This is Why Obama Will Lose in November

Photos (14)

Vital Signs: Unemployment Rate for College Grads - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The reason why they aren't counted in the ratio is because those people who aren't looking for a job anymore are not counted as part of the labor force. The unemployment rate is by definition the percentage of people in the labor force who do not have a job. Should we declare a huge increase in the unemployment rate when all the baby boomers retire, despite the fact that almost everyone who will want a job will have one at that point? This isn't a new definition of unemployment, it's been used in every macroeconomics class since the birth of macroeconomics. Do your homework.

Photos (3)

Another not credible reich wing troll posting bullshit. how much do you get paid per post?

The definition of an economical boom is the peak of growth, doring a business cycle.
It has nothing to do with, who benefits and who not.

But i confirm. Its impossible to teache you something...

I see. We're comparing 2 different statistics.

Due to laziness, this is the only thing I feel like responding to. The business they are in is one of the few sectors that is BOOMING right now. They're company is recession proof. They do financial aid servicing for colleges. They've tripled in size in 1 year. There is plenty of business, it really is the regulatory environment right now that is making them unsure of creating a new division for cohort default rates. They see the pending student loan bubble. You seem to have quite the knack to resorting to blaming business owners when you're arguments fall through. Shows a lot about your character. I know you think you know everything, but you're a little out of your league on this one.

You people are pretty ridiculous. Cry like little babies when someone presents something contrary to what you want to hear. If there was republican in office, I guarantee this board would be full of you fuckers spouting your shit. Offering articles that discuss findings you don't agree with isn't trolling. The post I quoted above however, is trolling.

Want some cheese to go with that whine of yours? Maybe you're the one that should stop crying like a baby.

Keep 'em coming

Let me reword what he said. If the GDP doubles, then the economy may be booming, but if almost the entire boom is seen in the top 5% of the population, then who gives a shit? The state of the economy in such terms is purely academic unless you are using to to show improvement in the standard of living for indiviudals. If 95% of the population sees the same wages, or wages not rising as fast as inflation, but the top 5% double their income, then saying the economy is booming is useless for most people. It may be booming in pure dollar amounts, but at that point it ceases to be an indicator of economic prosperity for the nation as a whole, and instead an indicator of vastly unequal distributions of wealth.

Now we are starting to get to the crux of why using classical (or neo-classical) economic theories to explain modern political economics is useless and uninsightful. If we see Keynes-like fiscal policy followed by a hugely inequitable economic boom, the theory itself would require so many corollaries to remain relevant that you might as well start from a new theory.

Photos (14)

Because the last place we need regulations is in the Financial aid in collages. You would think republicans would be happy with higher tuition rates due to state governments pulling out of higher education leading to the current student loan crisis. Seems that the right has a knack at causing crisis after crisis and blaming others for their failed policies.

............and of course trickle down economics, free market deregulated investment market meltdown; corporate taxpayer subsidies; supressed wages; unfunded wars..........works great!!! Sure go ahead and pull the lever!

Photos (3)

Offering bullshit articles does nothing but prove the poster is a fucking troll. Maybe you'd like more of the completely discredited and failed slash and burn republican policies.

Thirty years of RayGunn-nomics can't be cured in three years. Sooner or later the dull little light will go and even the dimmest will realize that repukes can't govern and have no plans. it's all about power for them and they will do anything to get it.

If the fucking stupid electorate in this country would stop see-sawing back and forth between both parties and stay the course for a while then we might see some progress.

how's that European austerity bullshit working out, anyways?

now run back to your heritage-cato-heartland foundation womb and suck on some more bullshit.

Photos (11)

All that may be correct but it does not stop governmets publishing total figures for the economy regardless of which section of the population is getting the money. It seems that in recent years in a number of countries exactly this has been happening, the rich getting a greater proportion of total income, and governments have proclaimed we are all getting richer. a boom.

I think keynes recognised that handing more money to the rich is not sufficient. It has to go to those who will spend it, the poor. I suspect keynes would say that handing the money to the rich is a highly inefficient way of creating a boom, so inefficient it might not work at all.