So why should you feel better if we're back to where we were when Obama took office?
Just because that unemployment sadist with the drill has stopped boring holes in your skull is no reason for optimism, is it?
Or maybe it is:
Friday, February 1, 2013
Unemployment Rate Ticks Up To 7.9%: Obama Remains Solidly In Last Place Since 1948
Full pdf from the BLS here.
The average report of unemployment under Obama for all months of 2009 through 2012 comes to 8.98%, the very worst record since 1948.
Obama's nearest competitor for worst performance during the period was Ronald Reagan. For all months of 1981 through 1988 Reagan's average report of unemployment was 7.53%, nearly 20% better than Obama's. Under George W. Bush, whom Obama blames for everything, unemployment averaged just 5.27% for the 8 years 2001-2008, one of the five best records since 1948.
The average report of unemployment under Obama for all months of 2009 through 2012 comes to 8.98%, the very worst record since 1948.
Obama's nearest competitor for worst performance during the period was Ronald Reagan. For all months of 1981 through 1988 Reagan's average report of unemployment was 7.53%, nearly 20% better than Obama's. Under George W. Bush, whom Obama blames for everything, unemployment averaged just 5.27% for the 8 years 2001-2008, one of the five best records since 1948.
The worst stretch of unemployment since 1948 gets even longer under Obama with today's report at 7.9%.
Chart here.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Obama Shrugs, Sunsets His (Mostly Ignored) Jobs Council
Safely reelected, Obama's Jobs Council sunsets this week, even though millions still can't find work:
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will let his jobs council expire this week without renewing its charter, winding down one source of input from the business community even as unemployment remains stubbornly high. ...
Obama met with the council only a handful of times. During the last meeting, in February 2012 . . .
Read the rest, here.
Why Obama's Done Nothing To Restore Jobs And Growth
It's not his thang, baby, dontcha remember? He told you so almost four years ago:
-- President Obama, March 2009
Jobs and GDP are an annoyance to Obama, as are stocks, banking and Bibi Netanyahu, and boy is he ever proving it.
What's The Difference Between GDP Growth Of +3.1% And -0.1%?
What's the difference between GDP growth of +3.1% and -0.1%?
If you said 3.2%, you are a dumb ass.
If you said 3.2%, you are a dumb ass.
3.2 is the spread in percentage points, not the percentage difference.
Think of the measurement, in this case of the GDP expressed as a rate, as steps on a ladder, the rungs of which each represent 0.1. You are standing way up there on rung 3.1 in Q3 2012, from which you descend during Q4 all the way down to rung 0.1, then to rung 0.0, and finally to rung -0.1, if you can imagine a ladder with zero and negative rungs.
How many steps did you take? The answer is 32. That is a long way down from where you were. Since each step has a value of 0.1, 32 x 0.1 = 3.2, the value of the spread.
Now that you know the value of the spread, you can calculate the percentage difference between the two measurements the spread spans, otherwise called the percentage drop in this instance. This is where people, even in the financial media, get confused, because they have to figure out the percentage difference between rates, which by definition are already expressed as percentages. But really it is not difficult, no more difficult than calculating the percentage difference between two quantities of apples, oranges or any other things you can enumerate. Forget that they are percentages you are calculating the percentage difference between in this instance, and imagine instead that they are the number of times Red Forman kicked your ass last week vs. this week, or whatever else you like.
Once you know the spread between the two things, you say to yourself: "What percent of the higher number is the spread?" You ask it that way because you want to know how much you declined in percentage terms. (You'd ask the question of the lower number if it had been an increase). Since percent is the amount per hundred, you turn that word problem into an equation: x divided by 100 (what percent means the amount divided by 100), multiplied by (of) 3.1 (the higher number of 3.1 or -0.1, the place from which you climbed down to -0.1) = (is) 3.2 (the spread).
You write it this way:
x 3.1
--- x ----- = 3.2
100 1
Another way to say the same thing is:
3.1x
------ = 3.2
100
Next you begin to isolate x by multiplying each side of the equation by 100, which gives you 3.1x = 320.
Then all you have to do is divide each side by 3.1 to find the value of x. 320 divided by 3.1 = 103.2258. And what was that again? The amount per 100, otherwise called the percentage. So the answer is 103.2%. That's how much the GDP growth rate declined from Q3 to Q4. That's a lot bigger difference between the GDP numbers than 3.2%, isn't it? 3.2% is puny and insignificant on top of being just plain wrong. 103.2% is the stunning truth, and an arrestingly important warning.
Once you know the spread between the two things, you say to yourself: "What percent of the higher number is the spread?" You ask it that way because you want to know how much you declined in percentage terms. (You'd ask the question of the lower number if it had been an increase). Since percent is the amount per hundred, you turn that word problem into an equation: x divided by 100 (what percent means the amount divided by 100), multiplied by (of) 3.1 (the higher number of 3.1 or -0.1, the place from which you climbed down to -0.1) = (is) 3.2 (the spread).
