Showing posts with label Mish. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mish. Show all posts

Monday, May 5, 2014

The loyalty of libertarians, as with other ideologues, is to something other than borders, language and culture

Mike "Mish" Shedlock, here, who has no home, no country, no roots anywhere which are not exposed to the withering glare of libertarian "principle":

According to GabrielÄ— "From soap operas to ballet performances, the Russian government is doing everything to influence the cultural life of Eastern Europe, and to maintain a stranglehold on the mentality of the people."

Let's assume that is true. Here is an equally true statement "From soap operas to ballet performances, the EU is doing everything to influence the cultural life of all of Europe, and to maintain a stranglehold on the mentality of the people."

Here's another "The US is doing everything to everyone globally, and by military force where necessary, to maintain a hypocritical stranglehold on any country that dares go against the vision of the United States."

Sunday, February 9, 2014

The Atlantic Finally Catches On To The ObamaCare Part-Timing Myth

Derek Thompson, here, in "The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America":

If you've been paying attention to a certain slice of the financial media—see: Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, and Fox News—you know for a fact that Obama and his health care law have tag-teamed with global economic trends to drive America inexorably toward a part-time economy.


-----------------------------------------------


Beat ya.

We first expressed doubt in the part-time-due-to-Obamacare meme in July 2013, here, because the category "usually work part-time" showed no new highs since passage of the law three years prior.

We began calling the meme a myth in August 2013, here, because average hours worked were not declining, but rising modestly.

In September 2013, here, we pointed out that government statistics will NEVER capture the reduction of part-time worker schedules to 29 hours per week because everyone working 34 hours or fewer is already part-time as far as the government is concerned and those are the people most likely to have their hours reduced. But those workers in the aggregate are too few in comparison to all the full-time workers to reduce average hours worked overall enough to impact that measure. The real scandal is that ObamaCare may be reducing hours for a small segment of the population which is already part-time, but especially retail, restaurant and food service workers. Unfortunately most of the evidence is anecdotal and no one really gives a crap about them anyway, least of all Obama.

And in October 2013, here, we pointed out that part-time for economic reasons was slowly declining despite passage of ObamaCare and had been high in the first place because of the crisis of 2008, something Derek Thompson seems really proud of pointing out now to his middlebrow audience.

So where's my Pulitzer Prize already, huh? 


Monday, January 27, 2014

Mish: Credit Dwarfs Money Supply

Just as the Fed's overnight window dwarfed TARP in the 2008 panic.

Mish hits a homer, here:

I have little doubt the Fed (central bankers in general) will step on the money supply spigot in response to another slowdown. But credit dwarfs money supply. Once again, those who view inflation and deflation in the myopic eyes of money supply alone will come to the wrong conclusions about prices of goods, services and assets, just as they did in 2008 when they thought hyperinflation was just around the corner. Those who understand credit and credit market to market will get the picture right. I repeat my claim that I made in 2007. The US will go in and out of deflation over the course of a number of years. Deflation is once again nearly at hand, but Europe will be first.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

The Far Left Also Realizes Boehner Won. Too Bad Republicans Don't.

The Nation, here:


Because the deal only includes minor concessions, the Beltway consensus is that it represents a resounding defeat for Republicans, who “surrendered” their original demands to defund or delay Obamacare. In the skirmish of opinion polls, that may be true, for now. But in the war of ideas, the Senate deal is but a stalemate, one made almost entirely on conservative terms. The GOP now goes into budget talks with sequestration as the new baseline, primed to demand longer-term cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And they still hold the gun of a US default to the nation’s head in the next debt ceiling showdown.

---------------------------

Boehner, last August, who got exactly this, despite having to try the so-called Tea Party gambit of defunding ObamaCare, which failed because of all the RINOs in the Senate, and was destined to fail from the beginning for that very reason, if only people like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee had bothered to check their voting records:


“When we return, our intent is to move quickly on a short-term continuing resolution that keeps the government running and maintains current sequester spending levels,” Boehner (R-Ohio) said on a conference call with GOP lawmakers, according to a person on the call.


