Seeking Alpha

Initial Jobless Claims: 386K vs. 375K consensus (prior week revised to 380K from 377K)....

Initial Jobless Claims: 386K vs. 375K consensus (prior week revised to 380K from 377K). Continuing claims -33K to 3.27M.
Comments (31)
  • Again heading towards 400K mark :(
    14 Jun 2012, 08:35 AM Reply Like
  • Yep, moving the wrong way for the country, and Obama.
    14 Jun 2012, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • And lots of people dropping off the 99 to the disability line
    14 Jun 2012, 09:51 AM Reply Like
  • Houston....we have a problem !
    14 Jun 2012, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • Where's bbro?
    14 Jun 2012, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • He must've taken the day off or had too much to drink last night. He would've definitely proved to us how that crap was actually very positive. I miss his intellectual input on how the 72.5 day average number has gone to ... well I don't know to what but to something.
    14 Jun 2012, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • No, it's negative. But the market is responding positively because it can't be spun as a positive and thus someone is bound to do something about it.
    14 Jun 2012, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • And for the 58th (?) week in a row, the prior figures were revised upward.
    14 Jun 2012, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun....they would not have to be revised upward except for that one reporting location in Timbucktoo, Michigan where they have a 74 year old clerk who they can't fire because she's in an age protected group. She files late.....every time.
    14 Jun 2012, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • The energy sector lost jobs as natgas was plugged in, or new wells weren't started. And government continues to shed jobs. In contrast to the policy we had in 2009, fiscal policies on balance are now contracting, especially on the state and local levels. Oh, and federal employment is back to Eisenhower-era levels.


    We are, relatively speaking, back on austerity. No matter what the Romneybots may tell you.
    14 Jun 2012, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  • Yep, austerity it is with $1.3 trillion of deficit and this using cash accounting. Using the type of accounting that companies MUST use, the deficit is like $5 trillion. I wonder what real stimulus looks like then.
    15 Jun 2012, 03:24 AM Reply Like
  • When you cut spending from what it was, that's austerity. When you cut deficits from what they were, that's austerity. CBO estimates this year's deficit at $901b, from $1.3T the year before. Relatively speaking, that's austerity, not stimulus.
    15 Jun 2012, 02:55 PM Reply Like
  • Don't worry....Obama says "The private sector is doing fine".
    14 Jun 2012, 11:52 PM Reply Like
  • Compared with what it was doing under Bush (and what Massachusetts was doing under Romney) the private sector is doing great!
    15 Jun 2012, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • As measured by what:
    1. Workforce Participation
    2. Unemployment
    3. Median Income
    4. Wealth of the middle class
    5. Food Stamp use
    6. Disability benefits
    7. Interest income for savers
    8. Gas prices
    9. Inflation
    10. Savings rate
    11. Student Loans
    12. Foreclosures
    13. GDP growth
    14. Average mean duration of unemployment
    15. Wealth concentration
    15 Jun 2012, 03:53 PM Reply Like
  • Yeah, I know you want to count it from the inauguration. But the Bush people lied about the depth of the 2008 downturn. They lied, outright. The Administration's initial plans for stimulus were based on this lie.


    So we were much further in the hole in mid 2009 than anticipated, due to these Bush lies. I don't think it's legitimate to give the President any credit, or blame, for what happened until after his plans were set in motion. And even then, I cut him some slack because Bush's people lied about the economy's damage in the second half of 2008. The economy wasn't falling at a rate of 4%, as claimed, but 9%.


    Now, I also compare the recovery from July 2009 with what the Bush people managed to do in their time -- and remember the Romney people are all Bush people. This economy is much more sustainable. It's not based on war lies or liar loans. It's broader.


    I frankly don't care if you consider it unfair for me to mention Bush. I'm going to keep doing it. As Republicans continued talking up Carter for nearly three decades. Tough. Own it.


    If you want to have a real discussion of policy, don't give me Bush policies. Give me something else. Otherwise you dont have a leg to stand on.
    16 Jun 2012, 11:45 AM Reply Like
  • are obviously a bright guy. Thus I have a hard time following your reply. You are the one that reinforced Obama's statement the other day by saying the economy is doing fine. You also modified that statement by saying as compared to Bush. I simply asked you to provide your evidence for supporting that statement, which you certainly did not provide. I listed 15 potential measurements that contradict your statement. So....since you are so obviously in favor of current policies and their outcomes....simply articulate which ones you think suggest the economy is doing better.
    17 Jun 2012, 12:04 AM Reply Like
  • The private economy is now doing better. Not great, but better. As the President later acknowledged.


    The Bush years sucked for the private economy, and I find it remarkable anyone would seek to defend that record or want the idiots who created it back in power.


