jump to navigation

The May Unemployment Numbers are Here, and Worse Than Predicted June 5, 2009

Posted by geoff in News.
trackback

UPDATE III: It’s now a year later – the graph for May 2010 is posted here.
UPDATE II: October graph posted here.
UPDATE: Corrected graph available here.

While I was waiting for May’s numbers to be released I did a quick Google News search on “unemployment.” Here is the first set of entries that popped up:

Pittsburgh unemployment rate falls to 6.9 percent Bizjournals.com – Unemployment in the Pittsburgh area inched down in April to 6.9 percent…
US Economy: Jobless Claims Fall, Productivity Rises Bloomberg
US jobless claims fall again, productivity rises Reuters
Jobless claims are down, but work remains scarce AP

You get the feeling that there’s a little pre-spin effort afoot? I mean, why put up an article on April’s unemployment on the day that May’s numbers come out? And while jobless claims did fall, interpreting that information without the unemployment rate is very difficult.

In any case, here is the new number for May: 9.4%, which is 0.2% higher than we had shown in the chart from a few days ago:*

Stimulus-vs-unemployment-may
Oh dear. And I’m serious – I expected the numbers to flatten out like it looked like they were going to a few days ago. This trend is terrible – the unemployment rate change was 60% higher than what was predicted, and is a larger increase than from March to April.

Maybe we’d better just keep focusing on those jobless claims.

*As always, this chart was constructed by overlaying the actual economic data on top of the chart made by Obama’s economic team to market his stimulus plan.

**Here are some other posts on the subject:

  • The predicted numbers for May from a few days ago, with some thoughts on why unemployment is worse than expected even without the stimulus package (and a hearty discussion in the comments on proper graphing)
  • A look at the stimulus package spending – how late it is, and how little thus far has been devoted to job creation (it’s basically gone to pay off states’ social services debts)
  • The April numbers
  • The original post on the subject, noting that criticisms of the stimulus package may not have been motivated by racism after all.

er

About these ads

Comments»

1. The April Numbers Are In – It’s Official « Innocent Bystanders - June 5, 2009

[...] [Update II: The May numbers are now in.] [...]

2. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

I recall in 2002-2004, during the “jobless recovery”, whenever claims filed would drop, that was treated as a bad thing by the MSM, because they decreed, ipse dixit, that that was because disspirited workers had just given up looking for work.

Ditto for the productivity index. An increase in that was spun as no big deal, since so few people are working, blah blah blah.

Now, not so much. Suddenly, this drop in claims is heralded as something good by the MSM.

So, I look at the LAT site, and guess what their headline is:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jobs6-2009jun06,0,7231777.story

“Jobless rate hits 9.4% in May; layoffs slow”

Then, this paragraph was priceless:
“But the employment figures, which the Labor Department reported this morning, offer hope that the worst of the economic downturn could be over: The number of lost jobs was the lowest since September, and it was only half of the average monthly job losses in the last half-year.”

Geez, it’s almost as though the MSM is trying to spin bad news as good based upon who is in the WHite House.

3. geoff - June 5, 2009

I recall in 2002-2004, during the “jobless recovery”, whenever claims filed would drop, that was treated as a bad thing by the MSM, because they decreed, ipse dixit, that that was because disspirited workers had just given up looking for work.

Exactly. And look at Chart 2 from this BLS report. You’d think it’d be more important than ever, with the “discouraged worker” ranks reaching record highs.

4. lauraw - June 5, 2009

Link love at Ace’s for ya geoff.

5. geoff - June 5, 2009

You’re the best, lw.

6. Pianobuff - June 5, 2009

Is this an example of that “funemployment” I’ve been hearing about?

7. SGR - June 5, 2009

Man, it just sucks with the actual data doesn’t support Teleprompter Jesus’ statements. Move along now. Things are fine. Things are fine. Things are fine.

8. Joey Buzz - June 5, 2009

Yes there is serious spin afoot and ahead. Every MSM reprot on the numbers I heard this am on the way to work included a lot of “buts” Lovin the dots btw, makes you appear more precise.

9. doc - June 5, 2009

lovely dots

10. Farmer Joe - June 5, 2009

Good thing The Won is out there “saving or creating” jobs like crazy.

11. Dody Jane - June 5, 2009

I think unemployment is going higher – just a guess…

12. geoff - June 5, 2009

I actually mis-saved the dot version over the triangle version, and then said “whatever.”

13. Twitted by The_Lembkes - June 5, 2009

[...] This post was Twitted by The_Lembkes – Real-url.org [...]

14. Behold, the power of porkulus | Amateur Megalomania - June 5, 2009

[...] Innocent Bystanders – pull a page from the Obama Administration’s marketing plan to sell the American public on [...]

15. MCPO Airdale - June 5, 2009

Welcome to France. Once Obama dismantles the military, allows sharia courts and “disaffected Asian youth” start burning cars when the police enter their neighborhoods, we will have completed the transition

16. Just . . . Wow [Dan Collins] - June 5, 2009

[...] Disparity in predicted, actual unemployment projection = Homeric. Posted by Dan Collins @ 7:26 am | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Just . . . Wow [Dan Collins]", url: "http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15012" });   [...]

17. Rich - June 5, 2009

You know, if your turn your chart 22.5 degrees to the right, the unemployment rate has actually flattened. Ta Da! Economic recovery at hand! Thank Barry.

18. doc - June 5, 2009

Seriously though Geoff, the popularity of these posts show how effective a simple chart can be. No spin possible or necessary. Nicely done and thanks.

19. Michael - June 5, 2009

Heh. I pimped this to Hot Air, and now Allah twittered it.

20. Mrs. Peel - June 5, 2009

That is pretty bad. Thanks for the chart, geoff (though I remain a trianglist).

(Dave is a Reform Trianglist, isn’t he? Ugh! Orthodox Trianglism for me all the way.)

21. PattyAnn - June 5, 2009

I miss the triangles. I am a dotist.

22. skinbad - June 5, 2009

Finally–a hockey stick we can believe in.

23. Hot Air » Blog Archive » Unemployment up to 9.4% - June 5, 2009

[...] Innocent Bystanders updated Figure 1 in May to reflect unemployment with the $787 billion Porkulus in place: [...]

24. geoff - June 5, 2009

Seriously though Geoff, the popularity of these posts show how effective a simple chart can be.

You mean as contrasted with my other charts?!? Hmmpph!! Good day sir!!

But seriously, thanks. I’ve pushed this one more than most because I thought it was vitally important to raise people’s awareness of how badly Obama’s economic team has handled the problem, and how much trouble we’re really in.

Heh. I pimped this to Hot Air, and now Allah twittered it.

Thanks, Michael. And, of course, it’s lauraw who pretty much set April’s and May’s charts on their viral paths, so thanks again to her.

25. Giordy - June 5, 2009

Yay for the dots!

26. geoff - June 5, 2009

Thanks, Michael…….

Did that sound too Academy Awardsy? I guess it would have for sure if I’d thanked all the little dot people, too numerous to single out by name.

27. leoncaruthers - June 5, 2009

Geoff’s charts are the only reason I ever come to IB. True story.

28. Neo - June 5, 2009

By the time the Recovery Plan actually does anything, we will either be all unemployed or all employed paying everything in taxes.
Either way we will be broke.

29. Sweet Sarah - June 5, 2009

I don’t know if it helps, or if any of my friends actually read these links, but I always post these on facebook. I hope it gets around. Thank you for the info, and in pretty graph form!

30. Beto Ochoa - June 5, 2009

So the spin effects the gold and silver markets until next week when the numbers are digested. Today is a good day to buy gold and silver bullion.

31. Car in - June 5, 2009

Man, you mean there is substance at IB? I suppose I should be checking in more often.

32. Car in - June 5, 2009

Michigan is at 12.9! The future is HERE. Jenny Granholm is blowing us away!

33. Michael - June 5, 2009

Now that Geoff has succumbed to the inexorable logic of dotism, I’m thinking that his conversion to Pure Lutheran Doctrine™ is much more doable.

34. Car in - June 5, 2009

Eddie (way up at first comment) that was EXACTLY what my husband said last night.

Wait. You’re not my husband, right? This could be awkward.

35. good soothsayers are hard to find « RockStar PeterSon - June 5, 2009

[...] Oh dear. [...]

36. happyfeet - June 5, 2009

ohnoes. We’ve been robbed.

This is not good.

37. Michael - June 5, 2009

Hey, one of the seven citizens of Reunion with a computer showed up at IB!

38. Slartibartfast - June 5, 2009

Is this an example of that “funemployment” I’ve been hearing about?

Either that, or people are just all on staycation for the period in question.

39. Car in - June 5, 2009

You know, if your turn your chart 22.5 degrees to the right, the unemployment rate has actually flattened. Ta Da! Economic recovery at hand! Thank Barry.

I can achieve a similar result by simply removing my glasses. Plus, then I can’t read the numbers so they can be anything I want them to be.

40. geoff - June 5, 2009

You know, if your turn your chart 22.5 degrees to the right, the unemployment rate has actually flattened. Ta Da! Economic recovery at hand! Thank Barry.

If you weren’t a racist you’d tilt your head.

41. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

Car-in:
Naw. I’m spoken for.

But great minds think alike.

Geoff is a shapist because he avoids “special” (as in Jerry’s Kids type of special) shapes such as a trapezoid or a heptagon.

42. Ella - June 5, 2009

I don’t know that any of Obama’s policies are having this effect yet. I think this is still natural fall-out from a massive credit bubble bursting (and in a sane world, we still wouldn’t be at the end of it yet – lots more unwinding to do from a massive increased dependence on consumer spending and asset-funded debt). But starting the third quarter of this year, maybe the fourth, I think that’s when Obama’s policies begin taking root; we really haven’t seen his stuff going into effect yet.

The end of this year is when the fun starts. That’s my uneducated guess.

43. PattyAnn - June 5, 2009

[...] This post was ChimpFaced by PattyAnn [...]

44. Ella - June 5, 2009

I mean, funeducated!

45. Alice H - June 5, 2009

Uh, dude, it’s not supposed to jump off the chart like that. You’re implying that Obama’s making the economy worse.

46. doug - June 5, 2009

Oddly the news today is all about how the unemployment rate is flattening out and the recession is almost over. Gold is way down on this news. What’s the deal?

47. The Everlasting Phelps » Blog Archive » May Unemployment Numbers - June 5, 2009

[...] So Obama was going to create or save 4,000,000 jobs, right? [...]

48. JM Hanes - June 5, 2009

Kudos to you — this chart is so revealing and the change from open triangles to smaller arrowheads makes it much easier to read too.

Believe it or not, even though it’s a simple graph, I initially had a hard time figuring out what it was about, until I read an explanation. It would help to have a title like “Original Obama Administration Unemployment Projections” or “Administration Unemployment Projections vs. Reality,” with a note that the red dots reflect the actual unemployment rates as they are reported.

Such tweaks would make it work as a stand alone chart that could be passed around without further annotation. Your stark message is particularly effective in contrast to Administration folderol, and it deserves all the play it can get! Wouldn’t hurt to include your URL on it somewhere either. :-)

49. geoff - June 5, 2009

It would help to have a title like “Original Obama Administration Unemployment Projections”

If you follow back through the history of the chart (this is its 5th or 6th version), the origins become more clear. I selfishly try to write something new on the topic each time, so as to avoid going over the same material and boring myself to death. I also assumed that everybody had seen the chart last month, so I didn’t bother with even a cursory explanation, save for the terse footnote.

In any case, if I get time I’ll consider how to improve its self-explanatory capabilities. But I have to be careful – I don’t want to modify the original chart too much or it loses its paternity.

50. God-Emperor miraculously creates or saves millions more jobs! | Cold Fury - June 5, 2009

[...] update! Just gotta throw in this bit from Captain Ed’s post, referring to the now-famous Innocent Bystanders graph showing the abject failure of the stimulus package in achieving its supposed purpose: Not only has [...]

51. MostlyRight - June 5, 2009

The way I look at it, Obama has just achieved Western Euro-type unemployment numbers in just 5 months! Although I had been under the impression that the free health care, maximum 32 hour work weeks, 8 weeks mandatory paid vacation, and unicorns were supposed to come first. But I still trust him.

52. PattyAnn - June 5, 2009

^good advice J M Haynes–especially the URL on the chart.

53. Kafe Actuarial Blog » Blog Archive » Recovery spending continues to work its magic - June 5, 2009
54. May unemployment and the non-stimulus | PoliticalDerby.com - June 5, 2009

[...] credit: Innocent Bystanders Posted in General by Scott A. Robinson •   0 comments •  Post a [...]

55. May Unemployment and the “Stimulus” « Scott’s Slant on Politics - June 5, 2009

[...] May Unemployment and the “Stimulus” Posted on June 5, 2009 by Scott A. Robinson You may remember a chart similar to this from my previous rant. As you can see, not only is the supposed “stimulus” not stimulating, it may be harming the economy by sustaining mediocrity. Chart credit: Innocent Bystanders [...]

56. lauraw - June 5, 2009

In any case, if I get time I’ll consider how to improve its self-explanatory capabilities.

I was going to email you about that. It would be nice if the chart had a short blurb so that it can be copied and passed around more easily between people with short attention spans.

57. Mrs. Peel - June 5, 2009

Maybe “Maroon data points reflect actual numbers”? Or “Actuals in maroon”? In maroon text, of course, maybe down in the LH corner of the chart. That way, the whole thing is one image.

58. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

Oddly the news today is all about how the unemployment rate is flattening out and the recession is almost over. Gold is way down on this news. What’s the deal?
Don’t you know? in Obamaworld, Flat or reduced decline is the new up.

59. geoff - June 5, 2009

Maybe “Maroon data points reflect actual numbers”? Or “Actuals in maroon”?

I was reading that as Bugs Bunny for a sec.

60. lorien1973 - June 5, 2009

More people are funemployed than ever!

61. dan-O - June 5, 2009

I actually liked the triangles more than these little dots. Seemed more clear. In case you care what I think.

62. geoff - June 5, 2009

dan-O: Did you read the earlier thread on that very subject?

63. InsureBlog - June 5, 2009

Public Plan or Public Enemy? Our Conclusion…

The reality is that the Spendulus was supposed to create (and/or save) scads of jobs, and yet the latest unemployment figures show that we’re worse off than if there’d been no Spendulus….

64. geoff - June 5, 2009

dan-O: Did you read the earlier thread on that very subject?

To sum up: basically you can blame lorien1973 for everything.

65. B. Hussein Obama - June 5, 2009

This uhhh simply means uhhhh that we uhhhh need to spend more uhhhh stimulous money to uhhh stimulate our way uhhhh out from the uhhhh Bush administration’s uhhhhh recession.
Who’s uhhhh with me? Hello? Timmy?

66. Turbo Tax Timmy - June 5, 2009

I’m with you boss. Let’s get-a-spending! Printing and spending!

67. Funemployment! Part 2 « The West Coast Outpost - June 5, 2009

[...] Innocent Bystanders: Oh dear. And I’m serious – I expected the numbers to flatten out like it looked like they were [...]

68. Unemployment still going up | Junior Ganymede - June 5, 2009

[...] It increased to 9.4% in May. Ouch. [...]

69. Retired Geezer - June 5, 2009

To avoid plagiarism, maybe Geoff could put the URL on the chart.

(using a font composed of teeny-tiny triangles.)

70. Pupster - June 5, 2009

Geoff,

You need to add an online poll regarding dots v. triangles.

Seriously.

Then graph the results.

WITH TRAPEZOIDS!

71. Pupster - June 5, 2009

*tisk tisk*

You can still see a ghost of the triangle graph whispering ‘percent’ on the right hand side.

I personally am shocked to find such carelessness on such a monumentally distributed graphic. It’s an affront to the data.

72. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

^and it annoys the data as well.

73. geoff - June 5, 2009

All right, I updated the chart. It’s ghostless, explains the dots and curves, and has the URL.

*panting*

Anything else?

74. Pupster - June 5, 2009

More cowbell?

Theme song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiZU2IbDrXU

75. Michael - June 5, 2009

The URL should be “.net” not “/net”

76. geoff - June 5, 2009

Good catch.

77. lauraw - June 5, 2009

I am so confused.

78. geoff - June 5, 2009

Uh-oh. But thanks for the bump anyhow.

79. lauraw - June 5, 2009

What’s innocentbystanders.net?

Michael - June 5, 2009

An URL RG originally acquired which points here. It’s the one I usually use.

80. lauraw - June 5, 2009

OHHHH. Nifty.

81. geoff - June 5, 2009

What’s innocentbystanders.net?

