More economic recovery:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12648347

 

The US unemployment rate fell slightly to 8.9% in February, down from 9% the month before.

It is the third month in a row that the jobless rate has fallen, with February's figure marking a near two-year low.

Employers added 192,000 jobs last month, the US Labor Department said, above market expectations.

Paul O'Neill, former US Treasury Secretary, described the data as "very positive".

A Labor Department statement said that most job gains were in manufacturing, construction, business services and transport.

State and local government slashed 30,000 jobs, the most since November as budget cuts continue to bite.

The data showed that the jobless rate for adult men was 8.7%, for adult women 8%, and for teenagers 23.9%.

The unemployment rate has come down from 9.8% in November.

____________________

I'll be the first to admit that this is not what the Obama Administration predicted or really wanted when they wanted unemployment to stay where it was when they were inaugurated. However looking at this, the unemployment figures appear to be showing more, and more effective, growth since the Administration's stimulus package has gone into effect. It makes me curious in fact whether or not a larger stimulus package would have had more effect. What do you guys think?

Comments

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

But that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I was just saying that there is a cost to inaction, as illustrated by an output gap.

Government action isn't limited to fiscal stimulus. Federal Reserve rates and tax/spending cuts count, too.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I was just saying that there is a cost to inaction, as illustrated by an output gap.

My error, I thought you were talking about the output gap that the stimulus was trying to fill.

Government action isn't limited to fiscal stimulus. Federal Reserve rates and tax/spending cuts count, too.

Absolutely, but the fiscal stimulus was what the government chose - to our detriment.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

No, I was speaking generally. But looking back at my original comment, I did say "stimulus" where I really meant "government action."

Tax cuts are a form of stimulus, though - Keynes advocated for those in addition to spending boosts.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, I was speaking generally. But looking back at my original comment, I did say "stimulus" where I really meant "government action."

Fair enough.

Tax cuts are a form of stimulus, though - Keynes advocated for those in addition to spending boosts.

Sure. It's too bad we didn't really go for those, though. Did some small tax credits, which don't cut taxes and were temporary enough where no one would actually do anything with them. But thems the breaks.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually we did try the biggest tax cuts in history:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016863.php

I believe if Obama were to start spouting every nostrum of the GOP they'd turn into hardcore Bakuninites the next day.

Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain:

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

There were no tax cuts in the Obama stimulus, only tax credits. Obama didn't actually sign a tax cut until last December.

Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

My God, it's like talking to David Irving!Bot.

Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain:

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Again, facts are important.