[Mick]

884,000 initial unemployment claims this week against an expected level of 850,000.  Continuing claims in one measure is 13.385 million, a 93k increase from last week.  The running total of lives ruined is currently 59 million people who have been laid off or furloughed since March 21. At least the new $4 trillion government COVID stimulus program was just passed. Just kidding. Made you look. The government doesn't give that much of a damn about the weakest, most vulnerable members of society.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/10/us-weekl...ected.html

Of great concern is the fact that over 29 million people are still receiving a government unemployment check of one kind or another (in total).  The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending August 22 was 29,605,064, an increase of 380,379 from the previous week. There were 1,591,456 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2019.  So I don't know why the unemployment rate is 9.2% when 19% of the workforce is receiving an unemployment check. 

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

If you want to crunch your own numbers:

https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp

[Mick]

884,000 initial unemployment claims this week against an expected level of 850,000.  Continuing claims in one measure is 13.385 million, a 93k increase from last week.  The running total of lives ruined is currently 59 million people who have been laid off or furloughed since March 21. At least the new $4 trillion government COVID stimulus program was just passed. Just kidding. Made you look. The government doesn't give that much of a damn about the weakest, most vulnerable members of society.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/10/us-weekl...ected.html

Of great concern is the fact that over 29 million people are still receiving a government unemployment check of one kind or another (in total).  The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending August 22 was 29,605,064, an increase of 380,379 from the previous week. There were 1,591,456 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2019.  So I don't know why the unemployment rate is 9.2% when 19% of the workforce is receiving an unemployment check. 

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

If you want to crunch your own numbers:

https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp

[2006alum]

So depressing, and the inaction has been stunning even for someone who's grown as cynical as I have.

[2006alum]

So depressing, and the inaction has been stunning even for someone who's grown as cynical as I have.

[OutsiderFan]

As was expected, my SO was laid off yesterday from The Hartford, along with a colleague. I don't know how many the company is whacking in total, but the travel, event, restaurant, and recreation industries are getting absolutely eviscerated.

The economic news is going to get way worse before it gets better. The Hartford layoffs don't become official until Oct. 1, when tens of thousands of airline jobs will go up in smoke.

The real unemployment rate is way higher than 9% now, and will be going higher.  Just like the "inflation rate" is like 2% when you and I know it is WAY more than that. 

The stock market has a "V-shaped" recovery built into equity valuations now.  When people realize it ain't happening, look out below. 

The central banks are propping up markets by printing money like it's going out of style, then buying equities to pump up stock valuations. This is so reckless and irresponsible:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Schuldensuehner/status/1303555732604727296[/tweet]

[OutsiderFan]

As was expected, my SO was laid off yesterday from The Hartford, along with a colleague. I don't know how many the company is whacking in total, but the travel, event, restaurant, and recreation industries are getting absolutely eviscerated.

The economic news is going to get way worse before it gets better. The Hartford layoffs don't become official until Oct. 1, when tens of thousands of airline jobs will go up in smoke.

The real unemployment rate is way higher than 9% now, and will be going higher.  Just like the "inflation rate" is like 2% when you and I know it is WAY more than that. 

The stock market has a "V-shaped" recovery built into equity valuations now.  When people realize it ain't happening, look out below. 

The central banks are propping up markets by printing money like it's going out of style, then buying equities to pump up stock valuations. This is so reckless and irresponsible:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Schuldensuehner/status/1303555732604727296[/tweet]

[chrisk]

Many of the people receiving pandemic assistance are probably not “looking” for a job. They are usually self-employed or gig workers who are waiting for their normal activity to resume.

[chrisk]

Many of the people receiving pandemic assistance are probably not “looking” for a job. They are usually self-employed or gig workers who are waiting for their normal activity to resume.

[Mick]

Many of the people receiving pandemic assistance are probably not “looking” for a job.  They are usually self-employed or gig workers who are waiting for their normal activity to resume.

Self employed workers are not typically eligible for unemployment benefits.  The government made them eligible for federal assistance under the CARES act, but I believe that ran out July 31.  So gig workers are probably not among the 29 million+ that are receiving government checks.