It’s the alternate URL for Innocent Bystanders. I used it to hopefully confuse people less, but apparently it’s not working so far.

82. Retired Geezer - June 5, 2009

InnocentBystanders.net is the domain name I purchased and linked to Michael’s Comments.

michaelscomments.wordpress.com is the non-blog I created as a joke for Michael.

I gave Michael the ownership of Innocent Bystanders a couple of years ago.

*Geezer weeps softly to himself

Just kidding, I am proud of how Michael has built this non-blog into a force for Truth, Justice and the American Way.

83. Mrs. Peel - June 5, 2009

*pointing at geoff and laughing*

I think that’s good. Should be plenty self-explanatory now. I’m tempted to print it out and put it in my office, but then (a) I might get fired and (b) people might visit IB, figure out who I am, and then get me fired.

84. Retired Geezer - June 5, 2009

That IB.net url transparently forwards here.

It’s just easier for people to remember.

85. Michael - June 5, 2009

I’m getting nervous that my lock on the IB one-day traffic record — earned with my insightful and carefully crafted nekkid Swedish boobies post — is in jeopardy.

86. Joey Buzz - June 5, 2009

Actually I think the “maroons” created everything in blue. I mean how did they not anticipate that some geek would retain this and plot actual results. Someone’s point about the projected rate in Q1 of 2014 being higher than it was in 2007 was an interesting observation.

87. Joey Buzz - June 5, 2009

your nervousness would explain the mask…not sure what motivates you to wear the cape yet though.

88. Taylor - June 5, 2009

Citing a decrease in the rate of decline in payroll job losses as “good news” is no different than saying, “Hey, look at the bright side: the Titanic isn’t taking on water as quickly now as it was five minutes ago!”

When will our media just start playing, “Happy Days Are Here Again” over and over and just call it news? It can’t be long now…

89. bob - June 5, 2009

Wonderful graphic representation of the negative impact of the stimulus package on employment, but it actually makes things look better than they are. March is the last month of the first quarter, so the the March, April and May points should be moved to the left. Eventually, the July rate should be plotted approximately where the current May rate is plotted.

90. BizzyBlog » Obamanomics Graph of the Day - June 5, 2009

[...] (from Michael’s Comments; HT BizzyBlog commenter [...]

91. geoff - June 5, 2009

March is the last month of the first quarter, so the the March, April and May points should be moved to the left.

I spent some time looking at that, and decided that the labels represented the beginning of each quarter, which would place the end of March mid-way between the 1st and 3rd quarters.

92. How’s that stimulus package working out? « Nuke Riding Cowboy - June 5, 2009

[...] to the Innocent Bystanders blog for superimposing the red reality dots on top of the official [...]

93. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ap0Qp8qaW85k&refer=us

Almost on cue, the MSM is trying like hell to spin this turd into gold for Obama

94. dan-O - June 5, 2009

dan-O: Did you read the earlier thread on that very subject?

Yeah, that’s why I put in my 2 cents. I think the triangle makes the point stand out a bit more. Also people will know that the point is the center of the triangle (not that it really matters though).

The only reason I make this point is because I really think that this graph could go super-viral across the interwebs, so it is worth perfecting it. But I’m just a moron, really.

95. Former Reporter - June 5, 2009

I followed the unemployment stats at three different newspapers before moving to Wall Street. I know the numbers inside and out. I was on a first-name basis with more than a dozen people who wrote the book on how these numbers are compiled and interpreted. There are a few things to say:

1. You cannot make sound judgments on one month’s worth of numbers. They bounce around too much, and are subject to revision.

2. Unemployment has risen further than all the economists predicted at the beginning of the year. This is normal. Economists are great at explaining the present, but they are terrible at predicting the future, especially when it comes to specific elements like unemployment. This is entirely apart from which party rules the roost.

3. The unemployment rate is a lagging statistic. It keeps rising after the economy has started to recover, because as a recovery gets going you have discouraged workers re-entering the labor force and looking for jobs.

4. Notwithstanding the limitation noted in point #1, the May statistic was encouraging because the new claims number was quite a bit lower than expected. The headline on this posting about the May number being worse than expected is 180 degrees wrong. It was better than expected. But we’re by no means in a recovery yet. The economy is still very fragile.

5. You can never look at one number only. The recoveries of commodity prices, the stock market, foreign currencies, and shipping rates, and the increases in bond yields, are signs of an improving economy. At the same time, you can never expect that all of the numbers will point in the same direction. This is a good thing, not a bad thing, because it tells us that we’re in a diversified economy where strengths can carry weaknesses. So, beware of anyone who points to a single number or event to argue that things are great or terrible.

Finally, I looked at other postings on this blog and suspect that I am wasting my time on what’s actually a propaganda site for those who despise the current administration. I’m posting anyway because I have the time, and the background in the subject. Everything I am talking about has occurred in Republican and Democratic administrations, and I would advise anyone to take a deep breath before betting against the American economy.

96. Former Reporter - June 5, 2009

I wanted to modify my second point above. Economists are terrible at predictions when things are changing fast. They rarely get the “delta” (second derivative, i.e., the change of the change) right. Economic forecasting is half art and half science, and the clients (typically banks, governments, and major corporations) have a strong bias toward moderate forecasts. That’s why economists usually miss the changes.

97. dan-O - June 5, 2009

Former Reporter:

I don’t think anybody here believes that this unemployment number is the tell-all indicator for the economy. One of the reasons the unemployment number is important is precisely because “saving or creating jobs” is something that Obama speaks often about. So the point is being made here that the Stimulus did nothing to prevent job loss (as predicted by the administration), and in fact job loss is even higher than they estimated.

Secondly, this is not a judgment based on one month’s numbers, I don’t even understand why you say that. It is the interpolation of the 3 months worth of figures (none of which are outliers) that is important here.

Thirdly, this isn’t a “propaganda” site. The people that run it are conservative. So the opinions tend to lean more conservative. I always find it telling how people from the left think that right leaning sources are “propaganda”, rather than just an opinion that differs from theirs.

Nobody is betting against the economy. The point is that the “stimulus” is a sham.

98. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

^so, what about the spike in oil recently?

As for betting against the economy:

No, I am not betting against the economy, and I doubt many of the regulars here are. What we are discussing is how Obama’s people made estimates that have been as accurate as my weight loss and sexual prowess predictions.

99. geoff - June 5, 2009

Thanks for your inputs, FR, but you’re missing the point. Completely. While I am not as optimistic as you are about other indicators, the point of this post is not that the economy is at death’s door, but that the stimulus was oversold and poorly constructed to deal with the unemployment problem.

The headline on this posting about the May number being worse than expected is 180 degrees wrong.

That again would be incorrect. As linked in the post, Bloomberg’s collection of economists (73?) predicted an unemployment rate of 9.2%. The actual was 9.4%: a half-point increase as opposed to the predicted 3/10 of a point. Hence the headline.

100. Michael - June 5, 2009

I am wasting my time on what’s actually a propaganda site . . .

Dude, this is actually a moron site. I’m still mopping up blood from the raging dots vs. triangles skirmish.

101. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

Reporter:

Then where were you and the others in 2002-04 with this strident of a defense of the economy, jobs numbers, etc? I recall those who made the “lagging indicator” claim were shouted down, mocked, spiked, or ignored as “pollyannas” by idiots such as John Harwood, Greg Ip, and Jesse Eisinger of the WSJ.

102. geoff - June 5, 2009

Former Reporter and the ‘jobless claims’ crowd do have a point about the unemployment rate being a function in part of discouraged workers returning to the work force. Since those ranks have increased enormously over the past 6 months, they can swing the unemployment rate by a couple of percentage points all by themselves.

103. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

^true. But my point to FR about “where were you in 2002-4?” still stands.

104. geoff - June 5, 2009

I agree. I’m just noting that the “discouraged worker” category has ballooned, and has a much larger influence than you’d normally expect.

105. The Strata-Sphere » Where Is That Job Creating Stimulus We Were Promised? - June 5, 2009

[...] Update: Make sure to check out Ed Morrissey’s take on the news today and that great graph at Hot Air showing the stimulus plan failed to live up to its promises. Here’s the graph! [...]

106. Former Reporter - June 5, 2009

Some responses, and then I have to get on with my day.

1. I don’t have an opinion one way or the other about the effect of the stimulus on the current situation. I haven’t seen any serious attempts at tracking it in terms of hard data. I clicked on this link at Memorandum; I was attracted by the headline, which is clearly erroneous. I looked at it and said to myself, “What planet are they on? Maybe I should click and find out.”

2. I was a former reporter in 2002-4. I don’t have any ax to grind other than looking at the statistics and how they are compiled and correctly interpreted. I’m a little bit of an idiot savant when it comes to government economic data. I look at this stuff independently of who is in the White House.

3. At the time of Obama’s inauguration, the economists I recall hearing about and reading about were predicting 9% unemployment at the end of 2009. I was telling friends at the time that I thought we’d be above 10% by 2010. It looked like a classic (to me) case of the economists underpredicting the trend. They do it all the time, for the reasons I gave above. No one predicted the economic strength under Reagan or Clinton, and no one got it right about the speed of the decline that got rolling under Bush II.

4. Economists can do a reasonably decent job of forecasting, say, the May unemployment rate at the beginning of May, but that’s not what I was talking about. The ultra short-term forecasting is usually pretty damned easy. Any reasonably bright high school math student could do that.

107. Former Reporter - June 5, 2009

Wait, I do have an opinion on the stimulus. It’s too early to tell. They haven’t spent much of the money yet. I do wonder whether there have been “annoucement effects,” though. If you tell everyone that you’re going to spend $X million on project Y in the next year, then you’ll have companies staffing up in preparation, etc.

My suspicion is that the current move upward reflects the combination of the ending of inventory drawdowns seen during the period of intense fear between October and March, along with some delayed consumer spending that didn’t happen during that period.

Now that I am retired, I travel around, and because of my background one thing I do wherever I do is ask people at the ground level how things are going. There was a period for a few months where no one was buying anything. They weren’t even going out to restaurants. That’s has improved a bit, and I think we’re seeing that creep into the statistics now.

Whether it’s sustainable is another issue. There was a similar snap-back in 1930, and then it petered out. I suspect that Obama’s stimulus plan is aiming at repeating the 1931-1933 decline, but that’s just a guess.

108. Former Reporter - June 5, 2009

Error of my own: I mean to write that I suspect Obama’s stimulus plan aims to AVOID repeating the 1931-1933 decline. Mea culpa.

109. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

FR:
IIRC, one of the problems in 1930-31 was the crippling impact of the signing of Hawley-Smoot.

110. Former Reporter - June 5, 2009

One more addendum and then I’m gone for the rest of the day. One economist did predict the strength under Clinton. It was Elaine Garzarelli, who worked I think for Lehman Brothers (snicker, snicker) at the time. I actually listened to her speak about Clinton’s ’93 budget, and predict that it would be very positive for the economy. I had already been very bullish at the time, just as I was in the mid-1980s under Reagan. Her opinion was a contrarian one at the time, and so was mine, so it’s something I remember very well.

111. geoff - June 5, 2009

Wait, I do have an opinion on the stimulus. It’s too early to tell. They haven’t spent much of the money yet.

Yes, that was the point of an earlier post and is why we believe that the stimulus money will largely be a waste. It is spent too slowly, in the wrong places, and much of it is spent well after the employment crisis would have resolved itself. That is the point of the current graph as well.

112. Former Reporter - June 5, 2009

Okay, yet one more. It wasn’t Hawley-Smoot, it was Smoot-Hawley, and I think its influence has always been overstated. The reality there is that free trade is in the interest of a net creditor, and relatively against the interest of a net debtor. The U.S. became a net creditor after World War I, but not really in a major way until after World War II.

I have always thought that the free trade lobby has used Smoot Hawley in the same way as, say, the Germans use inflation: As an excuse for other critical problems. The Great Depression was chiefly a solvency crisis brought about by a mismatch between incomes and productivity. The financial side of it definitely steepened the decline, but I don’t think the banks and stock market failed because the economy failed, not the other way around. And I think the economy failed because consumer buying power wasn’t there, and it wasn’t there because the benefits of industrial productivity didn’t get passed to consumers quickly enough.

Now we find ourselves in the position of being a net debtor nation, although that’s still not quite nailed in (yet) because we pay our trade partners in dollars. If China and Brazil succeed in creating a non-dollar reserve currency, our situation will clarify, and then you’ll see a much stronger anti-free trade lobby emerge here.

113. geoff - June 5, 2009

Gotta say that all the verbage of the last 15 comments reduces down to 3 points:

1) FR agrees that the stimulus money is not being spent in a timely manner,

2) he agrees that the economic predictions were inaccurate, and

3) FR believes that the headline was unfair.

Two out of three ain’t bad for a guy coming to a propaganda site.

114. Former Reporter - June 5, 2009

Yes, that was the point of an earlier post and is why we believe that the stimulus money will largely be a waste. It is spent too slowly, in the wrong places, and much of it is spent well after the employment crisis would have resolved itself. That is the point of the current graph as well.

You’re not even bothering to read what I wrote:

I clicked on this link at Memorandum; I was attracted by the headline, which is clearly erroneous. I looked at it and said to myself, “What planet are they on? Maybe I should click and find out.”

I can see I have wasted my time here.

115. geoff - June 5, 2009

You’re not even bothering to read what I wrote:

You didn’t say, “It’s too early to tell. They haven’t spent much of the money yet.”?

116. Former Reporter - June 5, 2009

Two out of three ain’t bad for a guy coming to a propaganda site.

No, in fact I wrote that I have no opinion about the impact of Obama’s stimulus on the current situation. Then I speculated a bit on what the administration might be trying to do. But I did NOT agree with you on it.

But you’re right about one thing: You ARE running a propaganda site. And I am right about something, too: I wasted my time on you. Bye bye, geoff.

117. Transición de Obama: política económica (IX). El paro se dispara, la impopularidad de Obama también « Sarah Palin en Español - June 5, 2009

[...] para justificar el Plan de Estímulo, los déficit gigantescos, y el endeudamiento. Porque en el blog de Innocent Bystanters vuelven a dibujar la gráfica comparativa [...]

118. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

My bad about the Smoot-Hawley.

119. geoff - June 5, 2009

But you’re right about one thing: You ARE running a propaganda site. And I am right about something, too: I wasted my time on you. Bye bye, geoff.

My, my. And after we were so polite even given your rude introductory comment. And we even agreed with much of what you wrote.

It’s you who appear to disagree with yourself.

120. lauraw - June 5, 2009

I have no opinion about the impact of Obama’s stimulus on the current situation.

How odd. You have no problem telling us about how, time and time again, you correctly predicted things that have already happened.

Yet on this day you won’t hazard a guess at what will happen in the future.

Odd, that.

121. Mrs. Peel - June 5, 2009

If trolls demonstrated basic reading comprehension…

…then they wouldn’t have much to post about…

Well, gotta take my whiny bitch for a walk. Catch y’all later.

122. Retired Geezer - June 5, 2009

Well, gotta take my whiny bitch for a walk.

You’re over at DinT’s house?

123. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

I’m a little bit of an idiot savant

Well, he/she was half right.

124. INCITEmarsh - June 5, 2009

You’ve put May damn close to Q3.

Which means the actual incline of the graph is EVEN STEEPER, sweet friggin’ Christ.

125. geoff - June 5, 2009

Then were parts that completely confused me, like:

“I suspect that Obama’s stimulus plan is aiming at repeating the 1931-1933 decline”

Is he saying what I think he’s saying? and then there was this:

“At the same time, you can never expect that all of the numbers will point in the same direction. This is a good thing, not a bad thing, because it tells us that we’re in a diversified economy where strengths can carry weaknesses.”

Uh, right. And this:

“..but I don’t think the banks and stock market failed because the economy failed, not the other way around”

??? And finally, this:

“Now that I am retired, I travel around, and because of my background one thing I do wherever I do is ask people at the ground level how things are going.”

Which at least made sense, except it ignored the point of the MSM’s spin on the situation, which is likely to have had a large influence on those people’s perceptions.

Oh well, I suppose having him leave in a huff was the best possible outcome.

126. geoff - June 5, 2009

You’ve put May damn close to Q3.

I believe that the “Q3″ point is equivalent to July 1, so the end-of-June data will fall directly over that label.

127. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

geoff, he knew very well what your point was with the graph, otherwise he would not have gone to such elaborate lengths to construct his strawman argument. I laugh, though, when anonymous commenters feel the need to establish their ‘bona fides’. Like we’re supposed to believe them just because he bothered to type them. Lol!

128. geoff - June 5, 2009

Meh. You’re right. I like to give the coherent ones a break in case they say something useful. Mistake.

