U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Felya420]

I prefer the Ron Paul ideas regarding our military footprint, with a little bit of Reagan mixed in to keep them honest.

Ron actually denounced Reagan foreign policy. Iran Contra and Iraq being the top recipient of US aid, is the complete opposite of Ron Paul. It's like asking to withdraw all troops and increasing their numbers at the same time. Ron Paul mixed with even a little Reagan on foreign policy, is not Ron Paul at all.

[Masark]

Just as an aside, Canada created 52,000 jobs in September. Canada is 1/10th the size of the US, so it would be the same as the US creating about 520,000 jobs. Those are the numbers that the US SHOULD be putting up for a full recovery. Instead, the US gets these anemic ~150K numbers every month. It's still progress, but the slowness of the recovery just shows how weak the underlying fundamentals of the US economy really are, and how big picture things need to change in the long run.

The Canadian economy and the US economy aren't amenable to being compared like that.

The vast majority of Canada's growth is fueled by the oil and mining sectors in Saskatchewan and Alberta, making those provinces basically recession-proof unless something happens to resource prices.

Here in Saskatchewan, literally 90% of our GDP comes directly or indirectly from oil or potash/uranium mining, and another 6% is farming.

[Juno86]

Actually, I am Canadian too. Banking regulations did help Canada, but what also really helped was the Liberal government fixing the budget problems in the 1990's and carrying that forward through different economic hits like the tech bust, 9/11, SARS. But what also kept Canada up is that we are a resource-based economy and there is still demand for that, and so we keep our jobs, our tax revenues keep coming in, and our hosuing market hasn't collapsed.

But still, the US should be producing at least twice as many jobs in a recovery. They aren't because of the policies and the corporate takeover of gov't really starting since Reagan. There are fundamental things in their economy that will have to be changed or else the next recovery will be even slower.

I do agree, it was the tough 90's with the Liberals that fixed a lot of the issues we would have seen as well as the American's when it collapsed. I think you are downgrading the amount banking regulation actually played in this thing. I mean, seriously name one Canadian bank that collapsed because of it? None! Simply because we had no banks who had their fingers in the stock market pie.

Yes, during a recovery it would be optimal to be making as many jobs as possible. No argument, but when you consider the size of the stimulus applied to the size of the hole and then a congress that does its UTMOST ability to block any recovery after said problem. I'm amazed he's getting jobs created right now at all considering how much of a cock-block the congress has been.

No argument about resources, thanks to the Oil sands, Western Canada where I live has more certainly not been ailing on the economy issue. Then again, we've kinda always been a resource based economy. The interesting part will be in the next 50 years when we will have to be shifting from that economy to a more information economy with the rest of the G8 countries.

[Wells]

I don't know how unemployment numbers are generated and neither do you and neither does Diurdi.

I'll just wait and see what people that actually do have to say about it.

"I don't know how these numbers are generated and they're definitely worthless jobs and possibly being manipulated".

Keep packing that internet with more bullshit.

[Felya420]

"I don't know how these numbers are generated and they're definitely worthless jobs and possibly being manipulated".

Keep packing that internet with more bullshit.

What I don't get, is why these numbers are scrutinized, when they were compiled the same way as the bad numbers they get compared to. Unless people are saying they were generated a different way, the bad numbers were generated the same way as these.

I did not have a problem when the same parameters resulted in negative numbers, why would I suddenly not trust them? What changed?

[Wells]

What I don't get, is why these numbers a scrutinized, when they were compiled the same way as the bad numbers they get compared to. Unless people are saying they were generated a different way, the bad numbers were generated the same way as these.

Oh come on, you know exactly why.

[Diurdi]

What I don't get, is why these numbers are scrutinized, when they were compiled the same way as the bad numbers they get compared to.

Because the seemingly huge gap between the report of the NFP numbers and the separate Household Survey is weird. Possibly a sample that isn't representative of the population or problem with the software that does seasonal adjustments.

[Felya420]

Because the seemingly huge gap between the report of the NFP numbers and the separate Household Survey is weird. Possibly a sample that isn't representative of the population or problem with the software that does seasonal adjustments.

Are we comparing NFP numbers to previous NFP numbers? I think it is wierd to compare NFP numbers to Household Survey if they are generated differently.

---------- Post added 2012-10-05 at 06:53 PM ----------

Oh come on, you know exactly why.

But, that's generalizing. Diurdi responded in a way that doesn't assume the seemingly obvious.

