FROM the 04-16-09 New Jersey Law Journal's Daily Briefing e-mail:
N.J. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE INCREASES SLIGHTLY IN MARCH
New Jersey's labor market continued to tighten in March as employment fell for the 14th consecutive month, the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development reported Wednesday. The unemployment rate moved up to 8.3 percent in March, from February's 8.2 percent. According to preliminary estimates from a monthly survey of employers, nonfarm wage and salary employment in the Garden State decreased by 17,200 jobs in March, to a total of 3,956,100. All losses were in the private sector (-17,400) as public sector employment rose by 200. The largest contractions occurred in leisure and hospitality, including the casino industry (-5,900); professional and business services (-4,600); manufacturing (-3,700); and trade, transportation and utilities (-1,800). The 8.2 percent N.J. rate compared with a U.S. rate of 8.5 percent.
Wow. Conservative predictions comming true? Liberal plans beginning to work?
Maybe not? But if not, please provide a sound explanation, and prediction for the future based on current policies and trends.
Fascinating! (And a bit scary.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Which conservative predictions are you referencing?
ReplyDeleteWhich liberal plans?
Conservative prediction that BO and Libs are about big government; against the private sector; and for building public reliance on the government.
ReplyDeleteLiberal plan to make this happen. (This part is not overt, but rather an outgrowth of a belief in heavy taxes, big government and massive regulation.)
I'm still not seeing a connection. Are you saying that job losses are a result of BO's and the Libs' efforts in that regard? That the collapse of the private employment segment is part of the Lib's plans?
ReplyDeleteBO's and the Libs' ostensible effort is to grow the economy. But their goal of doing this by raising taxes, growing the government, and trying to take control of industries does 2 things:
ReplyDelete1) It grows the government at the expense of stifling the private sector, thereby preventing the economy from growing. Case in point: NJ statistics in original post. The private sector is the economic engine. The government produces nothing. So how can, and why should, the government be growing (being fed by tax revenue from the private sector) when the private sector is collapsing from the economic hardship and increasing tax burden? This isn't speculation anymore, and doesn't have many other explanations (albeit some).
2) Given the history of what high taxes and big government accomplish, coupled with yesterday's NJ statistic to evidence that same point today, the larger impression of BO's and the Libs' efforts is that either A) they are dead wrong in their philosophy and should reverse course immediately (but they won't because they are too blind or too arrogant to do so), or B) as circumstances indicate, they are idealogs that have a bigger agenda of achieving control so that things will be the way they want them to be. (Option B requires some kind of a functioning economy.)
In support of point 2, see the article titled "Dimon Says He’s Eager to Repay ‘Scarlet Letter’ TARP (Update3)" in the link below (courtesy of Alexander Margolin.)
Why won't the government allow JPMorgan Chase & Co, as well as other banks, to pay back the rescue/stimulus money? Wouldn't we want it back sooner rather than later? The answer is because that's the best way the government can control them; like they already control 2 of the big 3 U.S. auto makers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&sid=aTZUMZmoc414
From the article: "Dimon [JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer], calling money received through the Troubled Asset Relief Program “a scarlet letter” and “the TARP baby,” said on a conference call with reporters today that the New York- based bank is awaiting guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department. “We could pay it back tomorrow,” he said. "
Personally, I don't care if it's option 2A or 2B above. What I'm in favor of is the government backing off from this aggressive course of increasing control via bailouts, consequential regulations, increased taxes, and increased spending.
Here's another gem:
U.S. Commits $13 Billion to Aid High-Speed Rail
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123989461947625407.html
1) In this time of financial distress, is the lack of a high speed rail system our biggest problem? No.
2) Do we need to spend the extra $13 Billion on this now? No.
3) Will taxes need to be increased to pay for this now? Yes.
4) Does this attempt to control social behavior? Absolutely. And this further supports the smaller car, no oil, agenda.
All indicators point to the conclusion that our new government is trying to take more control of things, and faster, than ever before. This is not good, and not the way it's supposed to be in this country. It's hard to maintain this course and keep refuting every piece of contrary evidence without falling into category 2A or 2B above.