Unemployment Under Biden

'Chart' away , my friend. and come up with convoluted excuses for DPST/ccp failures/ and disasters to come - during their terms. And realize it wasn’t the democrats that actually achieved those economies, and at night when you go to bed, you know the Truth and Facts - not XiNN propaganda
FIFY!.

According to economists at Moody's Analytics if Biden's 1.9 Trillion dollar rescue plan is passed by congress the unemployment rate can would be lowered to pre-pandemic levels by Sep 2022. If there is no extra stimulus it would take until fourth quarter 2023 to regain the 10 million lost jobs.

https://www.yahoo.com/money/biden-re...181903486.html Originally Posted by adav8s28

Larry Summers would disagree. If you can remember let’s look back at this in 2022 or 2023. Originally Posted by Tiny

Adav8s28, You may not have noticed it, but I admitted I posted bullshit when I responded to your Moody's post:

I wrote that about Summers at midnight 5 minutes before I went to sleep. And I'll admit it, it was bull shit. But eccieuser has done the same thing when he was plastered and you, WTF, have as well on occasion for reasons unknown.

If Biden gets his stimulus but cannot realize his job-destroying policies described in the OP, then yeah, Moody's may be right. And it is presumptuous of me to challenge Moody's and Larry Summers, just as it is presumptuous of those here on the left to challenge Steve Mnuchin, er, sorry, LustyLad. Originally Posted by Tiny

I've taken a closer look at the Moody's article, and found this:

https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/me...ue-package.pdf

I printed out the page 4, with Chart 2, that shows the unemployment rate assuming Biden gets his 1.9 trillion stimulus, compared to what they estimate it will be without out it. This looks to be about a 1.2% average reduction in unemployment over 2-1/2 years with Biden's stimulus. Assume 150 million people employed and that works out to an average of 1.8 million people who would have a job, who otherwise would not, on average over that 2-1/2 year period.

Take $1.9 trillion and divide it by (1.8 million people x 2.5 years) and you get $420,000 per person per year that the government is spending to create jobs.

Now what I did isn't exactly fair, because a big chunk of that $1.9 trillion is for things like aid to states and cities, PPE and the like. But chop it down to $1 trillion and you're still looking at $220,000 per person per year. That's nothing compared to how much Obama spent to create jobs with "shovel ready" stimulus projects, but still looks wasteful.

The $1.9 trillion is over the top. And there will be more to come, unless Senators like Manchin and Sinema hold the line.

If Trump was the shit President you think he was the unemployment numbers would have gone up under his administration, but they didn't. Under Biden they'll most likely go up. If an industry is eliminated the jobs will go with it. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Obama presented you with an illusion. They factored in part time employment which doesn't really count. Don't put Obama on a pedestal he wasn't that great and Biden will be an even bigger flop. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Hahahaha..........Obama was just printing money. What do you think all that QE shit was about? Originally Posted by Levianon17

Does partisanship make smart people abandon logic? Blackman is arguing that Trump caused the Covid recession. WTF that higher taxes boost GDP growth. Do they really believe that?

The Democrats here are inclined to try to explain 100% of GDP growth in terms of whether a Republican or Democrat is president. They ignore Fed policy (including the QE shit), Congress, the business cycle, a pandemic, demography, changes in technology, etc.

They refuse to recognize that the recovery from the 2008/2009 recession was downright anemic compared to past recessions (which are shaded on link below):

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1A225NBEA

They refuse to recognized that median household income increased more in 2019 than it did in all the years of the Obama administration, and that part of this might be attributable to the Republicans corporate tax cuts and deregulation, which increased demand in the private sector for labor:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

Even Obama and Biden knew the corporate tax rate, which was the highest in the world, needed to be cut. But they couldn't quite bring themselves to do it, as there's something in Democrats' DNA that makes them want to only boost taxes on business, and never lower them. Or maybe it's just the political advantage they think they get from sticking it to big business.

As far as future jobs, the intent of the Biden administration is to move jobs from one industry to another over a long period of time. The coal industry has been losing jobs for years. 90,000 coal mining jobs in 2012 and 46,600 today. Renewables now generate more electricity than coal. In 2016, Hillary Clinton proposed $30 billion for job training in new careers for those coal workers who were losing their jobs. Trump promised he would restore the jobs to the coal workers. Who had the better plan?