“Our message will remain clear,” Boehner said. “Until the president agrees to better cuts and reforms that help grow the economy and put us on path to a balanced budget, his sequester — the sequester he himself proposed, insisted on and signed into law — stays in place.”


Friday, September 6, 2013

Sorry, But We Aren't Talking About A Lot Of People Not Counted In The Unemployment Numbers

I'd estimate the number not counted in the unemployment numbers to be between 1.5 million and 3.2 million, max.

9.784 million have left the labor force under Obama and are not counted as unemployed since he was elected 4.75 years ago. That's a lot of people, 75% more than left the labor force under George Bush. Not quite 9.5 million left under Bush, but that was over 8 full years.

Who are they who have left the labor force? And should any of them be counted as unemployed as many critics keep maintaining?

The people who should not be counted as unemployed from that total include the 1.1 million who retire every year, so subtract 5.2 million over the period, leaving 4.584 million. Those not in the labor force with a disability are up 1.4 million since 2008. Subtract them and that leaves 3.184 million.

As for the people who should be included in the unemployment number but aren't, they include the number leaving the labor force who wanted to work and searched for a job but were not counted as unemployed. But they were counted by the government. That number has increased by about 1 million since the beginning of the 2007 recession, as shown in the graph (h/t Mish). Then add in those not in the labor force who weren't discouraged workers but looked for work for other reasons and you add another 475,000. They weren't counted in the unemployment numbers either, but they were counted by the government.

So subtracting those 1.475 million from 3.184 million, you get 1.7 million unaccounted for who might or might not need to be included with those 1.475 million who perhaps should be. Many of those 1.7 million are probably like a lot of Americans who became sole proprietors in the aftermath of losing their regular jobs and involuntarily went into business for themselves, making lots less money than before in many instances, typically as contract employees and freelancers, supplementing their incomes from their savings and practicing frugality. The US Census Bureau might agree, having just reported here in May that between 2008 and 2011 alone the number of such "businesses" is up 1.2 million in the aggregate. That leaves you with a minimum expansion of the unemployed to 12.8 million from the current 11.3 million, and a maximum expansion to 14.5 million, but based on the Census data on sole proprietorships, I'll lean to the under.

The real unemployment rate would therefore be something a little higher than the current 7.3%,  between 8.3% and 9.4%, but probably closer to 8.3%. I'll go with 8.6% unemployment based on an additional 1.975 million not in the labor force who could very well be in it.

That's almost 18% worse than the government says unemployment is right now, but based on what I see regularly from government estimates of things, that's routinely good enough for them.

After all, hasn't it been called "good enough for government work" for decades for a reason?

Monday, July 29, 2013

Unemploy An Illegal: Bring On The Lettuce Bots!

Story here:


"Technology is about to take over America's fruited plains - robots, it seems, are all the rage down on the farm, and their introduction and spread will make human farm work a thing of the past."

Friday, July 5, 2013

Mish Is Crazy For Saying "Massive Increase In Part Time" Due To ObamaCare

Mish says it here:


Digging under the surface, much of the drop in the unemployment rate over the past two years is nothing but a statistical mirage coupled with a massive increase in part-time jobs starting in October 2012 as a result of Obamacare legislation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

But there has been no massive increase in part-time, whether due to ObamaCare or something else, which, by the way, passed in March 2010, not October 2012. The raw numbers are actually down from the beginning of 2010 before ObamaCare was passed. Is part-time down due to ObamaCare?

Part time not-seasonally-adjusted is lower than it was before ObamaCare
















Measured with the government "model", part time is up since 2010, but you can't say massively so, as Mish does. The 300,000 to 400,000 increase in part time since the beginning of 2010 using this measure is a relatively modest variation given the wild swings in this category of a million or more.

What made this measure of part time decline for most of 2012? ObamaCare?
















Frankly, I think Mish has a meme in his head which is not supported by the data and is just phoning it in. Well, he did just get re-married.