[Diurdi]

Are we comparing NFP numbers to previous NFP numbers? I think it is wierd to compare NFP numbers to Household Survey if they are generated differently.

The NFP says how many new jobs were created, while the Household Survey asks people if they're employed/unemployed. "Only" 114K new jobs were created, while 870,000 more people were employed than previously. Revisions of previous periods play into this some, but a lot has to do with seasonal adjustments and stuff.

[Felya420]

The NFP says how many new jobs were created, while the Household Survey asks people if they're employed/unemployed. "Only" 114K new jobs were created, while 870,000 more people were employed than previously. Revisions of previous periods play into this some, but a lot has to do with seasonal adjustments and stuff.

Because they measure two different things. Why would you assume it's the result of weirdness and not the different things the two are measuring? Both seem positive as well...

The drop from 8%+ to 7.8% is the result of comparing two time periods of the same study.

[Diurdi]

Because they measure two different things. Why would you assume it's the result of weirdness and not the different things the two are measuring? Both seem positive as well...

The drop from 8%+ to 7.8% is the result of comparing two time periods of the same study.

Household survey is considered to be less accurate than the NFP number. Additionally, the new jobs that were added were mostly bad (part time or government).

The fact is that the NFP increase is lower than population growth.

The reason the markets didn't respond enthusiastically to the report is that they mostly care about the NFP.

[Felya420]

If you count all jobs filled as new jobs, you'd be counting all promotions and their fill in, as 2 new jobs. Even though only one new person got hired. The NFP and Household survey differ, because they messure two different things.

---------- Post added 2012-10-05 at 07:06 PM ----------

Household survey is considered to be less accurate than the NFP number. Additionally, the new jobs that were added were mostly bad (part time or government).

The fact is that the NFP increase is lower than population growth.

At least we can stop with numbers being wierd crap? I agree, these numbers should be better than they are. Am glad we are heading in a positive direction...

Anyone else want to explain why the job increase in these numbers should be scrutinize now that they appear to be getting better?

[Diurdi]

At least we can stop with numbers being wierd crap?

They are weird. It's the biggest jump in almost a decade in that statistic. Doesn't mean there's a conspiracy behind it. It's unlikely that they actually rose that much this month, it's more likely that they were too low in earlier years and it's only revealed now. Or that some seasonal adjusting went wrong.

Another exceptional outlier:

[cubby]

If the unemployment numbers were fine in the past when they were unfavorable to Obama, then they are fine now when they are favorable to him. Trying to find "problems" in them now makes the arguments ridiculous.

[Felya420]

They are weird. It's the biggest jump in almost a decade in that statistic. Doesn't mean there's a conspiracy behind it. It's unlikely that they actually rose that much this month, it's more likely that they were too low in earlier years and it's only revealed now. Or that some seasonal adjusting went wrong.

But, all of those just confirm the numbers, not make them wierd. Why is it wierd that we had such a high statistical jump, when even your assumptions on wierdness simply make them seem more accurate?

[ptwonline]

If the unemployment numbers were fine in the past when they were unfavorable to Obama, then they are fine now when they are favorable to him. Trying to find "problems" in them now makes the arguments ridiculous.

Actually, I 100% encourage people to investigate the numbers and learn how they are calculated and what they actually mean. The more educated the public is, the better.

The one thing I would ask is that instead of arriving at the conclusion and then doing the research, do it the other way around.

[Felya420]

If the unemployment numbers were fine in the past when they were unfavorable to Obama, then they are fine now when they are favorable to him. Trying to find "problems" in them now makes the arguments ridiculous.

I'm with you, obviously. I can't argue against wanting these numbers to be better, but 'they' are arguing that the numbers are too good to be true. No, they are better than last time, but no where close to being so good that they are hard to believe. If you think these numbers are too good to believe, your standards are too low.

[Grizzly Willy]

An unexpected spike certainly seems weird to me.

[smelltheglove]

the release of unemployment numbers is always the same. one side sings gleefully "i told you so!" while the other discredits the process of obtaining said number. every single time. the only change is if the numbers support a different view than the time before, then offense and defense switch up

[Felya420]

Actually, I 100% encourage people to investigate the numbers and learn how they are calculated and what they actually mean. The more educated the public is, the better.

The one thing I would ask is that instead of arriving at the conclusion and then doing the research, do it the other way around.

That last line is what it looks like to me. Trying to figure out if something is wrong, only after the numbers disagree with your opinion.