But I was amused for a bit, so there’s that.

129. Mrs. Peel - June 5, 2009

I suspect that Obama’s stimulus plan is aiming at repeating the 1931-1933 decline

That was my favorite part by far. If that’s the plan, then EPIC FAIL.

130. Michael - June 5, 2009

That had to be a typo; there’s just a “not” missing.

131. Joey Buzz - June 5, 2009

How is plotting dots on a graph propaganda? The blue is the propaganda. Dude sounds like he is a bit bitter that he missed out on reporting to get somebody elected.

132. Joey Buzz - June 5, 2009

he corrected his statement in #108 by adding

avoid

133. Former Reporter - June 5, 2009

I thought I’d check back here to see what happened. My view has been reconfirmed.

1. You have taken a typo that I immediately corrected and presented the incorrect version as my viewpoint.

2. You’ve insulted me personally.

Here’s the deal: I voted for Republicans from 1976 through 1988. Perot in 1992. Democrats since 1996. I was bullish on Reagan. Bearish on Bush Sr., but switched to bullish in mid-term. Those correct calls are what convinced me to go to Wall Street, where I did well.

I was bullish on Clinton and bearish on Bush Jr. Made a pile of money shorting the dollar. Missed the real estate boom entirely because I didn’t think it would go nearly as long as it did. Lost my courage and didn’t short the financials in ’07 and ’08 — I was in cash.

I don’t like short-term trading because I’m not good at it, and it’s too nerve wracking. I’m better at the long-term calls. I think the U.S. is in a period of stagnation and will remain there. The only real hope I see is a HUGE push on alternative energy, not because it’s cool but because it works and it would create long-term prosperity.

But I’m not ready to make the bet because I am skeptical of whether the U.S. really has the will to do it. So, I am trading water these days. That said, I am awfully tempted to jump back in right now, because the small stocks are going to do well and it looks like the financials will be coming back. I kick myself when I leave money on the table.

The Republicans are in full self-destruct mode like the Democrats were in the ’70s and ’80s. I never like to see either party do that. I think it’s especially damaging now, because the world is getting a lot more complicated and competitive and I’m not sure we can really afford to have one of the parties completely melt down.

The biggest reason I even look at the Internet is because the media are falling apart in front of our eyes. I roam in search of intelligent life, and have a hard time finding it. So there you are. Now I AM gone.

134. Former Reporter - June 5, 2009

Correction (as if it’s worthwhile): treading water, not trading it.

135. Dave in Texas - June 5, 2009

Bye.

136. Mrs. Peel - June 5, 2009

Oops, my 129 assumed that troll meant “avoiding,” not “repeating.” Because if the plan IS aimed at repeating that (which is frankly more plausible given the parallels), then EPIC WIN.

137. Vmaximus - June 5, 2009

I bet he comes back, he is one of those people that has to have the last word.

Who the hell cares how much money you made dude. you are tedious and pedantic. Let me rephrase that BORING.

We do agree that the media is a joke kind of like the news papers.

Say what you will the chart remains clear evidence and even a moron like me can see that. Your attempt to spin it to make Obama look good is so furious that if we hooked a generator up to you it might give us some of that vaunted green energy you are all hot and bothered about.

138. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

2. You’ve insulted me personally.

*points at a world map at a teeny, weeny, itty-bitty, tiny island in the middle of the pacific ocean*

Hey, FR, this is where the People Who Care live. Tell them.

139. Dave in Texas - June 5, 2009

Shhhh. He’s in search of intelligence.

Be vewwy vewwy quiet.

140. KarenJ - June 5, 2009

51. MostlyRight – June 5, 2009 — “The way I look at it, Obama has just achieved Western Euro-type unemployment numbers in just 5 months”

The way I look at it, my financial advisor and I were eyeing the market a year ago — which in June 2008 was in a horrible tailspin, with Alan Greenspan saying in Feb. 2008 “there’s a 50/50 chance the US economy will slip into depression” — my advisor and I were saying to each other, “Wait ’til the election”.

I suggest to you, MostlyRight, that you could look at it THIS way: Suppose G.W. Bush had a 6 year term instead of a 4 year term, and there was no election campaign last year, and no election last November.

What do you think Bush would have done, considering the situation in the first half of 2008, and what Alan Greenspan was promoting in the bridge-span of Bush’s first and second terms (2004 and thereabouts) — when Greenspan “was as much a proponent of leverage for homeowners on Main Street as he was for bankers on Wall Street”. Greenspan rubberstamped the economic policies of the Bush administration until a year after he retired from the Fed Chair position.

I can tell you what Bush said in March 2008. “”In a free market, there’s going to be good times and bad times. That’s how markets work. There will be ups and downs.”

Comfort yourself with that helpful advice.

141. geoff - June 5, 2009

1. You have taken a typo that I immediately corrected and presented the incorrect version as my viewpoint.

You know, I somehow missed that. I apologize.

2. You’ve insulted me personally.

That I certainly won’t apologize for, unless you’d care to go first.

The Republicans are in full self-destruct mode like the Democrats were in the ’70s and ’80s.

Once again we agree.

Your positions aren’t that far afield from ours – we agreed that the performance of the economy can’t be assessed using only unemployment numbers, that the stimulus spending hasn’t begun to any significant degree, that it will take time for the stimulus to take effect, that economists’ predictions are poor, and that the Republican Party sucks pond water.

The biggest difference is that you think that Obama’s stimulus will do some good, and we think that it’s already too late. It’s an arguable point, except that it has already failed to do what he promised: keep unemployment under 9%.

This was never a post/thread about the economy, but I’m glad you’re feeling a little optimistic. As I said, I’m more pessimistic, particularly as the benefits of the higher spending rate start stretching into the time frame where the penalties of those spending rates will be incurred.

But look, my perception is that you came in here with a chip on your shoulder, started commenting along a line that was completely inappropriate to the subject matter, and then continued even though you claimed to have no opinion on the subject matter. Despite all that, I, and others, treated you pretty politely until your unceremonious exit (replete with parting shot).

If you want to come back some time without the attitude, and contribute to the actual ongoing discussion, I’m willing to forget this whole thread. But as it is, you won’t be missed, because you never actually said anything useful relevant to the post.

142. geoff - June 5, 2009

…and presented the incorrect version as my viewpoint.

And that, of course, is a patently false statement. You’ll see that I asked if it was really your viewpoint. I never presented it as anything other than a source of confusion.

143. Michael - June 5, 2009

The only real hope I see is a HUGE push on alternative energy, not because it’s cool but because it works and it would create long-term prosperity.

I wonder where’s the evidence for that. My impression is that so far, very little has “worked,” i.e., been profitable on a large scale, without mandates or subsidies. Ethanol has been a national disgrace with global repercussions that have been all bad. In other words, the perfect example of politicians trying to manage the economy.

144. Michael - June 5, 2009

Of course, nuclear power works great. Don’t get me started.

145. geoff - June 5, 2009

Oh yeah, I missed the mythical “alternative energy” bit. I guess that’s why he focuses on economics.

146. Vmaximus - June 5, 2009

Yes Michael,
We need to be building nuclear power plants at least 50 of them probably 100 would really start us off right for the next century, and upgrade the grid. We need nuclear for base load. I like wind to, but it will not replace anything the combination of wind and solar could do a good job or helping with peak demand. Then there is hydro, something that mankind has been using for millennia but that is almost as bad as nuclear to the greeny weenies

147. geoff - June 5, 2009

I took a class in solar energy a while back, and they cited a CalTech guy’s conclusion that to meet the world’s energy demands between now and 2050, we’d have to build a nuclear power plant every 2 days.

148. LOUDelf - June 5, 2009

I haven’t seen anywhere what they do when people get laid off, file for unemployment, and then start a small business. I don’t see that they have a way to adjust the numbers from this, yet I see many, many doing just this as a career path.

149. geoff - June 5, 2009

They conduct a survey, LE. Check out the CPS Survey at the BLS site.

Michael: 634 visits to go.

Heh.

150. MostlyRight - June 5, 2009

“The only real hope I see is a HUGE push on alternative energy, not because it’s cool but because it works and it would create long-term prosperity.”

FR, if it is investment in alternative energy (because it works and will bring long term prosperity) that will so obviously be a winner, then investors will invest there of their own free will, not due to subsidy, propaganda, fear mongering, political correctness, etc. In a free market, if something is a winner (but new), speculators will lead the charge, and as it succeeds, investors will follow. It doesn’t take a HUGE PUSH, as you put it.

HUGE GOVERNMENT gives us HUGE PUSHES for things we don’t want as individuals, but clearly superior intellects like your own believe are better for society, as we clearly aren’t smart enough to know what’s best for ourselves. Sorry you had to waste your time here with us lowly conservative-minded individuals.

“The headline on this posting about the May number being worse than expected is 180 degrees wrong. It was better than expected.”

The headline is ‘May Unemployment Numbers are Here, and Worse than Predicted’. This is correct in that the unemployment numbers were predicted recently for the month to be 9.2%, and came in at 9.4%. More importantly, given the context of the graph and previous postings (if you had bothered to read what geoff and commenters have said) is that the predictions on the graph by the Obama administration as selling/propaganda for the stimulus bill are demonstrably incorrect. The blue with/without stimulus lines are propaganda. The dots the last 3 months are ACTUAL. So again, given the context, the headline is both accurate and makes a glaring point.

Finally, you act offended at being insulted personally? Your very first post you dismiss this site as a propaganda site barely worthy of your time…is that not a personal attack on the writer and commenters/readers of this site? I personally began reading your post and thought…Oh good, a potentially well thought out, contrarian view on the meaning of the data posted on the graph from someone with background and expertise. Then I was quickly disappointed. What a douche…and I know you’re lurking FR.

Signed,

Just another dumb Conservative with a Masters Degree in Architecture, 2 successful businesses built from the ground up, and a few million bucks Net Worth, clearly incapable of enlightened thought or discourse.

151. dan-O - June 5, 2009

Then there is hydro, something that mankind has been using for millennia but that is almost as bad as nuclear to the greeny weenies

Yeah, the hardcore environmentalist objection or support to any given type of energy (except for fossil fuels) is actually quite random when it comes down to hard science. I know they object to hydro because it upsets the river’s ecosystem. They object to nuclear because, well, they are afraid of the word “nuclear”. But wind and solar have their environmental impacts as well.

Wind power kills lots of birds. In addition, it has a detrimental effect on plants behind the wind mills because of the lower chance of pollinization (wind mills kill the wind).

Solar panels need to be cleaned on a regular basis (weekly) given the current technology. This requires ungodly amounts of water (not sure of the statistics off the top of my head).

Also, something I personally care about is the fact that both solar and wind are ugly as hell and require a ton of land to make ugly.

152. geoff - June 5, 2009

Nice summary, MostlyRight.

dan-O: and there aren’t that many sites that are suitable for wind power.

Next week I’ll have to do a post summarizing what that CalTech guy said.

153. Michael - June 5, 2009

Michael: 634 visits to go.

Heh.

*gnashes teeth*

154. Vmaximus - June 5, 2009

You have to Loudelf. My house payment is more than I will get if I go on UE, I have several friends that do anything to supplement their UE. However it is not like they are making real money. As a matter of fact they are dodging taxes to pay the bills. Not a one of them plans on continuing to run a business they are all hoping to get a job when things pick back up.

Well except one guy, he is fishing his A** off with his spare time.

Really Geoff? That much?
I was thinking the US grid might be better off than the world. I do know that there are about 30 nuclear plants in the works. They are being built right next to existing plants to lessen the NIMBY factor. (because the existing plants are reaching their life expectancy.

155. MCPO Airdale - June 5, 2009

The troll is an astroturfer. “I voted for Republicans. . .yada, yada, yada. The Republican party is doomed. . . blah, blah, blah.”

Make sure your print this out, Former Reporter. This will ensure you collect your 30 pieces of silver from the Pharisee.

156. geoff - June 5, 2009

Really Geoff? That much?

That’s what they told me, though it sounds kind of crazy. I’ll check it and put it up next week.

564

157. Vmaximus - June 5, 2009

oops
)

158. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

551

*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*

159. Michael - June 5, 2009

The troll is an astroturfer.

A pretty good one, I must admit, as astroturfers go. I loved his rap about making a ton of money as a speculator, but not having the stomach for it. Lots of beancounters who are experts on government statistics are like that.

Gotta wonder if it’s totally a coincidence that Geoff’s charts are getting so much play, and FR shows up.

160. Michael - June 5, 2009

Man, I sure hope WordPress doesn’t have some kind of glitch and this site goes down for a while.

161. geoff - June 5, 2009

A pretty good one, I must admit, as astroturfers go.

But he started off calling us a propaganda site. That’s not the normal MO for astroturfers.

162. lauraw - June 5, 2009

you never actually said anything useful relevant to the post.

Uh oh. Is there a new standard of behavior around here? Because I did NOT get that memo.

163. geoff - June 5, 2009

Uh oh. Is there a new standard of behavior around here? Because I did NOT get that memo.

lauraw, hon (pats her hand gently), Sobek’s gone and he’s not coming back for a long time.

164. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

All pigs are equal. Some pigs are more equal then others.

165. geoff - June 5, 2009

Under 500!

Oh Happy Day!!

166. Michael - June 5, 2009

*Michael gazes at the “Private Blog” radio button, contemplates ethics and the Meaning of Life*

167. Michael - June 5, 2009

Good thing for you people that Sister Michael is visiting.

I can’t do bad shit with my sister around. She will beat me up.

168. Vmaximus - June 5, 2009

If I hit refresh 10 times does that count?

169. geoff - June 5, 2009

457

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

170. Car in - June 5, 2009

I hope it works, ’cause I’ve hit refresh a few times.

171. Vmaximus - June 5, 2009

According to your flag counter todays page views are over 2000
And you are catching up to H2 with 67k views. H2 has 75k, However you do kick ass on new visits and the country thing. We are sick weirdo’s so that may not mean much.

172. geoff - June 5, 2009

Here’s what WordPress says:

Total views: 2,513,152

Busiest day: 13,405 — Friday, November 23, 2007

Views today: 12,971

173. xbradtc - June 5, 2009

Oh, I don’t think FR was an astroturfer. Not even a troll, really. Just one of those people who are always right. Always.

But if he honestly thinks “alternative” energy is such a good deal, well, he’s an idiot. I’ll leave it to a thermodynamics guru to explain why fossil fuels are pretty much the bees knees when it comes to btu’s, but someone else has made the point that if alt-en was so great, it wouldn’t need a huge push from the government.

174. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

…Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you…

Ronald W. Reagan June 6, 1984

175. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

Did I mention 388?

176. geoff - June 5, 2009

I’ll leave it to a thermodynamics guru to explain why fossil fuels are pretty much the bees knees when it comes to btu’s

I’ll attempt it next week.

That was refreshing, Brew.

I don’t know how the flag thingy works, Vmax, but it’s only been up for a few weeks.

177. xbradtc - June 5, 2009

I love that speech, Brew.

If only Peggy Noonan had STFU after that…

178. Vmaximus - June 5, 2009

Wow that is a big difference 2k vs 12k?

Thanks for the RR Brew that is good stuff

Xbrad that is kind of what I said but you were nicer to FR and said it better.

Bastage!

179. xbradtc - June 5, 2009

V, I try not to say anything too disparaging about someone until they say something about me. But their policies/politics are certainly worthy of comment.

BTW, I look better than you, as well.

180. geoff - June 5, 2009

How is it that my comment got put in before Vmax’s?

Are there shenanigans afoot? Do I have to tell Michael’s sister about this?

181. xbradtc - June 5, 2009

I suppose now isn’t the time to tell you that my little crapblog’s best one day performance is 29,115 views…

182. xbradtc - June 5, 2009

Geoff, WordPress has been a little flakey about comments lately.

183. geoff - June 5, 2009

I suppose now isn’t the time to tell you that my little crapblog’s best one day performance is 29,115 views…

Yeah, but I’ll bet my views/boob ratio is a lot higher.

184. Retired Geezer - June 5, 2009

Well, I pimped it to Michelle Malkin, Powerline, SondraK and Clayton Cramer.

Don’t think anybody linked yet.

185. MCPO Airdale - June 5, 2009

Geezer – I sent it to Sondra as well.

186. xbradtc - June 5, 2009

Geoff, there’s at least one boob involved in all your posts…

187. geoff - June 5, 2009

Thanks guys.

You know, I’ve had a lot of Ace love via the largesse of DinTX and lw, but nothing like today. I’d get 500 – 1000 hits, and that’d be it. Today was about 6000, all due to laura constantly bumping the post.

She’s awesome.