Friday, May 3, 2013

Mish Is Wrong About Full Time Employment Being Down. It's Up.

seasonally-adjusted full-time, 2007 peak to now
Mish is wrong about full time employment being down. It's up.

Here's Mish:


"Voluntary plus involuntary part-time employment rose by a whopping 441,000 jobs. Take away part-time jobs and there is not all that much to brag about. Indeed, full-time employment fell once again, this month by 148,000."

In the seasonally-adjusted category, full-time is up 150,000 in April from March. In the not-seasonally-adjusted category, full-time is up 878,000 between March and April! Usually-part-time is flirting with its highs again but is not yet at a new high above the March 2010 level of 28.106 million.

That said, what really counts is that despite some improvement in the figures, the fact is full-time employment remains either 7.5 million off the 2007 peak in not-seasonally-adjusted terms, or 5.8 million off the peak in seasonally-adjusted terms. But part-time is not yet meaningfully above its peak levels to be able to say ObamaCare is part-timing the country at the expense of full-time jobs. The trend up in full-time has been in fits and starts and has been wholly inadequate, but it is up since 2010.



  

Monday, April 29, 2013

Mish Finally Calls This Economy Fascism

Took him long enough, here:


"In short, the problems we face are not the result of free market capitalism, but rather the results of Fed sponsored corporate and military fascism."

The instrumentality through which fascism is expressed in the United States today is the banking system reorganized in 1913 under the Federal Reserve. The brakes put on it with the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933 after it cracked-up the first time after only twenty years were released in 1999 with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

It took only nine years to crack up the second time.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Think Mish Will Correct This Blooper?

The deeper I dig the smellier it gets
Seen here:

In "real" (CPI-adjusted) terms, 50% of households are no better off than they were in 1988. Let's dig a litter deeper.

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Libertarian Mish Apologizes For Spelling "Dike" "Dyke"

Gee, that's a first. Of all the misspellt wurds on Mike Shedlock's improbably famous blog which he has never apologized for let alone corrected, and they are LEGION, he not only apologizes for this one, but corrects it. As I've pointed out over and over again, people who can't spell are dangerous.

Libertarians would not be caught dead offending dykes, but the rest of us English-spelling-Nazis have to take it, well, like men

Here in "Not Enough Fingers to Contain the Leak in the Dike":

"Apologies for originally misspelling dike as dyke. It was not intentional. I rushed a post, heading out the door for a party."

Dykes everywhere agree: there are never enough fingers.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

The Youth Vote: Suckers Overpaying For HealthCare

So says Mish, here:


The fact of the matter is youth overpay for health-care as the benefits primarily go to the elderly. Obama needed a pool of fresh suckers to overpay for health-care costs to keep the system solvent for a bit longer.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Libertarian Mish So Inspired By MoveOn.org He Steals The Phrase 5 Times


Libertarians are Democrats in sheeps' clothes.

David Stockman Of Reagan Admin. Fame Wins Mish Raffle?

A certain David Stockman, mirabile dictu, is named as a raffle winner in Mish's ALS raffle contest, here.

If that's the David Stockman we all know, that explains a lot. Libertarian birds of a feather flock together.

Stockman's Wikipedia entry says he lives in Greenwich, CT.

Nice work if you can get it.

Libertarian Mish Is Happy Republican Mourdock Lost In Indiana

Mish is on the side of the Democrats, plain and simple, here, referencing a story at the Christian Science Monitor:


Yet this is what happens when views are too extreme. I am very pleased to report "'Red' Indiana sends Democrat to US Senate, as women fled Mourdock".

Of course Mish is happy the Democrat won in Indiana. Libertarians ran a spoiler candidate in that race to throw the race to the Democrat. When it comes down to it, social freedom is more important to libertarians than economic freedom. They cry "Freedom" all the while they mean only "License!"

Libertarians are not on the side of conservatives or Republicans. They are on the side of the Democrats, the party of death to the unborn, and soon the party of death to the elderly under ObamaCare, and eventually the party of death to the middle class, which will not long exist because of Obama.

