When will the unemployment rate hit 10%?

I would say that the LSU team that embarassed the Buckeyes wasn't as good as the two previous LSU teams, they just lucked into getting to play OSU in a BCS title game.

I too thought Bama would lose to Florida in the SEC title game. I hoped they'd win, but I expected they'd lose, and they did. This year's Bama team is much better. We will see how they do this weekend against Tennessee. Florida only beat them 23-13, we'll see if we can do better.

I really don't want to prolong the football talk here. Obviously both 'Bama and Florida can't make the title game. I don't know if 'Bama can win out. I just hope they do. I do think they can beat Florida.

OSU has a stout defense that will keep them in the important games, but I thought their offense would evolve more, and thus far, it hasn't. But, I suspect that they will give Penn St., Michigan, and Iowa all more than they can handle. Tough to win on the road though. That's USC's challenge as well. Texas is overrated, and Texas at Ok. St. on Halloween in Stillwater is going to be epic.

Mtn Dew wrote:

LSU is a test, but LSU isn't as good as VT and Bama won that by double digits on a neutral field.

How is Bama better than the Utah game? Well, for starters they don't have two of their defensive coaches more interested in finding other jobs than focusing on the game. Bama didn't prepare for that game and no one with any sense honestly thinks Utah had a better team.

Haven't beaten anyone yet? Virginia Tech isn't anybody? How clueless are you?

1) Virginia Tech is over rated every year, and this year is no different. Virgina Tech lost to POWERHOUSE Georgia Tech. They barely beat a woeful Nebraska team by one point. You're kidding by calling them better than LSU right?

2) A team is a team brother, coaches and all. Alabama LOST to Utah, and in fact got CLOBBERED by them. Utah was the better team. You are a blinded fan. Take your teams' losses like a man and admit the better team won...because they did.

3) Methinks you will be sorely disappointed with Alabama's finish to this season. Just prepare yourself now.

Mtn Dew wrote:

Somebody is mad that their beloved team was smashed by lowly Purdue and thinks taking actually good teams down a couple pegs will make people forget what a joke of a program Ohio State is.

Ha! I said right from the beginning of the season that Ohio State was going to be no good and called for a 3-4 loss season...they are well on their way to that, proving I was RIGHT about them. Also, I'm not talking down ALL supposed good teams. I think Florida is the real deal (and I freaking HATE Florida; I would rather have Alabama beat Florida and head to the title game than to see Florida win another championship...BUT, I tell it like it is, and Florida is the better team as I see it, even if I don't want that to be the case). I think Texas is the read deal too (though they could lose). I think LSU has a GREAT shot to beat Alabama, and I just don't see Alabama as being one of the final two teams in the BCS title game, but I DO see other teams that I'm not a fan of being there. So, hardly just knocking on other teams that are up higher in the polls than my Buckeyes. I'm a Buckeye fan, but I'm a REALISTIC fan. You are NOT with regard to Alabama as you have already proven with your "Alabama is better than Utah" statement. BS. They were WORSE than Utah...WAY worse which is why they got POUNDED by them. Excuses are for losers. Be a man and give respect to the team that KILLED your team.

The unemployment rate is already over 10% where I live. WAY over 10%. Not only in the city I live in, but the county and state as well. It sucks to say the least. I see no change in the county I live in, it keeps getting worse at the same if not higher rate each and every month. So, do I want to bet it continues to raise through most if not all of 2010? I'll take that bet seeing that we haven't even seen a slow down yet.

Meant nuclear power plants, but you catch my drift. Unemployment has a ways to go higher yet (well into next year and perhaps beyond if we double dip) before it starts contracting, but I don't see us doing anything fundamentally to generate the organinc, sustained GDP growth and job creation anywhere near the current administration's estimates. Quite the opposite.

you're unbelievable. you seriously believe that tax policy is going to fix this economy??? tax rebates have 1.03/1 in stimulative effect, vs. 1.59 for infrastructure. the only tax policies with a positive long term effect will be MORE not less progressive, but recessions are no time for tax increases (maybe for more progressivity though).

Read carefully. This is from John Mauldin's latest weekly commentary, but originally penned by a Berkeley economist (should be right up your alley Jonesy), which I have linked to here before about the "multiplier":

“The federal government’s promise to extricate the U.S. economy from this recession involves more spending (increasing public debt) and more subsidies for

consumers, such as car rebates and home buying incentives (more private debt). In other words, more debt is supposed to solve the problem of over-indebtedness. The truth is that this policy merely indentures its citizens further without providing any income for repayment of debt.