188. MCPO Airdale - June 5, 2009

So, I’m they only one that found the “former Republican/this is why the Republican party sucks” line a typical astroturfing tactic??

You people need to develop a greater degree of cynicism!

189. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

298

190. Vmaximus - June 5, 2009

you know FR is out there gnawing, because we said he had to have the last word and wants to prove us wrong. Heheheh

191. lauraw - June 5, 2009

I was thinking of bumping it again but Ace just posted something new it would make him cranky, if I leapfrogged him.

192. geoff - June 5, 2009

You people need to develop a greater degree of cynicism!

Yeah, I’m still wanting to believe, even after years of dealing with trolls.

I used to be one of the biggest troll-bashers at Ace’s. You’d think I’d know better.

193. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

So, I’m they only one that found the “former Republican/this is why the Republican party sucks” line a typical astroturfing tactic??

I’m with you on that, MCPO. I think it was Paul Krugman.

194. geoff - June 5, 2009

I’m with you on that, MCPO. I think it was Paul Krugman.

Har.

you know FR is out there gnawing, because we said he had to have the last word and wants to prove us wrong. Heheheh

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. If he wants to say something, he should just say it.

195. geoff - June 5, 2009

I was thinking of bumping it again but Ace just posted something new it would make him cranky, if I leapfrogged him.

You don’t need to do that – you did an amazing job getting attention for that chart already. I think AoSHQ is pretty tapped out.

You can tell Ace that he’s welcome to use the chart if he wants.

196. MCPO Airdale - June 5, 2009

I think it was Paul Krugman.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one, Brew.

How ’bout them Phillies?

197. geoff - June 5, 2009

A little update:

Total views: 2,513,298

Busiest day: 13,405 — Friday, November 23, 2007

Views today: 13,168

198. xbradtc - June 5, 2009

I’m not sayin’ he’s not a lib. He is. But he’s not on Axelrod’s payroll.

Any time we talk about the economy, “smart” people wanna show off their bona fides, and argue from a position of authority. But it is a poor tactic. Some places, it makes sense. If you’re on a medical blog and talking about a specific procedure, sure, I’m more likely to listen to a doctor than a landscaper. But to argue whether the chart shows what the chart shows? No special insight is needed.

199. lauraw - June 5, 2009

Yup. Astroturf.

It was the way he came in and immediately felt the need to present his bona fides as a bigshot, along with his moniker. Like we’d be impressed with a reporter. Reporters are actually dumbshits who ‘know’ tidbits about a lot of things but have deep knowledge of very little.

Like me, but I don’t pretend to be something I’m not.

Except when I dress up as a giant chipmunk, but that’s really none of your fucking business and not germane to this conversation.

*hugs large plush-toy walnut and bites it playfully*

200. geoff - June 5, 2009

But to argue whether the chart shows what the chart shows? No special insight is needed.

Exactly right. Which is why he kept trying to steer the conversation away from the chart and the stimulus.

201. xbradtc - June 5, 2009

Hang on a minute.

Geoff agrees with me, and even thinks I have a point.

I’m gonna savor this.

Hell, I’m gonna roll around in it.

202. geoff - June 5, 2009

And we’re within 200!!

203. Vmaximus - June 5, 2009

Lauraw
you kill! You. Kill!

204. lauraw - June 5, 2009

Fanks, Vmax!

205. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

How ’bout them Phillies?

I’m looking forward to another Brewers-Phillies playoff series.

206. geoff - June 5, 2009

Geoff agrees with me, and even thinks I have a point.

I have two bad habits when I’m listening to someone who I think is full of hooey (bad because once you know about them, I always give myself away). I rub my chin and I say, “you have a point.”

Fortunately I’m safe while blogging.

207. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

165

208. MCPO Airdale - June 5, 2009

Brew- Should that happen, I will go off my medication in order to imbibe with you during the games!

209. geoff - June 5, 2009

Er, maybe I shouldn’t have said that, given the prospects for fleshly encounters.

Uh, just kidding about the tells, guys.

210. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

BTW, FR, Buddy The World’s Best Labrador Retriever would like to chew on your shoes.

211. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

Brew- Should that happen, I will go off my medication in order to imbibe with you during the games!

Deal.

212. Retired Geezer - June 5, 2009

I used to be one of the biggest troll-bashers at Ace’s. You’d think I’d know better.

I loved Michael’s post of some sort of Hawk, swooping down and grabbing dinner out of the air.

If only we knew where to find it.

213. Retired Geezer - June 5, 2009

Crap, I left off the punchline:

“Geoff selects a Troll”.

214. BrewFan - June 5, 2009
215. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

108

216. xbradtc - June 5, 2009

dude, I’m clicking F5 as fast as I can…

217. Vmaximus - June 5, 2009

Zeke snoozing on my couch

DSC_2022

I have soaked it with bitter apple cause he hought it was a giant rawhide bone!!!!!1111eleven!

218. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

Buddy laughs at bitter apple…

219. geoff - June 5, 2009

65

220. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

I had a small Aus tree in the back yard. Buddy chewed it down to the ground.

221. Wow, That Stimulus - Just What Was Needed! More, Please! | QandO - June 5, 2009

[...] a clue about what they’re doing and anything they say or claim should be taken with a large grain of salt. Chart: [...]

222. Vmaximus - June 5, 2009

Brew Max used to eat green oranges. When oranges are close to ripening hey are ok.
.
.
.
.
When they are young? Bitter!
Max liked young green oranges.
Bitter apple did not work for him. It does for Zeke, but he likes sticks not balls. I am trying to help him like balls.
.
.
But sticks will do.

223. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

Buddy likes balls. And he likes to fetch his tug-of-war rope. He does not like frisbee. He loves to chase the birds, especially the ones that spend time on the ground like the robins and mourning doves.

224. geoff - June 5, 2009

Connection…dying…

Am I to be denied this moment?

225. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

13 to go!!11!!

226. xbradtc - June 5, 2009

Of course Buddy likes balls.

Just like Brew…

227. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

Busiest day: 13,411 — Friday, June 5, 2009

WOOT!!11!!

228. geoff - June 5, 2009

Total views: 2,513,594

Busiest day: 13,420 — Friday, June 5, 2009

Views today: 13,420

229. Vmaximus - June 5, 2009

Brew,
I was going to train my Max

Max good

To field trials,
He could sniff out a quail or dove in 6′ weeds. I had a canvas dummy that was launched by a .22 blank.
He heard a bang and saw something falling.
But I never went farther than that.
Max was my buddy

230. geoff - June 5, 2009

Awesome!!

I hope everybody’s F5 key still works.

231. BrewFan - June 5, 2009

ok, I’m going to bed. Congratulations geoff!

232. MCPO Airdale - June 5, 2009

Geoff – Congratulations! Batman is going to have to post those “private” videos of him and Robin to beat this!!

233. Vmaximus - June 5, 2009

So it was me that put ypu over the top?

I rulze!!!!!!!!!!
or not

234. geoff - June 5, 2009

Thanks, everybody. I’ve got the first round.

235. geoff - June 5, 2009

So it was me that put ypu over the top?

My connection actually went down just before we made it. I was banging on the modem trying to get it to reboot faster. So I’m not sure when exactly we went over. I think Brewfan knows.

236. xbradtc - June 5, 2009

It was me.

237. TGSG - June 5, 2009

you’re welcome Geoff :)

238. Dave in Texas - June 5, 2009

>> I was banging on the modem trying to get it to reboot faster.

somebody needs a conjugal visit bad.

239. Michael - June 5, 2009

*kicks dirt*

*walks off into sunset*

240. geoff - June 5, 2009

That was fun. Let’s do this again next week.

241. Dave in Texas - June 5, 2009

let’s see, who said charts and graphs were the key to stardom?

who could it be, who could it be?

hmmmm.

242. MostlyRight - June 5, 2009

Well I’m glad I helped with your biggest day on my first day to Innocent Bystanders. I’m one of those Ace morons lauraw lured over, and I just bookmarked you in my blogs folder, and I don’t do that often. It’s a select folder. Had fun watching Former Reporter keep leaving for the last, this time he means it, time. I’ll stop by again soon. I’m a sucker for a good, damning chart.

Oh, and you should plaster ads full of cute chicks selling t-shirts all over the place and make some big bucks like Ace…hahahahahaha.

243. Michael - June 5, 2009

I’m announcing a new feature here at IB, that I think will be a big hit, to be authored by me starting next week.

Big Butt Friday!!!™

Music, Scathing Humor, Fun Historical Facts, and . . .

AWESOME BIG BUTTS!!!!!

This is going to be a winner.

244. MCPO Airdale - June 5, 2009

Michael – You were the “slow” child in your family, weren’t you?

245. geoff - June 5, 2009

*weakly*

yay!!

246. lauraw - June 5, 2009

Awesome. A toast to geoff!

Geoffffff. Geoff-maaaaannn. The geoff-sterrrrr.

*clinks everybody’s glass and drinks*

247. lauraw - June 5, 2009

You realize of course, this means that a chart of unemployment rate projections/stats beat boobies.

*looks out window fully expecting to see flaming skies and the Four Horsemen*

248. Retired Geezer - June 5, 2009

*clinks everybody’s glass and drinks*

Hell with that.

*Honk Honk*

*Peep Peep*

I knows how to celebrate.

249. geoff - June 5, 2009

We’re having a few over at The Hostages, if you care to join us.

250. lauraw - June 5, 2009

Hey! Careful!

Michael said he’s a little tender there this time of the month.

251. Michael - June 5, 2009

You realize of course, this means that a chart of unemployment rate projections/stats beat boobies.

Not just any boobies, you twit.

Swedish boobies!!!

I did not compromise myself with generic bare boobies. It took Scandi hooters to bring in all that traffic from Japanese porn sites.

And all for nothing. My crown has been stolen by some geek with a silly chart which, as FR correctly points out, does not prove that Porkulus will not work once some of that money actually reaches the economy (which could have been done immediately with a tax cut).

252. Dave in Texas - June 5, 2009

>> Michael said he’s a little tender there this time of the month.

Just his breasts.

I think.

253. MostlyRight - June 5, 2009

Imagine if, when the June numbers come out, Geoff uses Swedish boobies instead of dots or triangles. You have one month to get the banner ads up and running.

254. geoff - June 5, 2009

Geoff uses Swedish boobies instead of dots or triangles.

At least there’ll be no question as to what marks the data point.

255. Dave in Texas - June 5, 2009

soft triangle.

I’m sure there’s a mathematicamal term for this.

256. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

251:
I heard water weight gain happens as well.

I dunno. Usually that time of the month, I am hiding outside, looking for worms in the dirt. A lot more pleasant and a lot less dangerous.

257. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

Dave:

It’s called I STILL FUCKING HATE GEOMETRY!

258. geoff - June 5, 2009

It’s called I STILL FUCKING HATE GEOMETRY!

*faints*

259. Dave in Texas - June 5, 2009

Geometry is the math of engineering arts. Von Daaniken wondered (stupidly) “how were these pyramids built”?

I’ll tell you how Erik, with a bunch of burly mothafuckin Egyptians with whips, couple of levers and wedges. Shithead.

260. geoff - June 5, 2009

I’ll tell you how Erik, with a bunch of burly mothafuckin Egyptians with whips, couple of levers and wedges. Shithead.

Every time I had to move the family or the office (~ 20 times), I’d always tell my wife: “No problem, I’ll just use the secrets of the ancient Egyptians.” And I did.

I had a professor in college who went into his backyard and started playing with huge weights to prove that Stonehenge and the pyramids could have been built with the technologies of the time. Pretty cool guy for a history professor.

261. Dave in Texas - June 5, 2009

Algebra and Geometry made sense to me. Things happen as a result of, or fill in the missing info.

Trig… memorize things. I could do that.

Calculus… didn’t go so well.

262. geoff - June 5, 2009

I can teach you calculus in 1/2 of one hour. I proved it with my wife.

It’s just that simple, when explained with beer as a prop.

263. Mrs. Peel - June 5, 2009

Just another dumb Conservative with a Masters Degree in Architecture, 2 successful businesses built from the ground up, and a few million bucks Net Worth

So…um…are you single?

Anyway, I actually did get approached (in fact, chased down) by a guy at the science museum. It was a little surreal. Oh well.

264. geoff - June 5, 2009

It was a little surreal.

Come over to The Hostages and hang out and tell us about it.

265. Dave in Texas - June 5, 2009

>> I can teach you calculus in 1/2 of one hour.

No fuckin way. I could learn Mandarin faster.

266. Michael - June 5, 2009

It’s just that simple, when explained with beer as a prop.

That makes sense, actually. See, with calc everything is just really close to infinity, kinda like drinking is I’m really close to my last beer.

267. Mrs. Peel - June 5, 2009

I heart calculus.

Gotta hit the sack, geoff…long day tomorrow.

268. geoff - June 5, 2009

No fuckin way. I could learn Mandarin faster.

Calculus is sooo easy if approached correctly. Unfortunately it’s taught as obtusely as is possible.

I’m really close to my last beer.

That’s really sad. You’re making me feel like writing a country song.

269. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

Correction:
I should have included Analytic Geometry.

My bad.

Carry on.

270. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

Actually, I grasped calculus easiest of all. And I had always heard about how scary difficult it was.

271. geoff - June 5, 2009

I should have included Analytic Geometry.

That’s it. You’re on the list, EvB.

272. Mrs. Peel - June 5, 2009

I thought differential equations was obscenely easy. I never studied and I got 96 or 100 on every exam.

ok, going to bed for reals now.

273. geoff - June 5, 2009

G’night, Mrs. P.

274. Dave in Texas - June 5, 2009

It was taught to the obtuse in my case.

275. Edward Von Bear - June 6, 2009

Yeah P:
I thought you were asleep!

276. Retired Geezer - June 6, 2009

I always thought factoring trinomial squares was kinda fun.

And when I moved my HEAVY spa by myself, (which took 4 men to tip onto it’s side), I used lengths of 3″ PVC as rollers.

Just like the Egyptians.

Pope Ramses out.

277. Edward Von Bear - June 6, 2009

^The Egyptians used plastic? Who knew?

278. geoff - June 6, 2009

And when I moved my HEAVY spa by myself, (which took 4 men to tip onto it’s side), I used lengths of 3″ PVC as rollers.

I love doing stuff like that by myself. My wife thinks I’m crazy and should ask for help, but I much prefer to try to pull it off solo. It’s your brain and barely adequate brawn against a lot of weight and distance.

Hopefully not altitude. That can be a toughy.

279. Retired Geezer - June 6, 2009

The Egyptians used plastic? Who knew?

What, you never heard of Papyrus Vinyl Chloride, Eddie?

280. Dave in Texas - June 6, 2009

I use brawn instead of brains.

That’s why God made Advil.

281. scottaurelius - June 6, 2009

I hate being unemployed!

282. 40 Second Toothbrush complicates, horrifies | SataByte.com - June 6, 2009

[...] The May Unemployment Numbers are Here, and Worse Than Predicted … [...]

283. That Stimulus (Part 3) : Conservative Cabbie - June 6, 2009

[...] The higher than expected increase in unemployment to 9.4% has now been factored into the chart and the gap between where unemployment should be following the stimulus and where it is in reality has substantially widened. In fact, unemployment is actually worse than the C.B.O. predicted assuming no stimulus. Here is the graph courtesy of Innocent Bystanders. [...]

284. yahookid - June 6, 2009

yes. that’s why forex market last night tumbles like a rolling rock..

http://yahookid.wordpress.com

http://yahookid.blogspot.com

285. Moe Lane » A probably trite observation on ’stimulus’ jobs. - June 6, 2009

[...] And that’s subject to debate: [...]

286. A probably trite observation on ’stimulus’ jobs. - Moe_Lane’s blog - RedState - June 6, 2009

[...] And that’s subject to debate: [...]

287. Retired Geezer - June 6, 2009

Meanwhile in the Spud State, joblessness hits a 22 year high.

http://bit.ly/pERYB

288. Retired Geezer - June 6, 2009

Can someone explain this to me:

The national unemployment rate rose to a 25-year high of 9.4 percent with the loss of 345,000 jobs in May. But that is the smallest monthly decline in jobs since September and more than 100,000 below what officials had expected.

Emphasis added.

289. lauraw - June 6, 2009

Those would be some of the jobs Obama ‘saved or created,’ I presume.

Good morning sweethearts.

290. Dave in Texas - June 6, 2009

HullOO

291. geoff - June 6, 2009

Can someone explain this to me:

Here’s the deal with that:

They were expecting to lose about 500,000 non-farm jobs, but they only lost 345,000. Overall, though, they lost 787,000 jobs, which is larger than the losses in the preceding two months. I’m not sure where the other job losses came from (I doubt that it was agricultural) – they glossed over that.