Biden obviously is losing support from those in the fossil fuel industries but he is doing what he said he would do during the campaign. And he was elected. It will be interesting to see how this plays out for him. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Coal is dying because it's cheaper and cleaner to generate electricity from natural gas. And because Democratic politicians on the west coast refuse to allow Wyoming coal producers to use their ports to export coal to Asia.

The jobs are going to shift from oil and gas to solar and wind and we'll be just as productive and prosperous as before. That's not going to happen. The Chinese account for something like 70% of worldwide production of solar panels. We account for 1%. We on the other hand produce more oil and gas than anyone in the world. Those good paying solar jobs are going to mostly be in other countries.

Why? It's called comparative advantage. The Chinese are better at producing solar panels than we are. They're also better at making storage batteries. We're tops at producing oil and gas not only in terms of volumes, but also in terms of our technology and knowledge. Nobody can match our service companies. No one can match the expertise of our shale producers. But apparently we're going to have to throw that all away, on the way to "0" net carbon emissions.

China's sure as hell not doing that. They're pumping lots of money into oil and gas and coal. Which also highlights about how much good killing U.S. oil and gas production would do for carbon emissions. It will be a drop in the bucket. Our emissions have been falling, mostly because we're using more low cost natural gas to generate electricity and less coal. Natural gas produces less carbon than coal. China's and India's and Indonesia's and other developing countries' emissions are increasing, and are much larger than ours.

The Democratic politicians seem set on the killing domestic oil and gas industry, really for no good reason, except they're ignorant, and they can do it because "elections have consequences."

Obama presented you with an illusion. They factored in part time employment which doesn't really count. Don't put Obama on a pedestal he wasn't that great and Biden will be an even bigger flop. Originally Posted by Levianon17

So the statistics were wrong when Obama was in office and got corrected when Trump took office. Same source (BLS), same statistics (civilian unemployment rate).

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employmen...yment-rate.htm

After
The Democratic politicians seem set on the killing domestic oil and gas industry, really for no good reason, except they're ignorant, and they can do it because "elections have consequences." Originally Posted by Tiny

Oviously it is difficult to forecast oil consumption in the U.S. out 30 years. The following chart was produced on January 5, 2021 and shows oil consumption increasing from 2021 to 2033, with slight ups and downs. After 2033 there is an expected drop in oil consumption. It isn't until 2045 that oil consumption in this country will drop below the 2021 levels. And the natural gas industry is forecast to grow out through 2030. So much for the argument that Biden and Democrats are killing off the oil and gas industries.

If true, none of us can predict what the economy outside the oil industry will look like in 24 years.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...il-production/

.

Regarding this:

https://money.yahoo.com/biden-rescue...181903486.html

(Which someone posted earlier in this thread)

This "analysis" was produced by Moody's Analytics, Mark Zandi's shop. He's a well-known "economist-for-hire," whose analysis tends to be nicely tailored to the desires of his audience (especially if they pay well, or might in the future).

Remember back around 2010, when Pelosi got into it with the House Republican leadership when she wanted more money for SNAP ("food stamps")?

Nancy claimed that food stamp dispensation was a great "jobs program," citing some Zandi analysis claiming a 1.73 fiscal multiplier. Then some USDA junior varsity-level "economist" did him one better, claiming a magic multiplier of 1.84!

Zandi's shop then dialed the ridiculousness up another step, plugging the 1.73 "multiplier" into another, freshly-created "model," showing that for every extra billion dollars spent, some "X" number of jobs would be created! (Don't remember the exact number, but it was something that stained credulity more than just a bit.)

This is the sort of pseudo-Keynesian nonsense that only IYI economists who hang around in the faculty lounges at places like Princeton and UC-Berkeley could possibly take seriously.

So, how many jobs might current policy proposals "create?" Or, at least, "save?"

Probably only a small fraction of those claimed by Zandi, but no one knows. The sorts of models these people use to undergird their arguments are rank bullshit.

.

So the statistics were wrong when Obama was in office and got corrected when Trump took office. Same source (BLS), same statistics (civilian unemployment rate).

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employmen...yment-rate.htm Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You're fucking right. There was nothing authentic about the Obama administration.

