>http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/creates--jobs-unemployment-rate-holds/

liberal propaganda

woops, 162,000 jobs, not 1692

Yep, lets see them try to work out this one.

This is due to the Bush Tax Cuts causing reinvestment in our economy. Typical nigger Obama is taking the credit for the Republicans getting us out of the recession.

>>517550
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hZrXdJ-ibo&feature=related

>>517550


Poe's law?

inb4 government manipulating data

unsurprisingly for Fox, while it is in their business section, the jobs figures are nowhere to be found on the front page.

And Jon Stewart pointed out last night the 700,000 of them were newly hired census takers so in reality there's no new jobs.

>>517533

>that Keynesian economics saved the world from the great depression 2?

You mean, the same Keynesian economics that CAUSED the recession in the first place?

First, see Harding & the 1921 crash.

Second, the part of Keynesian economics about government spending or releasing new money i'm partially fine with, even though history has shown that government isn't needed to solve crisis's ( 1921) AND that government can screw up BIGTIME when trying to fix crisis's ( 1929). The part of Keynesian economics that annoys me to no end is when the government stimulates the economy by artificially altering interest rates or misallocating capital from here to there. THIS policy of Keynesianism has been shown again and again to only create a bubble of economic growth that gets unsustainable, pops, and crashes the whole economy. The recent crisis was caused by the FED artificially lowering interest rates artificially. The bad thing is that politicians LOVE Keynes just for that part, since they can cause a small economic boom by altering interest rates, get re-elected, and when the bubble pops either blame the other party for it or blame the market.

>>517575

>about government spending or releasing new money DURING A CRISIS

Forgot to add that.

>>517575
Austrian economics expert detected.

>>517573
>>517573
>>517573
>>517573
>>517573
This. Census jobs will be gone soon enough.

At this rate, it will take 5 years for the US job numbers to return to pre-recession level

>>517573

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/economy/03jobs.html?hp

Even though 48,000 are census workers, that is still a gain. No one is pretending that this will be easy, but things are getting better.

You know what's great about Keynesian economic policies (which haven't been used properly in the US ever)?

They always work.

Really, they do. All you have to do is dump some money on the economy with payoffs to this group or that company and wait. Then any growth can be tenuously linked to that infinitesimally small expenditure (in economy terms, not in government deficit terms).

>>517573

The economy gained 160k jobs, of which about 50k are census jobs.

It's still pretty good news.

>>517580
except that's he's right about the interests rates being too damn low for too damn long.

>>517573
> implying Jon Stewart doesn't exaggerate all sorts of things for comedic effect.

And conservatives accuse liberals of trying to get serious information from the daily show.

>>517573

Yes, 48 thousand where census workers, less than was expected, which meant the figures fell short of the 190k forecast.

but even minus the census figures, it's still a 114k increase in private sector jobs, the largest increase in 3 years.

>>517575

>>517604
>I have nothing intelligent to respond with, so here's a image macro.

>>517612

>>I am butthurt because my economic philosophy is pure fantasy

>>517627
The austrian school might have some good points if it's practitioners actually talked about what it is instead of blindly hating and bashing Keynesian economic theory.

Keynes > Austrian for this reason.

>>517597
does this count illegals?

>>517604

Never read anything about Ayn Rand and don't give a fuck about her "Objectivist" crap or her rape-fantasies, sorry bud.
And i don't think private business should have "no restrictions" either. Free Market = Limited government control, NOT zero government control. Learn the difference.

>>517592

Are you insane? The last few decades are a monument to Keynesian economics policies of manipulation of interest rates + government allocation of capital being a gigantic failure.

>>517575
>You mean, the same Keynesian economics that CAUSED the recession in the first place?

I'm pretty sure that deregulation of the market caused the recession. Also, the 1920s had nothing to do with regulation. People were buying stocks on credit; and in 1929, Hoover decided to let the free market fix the crash, causing things to get worse.

>>517638
How the fuck would it count illegals bro.

Establishment Survey:Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 162,000 in March, and the unemployment rate held at 9.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

Temporary help services and health care continued to add jobs over the month.Employment in federal government also rose, reflecting the hiring of temporary workers for Census 2010. Employment continued to decline in financial activities and in information.

