Unemployment Number

Quote from waggie945:

Of course you need to add those 70,000 grocery jobs back!

I'm just pointing out that they weren't new non-farm payroll jobs, that's all. It goes to your chest-thumping "cheerleading" about the Bush economy, that's all.

:D
More...

No cheerleading over here. I never blamed Bush for the bad economy to begin with. I never Blamed Bush for losing the jobs. So how can I cheerlead for him for getting them back? I can't. Waggie, you are so much smarter then to believe Bush or Clinton or anybody has any control over this economy. I think the locals in the 10 year pit and the spoos pit have more control over the economy then Bush or Clinton or anybody in politics surely you know this.

Which is why your attacks on Bush on the economy just make no sense to me. Bush didn't run the nasdaq from 1000 to 5000 in 3 years and he he didn't run it down back down to 1100 either. When you take a few trillion dollars of market cap out of the equity markets, there is going to be consequences to that. Pure and simple.

So you never answered me before. Are you ready to vote for Kerry? Be honest. Let's stop playing games and tell me the truth.
 
Let me ask you a question here. Now I think you are smart guy and I really mean that. I'm not trying to patronize you. Outside of politics you are a pretty bright guy. So let me propose a scenario for you and you can give me your thoughts on this.

During the 90's we had a runaway bull market. The dow went from like 2500 to 11,700. The nasdaq from 1000 or so to over 5000. We had the IPO mania, remember that. We must have had 20 to 50 companies going public every week during the late 90's. Everyone was getting rich and fast. And not just daytraders, but everyone. I'm sure you read all about secretaries at MSFT becoming millionaires. Janitors at Dell making millions. Even just salaried employees. Kids out of college were making 50k to 60k a year and with an MBA from a good school, you were starting at over 100k.

Now, because of all this money, we had a lot of things going on that let's just say, were unrealistic ok? Fair enough? Let's just pretend for a moment that all that money, all those IPO's, all those jobs that were created in the tech sector, let's just say for a second that they weren't real. Rather they were just a figment of our imagination. And there were millions of them Waggie. Everyone was getting in on the action. Everyone was starting their own company, starting their own webpage, whatever, money was everywhere, if you had an idea, you could get funding. If the banks didn't like your business plan, the venture capitalists did.

So let's just say that the job market became very inefficient. In other words, in reality, we created a few million jobs, that under normal circumstances, would never have existed to begin with. Then when the bubble busted, and the air came out and the Nasdaq went back to 1100. And the banks stopped lending money, the venture capitalists stop lending money, the IPO market ceased to exist and all these fake jobs, all these worthless companies that really did not exist, except on paper.

Many of these companies had only a ticker symbol to show they were ever here. So in 2000 and beyond, the market did what it does best, it became efficient again and we had a mean reversion back to reality. And all those excess jobs were taken out of the market. But on paper, to a political pundit, it shows up as 2 million jobs lost over 3 years. But Waggie, were these jobs ever really lost, or did they even exist to begin with? I want you to think about this for a minute and get back to me. It is my contention they never really existed. Not in the real world at least. They existed in an alternate bubble world. But once that world ceased to exist, so did the jobs inside that world. I'll be looking forward to your response.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Let me ask you a question here. Now I think you are smart guy and I really mean that. I'm not trying to patronize you. Outside of politics you are a pretty bright guy. So let me propose a scenario for you and you can give me your thoughts on this.

During the 90's we had a runaway bull market. The dow went from like 2500 to 11,700. The nasdaq from 1000 or so to over 5000. We had the IPO mania, remember that. We must have had 20 to 50 companies going public every week during the late 90's. Everyone was getting rich and fast. And not just daytraders, but everyone. I'm sure you read all about secretaries at MSFT becoming millionaires. Janitors at Dell making millions. Even just salaried employees. Kids out of college were making 50k to 60k a year and with an MBA from a good school, you were starting at over 100k.

Now, because of all this money, we had a lot of things going on that let's just say, were unrealistic ok? Fair enough? Let's just pretend for a moment that all that money, all those IPO's, all those jobs that were created in the tech sector, let's just say for a second that they weren't real. Rather they were just a figment of our imagination. And there were millions of them Waggie. Everyone was getting in on the action. Everyone was starting their own company, starting their own webpage, whatever, money was everywhere, if you had an idea, you could get funding. If the banks didn't like your business plan, the venture capitalists did.

So let's just say that the job market became very inefficient. In other words, in reality, we created a few million jobs, that under normal circumstances, would never have existed to begin with. Then when the bubble busted, and the air came out and the Nasdaq went back to 1100. And the banks stopped lending money, the venture capitalists stop lending money, the IPO market ceased to exist and all these fake jobs, all these worthless companies that really did not exist, except on paper.

Many of these companies had only a ticker symbol to show they were ever here. So in 2000 and beyond, the market did what it does best, it became efficient again and we had a mean reversion back to reality. And all those excess jobs were taken out of the market. But on paper, to a political pundit, it shows up as 2 million jobs lost over 3 years. But Waggie, were these jobs ever really lost, or did they even exist to begin with? I want you to think about this for a minute and get back to me. It is my contention they never really existed. Not in the real world at least. They existed in an alternate bubble world. But once that world ceased to exist, so did the jobs inside that world. I'll be looking forward to your response.
More...

Mav: Good question and I too await Waggie's response.

