You've Seen It Before, And Here It Is Again: "The Chart That Tears Apart The Stimulus Package"

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Over a year ago we penned "QE 2 Was A Disaster: Here Is Why US Fiscal "Stimulus" Was  A Complete Failure As Well", because, well, QE2 was a disaster, which is important to remember as we are about to set off on the NEW QE as per Hilsenrath, because apparently creating 80,000 jobs per month (with the S&P a whopping 5% off multi-year highs) "Leaves Door For Fed Wide Open" even though the Fed has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt it is incapable of creating jobs and at best can ramp the Russell 2000 for a few months. But more importantly, a year later it is obvious that the ARRA just kept on being wronger and wronger with each passing month, until we get to today. We will spare readers our conclusion about ARRA architect Christina Romer's (long gone from the administration for obvious reasons) predictive powers, suffice it to say they are on par with those of the Fed itself. Simon Black, using AEI data, reminds us how the ARRA chart looks, one year later.

The graph that tears appart the stimulus package

After Obama was elected, one of his first initiatives was to enact a massive stimulus package in order to reduce the rising unemployment after the housing collapse and bailout all the failing banks. When promoting his plan, the President offered many promises about the success of his idea but very few have so far come to fruition. Below is a graph that was supposed to estimate the effects of the stimulus, however as you can see, it far from achieved the President’s goals.

AEI reports on the ineffectiveness of the program:

 

 The graph that tears appart the stimulus package

 

This was not the employment report either the American worker or the Obama campaign wanted to see right now. The Labor Department said the U.S. economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, less than the 90,000 economists had been forecasting. And private-sector job growth was just 84,000, down sharply from 105,000 in May. Not doing fine.

 

The unemployment rate stayed at a lofty 8.2%.

 

This continues to be the longest streak — 41 months — of unemployment of 8% or higher since the Great Depression. And recall that back in 2009, Team Obama predicted that if Congress passed its $800 billion stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would be around 5.6% today.

 

– If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.8% today—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.9%. Even if you take into account that the LFP should be declining as America ages,theunemployment rate would be 10.5%.


– The broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes “all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons,”  is 14.9%, up a bit from May.

 

– The average duration of unemployment ticked up to 39.9 weeks.

 

Continue to the full article…

0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 07/06/2012 - 18:05 | 2593419 HelluvaEngineer
HelluvaEngineer's picture

But Buffett assured him it would work!

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 18:20 | 2593447 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

I'm looking forward to another awesome night out this Saturday. Unfortunately for libertarians, if you want to get the best girls you simply have to be a progressive. Nerdy libertarians, uptight rednecks and raving hillbillies just don't stand a chance on the dance floor. Cool girls gravitate toward smart, sensitive and ambitious progressives, not spotty libertarian computer nerds or silverbug preppers with stacks of eagles buried in their back yard in preparation for the 'apocalypse'. Doomer libertarians need to get out more, or they risk becoming completely detached from society and from life. 

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 18:27 | 2593462 Blackfox
Blackfox's picture

Fuck I just wet myself.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 18:38 | 2593486 Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar's picture

With pee or cum?  Or did you spill coffee on yourself because MDB is 'so funny'?

Since Obama's stimulus package doesn't work - as Tyler shows - then one must assume that this was because...

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 20:22 | 2593721 TwoShortPlanks
TwoShortPlanks's picture