    Your claims are based on politically motivated yardsticks. You give the bulk of the Bush recession to Obama in order to make his record look worse and Bush's look better.
    18 Jun 2012, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • Non-response.
    18 Jun 2012, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • Isn't the point of "stimulus" and "jump starting" is that it happens right away. Was there somewhere in this approach that says, "on the way to stimulus you will need 10 years of excuse making and finger pointing before it works." I was recently listening to a conference of bank examiners in Europe, and the speaker was complaining that the main problem with regulators is that no one is ever willing to take responsibility for anything. This is the nature of people that have access to gov force (guns). Force eliminates the need to learn because there is no reason to pay for mistakes by the people making decisions.


    The same thing happened in the Soviet Union when they took over agriculture production. Productivity levels dropped way off as compared to before the takeover, and the excuse was the weather. Funny, the had bad weather for the next 70 years. If Obama got another 70 years in office, in year 70 he would still be blaming Bush for the malaise in the economy.
    18 Jun 2012, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • No, I just didn't agree with your premises. Your premises are, in my view, false premises. That's a response. You disagree.


    18 Jun 2012, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • Yeah, I hear this all the time. Government, owns guns, forces people, vs. market players, they're free market, they're liberation.


    Sorry, but I call bullshit on that. Jaime Dimon is more powerful than many, many governments. But I can control government, in some small way. I can't control Dimon.


    I would rather have real democracy in all areas -- corporate governance and political governance. Forced to make a choice, I choose political governance.


    A dictatorship of the plutocrats is still a dictatorship.
    18 Jun 2012, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • Dimon can't raise taxes or put people in jail, but a gov can. Dimon can't round up millions of Jews and gas them, but a gov can. Dimon can't tell you where to live or who to associate with, but gov can. Dimon can't send your children off to war, but gov can. Dimon can't force you to do business with his bank, but gov can. Dimon can't round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps, but a gov can. Dimon can't force you to pay a tithe to a church, but a gov can. Dimon can't kick in your door at night, and drag your family away, but a gov can.


    The only thing Dimon can do when he doesn't have access to gov force to regulate his competition out of business is to try and offer the best product he possibly can to entice me to do business with him. Yeah. That's really scary as opposed to all the things gov with its force can.


    If gov force doesn't matter, then lets take it away. Let's make all gov policies completely voluntary. People can volunteer to be regulated by the FDIC. People can volunteer to pay taxes. If gov is so good at doing these things and so trustworthy because you can vote, then lets remove all of gov's coercive power. People should love it so much that they will voluntary sign up for its control and do everything it says to do.
    18 Jun 2012, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • I can vote to get rid of my government. I can't do anything to Dimon, and neither, it seems, can the government. Right now. Because the previous regime recapitalized him.


    Given a choice of rule by the oligarchs like Dimon and rule by the people of the United States of America, I stand with the people.
    18 Jun 2012, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • Exactly. Dimon has power because he has access to gov force. Your issue isn't with Dimon. He would have no power had you not advocated for a gov business combination. The gov is saving the banks, because people with a philosophy like yours advocated that gov should control business. All this did, was create the economics that allowed business to control gov, and now you don't have control of either one.


    You can't vote to get rid of your gov, because you only have one vote, but you have advocated for protyranny policies that have created the economics for politicians to be bought because you have given them something to sell.


    The same reasons gov should be separate from religion are the same reasons gov should be separated from the economy. The only thing gov can do is regulate force and fraud, because the populace can grant the gov force. What the populace cannot do is grant the gov superior market knowledge. The economy is just like religion, there is no empirical evidence that everyone can agree on. Both religion and economics are approaches humans with finite knowledge attempt to answer questions with unknown answers about survival.


    If in that struggle you give one of the humans the grant of force, they will use that for their survival over yours. This is why that force must be limited, and that's why gov should be limited. If they are not, the the economics of concentrated benefits vs diffuse costs kick in, and you quickly find the power you granted in hopes of someone taking care of you becomes the power of controlling you and you no longer being in control.
    18 Jun 2012, 11:23 AM Reply Like
  • If any private actor is stronger than the government they become the government. Government must be stronger than Jaime Dimon.


    "Limited" government is the cry whenever a lawbreaker wishes to get out of their responsibility for having broken the law, or when they wish there had been no law.


    We have a basic philosophical disagreement. I think your philosophy leads to a government of the many by the few with great wealth. What we face today is precisely what we faced 120 years ago in the run-up to progressivism. Only back then the Republicans were on the progressive side.
    18 Jun 2012, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • The only way a private sector actor can become stronger than the gov, is when the trick the populace into letting gov manage the economy. That's when business ceases to be business, and becomes part of the gov.


