway system. Right? But Money, now that the super highway system
> has been built, has amassed too much power and too much wealth at the
> expense of the productive worker. OK, how do we fix that? That's a
> normative, political question. Politics is the problem here not
> economics. Why blame the economics or the economists or drag them out
> and flog them, it puts you in the corner with Rin Paul and the other
> loons.
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:52 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You're changing the subject. I asked you to defend your use of "common," a
>> back door way of assuming authority.
>>
>> On Thursday, January 10, 2013, alice wellintown wrote:
>>>
>>> When pressed to give a specific definition of recession, or depression,
>>> economists often focus on employment. So, most would agree that the recent
>>> recession was not a depression, but came close; if unemployment were 3-4
>>> points higher...well...all else being equal, it would be hard to defend the
>>> recession characterization. That phrase, all else being equal, is useful to
>>> economists and they use it a lot to make simple models, and even complex
>>> models, but, if unemployment were 3-;4 points higher, all else would no be
>>> equal. The recovery or expansion phase of the business cycle is defined as a
>>> rise in output and employment. But, we must consider, from what we are
>>> recovering. When an economy goes through recovery after a financial crisis
>>> recession, such as the late 2000 great contraction,it's recovery is slow and
>>> weak. So, although we have output growth and a decline in unemployment, it
>>> is, while not jobless, weak. We did avoid the double dip and are actually in
>>> what is called a second recovery. With rates at zero, there is little we can
>>> do from the Fed to improve employment, but, what has been done is working,
>>> the economy is a coiled spring and, looks, though still wounded, ready to
>>> spring into action. The natural rate of employment is now, I suspect, about
>>> 6.5, so we are getting there. My point is that we do not have a jobless
>>> recovery. We have recovery, second recovery with no double dip recession,
>>> but it is common that recovery from this type of recession is slow and weak,
>>> thus job creation does not recover nor does output in the v pattern of
>>> normal recessions, but more in the long bottom u pattern we are seeing. The
>>> good news, we are going up. Inflation is not a concern. Money is cheap.
>>> Markets are on solid ground. Even housing is improved. And, for the liberals
>>> with a conscience, the rich, the creditors and investors in fixed securities
>>> are being taxed with low rates, financial repression, the slight and, bursts
>>> of inflation, will bail out the debtors, the poor and ordinary, are getting
>>> their bail out.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, David Morris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Common and uncommon are useless adjectives without definition, especially
>>>> when arguing about subjects like Economics. Get Fcking specific! Otherwise
>>>> you have no real point. Just diversion.  Part of the problem.
>>>>
>>>> David Morris
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, alice wellintown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. one might define recovery as "I'm doing better" but this is not
>>>>> very useful, so generally, people use the terms recovery and expansion to
>>>>> mean employment and output are rising.
>>>>>
>>>>> From what?
>>>>>
>>>>> From a great contraction. This time, as the book by r&r makes clear, is
>>>>> not different. It's great, it's a major financial crisis driven recession,
>>>>> but unfortunately, not quite common when we look at the economies round the
>>>>> globe through history.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Bekah wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is probably saying the same thing but it seems to me a person
>>>>>> could define "recovery" any old way they wanted.   If you base the numbers
>>>>>> on the stock market and GNP or a couple other indicators,   who cares about
>>>>>> jobs and median family income?   Or you could count everything but assign
>>>>>> different rankings to each factor.  Or you could use the numbers from the
>>>>>> above to automatically project job creation with no evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then too,   what does "recovery" mean in terms of end result -  are
>>>>>> we recovered back to where we were at some peak economic performance?  Or
>>>>>> back to some kind of average for the last couple decades or century or
>>>>>> whatever?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we're still economically ailing.   What would we be if we had
>>>>>> 1% unemployment (due to self-sufficient farming and handi-man/barter stuff
>>>>>> or something)  and the stock market was crashing?  I'll bet there are those
>>>>>> who would consider that a serious, serious depression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bekah
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 9, 2013, at 10:22 AM, alice wellintown
>>>>>> <alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > We can define and measure recovery, itz not rocket science, we simply
>>>>>> > look at the charts and graphs and there it is;  or there it isn't.
>>>>>> > itz so easy,  that even an economist can do it.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > But not all recoveries look alike because not all recessions look
>>>>>> > alike. The one the US is now recovering from, while not unique, is
>>>>>> > uncommon.  It is a major financial crisis recovery.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > And, it is common to have a slow, pathetic to moderate, recovery, one
>>>>>> > that moves back to natural unemployment slowly, after such a crisis.
>>>>>> > That's what we have.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Some call it a jobless recovery and this phrase is not accurate,
>>>>>> > although the nitty gritty splceres of date aind indicators may make
>>>>>> > arguements about the particulars....but it does say something about
>>>>>> > the recovery from these kinds of financial crises, that is, they are
>>>>>> > not easily shaken off and they do damage to employment, damage that
>>>>>> > takes up to a decade, in the best of circumstances (ours is not the
>>>>>> > best but relatively very good), or longer to repair. Of course, for
>>>>>> > some workers, and groups, the dmage can not be repaired. There are a
>>>>>> > hundred variables, some of them singular and local, but the nutz and
>>>>>> > boltz of it are simple enough.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > So, how tro avoid this next time? We can't. WE might try what the
>>>>>> > Brits are doing, or whatever, but in America we like risk and we will
>>>>>> > take the chances, de-regulate and find ways to make money.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The good news is that those in debt are being helped and those who
>>>>>> > have lotz of money are bing taxed to help them. A good policy, if
>>>>>> > kept
>>>>>> > in check,  in the long run.
>>>>>>
>>