292. Belmont Club » Where on the curve? - June 6, 2009

[...] Innocent Bystanders has been following unemployment figures as they emerge in comparison to the administration’s predictions. The most updated chart is on his latest post. [...]

293. geoff - June 6, 2009

I’m not sure where the other job losses came from (I doubt that it was agricultural) – they glossed over that.

Looking at the numbers again, they note that the labor pool increased by 350,000 people, some of whom couldn’t find jobs, so that’s part of the difference. But almost 700,000 people joined the labor pool last month, and we still didn’t have this huge non-“non-farm” job deficit.

294. geoff - June 6, 2009

Oh geez – looks like we got a link from Instapundit, but his site is down!

295. Edward Von Bear - June 6, 2009

RG:

Heh

296. The Strata-Sphere » Obama’s Change: A Recession Much Worse Than The Carter Years - June 6, 2009

[...] I noted in the previous post there is a great graph out showing the Democrats’ promise verses the reality of jobs losses since the stimulus bill was [...]

297. dispatches from TJICistan » Blog Archive » how are we tracking the failed Obama administration’s predictions? - June 6, 2009
298. Mrs. Peel - June 6, 2009

Ok, museum hit-on story. So, my friend and I had been looking at the Foucault’s pendulum and trying to figure out its period, but not having much luck (we later discovered that it moves 180º per day). I remembered that there was a plaque about it somewhere on a higher level, so we were walking off to look for it, and suddenly, this guy popped up out of nowhere and practically chased me until I stopped to talk to him. We talked for like 30 seconds before he popped out with “Do you think we could exchange numbers?” I was more than a little taken aback. We ended up talking for a while, he seemed mostly harmless, and he gave me his email, so I’ll probably drop him a note sometime today. Apparently, he had noticed me several times during the night and had girded up his loins to approach. So I gotta give him major points for having balls.

Anyway, the horrible part? When he introduced himself and asked his name, I gave him a fake name. I am such an awful person. I did tell him toward the end of the conversation that I had given him a fake name and gave him my real one.

The really terrible thing is that it wasn’t even a realistic fake name. It was “Hortense.” I don’t know what my problem is, but every time I try to think of a fake name to give guys, I always come up with the most ridiculous names that no one gives their children nowadays.

299. geoff - June 6, 2009

That sounds like a fun thread: Fake Names for Mrs. Peel to Give Guys

Ima N. Ginere

300. geoff - June 6, 2009

It was “Hortense.”

That was the punch line to my “What do prostitutes sleep in when they can’t pay rent” joke at The Hostages.

I am such an awful person.

A little caution does not awful make.

301. Cathy - June 6, 2009

I can teach you calculus in 1/2 of one hour. I proved it with my wife.
It’s just that simple, when explained with beer as a prop.

I double-dog-dare ya, Geoff.
An’ I wanna be around when you do it.
I’ll buy the beers.

302. Michael - June 6, 2009

Oh geez – looks like we got a link from Instapundit, but his site is down!

I emailed the link to him yesterday morning, but he’s on vacation so I wasn’t too hopeful.

Michael - June 6, 2009

I also emailed Powerline, btw, and they have it up today.

303. mycontractorlist - June 6, 2009

On the job numbers, who knows the real numbers many people I have spoke with don’t, can’t or haven’t file for unemployment. I said to hell with the numbers and think positive for a positive outcome. Just my two cents from a contractors point of view, I’m not an economist

304. Cover Me, Porkins - June 6, 2009

And people wonder why consumer confidence tends to be higher under Democratic presidents.

I don’t want to see unemployment increase, but I do want discouraging news to find a threshold beyond which even the media can’t obfuscate. Low is fine.

305. geoff - June 6, 2009

An’ I wanna be around when you do it.

We may have to tie Dave down.

He’ll like that.

306. geoff - June 6, 2009

Thanks for the marketing push, Michael. It’s gonna be another big day, especially for a weekend.

307. Enas Yorl - June 6, 2009

Hortense

Haha! Next time try “Dejah Thoris”. If he catches on right away then you know y’all have at least one thing in common.

308. lauraw - June 6, 2009

Hortense. That’s hilarious.

Names people don’t give their children anymore? In high school I knew a kid whose parents named him Euripedes.

He went by ‘Pete,’ though, thank goodness.

309. lauraw - June 6, 2009

oops, Euripides.

310. geoff - June 6, 2009

Next time try “Dejah Thoris”.

I can never say that without saying “The Incomparable” before it.

311. Michael - June 6, 2009

Geoff, there is a small but growing group of people who:

(1) Read your post.
(2) Went to the “About” tab to learn something about the site.
(3) Watched Dave’s “IB Story” video.

Heh heh heh

312. BrewFan - June 6, 2009

New post up!

313. Dark Eden - June 6, 2009

Dots clearly pwn triangles. Go dots.

314. joey buzz - June 6, 2009

Belmont Club has a post and link up too.

315. BrewFan - June 6, 2009

Belmont Club has a post and link up too.

Get the ban hammer ready, Michael.

316. MostlyRight - June 6, 2009

Triangles < Dots < Swedish boobies
Triangles + Dots < Swedish boobies
Triangles * Dots < Swedish boobies, but it's getting close.

317. Icarus - June 6, 2009

Lovely and all this is brought to you by the same gang that wants to socialize all health care……..I can’t wait for net months numbers !!!

318. Icarus - June 6, 2009

Lovely and all this is brought to you by the same gang that wants to socialize all health care……..I can’t wait for next months numbers !!!

319. geoff - June 6, 2009

So we were the top-ranked post at WordPress until very recently, and now we’re not even in the top 100 (even though the blog is still top 100).

I think somebody noticed.

320. pat - June 6, 2009

Haven’t gotten through all of the comments, but what stands out for me is just how poorly the Obama staff was in their initial projection (with or without the stimulous). I certainly have no confidence in any future projection

321. The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Wasn’t the “stimulus” bill supposed to keep unemployment down? - June 6, 2009

[...] opponents of the stimulus bill actually have been right? Take a look at the numbers of what the Obama Administration said unemployment would look like with and without the [...]

322. PD Quig - June 6, 2009

It’s a darned good thing that 220,000 people got jobs from the BLS birth death model, otherwise yesterday’s number would have been 565,000 instead of 345,000–making seven months in a row of more than half a million jobs lost. The BLS model appears to have been programmed by the same folks that bring us the climate global circulation models that are so good that they have been unable to predict past global temperature trends.

Your government funds at work.

323. Michael - June 6, 2009

I think somebody noticed.

That is really weird.

324. Michael - June 6, 2009

Hmmmm. I sent WP support a message suggesting they were censoring us. No reply, but your post is now back on the top of the Top 100.

I’m getting paranoid. It also seems weird to me that Instapundit went down almost immediately after he linked us and a few hits came in.

325. Is Geoff Getting Too Much Attention? « Innocent Bystanders - June 6, 2009

[...] 6, 2009 Posted by Michael in News. trackback Starting last night and continuing this morning, Geoff’s article below was the top-ranked post featured on the main page of WordPress.com.  Then, with new links and many [...]

326. lolitasays - June 6, 2009

Stimulus package or not, people are still getting laid off. Companies are still packing up and headed abroad and there are no jobs in any field for anyone. This isn’t anything that’s new. The Obama admin have only been in office 6 months. I think it’s going to take a lot more time than 6 months to fix an 8 year problem. Reform doesnt happen over night.

327. geoff - June 6, 2009

I think it’s going to take a lot more time than 6 months to fix an 8 year problem.

I’m curious as to why you call it an “8 year problem.”

328. thegirlfromtheghetto - June 6, 2009

In April, Michigan reported the highest jobless rate, 12.9 percent. I live here, and just wrote a huge post about how our state is in major trouble.

329. daveintexas - June 6, 2009

>> I’m curious as to why you call it an “8 year problem.”

I’m not.

330. Tony - June 6, 2009

Obama’s Stimulus Plan Is A Complete Failure

anyone else agree with this statement?

331. O’s Economic Recovery Plan (How’s that working for you?) « Lookin’ Fer Learnin’ - June 6, 2009

[...] From: Innocent Bystanders [...]

332. Invictus - June 6, 2009

Yup. Bush’s economic team did a WAY better forecasting job.

http://www.blah3.com/article.php?story=200906061055376

Not.

333. PattyAnn - June 6, 2009

Invictus, I personally, enjoyed the way the media carried the Bush Administration’s water anytime their actions or predictions were proven wrong.
The point of the graph is that the Obama Administration was wrong. What the hell is your point?

334. daveintexas - June 6, 2009

Yup. Bush’s economic team did a WAY better forecasting job.

You’re welcome.

335. BrewFan - June 6, 2009

Oh boy. Stand by for moonbats in 3…2…1

336. Pupster - June 6, 2009
337. kevIN - June 6, 2009

I’m a Michigander and the economic climate is certainly showing no improvement. At the manufacturing company I work for we already have had our layoffs and a large number of ‘forced retirements’. Do these type of ‘retirements’ show themselves as unemployment numbers?

Business remains flat for us but future layoffs may not take place since we are already as lean as we can go. However we have a temporary layoff coming up – no work for the last week of June. And perhaps after that 4-day work weeks – ie, a 20% cut in pay across the board. Yep – I won’t be spending any money on large ticket items any day soon.

338. It All Depends On The Meaning of "Is" - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - June 6, 2009

[...] [...]

339. Unemployment Visualization @ Houston Tea Party - June 6, 2009
340. Anonymous - June 6, 2009

Don’t those maroon dots have to be moved to the left a little bit?

341. Michael - June 6, 2009

No, Geoff explained the dating of the data somewhere. I forget the reason, but he thought it through.

342. Unemployment: The Second Derivative « The View from Alexandria - June 6, 2009

[...] in the White House! But put that aside. Conservative web sites are showing this graph, produced by Innocent Bystanders, which compares the Obama administration’s projections of what would happen with and without [...]

343. Lipstick - June 6, 2009

there are no jobs in any field for anyone.

Making such a sweeping statement just disqualifies whatever else you say.

344. Home Removal Services - June 6, 2009

The numbers are very bad and the worst is to come. We have been lucky to see the survival of the auto industry but let’s wait for the German deal to come through before chanting…

345. Home Removal Services - June 6, 2009

The numbers are very bad and the worst is to come. We have been lucky to see the survival of the auto industry but let’s wait for the German deal to come through before chanting victory…

346. Invictus - June 6, 2009

So, in the face of clear evidence that Bush’s economic team was demonstrably worse than Obama’s, these are the responses:

“The point of the graph is that the Obama Administration was wrong. What the hell is your point?”

“Oh boy. Stand by for moonbats in 3…2…1″

“Yup. Bush’s economic team did a WAY better job.”

Strong arguments, folks. Not quite sure how to counter.

347. daveintexas - June 6, 2009

That’s because you don’t clip your toenails.

Makes you focus.

Try it!

348. Dirty Democrats » US Loses Most Jobs At Fastest Rate In History - June 6, 2009

[...] is is a frightening trend.Innocent Bystanders reported: And I’m serious – I expected the numbers to flatten out like it looked like they were [...]

349. Mrs. Peel - June 6, 2009

Bush’s economic team was demonstrably worse than Obama’s

Yeah, ’cause there wasn’t anything that happened around, oh, say, September 2001, that might have affected the economy.

350. Lipstick - June 6, 2009

Bush’s economic team was demonstrably worse than Obama’s,

How? Demonstrate for me.

351. qwerty1 - June 6, 2009

It is simple Lipstick

Bush = Bad

Obama = Good

Good >> Bad

QED

352. pokerdog283 - June 6, 2009

I love your avatar

353. Tushar - June 6, 2009

Geoff,

I am sure you will be adding those dots of misery every month all the way till 2014 Q1. I have a feeling that this graph will end up being prominently used by GOP’s 2010 and 12 campaigns.

354. Top Posts « WordPress.com - June 6, 2009

[...] The May Unemployment Numbers are Here, and Worse Than Predicted While I was waiting for May’s numbers to be released I did a quick Google News search on [...] [...]

355. Heavenly - June 6, 2009

Umm wouldn’t the unemployment rate be worse (above the red dotes) if we didn’t have Obama’s stimulus package. So if we did nothing we would be at an even higher unemployment rate than where those red dotes indicate where we are at now.

So in other words Obama’s stimulus package actually help keep the unemployment rate at a lower state than if we did nothing.

I am not understanding your logic that doing nothing would have been better. To me it seem like it would have been worse.

356. qwerty1 - June 6, 2009

Heavenly, the uncertainty created by the Obama administration’s take over the the banks and car companies has caused investor to doubt that their investments will follow past precedence with respect to bankruptcy and taxes. Therefore they are demanding a risk premium on any capitol lent to the governments and large corporations with strong unions. That risk premium will kill any expansion plans that companies have. Sure the government is hiring people like crazy who add at best no value to the economy, but is that offset by private capitol wary of an uncertain future.

357. Michael - June 6, 2009

So if we did nothing we would be at an even higher unemployment rate than where those red dotes indicate where we are at now.

Heavenly, in fact, Obama has not done anything. Almost none of the stimulus package has been spent, never mind the Obama administration promise of a quick infusion of money for “shovel-ready” projects.

That’s the point — the stimulus package was really just a long-term program of liberal ideas for dramatically increasing the power of the federal government at the expense of the private economy and the states. It never had anything to do with unemployment; that was just the scare tactic the Democrats used to ram the bill through before anyone could even read it. It was a fraud that got passed when the country was in a panicky mood.

If Obama really wanted a quick stimulus, everyone knows the easy and effective way to do that. You cut taxes significantly. But that allows citizens to decide how to stimulate the economy with their own money, rather than the Obama administration deciding that for us and, for example, steering millions of dollars to his pals at ACORN.

Geoff’s chart is just a simple way to illustrate the fraud. The stimulus package is not reducing unemployment because it was never designed to do so. Tax cuts would have done the job.

In the meantime, as QWERTY1 has pointed out, Obama’s policies have discouraged private investment that might otherwise have created jobs and more quickly ended the recession.

358. BrewFan - June 6, 2009

Umm wouldn’t the unemployment rate be worse (above the red dotes) if we didn’t have Obama’s stimulus package.

Not likely. As has been pointed out the stimulus was the wrong solution to the problem. If he wanted to get the economy going Barry should have cut taxes. Like John F. Kennedy did.

359. Michael - June 6, 2009

Oh by the way, Roosevelt tried a similar stimulus package during the Great Depression called the Work Progress Administration. This outfit briefly employed my grandfather. I think it’s pretty much conventional economic wisdom today that the WPA did more harm than good to the economy and extended the depression.

Did that example slow Barry down? Heck no. He’s not about fixing the economy, but rather locking in constituencies that are beholden to Big Government and the Democratic Party.

360. Michael - June 6, 2009

Incidentally, I think I read somewhere that the unemployment statistics we are using today to hold Obama accountable originally began to be produced as a WPA-funded project.

So, the WPA did something worthwhile.

361. MostlyRight - June 6, 2009

No one should be slamming Invictus for pointing out that the Bush Administration did an equally poor job at forecasting employment. Here is a quote from the report he links to, which is from the Bush Admin archives.

“The Administration projects that employment will increase at an average pace of 109,000 jobs per month during the four quarters of 2008, before picking up to 129,000 jobs per month in 2009. In the longer run, the pace of employment growth will slow, reflecting diminishing rates of labor force growth due to the retirement of the baby-boom generation. The Administration also projects that the unemployment rate will edge up from 2007 to 2008 as a whole, before returning to 4.8 percent in 2010, the middle of the range consistent with stable inflation in the long run.”

Now this sounds like a 2007 predection of unemployment for 2008, 09 and 10, and it is more demonstrably wrong that the Obama graph. Now, the Bush Admin doesn’t have a “with/without stimulus” graph that is visually laughable when actual data points are added, but we need to be intellectually honest. Now it is certainly harder to predict 09/10 unemployment numbers in 2007 than it is in Jan 2009, but the Bush Admin predicted unemployment to be at 4.8% in 2010, whereas the Obama admin predicted 7-9% (with/without stimulus). Those of us on the Right need to take this bitter medicine and learn from it.

In other words, the best lesson the Right and Left could learn, and agree on, is that government projections should not be taken seriously, and often are more political than anything else. They are propaganda. One could say, Geoff and Invictus have shown us, from both sides of the political spectrum, that government can’t be trusted. Thanks guys!