because.....for the past 20-30 years (especially the 15 years pre-GFC) the western world and some sectors of the emerging economies, have lived beyond our means, and (temporarily) brought forward a standard of living we were meant to enjoy 30-50 years into the future. The natural advancement of standards of living and wealth creation are (should be) as physically real an event as the purification of physical metal from the earth ie. it takes time, manpower, energy and intelligence to extract and purify something in the ground into something we can use, or store as assumed vaule. There is no magic in that, there is no circumventing time, energy and knowledge (fact and natural law). Take Gold for example; it's not money at all, nor is it a store of value. To me, Gold is merely a store of, a representation of, time, energy and knowledge/Inginuity...it's value is only derived from a commonly agreed upon (general) acknowledgement of that notional value (an agreement to the terms), the pricetag of which must be assigned - as with all things - through price discovery. Fiat paper money too must be commonly agreed upon as representing manpower and energy elsewhere. So, the real issue here is that paper money can act like a Time Machine, actually, more like a Virtual Particle where, time and eneregy can be circumvented for a brief period, and the fruits of labor and energy can be artificially and magically emulated, but then the natural balance of things must be restored. This is true for the economy as well as the physical universe in which it resides. During the 20 or so years before the GFC we effectively brought forward a future lifestyle and wealth epoch into the present day, but now that balance must be restored. I come from an aerospace engineering background, so for me math and physics are real. The magic and slippery trickery of the markets and economies are mere temporary manipulations which eventually become UNDONE. The only reason people do not subscribe to this notion is because they have not lived long enough to have witnessed it in action. Those who have treat money very differently from our modern-day irreverent mentality. So my outlook on the future of money is nothing like what an economist's or trader's would be today. I am trying to learn how money was viewed in the 1920's and adopt that mantality (save first then spend, no credit at all...and it's hard).
Why is there no recovery? Because there will be no recovery, can people not see that already? The data and physical reality just outside the window are staring everyone in the face, but still we look for it. Like Japan's lost decade (double decade actually), we will all need to pay the piper (perhaps even the Ferryman) over the coming decades, and it's a huge bill that has been placed on the table in front of us. The western world will pass it around the table and keep buying drinks in the meantime, hoping that our kids will pay it for us or be industrious enough to kick the can further, but soon enough we will all be in the back of the resturant washing dishes to pay for the feast as our funny money (Virtual Money) will not be accepted.
And it is this belief which leads me to the most radical of views; that we will not just return to a Gold Standard to support Bonds and Cash, because that won't be enough, not by a long shot. I believe that Gold will need to support ALL that has been brought forward from the future since 1971, that includes Derivatives, Real Estate, Credit Card debt, everything! What's that, about 1 Quadrillion?
So call me a madman if you like, but I believe I have the math and physics of inevitability on my side. Crazily...scarily...I put a US$70,000-150,000/oz price tag on Gold. But rest assured, the ups and downs of todays markets are just a distraction; i don't even know what the price of Gold is today and nor do I care, because a $10,000 gamble today will be a huge payoff tomorrow...perhaps in 20 years time.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 20:38 | 2593749 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

A gold standard's not quite the best idea, IMO, but it'd sure be an improvement.  The problem is: we won't be returning to a gold standard until there's been another international bloodbath.

I'd ballpark it at a war with a half-billion dead before the capitalists consider any meaningful change.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 20:49 | 2593784 TwoShortPlanks
TwoShortPlanks's picture

There won't be a war. Wars are an excurse to either take from others of a means to stimulate the economy. The only benifit of a war now would be slave labor (soldiers get paid little and everything is rationed). Aren't we printing already? This environmnet is waaaay different to Pre-WWII, we're already stimulated to the gills, what we need is a detox, a period of cold-turke from the addiction of money. Besides, the populace globally doesn't have an apitite for war, not now.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 21:20 | 2593868 markmotive
markmotive's picture

You are an indentured servant to your debt and the credit based economic system.

Welcome to hell!

http://www.planbeconomics.com/2010/09/07/you-are-an-indentured-servant-to-your-debt/

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 21:21 | 2593874 economics9698
economics9698's picture

The problem with government spending is it is a luxury; we pay for law, order, clean judges, cops, and other luxury items.

Keynes changed the concept that government was a luxury item civilized people enjoy to the savior of the universe.  And Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Obama…

The Keynes/Obama thinking is that money can be created autonomously and injected into the economy filling up the production that was idle creating full employment.

The problem is money doesn’t grow in the helicopter; it comes from borrowing, printing, or taxes. 

Borrowing removes the consumption of the saver from the economy and efficient allocation of that money from the private sector to be squandered, typically 55 cents of every public sector dollar goes down the toilet, inside the government.

Printing is a tax on all of Americans and removes consumption out of the economy in favor of the special interest receiving the counterfeited cash.

Direct taxes, same as above, from the “rich” who would consume, invest, or save the money.

Generally the economy loses 2.2 jobs or 55 cents on the dollar to create 1 government job.  Stimulus programs, Bush I, Ford, Bush II, always fuck the economy up.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 21:37 | 2593911 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

    Printing is a tax on all of Americans and removes consumption out of the economy in favor of the special interest receiving the counterfeited cash.

Nope, printing is a tax on all HOLDERS OF DOLLARS.

Most *Americans* are not holding any significant amount of dollars.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 22:51 | 2594055 economics9698
economics9698's picture

 

Food and energy, inelastic items disproportionately a larger share of lower income budgets, go up faster than luxury items or elastic items.  The poor pay a disproportionate about of the inflation tax, a regressive tax, when central banks print.