You write it this way:
x 3.1
--- x ----- = 3.2
100 1
Another way to say the same thing is:
3.1x
------ = 3.2
100
Next you begin to isolate x by multiplying each side of the equation by 100, which gives you 3.1x = 320.
Then all you have to do is divide each side by 3.1 to find the value of x. 320 divided by 3.1 = 103.2258. And what was that again? The amount per 100, otherwise called the percentage. So the answer is 103.2%. That's how much the GDP growth rate declined from Q3 to Q4. That's a lot bigger difference between the GDP numbers than 3.2%, isn't it? 3.2% is puny and insignificant on top of being just plain wrong. 103.2% is the stunning truth, and an arrestingly important warning.
In other words, from Q3 to Q4, we wiped out all the growth rate, 100% of it, and a little bit more. We were up the ladder at 3.1, and walked it all the way back 31 steps to the bottom, and then some, one more step, below ground level so to speak.
Now if we could just get people like Rush Limbaugh to understand this, maybe more people in the country would begin to understand the enormity of our problems. Unfortunately for us, the enormity of our problems begins with the fact that most of the voters can't do even this simple math. If they could, they wouldn't have reelected the guy whose slogan was Forward because they would have understood that he doesn't know which direction that is, let alone how to get there.
Now if we could just get people like Rush Limbaugh to understand this, maybe more people in the country would begin to understand the enormity of our problems. Unfortunately for us, the enormity of our problems begins with the fact that most of the voters can't do even this simple math. If they could, they wouldn't have reelected the guy whose slogan was Forward because they would have understood that he doesn't know which direction that is, let alone how to get there.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Obama Has Had 3 Recessions In His First Term, And May Get A 4th To Start His Second
If a recession is two quarters back to back with GDP declines, the second decline worse than the first, then Obama has had three recessions in his first term, and is likely to begin his second term with a fourth recession. "A fall in GDP in two successive quarters" remains the dictionary definition of a recession despite what trimmers everywhere say.
After Q4 2009, GDP declined from 4.0 to 2.3 and 2.2 in the first two quarters of 2010.
After Q3 2010, GDP declined from 2.6 to 2.4 and 0.1 in the last quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011.
After Q4 2011, GDP declined from 4.1 to 2.0 and 1.3 in the first two quarters of 2012.
That makes three recessions at the ends of each of the first three years of Obama's first term, and the pattern appears to be repeating again at the end of the fourth year, going from 3.1 to -0.1 from the third quarter of 2012 to the fourth. With taxes rising dramatically in 2013 from the payroll tax reset, the increase in taxes on the rich, and the new ObamaCare taxes, and with spending cuts through sequestration looming, I'd say the odds favor a 4peat on the recession front because these factors are very negative for GDP, as are the employment rules for ObamaCare which will subdue incomes and thus spending.
Given the pattern of repeated recessions beginning already in 2010, what we have been going through since 2008 when GDP declined 0.3 and 2009 when GDP declined 3.1, a depression in fact all by itself, is actually better called an extended depression even though annually speaking 2012 represents a climb out of the pattern. Unless, that is, Q1 2013 isn't worse than -0.1 and future revisions to 2012 GDP aren't downward.
I wouldn't bet on it.
ObaMao Breaks A Few GDP Eggs To Transform The Country
After four years of the worst GDP in post-war history, are you starting to get the feeling that it's intentional?
"At present, our objective is to struggle against and crush those persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois academic 'authorities' and the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes and to transform education, literature and art, and all other parts of the superstructure that do not correspond to the socialist economic base, so as to facilitate the consolidation and development of the socialist system."
George Bush's GDP Sucked But Was 2.5 Times Better Than Obama's
2.04% on average for 8 years then vs. 0.825% for four years now.
Markets Shrug At Terrible GDP Report, Hang On Words Of Federal Reserve
Faced with the worst GDP report since Q2 2009, the markets shrug. What really counts for markets is whether the Federal Reserve this afternoon will announce some new intervention to boost the economy. Markets ignore reality, and hang on the words of the bankers. This is not free market capitalism. These are not free markets. These are rigged markets. This is corporatism. This is fascism. It favors an elite few in exchange for their support, while the majority of Americans gets by on crumbs.
Under Obama GDP Has Never Been Worse Since 1948. The 2012 Winner Is A Loser.
Measured from Q4 2008 through Q4 2012, President Obama's average quarterly report of GDP is a stunningly low +0.865% over the 17 quarter period. Measured for the 16 quarters of 2009 through 2012, the average quarterly report is +1.475%.
Measured annually 2009-2012 President Obama's average annual GDP increase is a paltry +0.825%. Bush's average annual report of +2.04% over the eight years from 2001-2008 had been the worst record in post-war history. Remarkably, that was almost 2.5 times better than what we've got now, the worst recorded GDP growth since World War II.