Household Survey
In March, the number of unemployed persons was little changed at 15.0 million,
and the unemployment rate remained at 9.7 percent. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (10.0 per-
cent), adult women (8.0 percent), teenagers (26.1 percent), whites (8.8 per-
cent), blacks (16.5 percent), and Hispanics (12.6 percent) showed little or no
change in March. The jobless rate for Asians was 7.5 percent, not seasonally
adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) in-
creased by 414,000 over the month to 6.5 million. In March, 44.1 percent of
unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more. (See table A-12.)

And by the way, that 44% unemployed for 27 weeks or more is the highest since records were kept on duration of unemployment. In the 1982 recession, with unemployment rates as high, only 25% hit that category.

The government added 40,000 jobs net last month, hiring for the Census. They will end up hiring 100,000 but that won't move the unemployment numbers.

At this rate, it will take 3 years to get to 6% unemployment if nobody enters the labor force. With 100,000 new entrants a month, it would take 8 years.

>>517533

Yes only to lay the groundwork for great depression 3, which will be even worse.

>>517550
Then, according to that logic, none of the economy is Obama's fault. Which is it going to be? Or are you comfortable sitting in a backwards reality void of all facts inconvenient to your agenda? I think the answer is quite clear.

>>517638


i dont think so, but i'm not 100% on that

>>517646
The funniest thing is Keynes' general theory of economics was published in 1936, however he is somehow responsible for the crash that happened in the 1920's. Which is just another case of intellectual dishonesty from the Austrian school of lairs.

>>517649
I DONT KNOW THATS WHY I AM ASKING GOD DAMNIT

>>517646
It wasn't just 3 decades of deregulation, it was the regulators being asleep at the wheel. Also regulation vs competition, etc. Furthermore, artificially low interest rates, and thusly artificially inflated housing costs.

If you look at the most very basic factors, the housing bubble was exactly like the lead up to the great depression- Using credit to buy something that didn't have the value you expected it to gain in the short term.

>>517636

>The austrian school might have some good points if it's practitioners actually talked about what it is instead of blindly hating and bashing Keynesian economic theory.

You know, in >>517575 i actually said that the government-trying-to-fix-crisis part of Keynesian economics works ( as long as done right) and only bashed the lowering-interest-rates-and-artificially-stimulating-the-economy part.

... And i admit i don't know much about the Austrian theory., which is why i don't claim to support the Austrians, just not-support the Keynesians.

>>517662

Why do they call it the austrian school?

>>517636
>QQ
>>517627
see
>>517592

lost tons of jobs paying decent money
new jobs all pay min wage

>>517646

>and in 1929, Hoover decided to let the free market fix the crash

Are you insane? Hoover was highly critical of Laissez-Faire thinking, he put wage floors, massive tariffs on imported goods, debt spent like mad & raised taxes, and he centralized the economy so much that FDR's running mate accused him of being a Socialist.

The one that DID let the free market fix the crisis was Harding in 1921, and it worked fine.

Also, the recent crisis, deregulation? ROFL.

We had the FED altering interest rates, laws forcing some banks to give loans regardless of how risky or the persons credit card history, Freddie and Fannie, government-foundations, owned 1/2 of the mortgage market and 2/3rds of all new mortgages at one point, government-funded fractional reserve banking that sends false signals into the economy, government-monopoly over fiat money ( too sending false signals), banks had a false sense of security because of Corporate welfare policies, and the crisis was caused by "deregulation", yeah right.
Central bank irreleavant, greed did it.

>>517662

Lrn2read faggot.

I didn't say Keynes caused the crash on 1921 retard, i'm just pointing out that Harding took a "hands off" approach to the 1921 crash ( which was bigger than the initial 1929 crash BTW), and the economy recovered in less than a year.
Please, point out WHERE did i say the 1920 crash was caused by Keynesian economics in anyway?

>>517706


You know, this is all just baseless speculation, but i'd be willing to bet that if the stimulus had not been passed, if a "hands off" approach had been taken, job losses would probably still be accelerating, rather than actually having the economy gain jobs.