It is a tax that must be paid ever time people go to the store or fill up.  A invisible tax but a tax.

For example in socialist Venezuela the central banks prints and the annual inflation rate is about 25%.  Go to the store and hamburger is $9.60 a pound, a Big Mac meal is $13, and a 12 ounce Coke is $2 at the supermarket.  This is what I call a tax for being economically stupid.

Oh and my favorite Venezuelan tax, a $99 window AC unit cost $617 there.  No AC for the poor.

 

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 23:00 | 2594070 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

The thing is, the prices of a low-income expenditures in the US are mitigated by all the dole programs.  So, yes, food prices in theory hurt the lower-income first, but the truly lower-income have the government paying for their groceries.  I live in a low-income 'hood, and I assure you my poorer out-of-work neighbors are not generally having any trouble feeding themselves.

And as I mentioned and you patently ignored: "holders of dollars" and "Americans" are distinguishable (although overlapping, certainly) groups of people. 

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 23:07 | 2594086 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Food stamps are a form of dollars.  Dollars devalue when more are created, prices increase in nominal terms, the receivers of the new money get to purchase items first before the dollars circulate and drive up demand/prices.

I need a drink now. 

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 23:26 | 2594105 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I'm not arguing that point, but it's way too simplistic.  The increase in money supply based on Fed action has FAR surpassed the increase in food and energy prices, or ANY prices, in the US economy.

You can increase the money supply by a factor of a million, but if none of that money enters the *real* economy (meaning: exchange for goods/services), you will not see the inflation that your two-variable model would predict.  Most of the "money" from the Fed's action is just sitting on banks' balance sheets.  It's not going to be lent to anyone, and banks have no interest in purchasing physical assets.  That's not their business.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 23:39 | 2594128 sablya
sablya's picture

I hate this market!  I hate the whiny f'n losers who cry for stimulus every time a bad employment number comes out.  It makes me sick that people are so short-sighted to think that more liquidity will solve our economic problems.  Guess what?  After $3 trillion of QE, yeah, this is where we are.  8+% unemployment.  WTF?  It didn't work then and it's not going to work now.  It's not even going to work as well now as it did then, and then it didn't work.  HELLLLLOOOOO?????  Interest rates are as low as they've been in 200 years and WTF?? the economy still sucks.  "MORE QE!!! MORE QE!!!" What is wrong with these F'N morons???  Oh my gosh, I'm going to blow a f'n gasket with all this BS.  QE, QE, QE, BTFD, QE, QE, BTFD.  I wanna f'n hurl.  I wanna smash in Bernanke's head with a baseball bat.  That jack dick has ruined this entire world and mortgaged my children's future to pay for a small pop in the RUT.  OFF with his stupid f'n head.

 

And guess what?  I don't even feel better after that rant. :(

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 23:43 | 2594133 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

The QE demands are coming from folks who have extremely profitable careers doing nothing but skimming from the productive classes.  For the most part, they had enough money to buy the politicians, so they DID.  The governments can't afford to make good on the banksters losses, so I expect you'll see a lot more of that.

Best not to let it upset you too much.  Life's too short.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 23:54 | 2594151 sablya
sablya's picture

I'm upset because my 10 year old son is going to inherit a world far different from the one I grew up in.  We've sown the wind and now we will reap the whirlwind.  We've lived beyond our means and then borrowed to pay off our debts and then borrowed to pay off those debts.  The massive transfer of wealth from my son's future to the banksters of today is a done deal.  It is unstoppable.  I can't really express how terrible I feel for what I imagine he's going to have to live through.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 00:51 | 2594206 Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar's picture

No offense but quit being so negative.  Finance is a means to an end, not an end itself.

Teach your son about infinite fiat, the concept of wash / rinse / repeat, and guide him towards doing something with his life he feels passionate about.  If you do that, I doubt you'll find him one day writing such a comment such as the one his old man made above.

Best of luck to you sabs.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 04:52 | 2594363 drunkenlout
drunkenlout's picture

Who is this "we" you speak of, who lived beyond "our" means and borrowed to pay off debts?  It wasn't me.  If it was you, then perhaps you should substitute the pronoun "I", and tell your son what you did to him.  And don't include me in your Walmartian "we".   I refer to the numbnuts who fucked us over through ignorance and sloth as "they".