Now, the real arguements between the Left and the Right should be about what do we do given the current economic situation we find ourselves in as a country. Over at Kos the Left have all suddenly become Keynesian acolytes, convinced that the stimulus, increased government spending, larger deficits, etc. are the best solution to the current recession. This will inevitably require more tax dollars, taking the spending choices from the individual and placing them in the government’s hands, to spend according to what they believe is better for society (alternative energy, subsidies, welfare) The blame game there for the current situation is Friedman free market policies of the evil Bush regarding the bubbles and subsequent crashes, and evil Bush war spending for the deficits.

On the Right, we are convinced that Big Government needs to be smaller, returning more of the tax dollars to the individual to increase spending according to individual wants and needs. The true Conservatives of the Right (old Classical Liberals) see the danger in all that is TOO BIG TOO FAIL (be it business or government), and recognize the growth of government that has taken place in the name of this “Crisis” of the economy, has been overwhelming in the first 5 months of the Obama Admin. GM and Chrysler? The Banks? Soon Healthcare? The largest sectors of our economy, completely disjointed from anything resembling a free market. Pretty soon I won’t be able to order a pizza without talking to a US government employee. The blame game on the Right…which I believe is largely correct, is that it was Big Government pushes and nudges that led to the bubbles and subsequent crashes. There was, in fact, an increase in regulation during the Bush Administration. There were constant political movements towards legislating for bad loans and housing for demographics that should not have been buying. (Credit-wise and income-wise). In addition, there is a lack of morality and common sense in the country that is shameful, and I feel this is mostly from the Left. This “live for today” and “all about me” morality resulted in a society built on over-exteneded credit, and this is why we find ourselves where we are today.

So let’s agree, Lefty’s and Righty’s, that Big Government isn’t to be trusted when they give us charts and predictions. Let’s take an honest account of where we stand as a country right now. And let’s have an honest debate about Milton F. and Keynes and what has and hasn’t worked historically. Put out your hard data, your case studies, and make your points. And let’s get ourselves out of this mess. I’m a conservative, I look to what is tried and true and has worked in the past. I accept the failures of Conservatives in the past and try to learn from their mistakes, just as I learn from the mistakes of the socialists. I think we need to get competitive, pull ourselves up by the bootstraps, and kick some ass. If we need spending on infrastructure or alternative energy that will be an ACTUAL INVESTMENT for the country (not a payoff for unions or environmentalists or political allies), let’s do it and kick some Chinese ass. If we need to drill offshore and take a serious look at oil shale, let’s do it and kick some Saudi ass. If we need to bite the bullet and straighten out Medicare and Social Security, lets get it done from both sides of the aisle.

Sorry this was so long…shouldn’t have been a comment, but a blog on my own site.

362. PattyAnn - June 6, 2009

““The point of the graph is that the Obama Administration was wrong. What the hell is your point?”
Strong arguments, folks. Not quite sure how to counter.””

Howzabout with a real answer?

363. daveintexas - June 6, 2009

>> I am not understanding your logic that doing nothing would have been better.

Yes, I see that.

364. Michael - June 6, 2009

No one should be slamming Invictus for pointing out that the Bush Administration did an equally poor job at forecasting employment.

MostlyRight:

Agreed.

And nobody did. Scroll upthread and try to find an example of that.

Economic forecasts are always off by some amount. Some better, some worse.

The difference here is that Obama used his scary forecast to sell a gazillion-dollar stimulus package so urgent it had to be voted on the day after it was written, before anyone could read it (1,100+ pages as Rep. Boehner railed about on the House floor), to create jobs based on Obama’s dire forecast.

Bush didn’t do that. It does not really matter how far off Bush was. Economic forecasts are wrong all the time.

Then, it turns out that the stimulus package does not even involve any significant short-term spending, and naturally is having no effect, or quite likely a negative effect by preemptively crowding out private investment (like the WPA) as investors fear a managed economy and inflation.

365. Michael - June 6, 2009

Dave, you know I hate to say nice things about you. But I’ll make this observation one time.

You have made an art form of the pungent humor comment, and I appreciate it. You were at the top of your game on this thread.

Yes, I see that.

Damn that cracked me up.

366. daveintexas - June 6, 2009

Well okie doke then. Perhaps you could grant MostlyRight his honorary Master’s of the Fucking Obvious and explain that the issue isn’t goddam forecasts, it’s blatant lies used to sell bad policy.

Wear it proudly MR!

367. MostlyRight - June 6, 2009

daveintexas:

That’s what I said…it’s propaganda for political gain. Sorry I said it in the middle of a way to long post of the “fucking obvious”. My point was, both sides do it.

Be nice dave, I love ya on Ace’s site and it looks like you spend your time productively here as well. InnocentBystanders is gaining readership with this chart…don’t drive em away!

Michael:

OK, maybe not “slammed”, but in posts 333-351 there are plenty of examples of Kool Aid drinking and treating the guy as a troll instead of someone with a valid point. His point is just as valid as Geoff’s with the graph. The Obama Admin either didn’t know what the hell they were talking about or outright lied (or both) in Jan 09, and surely used the chart as propaganda to sell the b.s. stimulus package. The Bush Admin in 2007 either didn’t know what the hell they were talking about or outright lied (or both), and put out forecasts that have been proven incredibly wrong. This was also largely political propaganda…did the Bush Admin want to forecast a leap in unemployment facing a Presidential election year and the closing year of his Administration?

Again, my point is, Geoff is right, but so is Invictus. I agree with you that the stimulus package wasn’t even stimulus, never thought it would be…I was against it from Day 1, purely as a gut reaction to big government spending. I agree that forecasts and models are wrong all the time (global warming) I would even agree that Obama’s use of the chart was a worse example of propaganda than the 2007 Bush forecasts. But I stand by my belief that both were political, and both demonstrate dishonesty or worse.

Sorry, maybe I take Matthew 7:3-5 too seriously.

368. BrewFan - June 7, 2009

OK, maybe not “slammed”, but in posts 333-351 there are plenty of examples of Kool Aid drinking and treating the guy as a troll instead of someone with a valid point.

Not true. My comment (335) was made after actually looking at Invictus’ blog; which is a lot of ‘Kool Aid’ drinking lefty stuff with like minded commenters.

This was also largely political propaganda…did the Bush Admin want to forecast a leap in unemployment facing a Presidential election year and the closing year of his Administration?

The events that unfolded during September and October of last year are all I need to cite to point out your theory is way off base. Bush was leading the effort for the TARP with little regard to who was going to be harmed politically. He was wrong about TARP being the right thing to do, imho, but you can’t accuse him of playing election year politics when his most ardent supporters where Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and B. Hussein Obama.

But I stand by my belief that both were political, and both demonstrate dishonesty or worse.

You have a problem then with making moral distinctions because there is a vast difference between being wrong and being dishonest. I thought Michael did a great job explaining how that appears to be the case here.

Sorry, maybe I take Matthew 7:3-5 too seriously.

Nice. You use a verse about not calling others hypocrites to call us hypocrites.

369. Dave in Texas - June 7, 2009

Why are they always so danged wordy?

370. Tushar - June 7, 2009

>>there is a vast difference between being wrong and being dishonest.

Exactly. And blurring this distinction was always the first trick for anyone slamming President Bush. The information Bush got from his Intel guys (and from the all the Intel services of the Western world) about Saddam’s WMD program turned out to be wrong. He did not lie about Saddam’s WMDs.

371. Tushar - June 7, 2009

>>Why are they always so danged wordy?

Same reason magicians use a lot of flash and bang.

372. The Obama Stimulus: Predictions vs. Reality « Political Math - June 7, 2009

[...] thanks to Geoff at Innocent Bystanders. Last month, he started charting how the numbers Obama used to sell the stimulus were matching to [...]

373. Serving The Czar Czar | Smoke Break - June 7, 2009

[...] Washington, D.C. seems to be taking its cue from Hollywood because the May unemployment numbers were preceded by quite a lot of gladhanding that the numbers were down.  Truth is that the May unemployment numbers are higher than those well-spun previews and are, in fact, higher than if we’d done nothing at all to “stimulate” the economy.  Which is even higher still than the numbers projected by the administration. [...]

374. Oh Look, Maybe The Stimulus Is Having An Effect « Tai-Chi Policy - June 7, 2009

[...] Oh Look, Maybe The Stimulus Is Having An Effect June 7, 2009 Posted by taoist in Politics. Tags: Democrats, Obama, Spending, Stimulus, Unemployment trackback And the effect is more unemployment. [...]

375. joey buzz - June 7, 2009

Some comments at Belmont club’s discussion of geoff’s chart well worth reading. Sorry don’t want to do link code on my crackbury.

376. Missing Reagan » Blog Archive » Graphic View Of Obamanomics - June 7, 2009

[...] Innocent Bystanders Blog posts this chart showing  actual unemployment numbers in comparison to what was predicted by [...]

377. Retired Geezer - June 7, 2009

Seems to me it can be boiled down into 2 simple facts:

1. The current administration claimed that “If you pass this Gigantic Stimulus Bill, the unemployment numbers will be Much Lower.

2. The Bill was passed and the numbers skyrocketed.

Pope out.

378. geoff - June 7, 2009

Is Invictus’s defense of Obama really that he’s only as bad as “the worst President evah?”

379. Invictus - June 7, 2009

Well, a hearty “thanks” to MostlyRight. It’s refreshing to see that there actually ARE some folks out there who keep an open mind.

380. Invictus - June 7, 2009

Economics is known as the “dismal science” for a reason, Geoff. It is notoriously difficult to begin with, and more so when politics plays a role.

I find it curious that you neglected to mention the caveats in Obama’s forecasts:

“…there is considerable uncertainty in our estimates: both the impact of the package on GDP and the relationship between higher GDP and job creation are hard to estimate precisely.”

I’m guessing your story would not have played as well had you included them.

Why not even a simple acknowledgment that Bush’s economic forecasts — as I clearly and irrefutably demonstrate — were so wide of the mark as to be laughable? Why is turnabout not fair play? Why not concede that both sides tend to use overly optimistic forecasts because it’s in their own self-interest to do so? Why pick on Obama when Bush did EXACTLY the same thing? Or are you too partisan to concede that fact?

381. daveintexas - June 7, 2009

Shhhh. I think it’s trying to communicate.

Look at his mouth moving.

382. Recovery.org - VolNation - June 7, 2009

[...] The May Unemployment Numbers are Here, and Worse Than Predicted Innocent Bystanders gee, thanks democrats. 9.4% Unemployment rate for May. __________________ ======================================= There is no virtue in poverty. [...]

383. Invictus - June 7, 2009

Seriously, Dave, that’s what you’ve got? How disappointing. Could I ask that you try to take it to the next level, maybe bring a fact or two if it wouldn’t be too much trouble.

384. daveintexas - June 7, 2009

Charlie Brown’s teacher! You’re doing that voice!

You’re good.

385. Invictus - June 7, 2009

That’s about enough, Dave. Don’t make me have your Mom suspend your computer priveleges.

386. daveintexas - June 7, 2009

Hey, you’re as funny as you are persuasive.

Stop making me laugh you.

387. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

Invictus, you’re welcome for the open mind. I’ve taken a little heat over defending your point, backed by your link, that the Bush Admin was at least as off base on their unemployment estimates as the Obama Admin’s estimate on the chart Geoff has used to demonstrate 1) the inaccuracy of Obama’s estimates just 6 short months later, and 2) the ineffectiveness of the “stimulus” package these estimates were used to sell the American public on.

I want to be clear…based on a reading of your posts on your site and the Kos post you contributed to on inflation, you and I are on completely different sides of the political spectrum on the role of the Federal government, on the current economic situations causes and potential solutions, and just about every other issue. You seem pretty boiler-plate modern Liberal, but your point in your first post stood up as factual in my mind, just as Geoff’s graph did. I read your posts and shake my head in wonderment that you can’t see the faults and illogic in your reasoning…and I’m guessing you do the same thing when you visit a site like this. However, I prefer a dialogue to an echo chamber, so welcome back.

If you’d care to take the time, I’d love to hear your opinions on a few of the issues commenters have brought up here regarding the differnence between the Bush Admin estimates and the Obama chart used to sell the stimulus.

The point has been made that while the Bush Admin estimates were simply wrong on unemployment (just as the Bush intel on WMD’s turned out to be wrong), but not a lie. Further, the claim is that Obama’s chart was not just wrong, but was a lie to the American public used to rush through a spending plan that was never intended to actually address unemployment, but rather to “use a crisis” to enact a laundry list of age-old liberal programs and political payoffs. I happen to agree that this is largely true…but can see how this is the Conservative flip side of the coin to the Liberal claim that 9/11 was used as the crisis used by the Bush Admin to enact Conservative policies and go to war with Saddam. I disagree with that claim, as I think it’s demonstrable that the actions taken as a reaction to 9/11 grew government, which is anti-conservative, and I don’t agree that a desire to go to war is quite a founding conservative principle. I agree with Brewfan’s point above that Bush is largely responsible for TARP, as well as a net increase (not decrease as the Left tends to say) of government regulation, as well as a slew of other programs and policies that were not conservative (unbalanced budgets, drug spending bill, immigration…I could go on but daveintexas is already pissed). So what is your opinion on geoff’s chart, apart from our agreement that both Bush and Obama at the very least got it vastly wrong? Start from January 09, when only the dark blue line exists, and extrapolate what that graph might look like now in June. You couldn’t draw a worse extrapolation that what the true data points have panned out to be, and the passing of the stimulus package has not caused a blip of benefit. So was Obama’s team merely incredibly wrong about Keynesian economics? If so, shouldn’t we take this into consideration as we move foward? Or…was Obama’s team even worse…not just wrong, but lying about something so large and important as the massive debt we now find ourselves with? If so, the man and his team are not fit to lead.

I anticipate from your post on your own blog that you’ll give Obama a pass, say he “just didn’t anticipate how large the shit sandwich was that Bush had passed down to him”. I disagree…it was in Obama’s interest to exaggerate the size of the shit sandwich. I would argue that Obama has taken a natural, if large, recession, and blown it up into a crisis for pure political gain, and in doing so, pushed policy which has made this natural recession into something much worse.

Your thoughts? Make it wordy for daveintexas. Maybe we’ll get a well thought out, well written, lengthy response out of him yet. He’s a master of funny one-liner’s, but I’ve seen him write on Ace of Spades and he’s not just a one-trick-pony.

388. daveintexas - June 7, 2009

Do you guys know where a fellow could find some lace wigs?

I’m talkin bout the good stuff, with real human hair. Not that cheap shit.

389. geoff - June 7, 2009

I’m guessing your story would not have played as well had you included them.

The caveats, which are so vague and weak as to be useless, don’t change a thing. I could have put the caveats as the title of the post, and it would have just made them look more foolish. Caveats can’t cover this sort of error – they might as well have asked me to project the data.

Why not even a simple acknowledgment that Bush’s economic forecasts — as I clearly and irrefutably demonstrate — were so wide of the mark as to be laughable?

I’ll forgive your pomposity and simply say that, yes, the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors, including Clinton appointee Joseph Stiglitz, whiffed it completely. But their job creation numbers were still closer than Romer & Bernstein’s. Even 6 months later.

Why is turnabout not fair play?

Three reasons. First, Obama bet almost a trillion dollars on his team. Second, the recession wasn’t nearly as obvious as the absurdity of Romer & Bernstein’s prediction. Anybody who has ever dealt with the government knows that they can’t manipulate money that quickly. And I’m pretty sure that everybody knows that spending money in 2011 and beyond won’t do much for the critical years of 2009 and 2010. But those who pointed this out were vilified as partisan or racist. Finally, it may surprise you to know that we didn’t much care for Bush’s economic policies, either, so trying to drag his ghost into this discussion isn’t going to help much.

This post is all about the Stimulus. We have complained that too much money was committed at the outset to a program that spends too slowly and in the wrong places. Our prediction was that in the near term it wouldn’t help the unemployment situation, and that in the long term:

1) the return on the dollars spent would be weak;
2) the greatest benefit from the spending would occur when the economy was healing anyway; and
3) the dollar would be damaged.

We’re just tracking the unemployment numbers to see who was right: Romer et al., or conservatives. So far we’ve been pretty accurate.

Unfortunately.

390. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

http://www.remilacewigs.com

I also know some great spots in Arizona for hobo-hunting, in case the Texas herd becomes too thinned out.

My creds o.k. now Dave? :-)

391. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

Well said Geoff. Invictus, ball in your court. Don’t let me down, I stuck my neck out for ya. Take the emotion out and make your case.

392. geoff - June 7, 2009

Meh. This whole line of reasoning is stupid anyway. No matter how badly Bush screwed up, it won’t improve the unemployment picture or make the Stimulus money get spent in a more productive way.