The latest GDP data is available from the BEA in pdf here.
Stunning GDP Drop Stunning To Everyone But David Rosenberg
(This post has been corrected).
Before the election, here, David "Rosie" Rosenberg actually predicted a negative GDP print in Q4 due to Hurricane Sandy. That GDP actually came in at a only slightly negative 0.1% is beside the point. In Q3 2012 the annualized rate of growth was reported as +3.1%. That means that during Q4 the annualized rate of growth hit a brick wall to decline by over 100%. If all it takes is a category 1 hurricane to send the greatest economy in the world negative, we are in sorry shape indeed.
Before the election, here, David "Rosie" Rosenberg actually predicted a negative GDP print in Q4 due to Hurricane Sandy. That GDP actually came in at a only slightly negative 0.1% is beside the point. In Q3 2012 the annualized rate of growth was reported as +3.1%. That means that during Q4 the annualized rate of growth hit a brick wall to decline by over 100%. If all it takes is a category 1 hurricane to send the greatest economy in the world negative, we are in sorry shape indeed.
Busted GDP. Busted Inaugural JumboTron. Busted Presidency. Busted Country.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Sen. Marco Rubio Avoids Talking About Defacto Amnesty On Rush Limbaugh
And Rush avoided bringing up the subject. All Rubio said was that we have "an existing problem":
Look, I think there's this false argument that's been advanced by the left that conservatism and Republicans are anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. And we're not. Never have been.
On the contrary, we are pro-legal immigration. And we recognize that our legal immigration system needs to be reformed. We also recognize, because conservatism's always been about common sense, that we do have an existing problem that needs to be dealt with in the best way possible.
But it came up on Mark Levin's show, as Washington Watcher noted at VDare, here:
In promoting his amnesty on the Mark Levin show last week, Rubio came up with what appeared to Levin to be a novel argument. Rubio claimed that by not enforcing the law, we currently have a “de facto amnesty”—which will continue unless we support his plan, which involves illegals supposedly paying a fine, community service, learning English and various other bits [of] unenforceable window-dressing. Levin, who has been solid on immigration in the past (and, it should be noted, has not come out in support of Rubio’s amnesty), found this argument compelling. He noted:
"We have de facto amnesty right now. When he said it, it set a light bulb off. Maybe I am a little slow. I said, ‘Well he’s right, we do have de facto amnesty.’ Which is exactly why Obama wants to really do nothing." . . .
[D]espite Mark Levin’s “light bulb” moment, this argument is not novel. Thus in 2007, John McCain said "For us to do nothing is silent and de facto amnesty." [GOP Candidates Shy Away From Bush, by Glen Johnson, Associated Press, June 6, 2007] Even Barack Obama has sold amnesty as a punishment . . ..
It's clear Sen. Rubio is sensitive to negative feedback. He's fine tuning the message for the skulls full of mush out there in order to build the case for the Senate Gang of Eight amnesty plan. But as Washington Watcher says in his article, only the first of several reasons the status quo is preferable is that an outright amnesty will trigger a deluge of illegal immigration to take advantage of it.
The country is already full of unassimilated foreigners, so, pace Sen. Rubio, they represent the reason for conservatives to be against more legal immigration, not just the illegal kind. The law and the law-abiding have been the victims in this charade, not the illegals, and it is they who need to pay. It's about time so-called conservatives started saying so instead of cooking up compromises with the devil.
The AMT Fix Was A "Stunning Development"
From the Fairmark.com Tax Guide for Investors, here:
"Although the AMT [Alternative Minimum Tax] fix merely preserves the status quo, for those who follow tax legislation and budget politics this is a stunning development. The need for this measure has been apparent to everyone for many years, but Congress has been unable to deal with the budget implications of a permanent fix and instead has enacted an AMT patch every year or two. How big is the budget impact of a permanent fix? Over the next ten years, this single provision in ATRA [American Taxpayer Relief Act] is estimated to cost the federal treasury over $1.8 trillion dollars. Not a typo."
Speaker Boehner Ripped Off Obama's Shirt. The Pants Are Next.
So says Ralph Benko, rightly, for Forbes, here, quoting Boehner and commenting:
"Who would have ever guessed that we could make 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent? When we had a Republican House and Senate and a Republican in the White House, we couldn’t get that. And so, not bad."
“Not bad” is a resounding understatement. Dealt a weak hand, Boehner managed to 99% outfox, on tax policy, a president who had the massive apparatus of the executive branch, the Senate majority, and a left-leaning national elite media whooping it up for a whopping tax increase. Even more impressively, Boehner pulled it off with steady nerves while under heavy pressure from the anti-spending hawks in his own caucus.
