home

New Jobless Claims 422K: Austerity Now!

The jobs crisis:

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits slipped 6,000 to a seasonally adjusted 422,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday, less than economists' expectations for a fall to 415,000.

Someone should do something. Quick, Austerity Now!

The bar is very high for an extension of the [QE] program and there is little or no political will for fiscal stimulus amid a ballooning budget deficit and high headline inflation.

Not to worry says an economist at the New York Fed, who says we'd never repeat the mistakes of 1937:

The question for the contemporary reader is this: If we could transport a modern-day economist back to 1937, would he or she have made the same mistake? My suggested answer—admittedly somewhat hopeful—is no. I base this view on the fact that most economists today distinguish between the temporary movements in the consumer price index that stem from volatility in commodity prices and the movements that reflect fundamental inflation pressures. Hence a modern economist most likely would have identified the price rise in 1936 and 1937 as a temporary upswing in commodity prices that did not signal a significant increase in overall inflation.

Maybe competent economists won't make the same mistake, but our political elites clearly have. Expect the continuation of this:

The Mistake of 1937 was to relinquish the benefits of reflation and to set all policy levers in reverse. The Fed and key administration officials hinted at interest rate hikes and endorsed austerity in fiscal policy; the key concern now was containing inflation rather than sustaining recovery.

The effects of this policy reversal on prices and production are evident in the charts below. The top chart tracks the consumer price index (CPI) and the wholesale price index (WPI) over the period 1927-41, while the bottom chart plots the movements in industrial production over the same period. In both charts, the first vertical line marks the point at which FDR became president and announced a policy of reflation, while the second vertical line marks the Mistake of 1937. What we see in the top chart is that at the time in 1937 when the administration started warning that inflation was too high, the price level had not yet reached the pre-depression levels that had previously been the administration’s goal. Following this policy reversal, both prices and industrial production tumbled. The line indicating the “reversal of 1938” marks the point when the administration recommitted to inflating the price level to pre-depression levels. Significantly, this renewed commitment was followed by robust growth, as the bottom chart makes clear.

Austerity Now!

< Global Commission Report: War on Drugs A Failure | Can Monetary Policy Save The Economy? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    More people giving up (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 08:46:42 AM EST
    has reduced unemployment rate, not great policies.

    But the number of Americans counted as unemployed has shrunk by much more -- almost 1.3 million -- during this time. That means the labor force has dropped by 529,000 workers.

    The percentage of adults in the labor force is a figure that economists call the participation rate. It is 64.2 percent, the smallest since 1984. And that's become a mystery to economists. Normally after a recession, an improving economy lures job seekers back into the labor market. This time, many are staying on the sidelines.
    ...
    If the 529,000 missing workers had been out scavenging for a job without success, the unemployment rate would have been 9.3 percent in April, not the reported rate of 9 percent. And if the participation rate were as high as it was when the recession began, 66 percent, in December 2007, the unemployment rate could have been as high as 11.5 percent. link



    Out of curiosity, has anyone looked at (none / 0) (#4)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:15:54 AM EST
    how the 300k a month of boomers who turn eligible for retirement have affected the shrinking workforce numbers? That's 1.5 million new 65 year old people so far this year.

    They aren't all leaving full time employment, but the absence of those who have retired must be reflected in the statistics somewhere.

    Parent

    Balanced against (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:28:03 AM EST
    all the new college graduates entering the workforce who wouldn't be counted in unemployment figures.....

    Parent
    Good point. On average about 120k people (none / 0) (#11)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:37:25 AM EST
    each month enter our nation's workforce on the front end, either post-high school or post-college. Depending on whose numbers you look at - various states or federal - these folks can show up in employment figures as "underemployed" until they get full time jobs. However, they won't show up as unemployed until they've had a job for a period of time - and lost it.

    Parent
    Good research project for you (none / 0) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:35:01 AM EST
    I'm sure if the data can be used to prove what a great job creation program we have, it will be on the WH's website.

    Parent
    No thanks. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (none / 0) (#15)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:51:23 AM EST
    I worked for our state's workforce development department for years, and part of my job was to look at employment numbers like these. Now I do research in other areas.

    But thanks for the offer! ;-)

    Parent

    BTW, many of the boomers (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:39:30 AM EST
    are being forced out of the job market much earlier than they planned or before they are financially ready.

    Within two months, three of my friends (all with degrees) in their early to mid fifties have lost their jobs.

    Parent

    I assume (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:17:57 AM EST
    Obama knows this is not the most effective policy strategy.  But I don't understand why they think this is a great political winner.  Are people just not going to remember months and months of lingering high unemployment?  The one step forward, one step back shuffle?  It doesn't make them look like careful stewards of the economy, it makes them look like they are weak or clueless.  And it leaves them open to attack.

