From 750,000 lost jobs a month to the Obama recovery

Democrats are answering Yes to the question -- Are you better today than 4 years ago? The Democrats' argument is that we are at least seeing job gains now, even though they aren't enough, so, even though the economy is not yet healthy, it's better than 4 years ago. Republicans obviously don't know how to respond to this nonsense. Either Republicans don't have the intellectual chops to refute Democratic talking points, or they think the public will not understand.

I have watched pundits and politicians on the Left make this claim for months now, and Republican pundits and politicians either let it slide by and change the subject or give some weak rebuttal not pertinent to the claim. How difficult is it to explain that four years ago we were in a recession, and regardless of which President is in office, companies shed workers during a recession, and most times, because of competitive reasons, they shed workers around the same time, so there are a few months with high numbers of workers leaving the work force. Once companies reach their efficiency level, they slow down on firing and laying off, or they stop and maybe even start hiring back if government economic policies don't block the recovery. Once the market in general adjusts to the inefficiencies which caused the recession, and capital is saved, companies then use the savings to move capital to productive efforts. So far this is not rocket science and the average person will understand.

Then the rebuttal should contain an admonishment to Democrats for misleading the public, making clear that it's not a matter of who's to blame but rather what system should be blamed. The statist system which has been operational under Republican and Democratic Presidents is inefficient, and it causes booms and busts. Then the Republican respondents should admit that they've been wrong to support the statist system, if they have supported it, and that a free market is the solution. Then the Democrats who are making this false claim will have to debate the statist system, which is the real culprit and fundamental problem. I think people can understand this. Do Republicans in general understand this?

Morning Joe 8/8/2012 -- Politics over honesty

I was going to skip commenting on Morning Joe again this morning, because most of it was the same election-centered drivel that ignores our most pressing problems, but then Robert Gibbs came on. Gibbs is representative of the complete dishonesty in DC. The political game has gained total prominence in the political class, including media, and honesty is hardly ever considered. To the Morning Joe crew's credit, Sam Stein, Mark Halperin, and even Mika, they are uncomfortable with the current election ads such as the one they discussed today that has a man implying that Romney is responsible for his, the guy in the commercial, wife dying of cancer in 2006 because Bain Capital closed the plant where the guy in the commercial worked in 2000, causing them to lose insurance. Stein stated that the facts don't line up with the commercial, that the man's wife had insurance and she died 6 years after the closing -- but, anyway, the insinuation that Romney is responsible is so over the top and slimy that anyone with a shred of honesty and decency would condemn the ad. Gibbs wouldn't condemn the ad.

That's the dirty dishonesty in this election campaign, but earlier Gibbs said something else that the Morning Joe Joe basically let slide, and it's because they don't know how to talk about these things. Scarborough, or Mika, asked Gibbs about the bad economy and what can Obama tell the nation that will make them want to vote for him. Gibbs said that when Obama came in office the economy was losing 800,000 a month and now they've created over 4 million jobs. No one challenged this. The economy goes through a business cycle mainly because of Fed manipulation of money supply and interest rates, thus we have a big boom in the economy followed by a big bust. Obama happened to come into office when businesses across America saw clearly the recession and drastically trimmed the workforce, so one month about 750,000 workers were let go. This is what happens in a recession -- businesses usually act around the same time trimming back to remain competitive. There is no situation except complete economic collapse in which we could expect the loss of 750,000 jobs a month for an extended period.

Companies shed workers at the same time, and Obama came into office around that time -- there's no connection between the two. Obama didn't cause the loss of jobs. As I said, Fed interventions, coupled with cooperative government interventions, created incentives for investment to flow into housing, creating a boom, then a bust when owners discovered their inflated property prices were an illusion. After companies shed the bulk of workers who were no longer considered productive in a recession, the number of jobs lost naturally went down, and soon there was a monthly increase in jobs as companies gradually hired back. In past recessions, companies have hired back in a recession at much greater rate of increase. What we have seen, the 4 million or so mentioned by Gibbs, is anemic and doesn't keep up with population growth and retirement. Gibbs made it sound as if Obama's policies turned around job losses of 800,000 a month and started adding jobs. It's much more likely, if we can believe the people doing the hiring and firing moreso than Gibbs, a political monkey, that Obama's policies and proposed plans have caused the anemic job gains that don't keep up with population growth and retirement. No one on Morning Joe called Gibbs on this meme that has been repeated over and over and over by other political monkeys supporting Obama -- no one in the MSM makes this case against the claims of operatives like Gibbs.

Gibbs was given a hard time by the Morning Joe crew regarding his punkish, weaselly refusal to condemn the over the top sliminess of the ad accusing Romney of killing a man's wife, so the MJ crew is at least standing up against the worst forms of dishonesty. Stein was courageous and tough in his stand -- I was impressed.

Let's get real about job losses

This morning Chris Hayes on his morning show Up said that George Bush had a net job loss under his two terms and gave some number he pulled out of his butt or out of the butt of the some Democrat partisan who made it up.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/08/reid-wrong-on-bushs-economic-record/

The truth is that it's not really important which President was staying at the White House while jobs have been lost -- it's the result of decades of government interventions in the economy, debt and a failed education system, just to name a few reasons. Both Bush and Obama have continued the interventionist ways of our statist government, and they both deserve blame to that extent. But, to play some silly game about which President lost or created the most jobs is so ludicrous it amazes me that people as smart as Hayes play the game. It's the government system and the consequences from all government interventions and growth killing regulations, not the bozos pretending to be in charge of the system.

Confusing jobs report that is being called positive

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unemployment-rate-rises-as-apf-780694354.html?x=0

If I read this right, with the end of 116,000 temporary census jobs eliminated, the economy lost 54,000 more jobs. It also appears that private hiring was mostly temporary positions -- manufacturing lost 27,000 jobs.

I just can't find the positive news. 54,000 more people out of work is nothing to cheer about.

The dishonesty of the administration regarding job losses

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/06/july-job-losses-hit-131000-rate-stays-at-9-5/

The above link makes the point I made about four months back -- when the administration says we have made progress in the job market because since Obama took office we went from over 700,000 jobs losses in a month to job gains, they are being dishonest.

What happened is that companies acted in unison to shed jobs, and that 700,000 loss couldn't continue from month to month or all jobs would be lost. Since that giant shedding of jobs, each month we are below 100,000 job gains, and because of population growth we are adding to unemployment -- it's a cumulative effect.

It can't be stressed enough how the administration is telling a "royal lie" when they paint the picture of progress in the job market. It's propaganda, pure and simple.

I recently proposed we might be simply adjusting to the reality of our economy and government intervention and there's no recovery in sight, and that we're reaching a new level which shows high unemployment that could be with us for over 10 years unless free market principles are implemented.

If the mid-term elections create a split government with Republicans taking over congress, and if the Republicans fight against more government intervention and fight to lower busines taxes, this could spur investment and kick off expansion and hiring.