This statement from the previous post on unemployment has a little more red meat in it to get Invictus hot and bothered:

As has been pointed out before, the most striking thing about the chart is how poorly the actual unemployment rates were predicted. It is likely that Obama’s economists’ predictions were so far off the mark because of several factors:

* Geithner’s early missteps spooked the market
* The excessively large spending package(s) intimidated investors and business owners, who are worried about debt, inflation, and future tax increases.
* Obama’s economists had no clue as to how slowly money percolates through the government.

393. geoff - June 7, 2009

The Corner has a take-down of Austin Goolsbee’s spin on the data.

394. Michael - June 7, 2009

Your thoughts? Make it wordy for daveintexas. Maybe we’ll get a well thought out, well written, lengthy response out of him yet.

BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

By that I mean, Dave’s responses are always very well thought out, and never wordy.

His sense of humor is not for everyone.

Invictus, you’re welcome for the open mind.

MostlyRight: I salute you, sir, for your stamina in patiently repeating points ignored by Invictus upthread. Your perseverance in dealing with a credulous lefty is nearly Geoffian in its dogged determination.

However, let me reiterate the point that Dave made in a more subtle and entertaining way.

Engaging Invictus should only be undertaken for purposes of amusement, as Geoff does with glee, and I did briefly. It is readily apparent by now that you will make no progress with reason or the facts. You are certain to be disappointed if you think otherwise. Most of us have many years of experience dealing with lefty trolls. We know them.

395. geoff - June 7, 2009

By that I mean, Dave’s responses are always very well thought out, and never wordy.

I always thought I packed a lot of meaning into a single paragraph until I saw Dave recap everything I said in one short sentence.

I used to gripe about it. Now I just make longer paragraphs to challenge him.

396. Michael - June 7, 2009

I know what you mean, Geoff. Dave can read everything that you and I and Brewfan and MostlyRight said on this thread, and encapsulate it with one sentence involving boogers that carries more meaning.

I hate that.

397. Michael - June 7, 2009

Glad you survived the drive, by the way. That must have been grueling.

398. geoff - June 7, 2009

I’m getting used to it – this is my 7th trip.

399. Invictus - June 7, 2009

If I thought for a moment that there were a sliver of a glimmer of hope that anyone here aside from MostlyRight were interested in engaging in honest, open discourse, I would be more than happy to do so. Sadly, that’s not the case. I’ve seen this movie way too many times.

I made my point: George W. Bush’s economic forecasts were as wildly optimistic as Obama’s, perhaps more so. I provided appropriate linkage to the source document. There’s no pomposity in saying it’s irrefutable.

MostlyRight, I am happy to engage you offline, as no productive purpose will be served for us to continue our dialogue here. That’s not to say I won’t check in here from time to time, but I’ll have to keep it to a fourth grade level when I visit.

I’ll miss you most of all, Dave.

400. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

Eh, by engaging you either get some stimulating debate, or you keep handing them more rope with which to hang themselves. I prefer both to a circle-jerk, so I choose to engage. I’ll admit, I’m not getting the stimulating debate I had been optimistic of.

As for perserverance in dealing with credulous lefties…you should see me and my sister and brother-in-law (live in Tibet working for an NGO, had a ferret named Che, family bed, daughter named Justice) go at it at family get-togethers.

401. Nice that the economy is tracking to plan - Coldstreams Business and Economy - June 7, 2009

[...] of the chart (and where it is from) is here. Share and [...]

402. geoff - June 7, 2009

I made my point: George W. Bush’s economic forecasts were as wildly optimistic as Obama’s, perhaps more so.

Which was pointless, even if true, which you have failed to demonstrate. But hey – you get points for using an actual citation in your argument.

403. Michael - June 7, 2009

I made my point: George W. Bush’s economic forecasts were as wildly optimistic as Obama’s, perhaps more so.

Dude, you sure did make the point that Bush’s forecasts were off. We all kinda know that everybody’s economic forecasts are off.

We all kinda proved to you that you are missing the message of the chart and just flinging boogers, which is typical of your ilk.

Now, having gotten your ass kicked, you are doing the standard pompous lefty farewell and fleeing for the exit.

Good day to you, sir.

*Michael pats self on back for working in a “booger” reference”

404. Mrs. Peel - June 7, 2009

MR, if you want to see what happens when we attempt to engage with a dedicated troll around here, read the “Conservative Studies on Campus?” and “Scared White Tourists” threads, linked on the right sidebar under “Classic IB Comment Threads.” Some seriously funny shit went down.

405. Invictus - June 7, 2009

See, Geoff, this is the kind of crap that just prevents any sort of discussion:

“…even if true, which you have failed to demonstrate.”

Bush’s 2008 economic forecast:

“The Administration projects that employment will increase at an average pace of 109,000 jobs per month during the four quarters of 2008, before picking up to 129,000 jobs per month in 2009. In the longer run, the pace of employment growth will slow, reflecting diminishing rates of labor force growth due to the retirement of the baby-boom generation. The Administration also projects that the unemployment rate will edge up from 2007 to 2008 as a whole, before returning to 4.8 percent in 2010, the middle of the range consistent with stable inflation in the long run.”

Here’s the link:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/cea/2008_erp_ch1.pdf

See page 14.

Please refute it. Take your time. I’ll wait.

406. daveintexas - June 7, 2009

>> If I thought for a moment blah blah blah

And yet you keep yammering.

I doubt your veracity.

You sir, are a goof.

407. geoff - June 7, 2009

Please refute it. Take your time. I’ll wait.

Already did. Earnestly awaiting your reply.

408. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

I know Mrs. Peel, I’ve been around blogging long enough. I’m either an eternal optimist or a bit of a masochist…whichever floats your boat. Did you ever settle on a fake name?

Invictus, I still say you’ve made a point regarding political/government forecasts in general. I’m looking for engagement beyond that one point, in reference to the points I and other commenters have made regarding the stimulus package. The chart is not about the unemployment rate, it is about Obama’s claims on how the stimulus would affect the unemployment rate vs. reality to date.

409. Invictus - June 7, 2009

We all kinda know that everybody’s economic forecasts are off.

Thank you, Michael, for making my point.

410. Michael - June 7, 2009

Invictus, you just keep getting better. As a student of the dismal science, it must have occurred to you that there is something wrong with comparing a Bush forecast based on data through Q3 of 2007 with the Obama team’s forecast, released in January of 2009 with much more recent data, after the recession was apparent to everyone. And you are making that comparison with respect to the same time period in 2009.

Have you ever heard of apples and oranges?

Take a look at how Bush’s forecast held up three months into the future. Now do that with Obama.

We’ll wait.

411. Michael - June 7, 2009

Thank you, Michael, for making my point.

You’re welcome, Invictus. Glad to help out.

My other point is that you are a dumbass, but I suppose you are not as appreciative.

412. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

Here are questions for engagement from both sides.

If we can agree that government is either incapable or untrustworthy in their predictions of the effect of their policies, should we have more or less government?

What legislation could we citizens push our legislators to pass which would both increase reliability and honesty in government predictions, and create accountability for claims made when selling policy?

413. Invictus - June 7, 2009

Sorry, Geoff, but I’m just a “dumbass,” so could you point me to the comment where you refute the fact that Bush’s economic forecasts were just pie in the sky? Thanks.

414. daveintexas - June 7, 2009

Michael, your billable rate has to be at least $250 an hour. Mine’s $220.

I don’t do bitch work for bitches unless Infected hits the tip jar.

415. geoff - June 7, 2009

Already did. Earnestly awaiting your reply.

But perhaps I left too much to your research skills. If you look at the first 6 months of 2008, the number of jobs is around 145-146 million. In the second half of the year the job loss accelerates dramatically. So for the first 5 months of 2008 (using 5 instead of 6 to compare to 2009), the job loss was just under 70,000 per month. That means their prediction was off by about 180,000 jobs per month, or 890,000 jobs over the 5 month period.

Compare that to the current team, who predicted job losses under 500,000 over the same period (I’m estimating based on their unemployment data), while we actually lost 1,529,000.

The Bush team didn’t do any worse than the Obama team, and in fact fared better despite the housing/credit crises.

2008
J 146317(1)
F 146075
M 146023
A 146257
M 145974
J 145738
J145596
A 145273
S 145029
O 144657
N 144144
D 143338

416. geoff - June 7, 2009

Take a look at how Bush’s forecast held up three months into the future. Now do that with Obama.

Done…

Sorry, Geoff, but I’m just a “dumbass,” so could you point me to the comment where you refute the fact that Bush’s economic forecasts were just pie in the sky? Thanks.

…and done.

417. geoff - June 7, 2009

Sorry, Geoff, but I’m just a “dumbass,” so could you point me to the comment where you refute the fact that Bush’s economic forecasts were just pie in the sky?

…although this statement is a puzzler. I already agreed that the economic forecast was poor – I just didn’t agree that it was as bad, both in accuracy and in impact.

418. Michael - June 7, 2009

Yo, Invictus, you might want to duck into the bathroom and check your ass.

See that red color? That’s from the ass-kicking you’re getting.

Want more?

By now, even you must realize that you are way out of your league.

I suggest you do the condescending lefty goodbye again, and mean it.

I’m trying to be helpful here.

419. geoff - June 7, 2009

By now, even you must realize that you are way out of your league.

He’s starting to get repetitive, and he’s not responding to 90% of what we say.

Perfect for the Administration.

420. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

Invictus,

You need to move beyond your point, which was correct, that the Bush team did a poor job forecasting unemployment levels. No one ever hits the mark on a forecast. Both were off by miserable margins, and discussing which one was off more is just arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The point that both administrations were wrong misses the point Geoff makes with his graph. The small point is that the Obama team was way off is dwarfed by the larger point that the Obama team 1) used this ridiculous projection to sell the stimulus, and 2) Now that Obama got his stimulus, the chart clearly demonstrates that for the last 3 months the stimulus has not stimulated anything. The Obama team’s Keynesian economic theory has been a bust so far. The chart, in fact, demonstrates that what the critics of the stimulus claimed is turning out to be right.

Either move beyond the “evil Bush was wrong too!” point, and discuss the greater points of the graph, or take your toys and go home for real. You’re letting me down man.

421. Michael - June 7, 2009

MostlyRight, you are cracking me up.

Did you visit his blog?

Scroll down a little and read his self-righteous post about how Bush “free-market” policies caused the housing crisis by allowing predatory lenders to exploit po folks, with nary a mention of Barney Frank and the Community Reinvestment Act, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their lobbyists, campaign contributions, and friends on the left like Obama.

It’s priceless.

422. Michael - June 7, 2009

Yes, Dave, I know my last comment will probably throw a little traffic to Invictus. What the heck. He has been good for some yuks.

423. daveintexas - June 7, 2009

I know. Apparently Mostlyright is willing to do bitch work for bitches.

Likely a lower billable rate.

424. Invictus - June 7, 2009

Referencing CRA as even a remote cause of the housing/credit crisis is generally thought cause for immediate disqualification from any thoughtful discussion of same. I have yet to see a convincing argument that any piece of legislation has had a 30 year gestation period before its effects were felt.

425. Michael - June 7, 2009

Naw, Dave, MostlyRight is just still in the “sincere” phase of dealing with trolls. We’ve been there. It’s touching, really.

Me, I enjoy Geoff, who is seasoned in the art and is basically a sadist, or your approach, which is that every troll is a mine for comedy gold.

426. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

Michael, yeah I did visit his blog yesterday and poked through some of the posts. I even clicked on a link to Kos that he helped co-author on how the Fed printing money won’t necessarily lead to inflation. As I mentioned above, I think he’s a boiler-plate liberal. And as I mentioned above, I disagree politically with just about everything he posts on, if not all of it.

His post on the Bush “free market” policies…if you’re referring to the one he did back in 2006, does reference more dismal predicting by the governement, specifically Bernanke’s poor performance regarding the Fed’s stance on the housing market and affordability. But his claim of Bush “free market policies” is lacking. It would be helpful to list the enacted free market policies, tearing down of regulation, and legislation pushed by the Bush administration that Invictus tells us exist, but he doesn’t. What did happen is the right to own a home, despite poor credit and income, was “regulated in” by the Democrats since the 1970’s…and that led to the housing price bubble/affordability problem. Some Republicans in Congress and some in the Bush admin did a bit to try and stop this, but could make barely more than a whisper before being labeled as racist, poor-hating old white rich men.

Invictus. care to try and redeem yourself with a round 2 on the Bush Admin’s “free market” policies?

427. geoff - June 7, 2009

a 30 year gestation period before its effects were felt.

Wow. It’s like they never modified it. 8 times.

428. Michael - June 7, 2009

I have yet to see a convincing argument that any piece of legislation has had a 30 year gestation period before its effects were felt.

Try looking at the regulatory changes under Clinton, and the Bush Administration’s attempts to rein it in that were thwarted by Barney Frank and the Dems.

There was a reason why banks were offering zero-down-payment loans with up-front teaser interest rates, against all common sense.

Banks are, by nature, risk-averse. Ever wonder what forced them to do that?

429. geoff - June 7, 2009

Invictus. care to try and redeem yourself with a round 2 on the Bush Admin’s “free market” policies?

Oh, not here, please. This has already wandering around enough.

Stimulus. Is it working? How well will it ever work? That’s the topic.

430. daveintexas - June 7, 2009

>> MostlyRight is just still in the “sincere” phase of dealing with trolls. We’ve been there. It’s touching, really.

I had not considered that. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

MostlyRight! You’re wasting precious time.

431. Michael - June 7, 2009

Here’s a hint: they could monetize the debt and off-load the risk by dumping it on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the best friends of Barney Frank (Chairman of the committee that regulated them) and Barack Obama (a rising star).

Wanna guess who were at the top of the list for getting money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

432. Invictus - June 7, 2009

Might part of the reason banks were offering zero-down loans been that Bush suggested they do so:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040327.html

“I’m proposing that we make zero down payment loans available to first-time buyers whose mortgages are guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration.”

Is that where he was trying to “rein it in”?

433. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

“I know. Apparently Mostlyright is willing to do bitch work for bitches.

Likely a lower billable rate.”

No, just independently wealthy. I pay guys like you.

“Naw, Dave, MostlyRight is just still in the “sincere” phase of dealing with trolls. We’ve been there. It’s touching, really.

Me, I enjoy Geoff, who is seasoned in the art and is basically a sadist, or your approach, which is that every troll is a mine for comedy gold.”

I’ve had plenty experience with trolls…I just remain a blend of sadist, hopeful optimist, and comedy gold-miner. And I had an especially slow weekend.

434. Michael - June 7, 2009

Oh, not here, please. This has already wandering around enough.

Fuck. You’re right, Geoff, and I’m to blame for starting it.

Nothing gets my dander up like the CRA.

Well, net neutrality does that like the CRA.

Also, Lipstick’s feet arouse me, but in a different way.

435. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

Dave, I’ll waste my time as I see fit. You facist.

436. daveintexas - June 7, 2009

That’s what I do. You forgot an s.

You still thinking nobody can smell your bullshit?

437. Michael - June 7, 2009

Is that where he was trying to “rein it in”?

No, it was way later than 2004 when the Bush administration started getting scared about the risk being carried by Fannie Mae, and began reporting this to Congress and proposing controls to the committee chaired by Barney Frank.

438. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

Spelling Fascist too.

439. geoff - June 7, 2009

I see that Invictus has completely abandoned his original track of argument. The mark of the troll: never let yourself get hemmed in by the opposition – if they get too close, just change the subject.

440. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

Quick Geoff, you’d better post an article on the housing bubble so we can carry Round 2 over there. You’re right, this Stimulus chart post is too valuable to be tainted.

441. Michael - June 7, 2009

You still thinking nobody can smell your bullshit?

DUDE!

Don’t be scaring off a talented sockpuppet like that.

442. Retired Geezer - June 7, 2009

*Geezer attempts to run with the Big Dogs:

Oh Yeah, well the Democrats had control of congress for the past two and a half years.

*skips away, happily.

443. geoff - June 7, 2009

Quick Geoff, you’d better post an article on the housing bubble so we can carry Round 2 over there.

That’s Michael’s demesne. I have to save myself for health care and alternate energy.

444. geoff - June 7, 2009

So what was with the humongoid hiatus, RG?

445. Michael - June 7, 2009

That’s Michael’s demesne . . .

Don’t be talkin’ French about me, Chartboy.

446. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

Sockpuppet?…you old guys are sure tough on the new guys. Maybe I should have just “Shut up and sang” my first few months here, and stayed away from the controversy of being nice to a lefty.

“Shut up and sang”? Shit, that’s not gonna help.

447. Michael - June 7, 2009

Maybe I should have just “Shut up and sang” my first few months here . . .

