Let the good times roll -- 248,000 new jobs

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Hurray. Although, most demographers think that population growth adds about 150,000 to the working age group every month.

february saw: 251,000 new jobs created, and 97,000 jobs taken away. thats a net gaing of 153,000 jobs. so the real number of jobs created was 153,000. of the 150,000 people going into the labor, if you say that every month 150,000 people join the working age population, then 2/3rd of them would join the labor force, so thats 100,000 new people in the labor force, so unemployment went down by 50,000

is this correct, or have i double subtracted?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

[JimmyCracksCorn]

And don't forget immigration either...

[pchang]

You have double subtracted

Population growth include immigration

[Odin]

Gian, quit being a complete moron, presidents have very little effect on the economy, the crap in the 70's was because of OPEC and Iran.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Odin
Gian, quit being a complete moron, presidents have very little effect on the economy, the crap in the 70's was because of OPEC and Iran.

I never said Presidents had much of an effect on an economy, but they at least steer where it goes with policy. And now there, don't insult people.

I love how you leftists have managed to take good news as bad. Is that what you guys do for a living? Wait.. those are lawyers.. never mind.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
oerdins right, reagan was a crook and he put our economy in the ****ter and he did nothing to stop communism and his only lasting legacy is the huge debt.

The Soviets were in economic trouble since the 1970's. Sure, Reagan's arms race hurried things along but the Soviets were a sinking ship with or without Reagan. Also Reagan's debt was the reason Bush Sr had to control spending and raise taxes which is the direct cause of the 1991 downturn. The one good thing Reagan did do economically was end the stagflation of the late 70's by jacking up interest rates.

Of course that tanked our economy along with much of latin America in the early 80's but it did stop the inflation.

[Giancarlo]

Oerdin, no. The economy works in cycles, and after a period of expansion there is usually a slow-down or recession. That's why the 1991 recession occurred. Additionally, in the mid to later 80s there was large economic expansion.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1

"Fable 8: Bush and Clinton Inherited a Future of High and Rising Deficits from Reagan

The supply-side turkey has come home to roost. [41]

It is a popular misconception that Presidents Bush and Clinton inherited large deficits "baked in the cake" from Reagan policies. When Reagan left the White House in January 1989, the fiscal outlook was expected to continue to improve rather than worsen. In that month, the CBO released its long-term forecast for the economy and the budget deficit.

Table 7 shows that the deficit was expected to continue to fall steadily to $110 billion and 1.5 percent of GDP by 1995.[42]These forecasts reflected in large part a continuation of the modest fiscal progress achieved during Reagan's second term. The CBO concluded that continued deficit reduction would occur even if Bush were to do nothing to improve the budget outlook and simply left fiscal policy on automatic pilot. In reality, the national debt was $622 billion higher than anticipated and as a share of GDP, the budget deficits were nearly 2 percentage points higher. Measured in real dollars, the 1990-94 period showed the worst five-year deficit performance in the post-World War II era. [43]"

[Lawrence of Arabia]

You have double subtracted

so using the numbers i provided, do the correct math so i can see where i went wrong.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

fez, from that same report

National Debt. The national debt (public debt) in real 1987 dollars doubled from $1,004 billion in 1981 to $2,028 billion in 1989. As a share of GDP, the debt increased from 27 percent to 42 percent, as shown in Figure 7. In the 1990s the debt has risen to 52 percent of GDP. The rise in the national debt in the 1980s was large and has imposed significant repayment costs on future generations.

from that same report, regans team forcasted a $700 billion loss of revenue due to the tax cuts. why didnt he cut spending? instead he increased the military budget by 44%, so when he was reducing intake, he was increasing outflow. irresponsibility. defense spending doesnt increase 44% because of an accident.

theres two ways of looking at it: a) too much spending causes debts, or b) not enough revenue causes debt.

reagan coulda done 4 things

1. keep taxes and military spending at levels before
2. decrease taxes and military spending
3. decrease taxes and increase military spending
4. increase taxes and increase military spending.

its all at how you look at it. cato says that it was increased spending, not decreased revenue that caused the deficit. like any sane person, i believe that debt is primairly caused when revenues decrease and spending either stays the same or increases. thats what reagan did.

in fact, reagans deficits worked against the anti-inflationary measures of the fed, prolonging the recession. it follows that once inflation is over with, the economy will pick up again. therefore, it was Volcker, not the tax cuts, that stimulated the economy.

heres another problem i have with the cato report

Fable 5: Clinton's Economic Record Has Outperformed Reagan's

Our economy is the soundest it's been in a generation.[38]

The growth rate under Clinton has been 2.7 percent, half a percent below the 3.2 percent growth rate under Reagan and a full percentage point below the 3.8 percent growth rate during the 1983-89 expansion. Standard government forecasts predict a 2-2.5 percent growth rate through the end of the decade. Yet, if even the high end of that forecast proves to be accurate, the 1990s will be the lowest economic growth decade since the Great Depression and the second lowest in the 20th century.

what about productivty growht? 1981 - 1988 was 1.9%. thats an economic trend rate of 5.1% for reagan. 1993 - 1999 had 2.5% productivity gains, and averaged 3.8% gdp growth. thats an economic trend rate of 6.3%

[Odin]

CATO? they are a bunch of libertarian nut-jobs.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Odin
CATO? they are a bunch of libertarian nut-jobs.

They certainly have an agenda when it comes to economic policy, but they are for the end of the "war on drugs", so they aren't complete nut jobs... if they weren't evil right-wingers, they'd be all right.

[DanS]

february saw: 251,000 new jobs created

262,000 jobs for February is the net number. Jobs were created and destroyed, and the result of that is +262,000.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Seasonally Adjusted

Unemployment Rate:
History 5.4% in Feb 2005

Change in Unemployment Level:
History +251,000 in Feb 2005

Change in Employment Level:
History -97,000 in Feb 2005

Change in Civilian Labor Force Level:
History +153,000 in Feb 2005

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate:
History 65.8% in Feb 2005

Employment-Population Ratio:
History 62.3% in Feb 2005

Annual Averages

Unemployment Rate:
History 5.5% for 2004

Unemployment Level:
History 8,149,000 for 2004

[Giancarlo]

Lawrence, you criticize a report yet you haven't really pointed out any problems. You have speculated on your own biases, but that's about it.

"in fact, reagans deficits worked against the anti-inflationary measures of the fed, prolonging the recession."

No it didn't. In fact the tax cuts though temporarily increasing deficits, helped shorten the recession. I love how you like to be a historical revisionist!

[Giancarlo]

dp