I'm not a total asshole.  If you and he will sign a binding waiver, I'll pay him to mow my lawn, if it ever rains again.  Mowing lawns is what I did at age 10, prior to paying cash for everything and accumulating some unencumbered assets.  Can he pass a drug test?  

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 05:48 | 2594378 CharlieSDT
CharlieSDT's picture

Why do you need to pass a drug test to mow lawns?

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 09:32 | 2594559 WonderDawg
WonderDawg's picture

What's passing a drug test got to do with anything? Either he can mow the lawn or he can't. You're doing the hiring so you're gonna institute some gov't regulations?

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 09:49 | 2594589 sablya
sablya's picture

"We" means, the collective of Americans, Europeans, Japanese, etc.  You're included whether you like it or not because you stood by, most likely, while the politicians ran up huge deficits and you enjoyed your little perqusites, sucking at the government teat like everyone else.  Don't play all high and mighty like you're innocent because no one is.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 23:49 | 2594142 sablya
sablya's picture

Yeah, the M2 velocity is the key.  That's in the toilet and there's NOTHING the Fed can do to affect velocity.  They can pump liquidity into the system as much as they want and if velocity is low, there will be no effect.  Why are these things so obvious to regular people like me, I'm not an economist, but these Wall Street ass clowns can't put 2+2 together.  More QE is all we hear.  The diabolical monsters think they can manage the economy but all they can do is wreak havoc and destroy.  

All the liquidity on the books of the banks is like a giant reservoir of water.  I don't know what it would take to put it in motion but if it does start to flow, then the floodgates will open and inflation will sky rocket and all hell will break lose.  Just one more disaster from the central bankers who've absolutely devastated the markets and probably can't wait to finish the job.  

I'm shocked at the rampant stupidity in their tiny little Keynesian minds.  

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 02:39 | 2594301 Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar's picture

So does this mean you are buying physical on July 13 or not?  No one really cares about how shocked you are.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 09:35 | 2594563 sablya
sablya's picture

Shouldn't you be out counting your unencumbered dead blades of grass, jack dick?

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 11:54 | 2594756 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

Right. The money injected into the economy through social spending, such as on food stamps, is borrowed by the government as money printed against its own IOU's. That spending is inflationary. The Poor benefit from that spending, while at the same time don't hold cash debased by the printing that gets them their food stamps. Government will increase spending as much as necessary to maintain benefits, which is to say maintain law and order, which mitigates inflation's bite for recipients. The wage earner and the saver are the ones who gets stuck with the consequences of inflation. The problem for the poor is that such a system, based on monetization of debt and not on monetization of production, keeps them in poverty as long as their productivity is not required.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 13:49 | 2594983 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

The money injected into the economy as "social spending" is a rounding error compared to the money being spent to maintain the broken financial system.  People with no sense of scale like to worry about things like welfare, but it's really not a major element of the Federal budget.  The budget is essentially war-machine, SS, Medicare,

The TARP bailout was 10 years worth of food-stamps.  I agree that food stamps are likely increasing inflation in food prices, but it's like worrying about a paper-cut when the patient's leg has been cut off.

I'm all for ending the dole programs.  There just needs to be a survival alternative for the tens of millions of people who wouldn't eat if SNAP ended tomorrow, because it's REALLY not worth turning all the poor areas of the country into war-zones over $80B a year.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 17:41 | 2595404 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

Didn't mean to imply that social programs are the singular impetus for government indebtedness; only that inflation caused by deficit spending can and will be mitigated by increasing benifits to recipients. It gets harder and harder to move people off the dole when the gap between what can be recieved from government programs and what can be earned from working, if a job exists, grows ever wider due to inflation. Benefits are indexed while income is not, and presently income is stagnate and will remain stagnate as long as there are plenty of unemployed and production occurs overseas.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 04:04 | 2594345 SoCalBusted
SoCalBusted's picture

...and the progressives love to tax the shit out of alcohol and tobacco (but it is for your own good).  The poor spend more of their income (as a %) on such items.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 08:46 | 2594488 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

That's another bullshit statistic...

If someone makes minimum wage & buys a case of beer a week, and another person makes 6 figures & buys a case a week, WTF kind of ststistics do you think you're going to come up with...

To could apply that to any category you want... If you have a baby that shits its diapers "x" times per day & some rich fucks baby shits its diapers the same number of times per week, what? I guess the poor spend more of their income on diapers as well...

A minumum wager can't afford to buy blow or Ukranian hookers, so they spend 0 on that... Some Wall St. trader makes bank and drops a few grand a year on them...