[Mick]

Many of the people receiving pandemic assistance are probably not “looking” for a job.  They are usually self-employed or gig workers who are waiting for their normal activity to resume.

Self employed workers are not typically eligible for unemployment benefits.  The government made them eligible for federal assistance under the CARES act, but I believe that ran out July 31.  So gig workers are probably not among the 29 million+ that are receiving government checks.

[Mick]

Many of the people receiving pandemic assistance are probably not “looking” for a job.  They are usually self-employed or gig workers who are waiting for their normal activity to resume.

Self employed workers are not typically eligible for unemployment benefits.  The government made them eligible for federal assistance under the CARES act, but I believe that ran out July 31.  So gig workers are probably not among the 29 million+ that are receiving government checks.

Gig worker jobless claim nightmare:
https://theweek.com/speedreads/936842/jo...y-red-flag

Stock Market is detached from the current economic slump:
https://www.thehour.com/opinion/article/...556189.php

Broadway storefront vacancies up more than 75%
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/09/10/...e-than-75/

[Mick]

Many of the people receiving pandemic assistance are probably not “looking” for a job.  They are usually self-employed or gig workers who are waiting for their normal activity to resume.

Self employed workers are not typically eligible for unemployment benefits.  The government made them eligible for federal assistance under the CARES act, but I believe that ran out July 31.  So gig workers are probably not among the 29 million+ that are receiving government checks.

Gig worker jobless claim nightmare:
https://theweek.com/speedreads/936842/jo...y-red-flag

Stock Market is detached from the current economic slump:
https://www.thehour.com/opinion/article/...556189.php

Broadway storefront vacancies up more than 75%
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/09/10/...e-than-75/

[BostonCard]

Missed your weekly update...

https://www.axios.com/unemployment-numbe...ntent=1100

We seem to be stuck at about 850,000 weekly claims.  And now individuals are migrating from state unemployment assistance to expanded unemployment assistance.

A second pandemic program pays 13 additional weeks of benefits to individuals who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits. Enrollment in that program rose to 1.5 million in the Aug. 29 week, its highest recorded level. That is consistent with recipients migrating from state programs, where enrollment is falling.

BC

[BostonCard]

Missed your weekly update...

https://www.axios.com/unemployment-numbe...ntent=1100

We seem to be stuck at about 850,000 weekly claims.  And now individuals are migrating from state unemployment assistance to expanded unemployment assistance.

A second pandemic program pays 13 additional weeks of benefits to individuals who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits. Enrollment in that program rose to 1.5 million in the Aug. 29 week, its highest recorded level. That is consistent with recipients migrating from state programs, where enrollment is falling.

BC

[Mick]

Missed your weekly update...

https://www.axios.com/unemployment-numbe...ntent=1100

We seem to be stuck at about 850,000 weekly claims.  And now individuals are migrating from state unemployment assistance to expanded unemployment assistance.

A second pandemic program pays 13 additional weeks of benefits to individuals who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits. Enrollment in that program rose to 1.5 million in the Aug. 29 week, its highest recorded level. That is consistent with recipients migrating from state programs, where enrollment is falling.

BC

860,000 new unemployment claims, down from 893,000 last week.   The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending August 29 was 29,768,326, an increase of 98,456 from the previous week. There were 1,498,917 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2019.

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

Sort of mind-numbing, isn't it?

[Mick]

Missed your weekly update...

https://www.axios.com/unemployment-numbe...ntent=1100

We seem to be stuck at about 850,000 weekly claims.  And now individuals are migrating from state unemployment assistance to expanded unemployment assistance.

A second pandemic program pays 13 additional weeks of benefits to individuals who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits. Enrollment in that program rose to 1.5 million in the Aug. 29 week, its highest recorded level. That is consistent with recipients migrating from state programs, where enrollment is falling.

BC

860,000 new unemployment claims, down from 893,000 last week.   The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending August 29 was 29,768,326, an increase of 98,456 from the previous week. There were 1,498,917 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2019.

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

Sort of mind-numbing, isn't it?