“This means there is no long term income benefit from stimulus programs. According to the latest academic research, the most recent $800 billion stimulus plan will boost economic activity in the short run, but will surely depress economic activity over time. The government problem is complicated by the fact that the TAX MULTIPLIER IS 3, meaning that a 1% change in taxes will change GDP by about 3% over time. More recent research (Barro & Redlick, September 2009, "NBER Working Paper 15369") suggests that a 1% cut in the marginal tax rate would raise GDP in the ensuing year by 0.6%. With the deficit rising due to a zero spending multiplier, the tendency will be to try to raise taxes to pay for this higher level of expenditures, which will further depress aggregate spending and output.

For all intents and purposes, Japan has had no growth for almost two decades. Their nominal GDP is where it was 17 years ago, and the number of employed people is at 20-years-ago levels. An aging population has masked their unemployment problems, as older citizens retire. Their savings went to government debt. Taxes were raised numerous times. Since government deficit spending has no long-term multiplier effect, growth has been nonexistent. (By the way, that research about multiplier effects has also been done by CHRISTINA ROMER, the chairman of the current President’s Council of Economic Advisors, and further explored by European economists. There is general agreement on these facts.)"

So, yes, jonesy, tax policy (which includes reining in government sausage-making) has profound long-term consequences. We will reap what we sow.

"Death of the soul of capitalism?"

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/death-of-soul-of-capitalism.html

Flagpole, thanks for ruining an interesting UNEMPLOYMENT thread.

The US already has the 2nd highest OECD corporate tax rate, so the trend is obvious.

Structural unemployment (real unemployment - including discouraged and under-employed) will remain @ >10% for decades.

A new underclass has been created, and they will rely increasingly on entitlements.

Bread and circuses....

Flagpole wrote:

I think LSU has a GREAT shot to beat Alabama,

That's fine and reasonable. However, I'm not so much interested in your blanket statement as I am *why* you believe this. Please explain to me the process behind your reasoning - in such savvy football-technical detail that I will be left gasping, "Gosh, maybe that Flagpole DOES know a couple things about football. Maybe Flagpole isn't the worthless bag of undignified shit that he regularly makes himself out to be."

So - explain to me the basis and "science" (not just "art") supporting your assertion that, "LSU has a GREAT shot to beat Alabama." Teach me the x's & o's, analysis of staffs, schemes, adjustments, individual and statistical matchups and advantages... whatever it takes to convince me comprehensively of your touted competency and integrity. You proclaim to be a "man of FACTS" and an "expert debater" - and a past sports writer/journalist. Then, this task should be a walk in the park. Present to me a logical stream of diligently researched FACTS - packaged with insightful analysis and conclusions - supporting your argument.

A) If you can do that, then I will return and roundly commend you.

B) If you can't do that, well... it's ok too to admit, "Hey, you got me. I am incapable of making that type of in-depth analysis, because - truly - I am an ignorant bag of hot air."

silly old fossil wrote:

Flagpole, thanks for ruining an interesting UNEMPLOYMENT thread.

Sagarin brought up football in this thread, not me.

Hey....10% is the "new normal", or so we're told. That didn't take long! Shared prosperity/shared misery. Hope and change baby!!!!!!!!!

Dude, you WANT football to be all about x's and o's and what's on paper, but I know from YEARS of watching football games that that kind of analysis will bite you more than looking at the BIG PICTURE.

1) First of all, let's look at what I'm saying here. I'm saying I don't think Alabama will make it to the national title game. There are SO many things that can happen to them between now and then to make that a reality, so I'm a little surprised that so many of you are arguing with me on this point. Just on percentages alone, there's a better chance that what I'm saying will happen.

2) Look at the teams that Alabama has beaten so far. Virginia Tech - not a BAD team, but at 5-2 not a great team either, as almost always with them; FIU - enough said; North Texas - enough said; Arkansas - 3-3 team. Who cares that they played Florida tough...they are a 3-loss team with more to come. I'm not impressed; Kentucky - another 3-loss team; Ole Miss - mediocre team at best already with 2 losses; South Carolina - another mediocre team. Good for Alabama to have beaten all those teams, but there's not one team in there that is a stud team. I mean, really...just look at them. Mediocre to bad...all of them. Why anyone would hang their hopes on beating those teams is beyond me.

3) Why does LSU have a great shot to beat Alabama? For one thing, they will be the best team Alabama will have faced to date by far. Would I BET for LSU to win? No. They don't have a good running game, the game is AT Alabama, and they have proven the ability to lose, but at the same time, Alabama hasn't played anyone the level of Florida yet like LSU has. When you have a team playing who is afraid to lose against a good team that has lost already, the undefeated team is at a disadvantage. Only time will tell if LSU can beat Alabama. I'm not predicting it...just saying that it will be a HUGE test, and for sure a bigger test than any game they've played yet.

4) Alabama had better not overlook Tennessee either. I could see that happening...players not respecting them and looking ahead to LSU.

5) Two weeks from now after playing Tennessee and LSU, if they are still undefeated, I'll give them a little more respect, but they would STILL have to win the SEC championship game to get to the BCS title game, and I'd be against them winning that.