I reiterate... All bullshit statistics...

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:25 | 2594632 Goner
Goner's picture

Your post seems to agree with the post above 100% yet you call it bullshit

"If someone makes minimum wage & buys a case of beer a week, and another person makes 6 figures & buys a case a week, WTF kind of ststistics do you think you're going to come up with..."

The minimum wage guy spent a larger % of his income on beer in YOUR example. Just like the above poster said. Not sure how that statistic is bullshit assuming the guys spent anywhere near the same on beer. If I was making minimum wage I would not be out spending a decent portion of my income on booze, blow and smokes. If I have expendable income (like the 6 figure guy) then party on Wayne

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 12:11 | 2594797 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

I'm saying that the 'interpretation' of the statistics is bullshit...

The inference... ALWAYS... is that lower income types always blow a disproportionate amount of their income on 'VICES'...

I argue the opposite... The RICH, (who, perhaps have large portions of income tied into the BANKING SYSTEM (which then levers it up & wreak all kinds of damage), are the idiots...

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 14:11 | 2595022 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Just a suggestion: focus on getting the facts right.  Some of the regulars here are not prepared to focus on fact--it's all about interpretation or slant.  It gets no one anywhere.

You're falling into the same trap of ignoring the basics while getting sidetracked with the emotions when you let those non-reality based arguments get to you.

"The poor" spend a larger percentage of their income on virtually everything, because they spend all the income.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 02:59 | 2594313 SoCalBusted
SoCalBusted's picture

Try again.  Printing is a tax on those who must transact in dollars.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 14:20 | 2595038 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You're onto something, but you haven't described it properly.  It's not really quite like that, because the transaction has dollar-users on BOTH SIDES.  So if the "value" of the dollar decreases, both the buyer and seller in the transaction are affected equally.

In other words: say I now have to pay $1 more for whatever because dollars are worth less.  The guy I'm getting whatever from is "earning" that extra dollar.  And since we're all both buyers and sellers in the system, that is as much advantage as disadvantage overall.

The idea that you're driving at has to do with dollar purchasing power relative to resources which come from NON-"dollar-bound" transactions.  Like imported products and commodities.  But you'd have to write more than a few words to make the point.

Try again.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 07:07 | 2594421 Bagbalm
Bagbalm's picture

Yes but it is a reduction in wages for next week - bit by bit - every week.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 02:35 | 2594300 Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar's picture

Welcome to hell!

Honesty in advertising.  I like it.  There's no more appropriate introduction to a two-year-old article from your shit-blog than that.

So are you buying physical on July 13 or not?

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:34 | 2594643 nmewn
nmewn's picture

And now a quick word of encouragement from our Dear Leader...the Teleprompter:

June 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/06/employment-situation-june)

May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/01/employment-situation-may)

April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/04/employment-situation-april)

March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/06/employment-situation-march)

February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/09/employment-situation-february)

January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/03/employment-situation-january)

December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/06/employment-situation-december)

November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/02/employment-situation-november)

October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/04/employment-situation-october)

September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/07/employment-situation-september)

August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/02/employment-situation-august)

July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/05/employment-situation-july)

June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/08/employment-situation-june)

May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/03/employment-situation-may)

April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/06/employment-situation-april)

March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/01/employment-situation-march)

February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/04/employment-situation-february)

January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/04/employment-situation-january)

December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/07/employment-situation-december)

November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/03/employment-situation-november)

October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/11/05/employment-situation-october)

September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/08/employment-situation-september)

July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.  It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/06/employment-situation-july)

August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/03/employment-situation-august)

June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/employment-situation-june)

May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/04/employment-situation-may)

April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/07/employment-situation-april)

March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/02/employment-situation-march)

January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/05/employment-situation-january)

November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/04/employment-situation-november)

You may now resume your regularly scheduled programming.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 03:59 | 2594341 SoCalBusted
SoCalBusted's picture

I really don't like being the spelling police.  And I am hoping you are not an American.  But if you are an American, the multiple spelling errors in your post is really a buzz kill to your point.  Just sayin'.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 05:52 | 2594382 TwoShortPlanks
TwoShortPlanks's picture

Sorry, I wrote that after 3hrs cycling in the hills...glycogen depletion's a bitch.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 09:57 | 2594496 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

A couple of space bars between paragraphs would have been nice too. It was a little hard on the eyes...