Republicans and especially conservatives still don't appreciate the magnitude of Boehner's achievement, the most important part of which, as Benko says, will turn out to be the new baseline resulting from the permanent fix to the AMT. As The New York Times reported but nobody's talking about, wink wink, the permanent fix to the AMT is going to cost the feds $1.8 trillion over the next ten years. Well, guess who won't be paying that?! And Rush Limbaugh and other dunderheads are complaining that Republicans caved on the principle of tax increases. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Lay down boys, take a little nap. It's 14 miles to the Cumberland Gap.
More Bonds Held Than Stocks Because There's More Of Them, Silly
John Hussman weighs in with his customary common sense, here:
'Quite simply, the reason that pension funds and other investors hold more bonds relative to stocks than they have historically is that there are more bonds outstanding, relative to stocks, than there have been historically. What is viewed as “underinvestment” in stocks is actually a symptom of a rise in the gross indebtedness of the global economy, enabled and encouraged by quantitative easing of central banks, which have been successful in suppressing all apparent costs of that releveraging.'
His regular Tuesday column is like a weekly appointment with a psychiatrist. The madness of a week melts away under his penetrating illuminations.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Housing: 13 Million Borrowers Can't Move, Easily 25% Of Borrowers
Fully 25% of homeowners with mortgages can't sell because they'd have to "pay in" at closing, owing more than they could get, and cannot or will not do that. So they sit, stuck. Separately reported, after 5 million repossessions in 7 years, there are roughly 50 million mortgages still outstanding.
Diana Olick reports for CNBC, here:
"[T]here are still 10.7 million borrowers who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, and an additional 2.3 million who have less than five percent equity in their homes, according to CoreLogic. Those homeowners cannot sell without having to pay into their mortgages, so they are largely stuck in place. First-time home buyers are purchasing at an unusually low rate due to tighter credit standards, and many potential sellers simply don't want to list until prices rise more substantially."
4+ years of Federal Reserve zero interest rate policy hasn't worked to unfreeze the housing market, but it's done a hell of a job reducing income for older Americans.
Americans with capital saved for retirement should be allowed to pay off their mortgages from tax-protected capital without penalty, or, more conservatively, be allowed to bring cash to closing from such funds without penalty in order to close, move on, and "unstick" the market.
Come on Washington, use your imagination!
Oh, I forgot, liberals don't have any.
Warning To Sen. Mitch McConnell: Watch Out For A Libertarian Spoiler
Incumbent Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader in the US Senate, should get ready to face both a Democrat and a libertarian spoiler in his reelection bid.
Libertarians spoiled the senate races for Mourdock in Indiana and for Rehberg in Montana in 2012. So-called Tea Party candidates, Mourdock and Rehberg lost by margins posted to the libertarians' columns in their races. In Montana the libertarian was actually funded by Democrats.
Republicans like Sen. Jim DeMint and Gov. Sarah Palin continue to think, incorrectly, that libertarians are on the Republicans' side. They are not. Gov. Palin in particular has said in the past that she believes it would be a political mistake to alienate libertarians. In saying that, she reveals that she believes Republicans cannot stand on their own. Senator DeMint has said recently that as the new head of the Heritage Foundation he believes it is time to reach out to libertarians to forge an alliance on those things about which Republicans and libertarians agree. It makes one wonder if their own minds aren't divided over whether they are conservatives or libertarians.
Politico reports on the possibility of a libertarian running against McConnell, buried on page 3 of this story about Democrats planning to back a Tea Party candidate:
Liberty for All, a super PAC that put cash behind [Rep. Thomas] Massie and other conservative Republicans, is signaling it’s prepared to spend money to boost a McConnell challenger. One of the group’s leaders, Preston Bates, is a former Democratic operative who worked for Jack Conway, the Democratic candidate who lost to Rand Paul in 2010.
Bates said he left the Democratic Party in 2010, adding that while he personally identifies more with his former party, his year-old group puts money behind viable small government and libertarian-minded conservatives.
“Generally, what we need is to stop electing Republicans that are out of touch with most general election voters,” Bates said.
Libertarians are indeed a subset of the Democrat Party, not a genuine third party. They view themselves as successful not when they stop Democrats from getting elected, but Republicans, as Bates openly states. Democrat money helped a libertarian spoil the race for a Republican challenger to Rep. Giffords in Arizona in 2010, after which she was shot by a deranged libertarian, and in 2012 the Libertarian Party viewed itself as successful because it stopped those Republican candidates for senate in Indiana and Montana.
Sen. McConnell should consider the Democrat threat to back a Tea Party candidate in the Republican primary as a fake to the right. I'd bet rather that the Democrats intend to go left and back a libertarian in the general if possible. That's been their m/o in the past, and likely will be again because it is the more natural for them. When push comes to shove, libertarians jettison economic conservatism for social liberalism, the latter's home being in the Democrat Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)