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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (99115)	10/17/2018 8:35:54 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356789

Here is what the article in wiki says about full employment in the US in the 21st century: For the United States, economist William T. Dickens found that full-employment unemployment rate varied a lot over time but equaled about 5.5 percent of the civilian labor force during the 2000s. [5] Recently, economists have emphasized the idea that full employment represents a "range" of possible unemployment rates. For example, in 1999, in the United States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. This is the estimated unemployment rate at full employment, plus & minus the standard error of the estimate. [6] But really, that is neither here nor there. As I've repeated about 5 times now, when you inject large amounts of liquidity into the economy, you will get a jolt of growth. The question is, will it be sustainable? Will it result in a virtuous cycle or in a boom and bust, with a side of inflation as that liquidity moves through the economy in one place or another? Your speculation about it is as good as mine, given that we are both human. My guess is the latter, as you know. Time will tell. Arguing about it is fruitless.

To: i-node who wrote (99115)	10/17/2018 8:35:56 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 356789

Just making shit up again: If unemployment falls too much, inflation will rise as employers compete to hire workers and push up wages too fast. To economists, full employment means that unemployment has fallen to the lowest possible level that won't cause inflation. In the U.S., that was once thought to be a jobless rate of about 5 percent.Jul 6, 2018 Full Employment - Bloomberg bloomberg.com

To: i-node who wrote (99115)	10/17/2018 8:41:33 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 356789

In any case, maybe you missed this article that Wharf posted earlier. Ex-California--you know, the land of high taxes, excessive regulation and Moonbean Jerry Brown-- the economy isn't doing all that well. Trump Economy Needs California, Which Scorns Trump Economics Subtract the state’s corporate and job growth, and the nation’s boom becomes a beep. By Matthew A. Winkler October 17, 2018, 5:00 AM EDT Wherever he is, President Donald Trump exults in the U.S. economic boom, calling it, falsely, the strongest in history. (He's just recently stopped making the same inaccurate claim for the U.S. stock market.) He even bragged about having a "magic wand" he could wave to conjure jobs and growth. Never mind that almost 13 million of the 17 million jobs created during the 9-year-old expansion, and 71 percent of the S&P 500's rebound since March 2009, occurred when President Barack Obama was in the White House. Trump is right to be proud that U.S. gross domestic product leads the developed world with an increase of more than 4 percent during the second quarter of this year while unemployment declined to 3.7 percent, the lowest rate in half a century, from 4.8 percent when he was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2017. And hardly a day passes without Trump extolling his "America First" imposition of tariffs against big trading partners and the demolition of global agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Paris Climate Accord and his rebranding of the North American Free Trade Agreement. But the inconvenient truth of Trump's economy is that it looks decidedly mediocre compared to the rest of the globe's when California, a center of both internationalist business attitudes and anti-Trump political sentiment, is excluded from an accounting of national economic performance. Trump scorns (and is fighting in court) just about everything California promotes, from global climate, trade and clean energy agreements to world-beating technology to protections for undocumented immigrants and higher minimum wages. But when the Golden State's jobs and publicly traded companies are left out of the equation, he has little to brag about. That's because while U.S. nonfarm payrolls increased 4,063,000, or 2.8 percent, since the beginning of 2017, California represented 14 percent of new U.S. employment and led the country with 555,000 new jobs, a rise of 3.3 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Remove California from the job market and U.S. employment rose only 2.62 percent, a little better than Japan's 2.48 percent and less than Austria's 2.82 percent. The 19 countries that use the euro showed an increase of 2.41 percent. Subtract California's big and small companies from the rest of the nation's and something similar happens. During the same 22-month period, the market capitalization of the companies in the Russell 3000 Index of large, medium and small companies increased at an average rate of 46 percent. California's Russell 3000 companies appreciated 64 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Only one of the other 10 most-populous states had market-cap growth among its Russell 3000 companies that was better than the national benchmark, with a gain of 50 percent. That was Illinois, where Obama launched his presidency and which Hillary Clinton carried with little more effort than she needed in California. continues at bloomberg.com