Oviously it is difficult to forecast oil consumption in the U.S. out 30 years. The following chart was produced on January 5, 2021 and shows oil consumption increasing from 2021 to 2033, with slight ups and downs. After 2033 there is an expected drop in oil consumption. It isn't until 2045 that oil consumption in this country will drop below the 2021 levels. And the natural gas industry is forecast to grow out through 2030. So much for the argument that Biden and Democrats are killing off the oil and gas industries.

If true, none of us can predict what the economy outside the oil industry will look like in 24 years.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...il-production/ Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

There's no doubt that Democratic Party policies will kill the industry, if they follow through with the policies and if they remain in power.

Federal leases account for 24% of USA oil production and 13% of gas production. Biden promised in his campaign to issue no more federal leases, nor drilling permits on federal leases, and he's already suspended those activities. Production from existing wells on federal leases will go to "0" as they deplete, and if the Democrats get their way, there will be none to replace them.

Fracking is associated with 51% of USA oil production and 67% of gas production. All the top Democratic presidential candidates except Biden, being Warren, Sanders, and Harris, said they'd get rid of fracking ASAP.

All the top Democratic candidates, Biden included, propose going to "0" net carbon emissions by mid century. Some of them much faster.

I'd give "0" credence to the Statista link. While I can't fully see the graph without paying $468, they appear to forecast that oil production in the USA increased from 2019 to 2020. That's absurd.

.

Regarding this:

https://money.yahoo.com/biden-rescue...181903486.html

(Which someone posted earlier in this thread)

This "analysis" was produced by Moody's Analytics, Mark Zandi's shop. He's a well-known "economist-for-hire," whose analysis tends to be nicely tailored to the desires of his audience (especially if they pay well, or might in the future).

Remember back around 2010, when Pelosi got into it with the House Republican leadership when she wanted more money for SNAP ("food stamps")?

Nancy claimed that food stamp dispensation was a great "jobs program," citing some Zandi analysis claiming a 1.73 fiscal multiplier. Then some USDA junior varsity-level "economist" did him one better, claiming a magic multiplier of 1.84!

Zandi's shop then dialed the ridiculousness up another step, plugging the 1.73 "multiplier" into another, freshly-created "model," showing that for every extra billion dollars spent, some "X" number of jobs would be created! (Don't remember the exact number, but it was something that stained credulity more than just a bit.)

This is the sort of pseudo-Keynesian nonsense that only IYI economists who hang around in the faculty lounges at places like Princeton and UC-Berkeley could possibly take seriously.

So, how many jobs might current policy proposals "create?" Or, at least, "save?"

Probably only a small fraction of those claimed by Zandi, but no one knows. The sorts of models these people use to undergird their arguments are rank bullshit.

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Interesting. So he's probably optimistic in terms of the effect on jobs.

While I know zip about macroeconomics, I've done a lot of forecasts for project economics, which should be a lot easier to do and more accurate than what Zandi's doing. And it was easy to be off by 30% or 40% in terms of estimated net present values versus actual outcomes. Furthermore, if management were insisting we either kill or approve a project, we could be off by a lot more.

Coal is dying because it's cheaper and cleaner to generate electricity from natural gas. And because Democratic politicians on the west coast refuse to allow Wyoming coal producers to use their ports to export coal to Asia.

The jobs are going to shift from oil and gas to solar and wind and we'll be just as productive and prosperous as before. That's not going to happen. The Chinese account for something like 70% of worldwide production of solar panels. We account for 1%. We on the other hand produce more oil and gas than anyone in the world. Those good paying solar jobs are going to mostly be in other countries.

Why? It's called comparative advantage. The Chinese are better at producing solar panels than we are. They're also better at making storage batteries. We're tops at producing oil and gas not only in terms of volumes, but also in terms of our technology and knowledge. Nobody can match our service companies. No one can match the expertise of our shale producers. But apparently we're going to have to throw that all away, on the way to "0" net carbon emissions.

China's sure as hell not doing that. They're pumping lots of money into oil and gas and coal. Which also highlights about how much good killing U.S. oil and gas production would do for carbon emissions. It will be a drop in the bucket. Our emissions have been falling, mostly because we're using more low cost natural gas to generate electricity and less coal. Natural gas produces less carbon than coal. China's and India's and Indonesia's and other developing countries' emissions are increasing, and are much larger than ours.