    Rockefeller became a progressive because he realized he couldn't get his wealth controlled by a few without gov. The same was true for Morgan. Everytime market share got over 90% to 95%, and they would try to restrict supply and raise prices, new competitors would enter. Rockefeller even found himself buying fake refineries. National Biscut Company (NABISCO) in one of their shareholder reports from around this time, announced they were giving up on this strategy. They wound up way overpaying for aquisitions to control market share, only to find new competitors springing up all the time.


    The solution was to defraud the public into believing that only gov could control this. To get people to believe that voluntary trade leads to the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer, when in fact the only transactions that can do this are coerced transactions.


    Think about the theft transaction. What does the victim receive in that transaction. Force only has two applications for people. It can be used to make one person richer and another poorer, or it can be used as a defense against such transactions. This is why gov is granted force. It is to be used against illegitimate force. When gov force is unleashed from this limitation, then gov force becomes the agent of theft.


    Dimon is no threat without gov force. When we fall for the fraud that gov must control him, then you find yourself in the economics of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. It becomes in the interest of Dimon and those in his circumstances (like Rockefeller and Morgan) to "buy" gov and its force for their interests at the expense of everyone else. This is the clandestine manifestation of the theft transactions.


    If you use gov properly to making coerced transactions expensive, the result would be only voluntary transactions. To do this gov must be divided and limited to prevent its force from becoming the source of the coercion. When this happens and voluntary trade rules, then people are forced to learn from mistakes, understand nature's signals about efficiency (prices), and capital creation reaches maximum efficiency. If you can keep gov from becoming the source of coercion in transactions, you begin the cycle of exponential capital creation. When that happens, the sky is the limit for the standard of living for everyone in the society. Producing eventually becomes cheaper than stealing, and then everyone is producing. When they produce,then they can consume on a sustained basis. In other words they can everything gov coercion promises, but never delivers.
    18 Jun 2012, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • I think your view of the Progressive Era is a complete nonsense, but I don't have time to educate an ideologue whose faith is in what others tell him. Just try taking a survey course in American history some time. Start here
    18 Jun 2012, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • And I think your view is complete nonsense. I think you let your ideology of what you would like to be cloud the realities of what can be. Just because we want gov to do something, doesn't mean it can. Physics trump ideology, and if what you said really worked, Europe would be the best run, wealthiest place on the planet along with Cuba, N Korea and the Soviet Union.


    The fact is when people try your ideas, the find themselves in deep austerity. So instead of progressing in their standard of living they wind up regressing. Food gets rationed, education gets rationed, health care gets rationed, and not rationed in the sense that prices set the level at which you can aquire something, but rationed in the sense they can't even be had anymore because they no longer exist.


    What's most convincing is how vicious you get with people that disagree with you in your attempt to get control over their lives. If you get ugly before you have control over them, what are you going to be like when you do have control over them?


    This is why these socialist utopias always get so dangerous. People, who are just people, get power over others, and they no longer have limits on what they can do to others, so why not put them in camps and shoot them for target practice just for fun? Why not just take their business and years of their life, because the guy financing my campaign has more interests in it happening than the difuse public has of stopping it. Everyone expects everyone else to provide their living for them, and everyone winds up resenting everyone else. Just like we see in Europe now and like we see in the US now.
    18 Jun 2012, 01:16 PM Reply Like
  • I don't have an ideology.


    You created something called "socialist" for me and said it was useless, while proclaiming yourself a friend of "Freedom."


    It's not true. On either side. I think you do what works. Growth works. Austerity does not.
    18 Jun 2012, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • Everybody has an ideology. That's not the issue. The issue is which ideology best promotes capital creation, and thereby improves everyone's standard of living.


    Socialist was just an example of an all encompassing perspective that encompasses the idea, that coercion is superior to voluntarism, with regards to capital creation.


    Gov is gov because it is given a grant of force. Force is the absolute worse foundation on which to base capital creation. Force eliminates the need to learn. That's why gov regulations intended to coerce business into certain policies with the aim of making them better capital creators results in lots of complaining about the regulations failing when the business fails. The gov regulators are blind to prices and the make the business blind to prices. Coercion is the root of inflation, not money. It is gov force that allows money mediums to be created at a faster pace than capital creation would justify. This is why gov monopolization of money mediums so oftent leads to asset bubbles, followed by an implosion that creates massive austerity.


    If coercion were the superior method to capital creation, then the slave South should have defeated the nonsalve North. All you would need to do is beat the slaves to be more productive than the combined industrial might of the North. The reason the coercion didn't work, is that no human will produce for another human with the same fervor, that they will produce for themselves. The slaves simply weren't all that productive at 100% income tax rates and at 99% regulatory rates.


    Growth occurs when people learn how to produce better. In order for them to produce better, they have to be free of coercion. When they are coerced, austerity is the result. If you use gov to purge coercion from your markets, that is have markets free of coercion (free markets), then the only alternative is capital creation by learning. Then you get exponential prosperity.
    18 Jun 2012, 03:03 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)