Edit: LMFAO (someone junks me for saying that)... Ok... reading

"So, the real issue here is that paper money can act like a Time Machine, actually, more like a Virtual Particle where, time and eneregy can be circumvented for a brief period, and the fruits of labor and energy can be artificially and magically emulated, but then the natural balance of things must be restored. This is true for the economy as well as the physical universe in which it resides. During the 20 or so years before the GFC we effectively brought forward a future lifestyle and wealth epoch into the present day, but now that balance must be restored."

So I'm supposed to read that thought process, complete with spelling errors & shoddy punctuation, & let it all just wash over without having to do numerous re-reads and double takes...

Fine ~ my bad

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:31 | 2594640 TwoShortPlanks
TwoShortPlanks's picture

Dude, it's not a book just a blog!

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 12:41 | 2594808 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Since it's "just a blog"... I won't take any more of your comments (even if said in jest ~ which your post wasn't) seriously...

I said it was "hard on the eyes"... & I don't fucking give a shit whether or not you wrote it after just having spent 3 hours in the peloton... Got it?

~~~

Wanna debate the points instead? Let's debate the points (as best as I could understand with the run on punctuation)...

1. I don't buy in to your conclusion that gold bricks will end up underwriting a quadrillion in dervatives... (I further think that you get 27 'up' arrows here on ZH because most see a fat dollar value on an ounce of gold & immediately get a woodie)...

2. You were overly esoteric in your attempt to describe money (in time & space)... Good try, (which was interesting fodder), but ultimately conclusionless... I have no special remedies myself at this moment because, FRANKLY, I feel there IS NO ULTIMATE SOLUTION... It is something which will be always be agreed upon, in relative real time, amongst macro participants of any ad hoc generation... There will always be problems with that because nothing can escape the ever present dynamics that greed, power, & manipulation will play... Nature is COMBAT... Wanna see it [nature] everyday in its true sense?... Wanna play GOD?... Go out and plant a garden... Within no time you'll have plants competing against other plants... Insects will be attracted, which will then attract predators of those insects (& that's only the VISIBLE stuff)... Underneath that will be a whole different level of microorganisms who are competing even more violently...

The HUBRIS of man is in thinking he's the master of this universe... Stick to your cardio workouts... They might come in handy...

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 13:02 | 2594907 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Actually ~ I'm not done explaining why I disagree with your 'gold' conclusion as illustrated in #1 of my above comment...

~~~

I'd suppose that the problem at the moment boils down to two principal factors

1. Who actually OWNS the above ground gold (after claims, rehypothecations, and any other sort of legal layers you may wish to apply thereto)

2. Where is it?

IOW

You'd have to give the edge to any PRESENT standing regime, with regards to being able to vault the stash, & essentially protect it... But really ~ how do you do that? Legally?... Militarily?... Furthermore, you'd need an accurate accounting of how much is really there (& if it's real)...

So what?... They haven't even done an audit on Ft. Knox since the Eisenhower Administration?... You think that all world leaders & central bankers are just going to bring all their gold bricks to some kind of boy scout jamboree, toss it on a blanket, & divvy up where everybody stands, DOLLAR WISE, based on the loot?... That's about the most ridiculous notion I've ever heard...

Now I'm not discounting that there aren't some out there who THINK they have the top spot at the moment... But in reality, it's a fucking Mexican standoff... So all that's left is for everyone to just keep stacking in the hopes that when some kind mof situation like that might arrive, they have a seat at the table...

This ios why the US is fucked at the moment... Because their 'seat at the table' drawing rights go down every single day that bullion flows East...

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 23:26 | 2595843 TwoShortPlanks
TwoShortPlanks's picture

Wow, your life must be really miserable to be such an angry little ant. BTW, I was replying to someone else, not you-you miserable fuck!

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 08:46 | 2594490 MassDecep
MassDecep's picture

"There won't be a war."

War is the only way for the Banksters to achieve their goals of controlling the masses. They are not ramping up the propaganda for nought. 

I predict war and martial law ...after the event of course.

 

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 09:51 | 2594592 FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

Just for a moment, I read 'war and martini law'... it would be horrible, but not as horrible.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 20:50 | 2593785 TwoShortPlanks
TwoShortPlanks's picture

double post.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 21:55 | 2593949 philipat
philipat's picture

We won't be returning to a Gold Standard period. It would keep politicians and central banks honest, so it will never be allowed.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 05:59 | 2594386 economics9698
economics9698's picture

We will when the fiat is dead, real quick.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!