    As long as the Republicans are (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:31:44 AM EST
    more threatening and Obama's approval ratings are rising while he continues to prove just how business friendly he can be (i.e. meets their objectives), I don't think he much cares.

    Just look at the people here who don't approve of his policies but will vote for him regardless of what he does or doesn't do since he is considered the better of two evils.

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#13)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:39:58 AM EST
    it depends on the GOP staying in a state of incessant idiocy.  Obama has rarely called them out on said idiocy, has rarely made them vote on it, so if the GOP candidate is able to cut to the center during the GE Obama could be in trouble.  I'm not sure how much the Tea Party cares about policy either; a GOP candidate could just throw out the word "socialism" a few times and that might be enough for them.  The election for them is going to be about beating Obama.

    Parent
    I wouldn't agree he doesn't (none / 0) (#21)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 03:59:39 PM EST
    care.  I just think that temperamentally he's not a bold-stroke guy, not a type able or willing or with the proper wherewithal to undertake the sort of heavy lifting and upsetting of the status quo that it's going to take to get this economy righted again.

    Probably too dependent on the economic advice of advisers, too, as opposed to a president -- JFK comes to mind -- who independently took it upon himself to learn the subject, widely and deeply.

    Now all this is brushing up against his own much stronger political ambitions -- and remember this is one very ambitious guy -- who knows that a one-term presidency is going to go down in the books as a failure.  He doesn't want to be in that category, but doesn't know, yet, what to do to about it.  

    He's fully aware that presidents don't tend to get re-elected with a glaringly high unemployment figure in the months leading up to election day, while his team, otoh, has only delivered a partial recovery followed by a more distressing downturn.  Iow, it's getting to be crunch time for Obama -- the economy, Afghanistan -- and kicking the can down the road and hoping for good news in the meantime will soon no longer be an option.

    Parent

    He's going to have to spin on a dime (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:37:48 AM EST
    and really go against himself to pull this one off (aiming the economy in the right direction and quit playing nice with everyone). He's running outta time . . . as are we all. And his 'message' these days isn't too encouraging . . .

    Parent
    If only there was someone sane (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:36:38 AM EST
    who could take them to the woodshed though.  I was watching a GOP press conference and Paul Ryan had come forward to speak.  I took a class in NLP once, and I watched a video of BTD one time and after watching it I knew that he was left handed and sort of a neat and tidy person.  Paul Ryan gave his entire talking point while trying to stare through his own forehead.  Chances are that Paul Ryan is sort of a neat and tidy person too, but when you look up you are accessing your imagination.  A lot of people will do that when you are analyzing something too, but their eyes will come down at times to as they take the analysis into current reality.  Paul Ryan never looked down, he never looked at the media or any person or anything, he tried to stare right through his whole forehead while speaking almost a whole paragraph.  He was speaking from and his reality of what he was talking about all exists only in his imagination.  And then the rest of the GOP standing around him clapped wildly.

    Parent
    How did you know I was left handed? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:41:53 AM EST
    Because she took (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 02:34:34 PM EST
    a class in neuro linguistic programming, and she is very observant and intelligent, and put that knowledge to great use.  Be afraid, BTD, be very afraid.  Tracy knows.   ;-)

    Parent
    Riddle me this then: (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 03:55:40 PM EST
    MT knows BTD is "sort of a neat and tidy person."  

    (Good thing S_ _ _ _ _ Y isn't reading this!)

    Parent

    When you accessed things I know to be a fact (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    or at least things that I know that you know as facts, you looked to the right during your interview.

    Parent
    And right handed people often (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 04:01:29 PM EST
    notice this difference when left handed people are speaking to us, but we usually don't know what the difference is that we are noticing.  You guys are just strange :)

    Parent
    Well, what does the level of (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 11:12:56 AM EST
    unemployment matter as long as "the markets" are up, profits are up, shareholders are getting nice dividends and bonuses are generous?  Isn't that how we measure prosperity now?  

    Must be, since the only time the powers that be seem to get nervous and want to "do something" is when the markets start to look wobbly - and if the things they want to do have any benefit for the masses - like increasing the values of our IRAs and 401(k)s - that's never the real goal, just a collateral benefit - kind of like a bone with a little meat on it.

    "Austerity Now!" reminds me of "Serenity Now!" - the mantra of "Festivus."  Is "Austerity Now!" the mantra of our new holiday, ""Death-of-Us?"


    Watching the market drop (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 08:46:33 AM EST
    Zerohedge predicts that when it hits 10,000 QE3 will be considered then to save the markets.  Nobody is coming for us though.  We were considered what they could easily sacrifice years ago now.

    They're not going to sacrifice us (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by TJBuff on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:06:23 AM EST
    Selling our organs to the wealthy will bring in too much money.

    Parent
    I guess it's the Matrix for us :) (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:17:30 AM EST
    Plug Me In... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    ... because this reality sucks.

    Parent