Archive for January 7, 2011

We are being old that unemployment dropped 0.4% with a total of 103,000 jobs. Let’s see now, that means that 0.1% would be 26,000 (rounded up). Then the remaining 9.4% could be totally solved by 94X26,000 which is 2,244,000 jobs. But the Department of Labor said about unemployment benefits:

“The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending Dec. 18 was 8,765,952.”

Ok, who out there can convince me that there isn’t something fishy going on?

Oh, and before you say that the BLS numbers don’t cont those not looking for work, please note that anyone receiving benefits ha to certify that they are looking for work, so they should indeed be counted

Sources for the numbers:

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

What did central bankers have to know and then be empowered to do in order to have avoided the housing bubble and economic fallout? Adam Posen is an External Member of the Monetary Policy Committee for the Bank of England, and a Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He spoke at the Cato Institute’s Monetary Conference held in November 2010.

The problem with his analysis is that he doesn’t differentiate between periods of healthy growth vs. periods of inflation (or other government policy) driven growth. That’s why he says not all booms are followed by busts. But it’s fairly easy to spot inflation-driven growth, so it’s also fairly easy to spot bubbles, despite what he thinks.

See my previous post on Monetary Policy, Housing and Other Bubbles and get the free book shown there.

Adam Posen Discusses Asset Bubbles, posted with vodpod

 

Presented by David Gordon at “The Failure of the Keynesian State,” the Mises Circle in Houston, sponsored by Jeremy S. Davis. Recorded Saturday, 23 January 2010. Includes introductory remarks by Mises Institute president Douglas E. French.

 

Using only a big piece of pork, a large knife, and a small knife, the budget chef shows how to balance the federal budget by 2020.

As a special treat, he does it without raising taxes from the current Bush-era rates!It seems like a complicated preparation at first, but it’s so simple that almost any elected official should be able to pull it off like a pro!

Domestic and foreign investors will love this, and it will also help create a stable environment conducive to long-term, sustainable economic growth.Between 2011 and 2020, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that total federal outlays – for defense, agriculture subsidies, Medicare, Social Security, you name it – will total a whopping $42.1 trillion (in 2010 dollars). To bring outlays down to revenue, we need to cut a total of $1.3 trillion in total expenditures over the next 10 years.

That sounds like a really tall order until you realize that it cutting just 3.6 percent a year for each of the next 10 years. To put it in dollar terms, it means cutting about $130 billion a year from budgets that will average over $4 trillion. That’s not so hard now, is it? By making small, systematic cuts to a federal budget that is larded up with more fat than an Ponderosa buffet, we can balance the budget without even nicking essential services.

This video is based on “How to Balance the Budget Without Raising Taxes,” by Nick Gillespie and Reason economics columnist Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center. Read that December 5, 2010 piece for detailed breakdowns of spending amounts: http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/05/how-to-balance-the-budget-with