Employment: Worst since 1974-1975

There's no way to feel good about this is you're at all a follower of Fisher. For one thing, we seem to be losing the fight against Debt-Deflation, even though we were aware that it could happen. From my perspective, this means that the government's actions have not been effective. Since I don't agree with what the government has been doing, all my optimism about the resources we had available to meet this challenge is fading. I'm now feeling like the quote from Kafka that I had on a button I wore in college:

"There is hope, an infinite amount of hope but not for us.'

Any chance you'd be willing to do a follow-up of the "tax-cuts vs. spending as stimulus" debate Justin? It seems like there's even more of a consensus now than there was before that spending is more stimulating. Here's Mark Zandi of Moody's (page 9)-

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf

Almost 600,000 people lost their jobs in January. If this is not scary, what else is?

Somehow, it is rather counter intuitive. With the unemployment rate soaring up to 7.6% (far beyond expectation), coupled by extremely weak economic confidence, one would have expected the stock market to have dropped further. Yet Dow stubbornly moves up against the receding tide.

Perhaps the news of the lawmakers getting close to approve a trimmed economic stimulus package has injected a positive mood into investors, assuming that the time is ripe for entering into the market again.

But the question is: Will the package work and to what extent? Few people seem to be able to give any tangible answer let alone an affirmative response.

Don't tell me the unhealthy yet deceptive speculation is raising its pretentious head again?
(Tan Boon Tee)

This conversation was sparked by Nancy Pelosi's graphs. Do you think you could post the graphs that your worksheets generate. I've been dying to see 2008 and 1975 side by side, ever since the subject came up.

What Paul Dirks said.
-
When confronted in a discussion of policy it is always helpful to have the facts, figures and graphs in which one has placed their reliance on display.
-
Where are the Republican numbers? What statistics, graphs, figures, etc. are they relying upon to support their proposition that tax cuts are the nirvana? Where is their Zandi? Have they no Krugman? Or are we witness to the bald-faced statements of charletans and voodoo "tax" doctors?