The middle class stands in the way of the Alinskyites' real objective: the rich. Middle class people, after all, would like to be rich some day, too, not poor. So they must go first in order to get at the rich. If the middle class had any brains they'd understand that Obama's invective against the rich is primarily aimed at them because, compared to the poor, the middle class is rich. Unfortunately, they went to public schools. 

One thing at a time, making use of the useful idiots, the libertarians.

What A Shock. Mish Voted Libertarian In Illinois.

Mish says so, here:


"I voted for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and I am proud of my vote. Can those voting for the lesser of two evils say the same thing?"

Russell Kirk didn't call libertarians chirping sectaries for nothing. They have their very vocal advocates like Mish, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul, but no following of real consequence. As fringe candidates they view themselves as troublemakers mostly, fanatical idealists at war with reality whose only hope is to act as spoilers. Gary Johnson said as much of himself, here, as recently as August:


“I hope that I would get labeled as a ‘spoiler’ from the standpoint of people actually focusing on what it is I am saying, and that this changes the way whoever wins governs,” Johnson told Sunshine State News in an exclusive interview Saturday at the 2012 Ron Paul Festival.

Libertarians often claim they are "principled" in contrast to the rest of us. Evidently deliberately ruining someone else's chances is one of those principles, which vindictiveness is one reason they don't make progress as a party. While their extremism may scare people off, I think their natural lack of good will has more to do with it.

It's bad form, old boy.



Sunday, October 28, 2012

It's Democrats Who Overwhelmingly Hate The Electoral College

The reason Democrats hate the Electoral College is that the Electoral College gives too much power to small population states, which sometimes vote in such a way as to prevent winners of the national popular vote in presidential contests from being elected.

Nevermind that that's how the founders intended it, in order to keep minorities from being dictated to by majorities. It is suitably hypocritical of the Democrats to want to oppress minorities, seeing how they have taken minorities for granted for decades, always promising them the moon but never delivering them so much as a sandwich let alone a sub so fast they'll freak.

TheHill.com has a story here on the subject of the Electoral College, referencing the National Popular Vote (NPV) campaign which proposes to make an end-run around the Electoral College provision of the constitution. You know, kind of like seceding from the Union was an end run, because that's what the NPV amounts to. The normal process of amending election procedures involves a constitutional amendment, but the Democrats have hatched a plan, the NPV, which amounts to an affront and challenge to the existing system, agreed to only amongst the states participating without benefit of legitimacy conferred by constitutional amendment. The legitimacy consists entirely in the agreement of the states. As such the NPV represents an insurrection against the rest of the states who do not participate. 

Mostly Democrats favor doing away with the Electoral College, which is in keeping with what animates the Democrats, namely democracy, especially direct democracy. Despite all its problems and blemishes, it is the Republican Party which stands for constitutional arrangements as they exist, notably Sen. Mitch McConnell of the US Senate, the Republican minority leader in the Senate. His support for the Electoral College covers a multitude of sins, and I do mean a multitude.

The Republicans would sound more convincing in their support for the Electoral College, however, if they were to support also repeal of Amendment 17, ratified in 1913.

The reason is that it would show that the Republicans are serious about constitutional principles of representation.

The original constitution envisaged bodies of electors who were different in identity in order to separate the powers of government to prevent tyranny, it is true, but also to spread representation effectively not just to the individuals who make up the nation but also to the governmental institutions which the constitution created as creatures of the people.

The electors originally were three.

The people who elected their US Representatives. These number 435 but should today number 10,267. The process of representation growing with population was halted in the 1920s. Arguably this concentration of power in fewer hands was a response to arrogation of democratic power by the Senate in 1913.