The Democratic politicians seem set on the killing domestic oil and gas industry, really for no good reason, except they're ignorant, and they can do it because "elections have consequences." Originally Posted by Tiny

That's right 0% emissions. Democrats think we can get there through Solar Panels and wind generated energy, Electric Cars. I guess they never stopped to think that there is a significant amount of Petroleum products that go into the making of all these zero emission wonders. Democrats are always trying to fix something that isn't broken.

Actually I never said Trump caused the covid recession. I never said he caused covid wither. What I did say is that he had the shittiest set of policies on both accounts because he (and Kudlow) had no clue what they were doing to try to stem the tide of the recession. Failing to aggressively defend against covid, not taking it seriously, having his followers believe that it was a hoax aimed to make him look bad, claiming that covid wasn’t that bad and wearing masks and social distancing was somehow political. All of that made it hard to keep the economy from getting worse. Would we have ended up there anyway, I don’t know. But we ended up there for sure the way Trump managed both things.

Actually I never said Trump caused the covid recession. I never said he caused covid wither. What I did say is that he had the shittiest set of policies on both accounts because he (and Kudlow) had no clue what they were doing to try to stem the tide of the recession. Failing to aggressively defend against covid, not taking it seriously, having his followers believe that it was a hoax aimed to make him look bad, claiming that covid wasn’t that bad and wearing masks and social distancing was somehow political. All of that made it hard to keep the economy from getting worse. Would we have ended up there anyway, I don’t know. But we ended up there for sure the way Trump managed both things. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

This whole Covid-19 thing is most certainly political. There isn't much anyone who catches it can do to eradicate the symptoms. So Masks and Social Distancing is the order of the day. The Mask has become such a symbol of this virus that you can buy reusable cloth masks in stores and online, there is even commercials where people are wearing masks advertising everyday products. This pandemic has been a money maker for companies that sell Masks and Hand sanitizer both which have minimal effectiveness against this virus.

Actually I never said Trump caused the covid recession. I never said he caused covid wither. What I did say is that he had the shittiest set of policies on both accounts because he (and Kudlow) had no clue what they were doing to try to stem the tide of the recession. Failing to aggressively defend against covid, not taking it seriously, having his followers believe that it was a hoax aimed to make him look bad, claiming that covid wasn’t that bad and wearing masks and social distancing was somehow political. All of that made it hard to keep the economy from getting worse. Would we have ended up there anyway, I don’t know. But we ended up there for sure the way Trump managed both things. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

This is what I was referring to,

The last 3 Republican presidents ended their terms starting a recession. Last three Democrat presidents started their terms with republicans hading over bad economies. During the last two democrats presidencies they turned around those bad economies and handed their successors lower deficits and debt and growing economies. Biden will be the third straight to do it. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

You give presidents far too much credit and blame for the performance of the economy.

As to measures you described in bold text, about masks, etc., I agree those would have been great steps to take, and I'm very disappointed Trump didn't pursue them aggressively. They don't cost very much, save lives, and help the economy by making people feel more comfortable getting out and doing things like shopping.

Still, the U.S. economy during Covid outperformed all the other G7 countries, except possibly Canada. Here's a list of YoY changes in the 4th Quarter GDP for the G7:

USA -2.5%
Germany -3.9%
France -5.0%
United Kingdom (Not available yet but will be worse than USA)
Canada -2.8% (November, 4Q not available yet)
Italy -5%
Japan -5.7%

That's right 0% emissions. Democrats think we can get there through Solar Panels and wind generated energy, Electric Cars. I guess they never stopped to think that there is a significant amount of Petroleum products that go into the making of all these zero emission wonders. Democrats are always trying to fix something that isn't broken. Originally Posted by Levianon17

I wonder how we're supposed to get to 0% emissions, and still have planes, long haul trucks, plastics, synthetic fibers, steel, and cement. Or for that matter electricity when it's nighttime, cloudy or windless, unless battery prices come down a lot.

In addition to parts for solar panels, windmills and electric cars, large amounts of carbon based fuels are used in processing lithium, cobalt and nickel, used for batteries, from ore.