In the meantime let me just note that the difference between Clinton and Bush economically is really the difference between Rubin and the numnuts that Bush has had running Treasury. Rubin created an expectation of fiscal responsibility which deflated the equity premium which in turn goosed stock prices. The Bushies spend like "drunken sailors" (sayeth McCain a REPUBLICAN) and have given us fiscal deficits as for as long as you and I will be alive. Back up goes the equity premium and down go stock prices.

Now mind you, I am bullish on the economic fundamentals because internet and globalization productivity are HUGE. But I do wish that the current adminstration would pull themselves out of their Reagan-redux mindset and get with the program. For the record I am long the market as a bias and think that the fact that we seem to stall at SPX = 1160 is pathetic.

PS Mav: We miss you on the options boards. Have you become a directional day-trader?
 
Quote from TempusFugit:

Mav: Good question and I too await Waggie's response.

In the meantime let me just note that the difference between Clinton and Bush economically is really the difference between Rubin and the numnuts that Bush has had running Treasury. Rubin created an expectation of fiscal responsibility which deflated the equity premium which in turn goosed stock prices. The Bushies spend like "drunken sailors" (sayeth McCain a REPUBLICAN) and have given us fiscal deficits as for as long as you and I will be alive. Back up goes the equity premium and down go stock prices.

Now mind you, I am bullish on the economic fundamentals because internet and globalization productivity are HUGE. But I do wish that the current administration would pull themselves out of their Reagan-redux mindset and get with the program. For the record I am long the market as a bias and think that the fact that we seem to stall at SPX = 1160 is pathetic.

PS Mav: We miss you on the options boards. Have you become a directional day-trader?
More...

No, I have not become a directional day-trader. LOL. Still trading options. I pop my head up on the board from time to time. Not a whole lot of interesting discussions over there lately. And I can't think of anything to post that hasn't already been posted 100 times. LOL. If I think of something interesting to say, you'll hear from me.

In the meantime, I want Waggie to respond to my thesis. Sometimes in order to get Waggie to respond you have to ask him about the beautiful view overlooking Berkeley, then he pops in real quick. LOL
 
Quote from TempusFugit:

Mav: Good question and I too await Waggie's response.

In the meantime let me just note that the difference between Clinton and Bush economically is really the difference between Rubin and the numnuts that Bush has had running Treasury. Rubin created an expectation of fiscal responsibility which deflated the equity premium which in turn goosed stock prices. The Bushies spend like "drunken sailors" (sayeth McCain a REPUBLICAN) and have given us fiscal deficits as for as long as you and I will be alive. Back up goes the equity premium and down go stock prices.

Now mind you, I am bullish on the economic fundamentals because internet and globalization productivity are HUGE. But I do wish that the current adminstration would pull themselves out of their Reagan-redux mindset and get with the program. For the record I am long the market as a bias and think that the fact that we seem to stall at SPX = 1160 is pathetic.

PS Mav: We miss you on the options boards. Have you become a directional day-trader?
More...

Temp, my take, though partisan, is the defects are not as much systematic of huge Bush spending as much as they're caused by the needed tax cuts. If you look at the House liberal Dems voted in unison against the budget because it didn't spend enough. The Democrat's plan is to raise spending and raise taxes and hope that the increased revenues will make up the difference. That was the Clinton/Rubin plan.

However I believe that the high Clinton era tax rates were as responsible as restrictive monetary policy in causing the recession. IMO a tax cut in 98/99 would have been as important as those rate cuts that came a year too late.
 
How could your following quote, which was posted on Page #1 of this thread not be understood any other way than cheerleading Bush and giving him credit for "turning things around" as you say:

"Yo Waggie, how do you like them 769,000 new jobs added the last seven months? It looks like Bush is turning things around. You sold him short too soon. You think you might still change your vote from Kerry to Bush?"

The above quote was what I was referring to, Mav.
And yet you then turn around and state that:

"No cheerleading over here. I never blamed Bush for the bad economy to begin with. I never Blamed Bush for losing the jobs. So how can I cheerlead for him for getting them back? I can't. Waggie, you are so much smarter then to believe Bush or Clinton or anybody has any control over this economy. I think the locals in the 10 year pit and the spoos pit have more control over the economy then Bush or Clinton or anybody in politics surely you know this. "

Come on Mav . . . You are seriously contradicting yourself here.
You can't have it both ways!

:confused:
 
Quote from waggie945:

How could your following quote, which was posted on Page #1 of this thread not be understood any other way than cheerleading Bush and giving him credit for "turning things around" as you say:

"Yo Waggie, how do you like them 769,000 new jobs added the last seven months? It looks like Bush is turning things around. You sold him short too soon. You think you might still change your vote from Kerry to Bush?"

The above quote was what I was referring to, Mav.
And yet you then turn around and state that:

"No cheerleading over here. I never blamed Bush for the bad economy to begin with. I never Blamed Bush for losing the jobs. So how can I cheerlead for him for getting them back? I can't. Waggie, you are so much smarter then to believe Bush or Clinton or anybody has any control over this economy. I think the locals in the 10 year pit and the spoos pit have more control over the economy then Bush or Clinton or anybody in politics surely you know this. "

Come on Mav . . . You are seriously contradicting yourself here.
You can't have it both ways!

:confused:
More...

Waggie, that was a tongue in cheek post. I said that in jest in response to all your Bush bashing. Now please answer my post. I am eagerly awaiting to hear this repsonse. Better make it good. :D
 
Ahhhhhhhh . . .

You better check something I left for you down in Chit-Chat about the Ford GT-40.

Meanwhile, there is a huge full moon out there.
My guess is that it will finally pop TASR!!!
You heard it here first, buddy!

:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top