The states originally elected their US Senators, "chosen by the Legislature[s] thereof". Elected as they are now, popularly because of the 17th Amendment, they do nothing but make a redundancy of the US House of Representatives. And not just a redundancy but a trump. The Senate possesses much more power because they are not answerable to the people but every sixth year instead of every second. If anyone is responsible for gridlock in our times, it is this new imperious US Senate since 1913, not the political parties who duke it out in the House. The US Senate literally lords it over the US House as a kind of Super House. They only occasionally answer to the same people as the US House when they should be answering to, and representing, the states. The latter now possess next to no voice at the federal level except through the court system, where they must sue to be heard. A fine kettle of fish, that.

The Electoral College is now the last bastion of representation left to the states as states, and Democrats seem bent on taking it. The Electoral College is composed of persons appointed by the states in number equal to the number of Representatives and Senators, and they elect the president. The electors cast their votes now more or less everywhere based on which candidate wins the popular vote in the presidential election in each state. It is a winner take all system which blends popular sovereignty with states' rights. But the NPV would nullify this, casting the votes of the electors not for whomever wins the state, but for whomever wins the country.

As sketched above, the history of these developments is a history of lost representation. A US House member should represent 30,000 people max, but today supposedly speaks for over 700,000 on average in each district. State legislatures no longer have a voice in the halls of Congress because Senators are popularly elected just like the House. And if the Democrats get their way, smaller states will also lose their voice in electing the president because no matter what the citizens of Wyoming, New Hampshire and Montana want, the citizens of California, Florida and New York who are more numerous will dictate otherwise.

And Democrats are about nothing if not dictation. 


Friday, August 24, 2012

Mish Complains About "Useless" College Degrees, And Lousy Google Translate

"You're umbday in any language"
In ye good olde days, a college degree came with a foreign language requirement in addition to demonstrated facility with the finer points of English.

Holders of college degrees could reliably be counted on to read something in Italian, German or French and put it in a presentable form in their own language. In addition to knowing how to type, the skill supplements the work, say, of a financial blogger, unless your name is Mish, who has a degree in civil engineering.

On August 21 he's trying to plumb the depths of stories about the European Central Bank, noting here:

Every day I get links from Spain, Italy, Germany, and Australia. The first three frequently cause problems. Translation from German is particularly difficult.

For example, a Google-translated headline on Welt Online reads ECB chief demonstrates German banker. ...

With the help of Bran from Spain, Andrea from Italy, and "EM" from Germany I can frequently provide much better translations of foreign articles than I could otherwise.



Then three days later he complains here in a lengthy diatribe that colleges today turn out too many useless degrees:

Yet colleges churn out thousands of graduates, year after year, with perfectly useless degrees.

Clearly his own degree has failed him, not in the least because, even after all that, he still doesn't recognize it.

Education And Health: Inflation Is Highest Where Government Interferes The Most

Mish has the chart and discussion here.

Friday, July 13, 2012

Bernanke Helps Banks Recapitalize By Paying Interest On Excess Reserves

That's the nice formulation of what's been happening since 2008 in banking from Mish today, here, taking inflationists like Michael Pento to the woodshed:


The simple fact of the matter is Pento has no idea how bank lending works in the real world. 

There is no other way to state it. If banks thought they had good credit risks, they would lend (provided of course they were not capital impaired).

Moreover, by paying interest on reserves, Bernanke is slowly recapitalizing banks over time. Would Bernanke easily give that up? Well he hasn't so far. Nor has he even dropped a hint of it.

The Federal Reserve can talk all it wants about fulfilling its too many and misguided missions, and it does so, incessantly, and I would say purposefully in order to divert your attention from the real mission. Nor is this done without the full approval of the political class in America, which profits from the arrangement.

The one thing you can be sure of is that the one mission the Federal Reserve has is to watch out for its own in the Federal Reserve banking system. Recapitalizing the banking system whose failures have cost the banking industry north of $88 billion is the Fed's #1 priority.

Our country is of the bankers, by the bankers, and for the bankers. If you can't find work or refinance your house, dat's tough, Anwar. Dhey are on a meession from Gad. The banks must be saved at all costs, which is why the taxpayers are on the hook for everything in the Fascist States of America.

Who is recapitalizing YOU?