No, not really.

Let me give you a tip. If you want some cred around here, there’s this chick commenter who shows up named LauraW. Just insult her lame ass every time she shows up.

448. Michael - June 7, 2009

Remember, the more vile and disgusting your insults to LauraW, the better she likes it.

449. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

I followed LauraW over here from Ace’s site, when she linked the stimulus May unemployment chart…that won’t help either I take it.

450. geoff - June 7, 2009

and stayed away from the controversy of being nice to a lefty.

These are tough times – everybody’s getting surly.

But engagements with the left always end badly. As soon as they’re put on the defensive they get mean. Especially the sad ones like Invictus, who apparently can’t let go of Bush. We’re more than 12% into Obama’s term, and they’re still fixated on Bush. I think they were sadder than we when Bush left.

Not that we were all that sad. It was Obama’s arrival that saddened us.

451. Michael - June 7, 2009

that won’t help either I take it

Nope — not until you take LauraW on and give her the sound thrashing she regularly deserves.

452. Charlie Brown's Teacher - June 7, 2009

Hwa hwwaaa….. hwa hwaahaa hhhwwwaaaaa.

Hwa hwa…. hwa hwa hwaaaaaa.

453. lauraw - June 7, 2009

Hey! What did I do?

Well, that’s IT, buddy.

I was going to make you a pie but now I’m giving it to Dave.

454. Michael - June 7, 2009

I was going to make you a pie but now I’m giving it to Dave.

Yeah right.

Dave was gonna get that pie anyway, and we all know it.

Heck, at my house, I get the pie leftovers when Dave leaves.

455. daveintexas - June 7, 2009

PIE! STAND BACK MUTHAFLUCKA!

456. Michael - June 7, 2009

Muthaflucka?

What’s that “l” doing in there?

457. BrewFan - June 7, 2009

This is the best thread we’ve had in a long time! Trolls, treason, and trollops. Life is good.

458. lauraw - June 7, 2009

He got all flustered and drooly. It happens. Kind of a normal Moronblogger thing.

*dabs at Dave with a tea towel*

He didn’t spit on you did he? Sometimes that stuff really flies.

459. daveintexas - June 7, 2009

thbibblesplurk

460. MostlyRight - June 7, 2009

I like pie.

461. Retired Geezer - June 7, 2009

OTOH, Mrs. Peel likes Pi.

462. Charlie Brown's Teacher - June 7, 2009

Mmmmmm….Hwa hwa hwa, hwaaaa.

463. Retired Geezer - June 7, 2009

Iranian media falls for Obama Blackberry hack hoax.

http://bit.ly/nJ478

464. Tushar - June 7, 2009

I was going to make you a pie but now I’m giving it to Dave.

Ha ha! In a contest over wimmin’s affection, DiT will beat Michael’s mule any day.

465. “Just Win, Baby”: The Unofficial Motto of the Democratic Party : The Sundries Shack - June 7, 2009

[...] You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone able to reasonably dispute that characterization. The Democrats’ main assertion, given voice by the President, is that all that spending was absolutely necessary to head off the horrors of 9 percent unemployment. [...]

466. WikiGold - Commentary » Blog Archive » Is the US economy heading for stagflation? - June 7, 2009

[...] April and May manufacturing alone shed 310,000 jobs. The chart below was produced by the blogger Innocent Bystander and reveals just how way out Obama’s economic advisors’ predictions [...]

467. Mrs. Peel - June 7, 2009

@424: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

In the words of my generation: “omg u r so retarded”

468. Stimulus isn’t working « Internet Scofflaw - June 7, 2009

[...] isn’t working What would an utterly failed stimulus plan look like? Something like this, [...]

469. EckerNet.Com » Blog Archive » Deep Thoughts With Kevin - June 7, 2009

[...] how is unemployment comparing to past estimates….well…I’m starting to think this whole stimulus idea was a bad idea….and by [...]

470. Michael - June 7, 2009

So far today, 118 hits on our “About” tab. Presumably, these were people who were curious about us.

Eh heh heh.

471. Lipstick - June 8, 2009

I hope they’re not too scarred by the experience.

472. Retired Geezer - June 8, 2009

^ Only the ones who watched our Official Music Video.

473. Vmaximus - June 8, 2009

We can push this thread to 500

Just sayin

474. Here’s A Chart You’re Not Likely To See on CNN « All The News That Fits - June 8, 2009

[...] From Innocent Bystanders, “The May Unemployment Numbers Are Here, And Worse Than Predicted&#82… [...]

475. Lipstick - June 8, 2009

Si se puede!

476. Pupster - June 8, 2009

McDonald’s Bacon, Egg and Cheese Biscuit is the perfect breakfast sandwich.

Their coffee still blows goats though.

477. Unemployment 17% Higher Than Obama Team Projection | Chicago Daily Observer - June 8, 2009

[...] HT Innocent Bystanders [...]

478. nicedeb - June 8, 2009

Red state has the chart, but didn’t link to you guys:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/06/08/barack-obamas-stimulus-is-not-stimulating/

479. BizzyBlog » Yep, Bush’s Econ Guys Blew Their Predictions - June 8, 2009

[...] it is, as a reminder, is that graph (from Michael’s Comments; HT BizzyBlog commenter [...]

480. Edward Von Bear - June 8, 2009

Deb:

At least they did attribute it to IB in the body of the graph.

481. geoff - June 8, 2009

At least they did attribute it to IB in the body of the graph.

I included the attribution at the suggestion of a commenter and the urging of several IBers.

482. Edward Von Bear - June 8, 2009

^I see.

483. bandit - June 8, 2009

IIRC these numbers are less 187,000 Gov’t sector jobs that were added in May so private employment was actually down > 500,000. Why were 187,000 gov’t jobs added? Who pays for those? That big screw in my chair really hurts!

484. MostlyRight - June 8, 2009

“So far today, 118 hits on our “About” tab. Presumably, these were people who were curious about us.”

Michael, make that at least 119, and suddenly I’m not so sure I should be hanging out here. I watched Dave’s video and the IB official theme song, and a recent post by Ed Morrissey over at HA regarding the value of blogger (ahem, commenter) anonymity kept coming to mind.

485. Retired Geezer - June 8, 2009

I’m confused, isn’t RedState a conservative site?

Why wouldn’t they credit Geoff?

486. Michael - June 8, 2009

Redstate linked us in a earlier article by Moe Lane. The post Deb saw was sort of a follow-up.

487. Cathy - June 8, 2009

RUSH LIMBAUGH has been emphasizing ALL DAY in his 3-hour program today that…

“WE MUST LINK OBAMA’S PLANS WITH HIS FAILURES.”

THIS GRAPH really HELPS support that very thing. Thanks again, Geoff.

488. Joey Buzz - June 8, 2009

Eddy, shouldnt you be out riding your Davidson Harley, or at lease mowing the lawn with your stratton & brigs powered Deere John?

489. Wheels within Wheels » Blog Archive » Mucho miscellany - June 8, 2009

[...] effective has the stimulus been? Not at all. Why? Because there’s been no stimulation yet. Looking at the graph at the first link, [...]

490. Correction to the May Unemployment Chart « Innocent Bystanders - June 8, 2009

[...] commenters both here and at other blogs have asked if the monthly markers show for April and May are lined up correctly. I had thought about it when I first made the chart, but I’ve come to [...]

491. Obama Administration: 9.4% Unemployment is a GOOD sign? || Change Barack! - June 8, 2009

Obama Administration: 9.4% Jobless Rate is a GOOD Sign? || Change Barack!…

So you can either listen to Goolsbee talk about how the \”smallest job less since September,\” or you can look at this chart comparing expected jobless rates versus the actual jobless rate. (Thanks: Innocent Bystanders)…

492. Unemployement Worse if We’d Had No Stimulus « Rantings of mine - June 8, 2009

[...] h/t Innocent Bystanderss Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Stimulus, We Just Sold Out Our Children’s FutureInvoking the 10th AmmendmentBut the Short Run Is Happening Now!White House defends optimistic stimulus model (AP) [...]

493. Predicted jobs nowhere to be found « The Lone Fortress - June 9, 2009

[...] No Comments As unemployment hits highs not seen for 25+ years, let’s review the <a href="http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/the-may-unemployment-numbers-are-here-and-worse-tha…">Obama Administration’s rosy predictions for their “Recovery Plan” [...]

494. Another jobless recovery? « The Lone Fortress - June 9, 2009
495. bob - June 9, 2009

Geoff: Regarding comment 91, it is admittedly a bit of a guess as to where to plot the individual rates, but after examining the monthly rates for 2007 and 2008 I think that the dotted vertical lines represent the end of each quarter (this is also consistent with the labeling of each year in the figure of the Romer and Bernstein report at the midpoint between Q1 and Q3). The unemployment rate hit 5% at the end of the first quarter of 2008, consistent with the dotted vertical line for Q1 of 2008 representing March of 2008. This is quibbling, because your graph conveys the message very clearly, and you cannot be accused of plotting the points to make the problem appear worse than it actually is. To be fair to Romer and Bernstein (which pains me), if my interpretation of the x-axis is correct, then they clearly underestimated the extent of the employment problem at the time they wrote their report.

496. geoff - June 9, 2009

bob: I came to agree with this interpretation yesterday and posted a correction last night. There’s a link at the top of this post to the new graph.

497. Vmaximus - June 9, 2009

497

498. Vmaximus - June 9, 2009

Anguilla?

499. Michael - June 9, 2009

Nicaragua is the latest.

OK, VMax, take it to the finish line.

How about a puppy picture?

500. hoboduke - June 9, 2009

I don’t understand. I saw on TV news that we are creating jobs! Probably creating jobs foradding Czars on President staff with each having their own staff to tell the Czars that the President plan will work if WE make more sacrifices! Great time to be a hobo, you working stiffs are on your own now.

501. Vmaximus - June 9, 2009

yeah!
Zeke laying in the flowers

DSC_2483

502. Артем - June 11, 2009

thanks this post. I made some adjustments

503. Where are the jobs? - Rob Curnock for Congress - June 11, 2009

[...] good information about the jobs situation is available here, here and [...]

504. Clan Webb » Blog Archive » Lies, Damn Lies, and Invented Metrics - June 11, 2009

[...] graph (with a description at Innocent Bystanders) explains it [...]

505. lauraw - June 14, 2009
506. Pupster - June 14, 2009

“Vice President Joe Biden says “everyone guessed wrong” on the impact of the economic stimulus.”

‘Everyone’ should be fired then, 100% unemployment would only be fair, to everyone.

507. US News Editorials - June 14, 2009

[...] site called Innocent Bystanders is doing the wonderful service of tracking unemployment numbers against the projections that the [...]

508. geoff - June 15, 2009

“Vice President Joe Biden says “everyone guessed wrong” on the impact of the economic stimulus.”

You gotta be kidding me. “Everyone” meaning “Obama’s team,” I guess.

509. Tushar - June 15, 2009

“Vice President Joe Biden says “everyone guessed wrong” on the impact of the economic stimulus.”

Most GOP senators and congressmen didn’t.

510. Obama’s Taking Us Down, an illustration « Stronger Than Death - June 15, 2009

[...] courtesy Innocent Bystanders [...]

511. Projection: It'll be years before jobs return to much of U.S. - SLUniverse Forums - June 18, 2009

[...] [...]

512. Dirty Democrats » Are You Feeling Stimulated? - June 22, 2009

[...] have been lost since Obama took office. He is claiming he will save 600,000 in the next 100 days. But given the graph below, I really have to ask myself if this dipshit has a freaking [...]

513. Weight loss program -er - June 22, 2009

Funny thing….I’m from Croatia and for a past 18 years my country is in deep shi#,we had war,after the war we had croocked government that detroyed our economics more than war did.

Point is- world is now in state that we are for a past 2 decades and the funny thing is -we have learned to live with it-no one is expecting any changes and everyone is finding some way to survive.

Example: i have relatives in USA and prices of food and gas are almost at half what we are paying here.
Average paycheck? 350-500$ you do the math.

Anyway Obama could do a lot for a whole World but don’t forgett that he is also only a man-don’t expect miracles.

514. lauraw - June 22, 2009

no one is expecting any changes and everyone is finding some way to survive.

That’s not the American Way.

The best way for Obama to do something for the whole world is to restore the US as an example of economic and political freedom. Our country did not become a beacon to the most industrious people on Earth by accident.

You may be happy to just suck it up and tolerate corruption and socialism, but we’re not.

515. geoff - June 22, 2009

we have learned to live with it-no one is expecting any changes and everyone is finding some way to survive.

You make it sound so good. Out point is that we don’t want to be reduced to your situation, where we’re struggling to survive. But that seems to be the direction we’re headed.

516. Cathy - June 22, 2009

Anyway Obama could do a lot for a whole World but don’t forgett that he is also only a man-don’t expect miracles.

Obama can do a lot of damage by THINKING that he is the savior of the world. That kind of arrogance is why we are in this position now.

Best thing he could do is realize that he and Washington MUST relinquish their need to regulate and control, allowing the free markets to return to their former health. Government clamps on the economy can not produce wealth. Creativity and risk taking from the private sector create wealth, jobs for others, and even more tax of those dollars that can be used for the greater good.

517. Cathy - June 22, 2009

Could somebody check the spamfilter? thanksKBye.

518. BizzyBlog » Joe Biden Explains It All - June 23, 2009

[...] as normal people define it, the carnage continues. The White House predicted that unemployment would peak at 8% if the stimulus plan passed, but it’s already at 9.4%. Obama has conceded that it will hit [...]

519. “Stimulus” Bill: Officially a Failure | DougJumper.com - June 28, 2009

[...] site called Innocent Bystanders is doing the wonderful service of tracking unemployment numbers against the projections that the [...]

520. Patterico’s Pontifications » Unemployment Rate at 9.4% - July 22, 2009

[...] more than 25 years, but the New York Times hopes this means the economy is turning around. Geoff at Innocent Bystanders notices other examples of the media’s efforts to portray May’s numbers in a positive [...]

521. retirement plan - July 25, 2009

its bad theres no doubt about that… my heart goes out to all you that lost their job, i just thank god i still have mine… retirement plan

522. The Rich CAN'T PAY for EVERYTHING (here it comes MIDDLECLASS) - Page 3 - FlyerTalk Forums - August 5, 2009

[...] are either making this up or else telling an outright untruth. Give me a tough one next time. That was easy. And a close one just for sh*ts and [...]

523. The Rich CAN'T PAY for EVERYTHING (here it comes MIDDLECLASS) - Page 3 - FlyerTalk Forums - August 5, 2009

[...] are either making this up or else telling an outright untruth. Give me a tough one next time. That was easy. And a close up just for sh*ts and giggles. Which brings me back to my original argument – if the [...]

524. The Unemployment Prediction for July « Innocent Bystanders - August 6, 2009

[...] The Unemployment Prediction for July August 6, 2009 Posted by geoff in News. trackback Tomorrow the Bureau of Labor Statistics will release the unemployment numbers for July. But in the past couple of months I’ve preceded the actual numbers release with an update based on the Bloomberg survey of economists. They’re normally not too far off, though the May prediction was off by quite a bit. [...]

525. IRA Rules - August 11, 2009

Theres no stopping unemployment.. no stopping it

526. A probably trite observation on ’stimulus’ jobs. - Moe_Lane’s blog - RedState web01.prod.theplanet.eaglepub.com 174.120.27.221 - August 13, 2009

[...] And that’s subject to debate: [...]

527. Not Exactly Stimulating - October 28, 2009

[...] Innocent Bystanders Hattip: [...]

528. Unemployment at 10.2% – can we stop spending money now? | Radio Vice Online - November 6, 2009

[...] The graph is courtesy innocentbystanders.net. [...]

529. Lessons Learned — White House Wary of Jobs Predictions « Innocent Bystanders - September 13, 2011

[...] is it possible that the White House got stung by an obscure little blog like this with charts by Geoff that went viral, got repeatedly linked by Ace, Instapundit and Hot Air, and eventually made it to conventional [...]

530. mql4 generator - November 17, 2011

I do agree with all of the ideas you have presented on your post. They’re very convincing and can definitely work. Still, the posts are very brief for starters. May you please lengthen them a bit from next time? Thank you for the post.

531. BrewFan - November 17, 2011

Is that you BiW?

532. geoff - November 17, 2011

*Goaded by the spambot, geoff sits down and starts tapping away at his keyboard…*

533. Dirty Texts Guys Want - January 28, 2013

[...] unless you feel like you did whenever you join us for our : Purimspiel Show and erotic after-party at the picture and say hello purchase and the type you make it too clear as to why you’re not going [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 199 other followers

%d bloggers like this: