Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (45866)	9/16/2010 11:09:57 AM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Democrats Turn on Trade in Desperation Posted by Daniel Griswold In the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, Republican candidates for Congress tried to save their bacon by running against immigration. In 2010, according to the Wall Street Journal this morning, a number of Democrats are trying to save their seats by running against trade. I predict the Democratic tactic will be as fruitless as the Republican effort before it. Democratic incumbents have been running TV ads accusing their Republican challengers of favoring trade agreements, outsourcing, and tax breaks for U.S. companies that invest abroad. The charges are wrong on substance, as I address at length in my 2009 Cato book Mad about Trade: Why Main Street America Should Embrace Globalization, but running against trade has not proven to be a vote getter, either. It is difficult to find a presidential or congressional election anywhere that has turned on trade. While most voters have an opinion on trade, the issue tends to rank down the list of top concerns, far behind the economy, jobs, and, in this election cycle, government spending and debt. Demonizing trade is an especially odd campaign tactic in 2010. The recession of 2008-09 was not caused by trade, but by the bursting of the housing bubble. As the economy slowly recovers, trade has been one of the bright spots, with a healthy increase in exports fueling a revival of the closely watched manufacturing sector, as my Cato colleague Dan Ikenson blogged a few days ago. Democrats running against trade should remember that the “Clinton economy” of the 1990s that they often speak nostalgically of restoring was built in significant part on the passage of major trade agreements and a robust expansion of trade. Daniel Griswold • September 13, 2010 @ 12:11 pm cato-at-liberty.org Gotta love your boys.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (45866)	12/13/2010 9:38:36 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Where are the jobs? Dec 3rd 2010, 15:15 by R.A. \| WASHINGTON ALMOST everywhere you look, the American recovery seems to be picking up pace. The economy grew faster in the third quarter than originally reported. Industrial production continues to grow. Spending has been surprisingly strong, and the latest figures on pending home sales suggest that even housing markets may be stirring from their deep slump. The growth seems to be everywhere except the place it matters most—labour markets. Employment in America turned in a surprisingly poor performance in November, indicating that recovery still hasn't gotten the job creation machine turning steadily. This morning, the Bureau of Labour Statistics reported a disappointing gain of only 39,000 jobs for the month of November. The figure came in well below expectations. In October, the economy grew by an (upwardly revised) 172,000 jobs, and on Wednesday a private employment report estimated that the economy added 93,000 private sector workers. Markets had expected one of the strongest reports of the recovery so far. That's not what they received. In November, according to the BLS, private employers added just 50,000 new jobs—the worst performance since April. From that paltry total were subtracted 11,000 in lost government jobs. Small gains in federal and state government employment were offset by a 14,000 job fall in local government employment. Within the private sector, drops in employment among goods-producing and retail trade firms were offset by new hires among professional and businesses services and in the health and education sectors. The unemployment rate rose to 9.8%—its highest level since April and close to the 10.1% recession peak. At 15.1m, the number of unemployed workers rose back to its April high (though some of this increase was due to new entrants to the labour force). Fully 6.3m people have been out of work for more than 27 weeks. Many of these workers are now cycling off federal emergency unemployment benefits, which expired November 30. Congress has yet to reauthorise the emergency benefits package, as it has done so many times through the recession. Some 2m jobless workers may lose benefits by the end of 2010, and perhaps 4m or more will lose them by April. There is little to be happy about in this report, in other words. But there are some indications that the November numbers may be an aberration. September's job losses were revised down to 24,000 in this report, while October's job gains were revised upward, from 151,000 to 172,000. Through November, weekly data on initial jobless claims showed significant improvement. And of course, many other indicators have been flashing positive signs in recent weeks. It's likely, then, that the November figures will be revised up in future months to show a better performance more in keeping with broader trends. And it's important to remember that monthly data are noisy. America's labour markets have yet to generate job growth sufficient to bring down the unemployment rate. But the pace of recovery has been improving. There is good reason to suspect that when all is said and done this report will appear as a blip marring a strengthening upward employment trend. All the same, policymakers in Washington weighing whether to extend unemployment benefits and tax cuts should heed the obvious weakness in labour markets. They can and should make sure that November's number remains an anomaly. economist.com