But, let's just see. I don't think Alabama makes the BCS title game. I will either be right or wrong. You should bet that I'll be right.

Flagpole wrote:

Sagarin brought up football in this thread, not me.

Absolutely untrue. Remarkable. Go back and read the first page where you first wrote, in an effort to take what you consider a redemptive shot at me: "Also, to turn the topic into another direction, I told you Ohio State was bad..." Of course, this is consistent with your ad nauseum bullshit and equivocating and gloating that you peddle frequently, which is rather unsightly for a 43-year old, balding, REAL man. M. Turner has you nailed.

Start up a football thread, but unless you have anything INSIGHTFUL to offer about economics, please leave.

Sagarin wrote:

Absolutely untrue. Remarkable. Go back and read the first page where you first wrote, in an effort to take what you consider a redemptive shot at me: "Also, to turn the topic into another direction, I told you Ohio State was bad..." Of course, this is consistent with your ad nauseum bullshit and equivocating and gloating that you peddle frequently, which is rather unsightly for a 43-year old, balding, REAL man. M. Turner has you nailed.

Start up a football thread, but unless you have anything INSIGHTFUL to offer about economics, please leave.

1) You are correct. I was thinking of another non-football thread where you brought up football.

2) Topics often veer off the original topic. That's now conversations go and how life is. This one changed toward the end to football. All that needed to be said about a 10% unemployment rate was said. Football is more interesting apparently.

3) But, dude, regarding my comment to you, you earlier told me how right YOU were regarding Ohio State (saying they weren't that bad and that I was wrong to say they were). You brought that up to try to show that I'm not good at predicting anything. Ha! So, when you say stuff like that and then you are proven wrong, expect me to let you know. If you can't handle that, then I suggest you don't disagree with me.

Flagpole, if it means that much to an overweight, balding middle age man, you can have it... seriously. And that you feel the need to keep bringing it up. Thanks for making this thread about you again.

And nobody's been proven right or wrong yet, with regard to the market or football. My only point was that you are a typical bandwagon fan, who predictably jumped off immediately as soon as you watched the Navy rustbuster. And you see everything perfectly clear in hindsight, like how good the LSU team was two years ago, despite spending plenty of time disparaging them on here. You make obvious asssertions like Va Tech is overrated or Cal will drop a game or two and then boast about them. No shit sherlock. Or how about how utterly bad you are at predicting March Madness. But seriously, who cares? If you are right even 50% of the time, you're still wrong the other 50%. Quit gloating.

You've already castigated me (in your feeble mind) about the myopic last six months of the market, as though I didn't expect a bounce (admittedly from lower levels). I direct you to the thread below from April and note my consternation with how everything was pointing to a bear market rally. You think I didn't get long? You think I didn't add in July when I said I thought the market would disappoint the "seasonals" and again in September? You think I wasn't playing GS on the way up, with their tentacles everywhere and their "too big to fail" label, even as I spelled it out for you? Think again. But none of this means that there isn't a disconnect between the market and the economy. That's all I'm saying. You best be cautious.

I predict an all-time high in the unemployment rate, though a second "stimulus" is "in the bag." I can't say when, just as I can't say for sure when this market takes a beating again.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2964578&page=0

1) Ha! Dude you are hilarious. I'm no bandwagon fan. I'm a fan who knows whether his team is good or not. I still root for them, watch the games, go to tailgate parties, etc. I can just tell if they are good or not, and this year they are not good. Funny too that you were able to determine they were pretty good earlier and that my declaring them NOT good was wrong. Bandwagon fans stop caring and watching their teams play. I don't like it when they lose and still watch them play. I just know they aren't very good. If I were to say they were GREAT then you'd call me a fan with blinders on.

2) Also dude, I only made the comment about Virginia Tech after someone else said they were a good team. So, not EVERYONE thinks they are over rated...especially those who do the over rating. Sorry brother, but you're wrong on that point.

3) I'm right way more than 50% of the time. WAY more. And apparently YOU care, because you bring it up a lot.

4) The market WILL take a beating again...that's a certainty. The reason for that though is NOT based on fundamentals but because the rising unemployment rate and ultimate stagnation of it will cause investors (because they are overly emotional) to stay out of the market. Fine by me. I'll continue to acquire while bad sentiment keeps stocks relatively low, and when there's finally a turn in the unemployment rate, the market will tick back up again. I'll be one of the ones who benefits greatly though because I put money in the while time while other took money out and didn't invest in other areas until they felt all was clear.

5) And finally, I've been clear on this before, but people should quit calling me "balding". I'm bald brother. No "ing" about it. Regarding being overweight though, that's been an up and down thing for me, but as of this writing, I'm within acceptable body weight for my height as I've been running a lot lately. I could lose 15 more pounds before someone would call me skinny, but I'm pretty happy with things. Now it's just time to train and get faster.