This is a very good result for the US economy, nobody can spin it otherwise.

Pic related. Y axis, global industrial output.

>billions of dollars spent
>less than 2000 jobs created in one month
>this this is really that big of an improvement

oh liberals

daily dose

>>517738

>>less than 2000 jobs
>>missed

>>517539

>>517734

But the economy is not fixed, all they did was throw money at it, eventually that money will be spent, deteriorated due to inflation and moved outside the country by means of trade deficit, and our fundamental flaws will still be present.

>>517743


Needs updating, it;s even better now.

Inb4 Republicans claim that 162,000 jobs is a bad result

>>517752
Induring liberals ignore the census workers and the "projections" that there would be 300k new jobs.

>>517751

Financial regulation overhaul in the pipeline

>>517758


48 thousand census worker

162k minus 48k still equals 114k jobs growth in the private sector.

300k is a forecas made by some, the general consensus was around 190-200k, and the smaller than expected census job figures account for this. You're an idiot if you think that this is not a good result

>>517655
I guess my post had too many numbers and facts for anyone to parse it for troll fodder.

:(

>>517734

First, >>517751

Second, see >>517575

Even as a Libertarian i am OK if the government releases a stimulus or tries to fix the economy in a time of need AS LONG AS IT WORKS ( and history has shown it rarely works when they get involved...), the part of Keynesian economics that annoys me is the Artificially-Lowering interest rates & government stimulating the economy and spending not in times of need in general ( which were what CAUSED the recent crisis. You know, Keynes's ideas were not supposed to be for general use, they were to be used during times of crisis).

>>517769
So you made between just over 1/2 to just under 1/3 of your goal. That's not a win. Is a gain of 100,000 jobs better than a loss of even 1? Yes. But,
>>517655 At this rate, it will take 3 years to get to 6% unemployment if nobody enters the labor force. With 100,000 new entrants a month, it would take 8 years.

>>517533
HEY FAGGOTS

If you spend $800 BILLION DOLLARS, of course jobs are going to be created but it is government created jobs and government substained - meaning as soon as those govt dollars are spent, those jobs go away.

The conservative butthurt itt is astonishing.

ITT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

My face when everyone concentrates on job growth when the percentage of unemployed hasn't changed.

>>517815
Well maybe you white trash losers shoudl stop pumping out kids and go find a fucking job.

>>517801

way to contribute.
typical.

>massive tariffs on imported goods

WAIT HOW IS THIS BAD FOR A LOCAL ECONOMY?

HOLY SHIT I AM BEING TROLLED

>>517815

The percentage of employment hasn't changed because unemployment figures only ever count the unemployed who are actively seeking work. Counting the unemployed also not actively seeking work takes the rate up to something like 16%

That the economy had a net gain of jobs AND rate remained steady means that more people have started actively searching for jobs again, so this is actually a good thing.

>>517815
How is that possible?

>>517835

pray tell how do you determine who is actively looking for jobs? You ask every single jobless person?

ITT: People who believe a single US president over a period of 1 - 8 years can have a huge effect on long term economics

>>517845


No, I don't personally do that, but the Bureau of Labor Stastics has methods of working it out, I don't know what they are, and no they don't ask every single american if they are employed or not, they take a sample and work it out from there, much like opinion polling. They aren't 100% reliable, and often get revised up or down, but they are often around the right mark and it's the trend they show over long periods that is the important thing

>>517845
Household surveys. Go to college, they explain this in full and even emphasis that it isn't the most accurate method.

Uneducated Americans trying to tell people how the economy works and you wonder why we had this recession.

>>517855
We're not talking long term economics. We're talking about month to month employment.

>>517835
>The percentage of employment hasn't changed because unemployment figures only ever count the unemployed who are actively seeking work.

The unemployment rate rose :

'Still, more Americans said they were working part-time even though they preferred full-time work. When they and discouraged workers who have given up searching for jobs are included, the "underemployment" rate ticked up to 16.9 percent from 16.8 percent.'

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gNiyJ905Ho0Ur96V2TQhsBX19lGwD9EQUS9O3