"A Note From the Commissioner"

Last Friday's release of April's employment data by the Bureau of Labor Statistics contained a couple of details that indicate how much the economy has suffered under Barack Obama, regardless of whatever problems he "inherited." It's true that the official unemployment rate dropped to 6.3%. However, as I've pointed out dozens of times, that number has been kept artificially low by the decrease in the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR). 

Essentially, a million more unemployed people were not officially counted as unemployed. That government-bureaucrat loophole has been the only thing keeping the unemployment rate under 10% the last several years. The LFPR in April was a modern-era worst, the lowest since 1978.

The argument has been made that the decline in the number of people in the workforce is due to Baby Boomers retiring. That's a valid argument, although incorrect. The storyline these days is that people are choosing (or being forced) to work until a later age because of financial difficulties and/or better senior health. But we have something a little more solid to go on than just common sense.

April's report showed that the number of people in the labor forced dropped by 806,000 from March to April, despite an increase in the population of 181,000. Erica Groshen, Commissioner of the BLS, said in her statement: "the April labor force decline was due mostly to fewer people entering the labor force than usual, rather than to more people exiting the labor force." 

So much for the "baby boomers retiring" excuse.

Just to keep everyone reminded, here's the graphic proof of Obama's (and Congressional Democrats') handling of employment since he took office:

LFPR since Obama took office in January 2009

The Laffer Curve Explained

Because Liberals always argue out of ignorance, it's simple to logically defeat them simply by having information. (Note: At that point they fall back on screaming, swearing and name-calling. Since they can't defend their positions with logic, they scream, swear, and name-call a lot.)

When it comes to taxation, Liberals/Democrats always want more, no matter how much we're already taxed. Because of the Laffer curve, their ideological aim is to punish rather than to actually increase revenue.

Here it is explained by an expert.

Obama's economy - It's worse than we think

For several years I've pointed out how the "official" unemployment rate under Obama has been artificially low, due to the increasing number of people who are not counted as unemployed. Anyone who is unemployed and who has given up looking for a job is not counted as "unemployed." Yes, it's crazy. The percentage of people working or looking for work, known as "Labor Force Participation Rate," has dropped like a rock under Obama.

The labor report for September, which has been released very very quietly, shows a terrifying statistic. In the last six months, more than two-thirds of the increase in working-age population is not in the workforce. Our working-age population has increased by 993,000 but the workforce has only increased by 321,000.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Even though larger numbers of people are not working, because of government's imaginary numbers process, the official unemployment rate has gone down.

What does Obama understand about economics?

Not as much as you'd think.

Well, it's not so much what he understands, as what he believes.  Democrats refuse to work on any deficit reduction that does not include tax increases.  They euphemistically cite those increases to "increase revenue," but that's not what motivtes Democrats, particularly Obama.  Here's why he wants tax increases:

To be more "fair"



To "spread the wealth around"



Because at a certain point "you've made enough money."

This video's title says it all

Milton Friedman on Greed

Economist Milton Friedman, in a 1979 interview with Phil Donahue: "There is no alternative way, yet discovered, for improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system." Donahue does his best to argue against capitalism, and extol the virtues of socialism -- and Friedman absolutely crushes him.

Now that's ironic, or symbolic, or something

Obama's huge armored limousine, nicknamed "the Beast," got stuck on a ramp in Ireland.
This could, of course, with a bit of imagination, serve as an analogy for what he's done to the American economy.  He's weighted it down with so much junk that it can't get going.

Obama's Views on the Redistribution of Wealth

From a 2001 radio interview with Barack Obama:





His economic objective has never been a secret at all, has it?

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too - Part XXVI

From a recent Thomas Sowell column entitled "Promises and Riots" -

"Economists are the real "party of No." They keep saying that there is no such thing as a free lunch -- and politicians keep on getting elected by promising free lunches."

Reality Check

Thomas Sowell has a column today in which he discusses how bailing out the big three automakers postpones reality. Their way of producing cars failed, whether through their own business practices, the excessive demands of the unions or the excessive demands of the government.

One passage in the column introduced me to a concept I hadn't seen before. To wit:

"A renowned economist of the past, J.A. Schumpeter, used to refer to progress under capitalism as "creative destruction"-- the replacement of businesses that have outlived their usefulness with businesses that carry technological and organizational creativity forward, raising standards of living in the process."

Sowell then goes on to describe what happened to the horse and buggy business with the introduction of the automobile a hundred years ago.

"Creative destruction." I like that. It implies a constant renewal, like a snake shedding its skin or a butterfly leaving a cocoon. In economic terms it causes short term pain for groups that are displaced, but the process is what's necessary for long term economic growth. Plus, as Sowell said, a greater standard of living.

Try selling that idea to a politician who's trying to be re-elected. Feh.