[Hurlburt88]

I am struggling to square my experience to these numbers and to academic research.   In 4 sites:   PHoenix, Green Bay, Chicago, and Detroit I can't find enough workers--both skilled and unskilled.  Last week traveling on vacation across North Dakota a number of restaurants were closed due to lack of workers.  I wonder if we need to really focus on money for re-skilling and even relocation?

[Hurlburt88]

I am struggling to square my experience to these numbers and to academic research.   In 4 sites:   PHoenix, Green Bay, Chicago, and Detroit I can't find enough workers--both skilled and unskilled.  Last week traveling on vacation across North Dakota a number of restaurants were closed due to lack of workers.  I wonder if we need to really focus on money for re-skilling and even relocation?

[Mick]

I am struggling to square my experience to these numbers and to academic research.   In 4 sites:   Phoenix, Green Bay, Chicago, and Detroit I can't find enough workers--both skilled and unskilled.  Last week traveling on vacation across North Dakota a number of restaurants were closed due to lack of workers.  I wonder if we need to really focus on money for re-skilling and even relocation?

Interesting.  Detroit's unemployment rate is 20.30%, which squares with my experience when I lived there from 2015 to 2019.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/detroit_m...yment_rate

Chicago's unemployment rate is 15.0%.  It was under 4.0% about a year ago.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/chicago_i...yment_rate

Phoenix is odd, given that its unemployment rate is 11.20%.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/phoenix_a...yment_rate

Green Bay surprises me a little bit.  Rate was as low as 2.5%, skied to 13.3%, was 7.0% in July:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GREE555UR

I understand Green Bay, a little bit.  I don't quite understand the difficulty of finding unskilled labor in the other cities.

[Mick]

I am struggling to square my experience to these numbers and to academic research.   In 4 sites:   Phoenix, Green Bay, Chicago, and Detroit I can't find enough workers--both skilled and unskilled.  Last week traveling on vacation across North Dakota a number of restaurants were closed due to lack of workers.  I wonder if we need to really focus on money for re-skilling and even relocation?

Interesting.  Detroit's unemployment rate is 20.30%, which squares with my experience when I lived there from 2015 to 2019.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/detroit_m...yment_rate

Chicago's unemployment rate is 15.0%.  It was under 4.0% about a year ago.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/chicago_i...yment_rate

Phoenix is odd, given that its unemployment rate is 11.20%.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/phoenix_a...yment_rate

Green Bay surprises me a little bit.  Rate was as low as 2.5%, skied to 13.3%, was 7.0% in July:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GREE555UR

I understand Green Bay, a little bit.  I don't quite understand the difficulty of finding unskilled labor in the other cities.

[OutsiderFan]

Maybe people in North Dakota have realized their money will soon have no value and are finding other ways to support themselves? I know this seems crazy, but we are on the path to hyperinflation if the Fed doesn’t stop printing money to buy assets nobody wants and continue artificially inflating the stock market.

At some point, people are just going to have to accept massive losses. They can come in the form of bankruptcies that result in creditors losing money they thought they were getting. They can come in the form of massive taxing events. They can come in the form of holding the bag after buying equities much higher than you find them currently worth. 

We seem to have this mindset that we can get out of debt by printing money. It’s almost like central banks have realized it’s easier to devalue currency and slowly deliver pain to people over time, than it is to allow massive metaphorical financial earthquakes to re-set the landscape.

[OutsiderFan]

Maybe people in North Dakota have realized their money will soon have no value and are finding other ways to support themselves? I know this seems crazy, but we are on the path to hyperinflation if the Fed doesn’t stop printing money to buy assets nobody wants and continue artificially inflating the stock market.

At some point, people are just going to have to accept massive losses. They can come in the form of bankruptcies that result in creditors losing money they thought they were getting. They can come in the form of massive taxing events. They can come in the form of holding the bag after buying equities much higher than you find them currently worth. 

We seem to have this mindset that we can get out of debt by printing money. It’s almost like central banks have realized it’s easier to devalue currency and slowly deliver pain to people over time, than it is to allow massive metaphorical financial earthquakes to re-set the landscape.

[Mick]

Maybe people in North Dakota have realized their money will soon have no value and are finding other ways to support themselves? I know this seems crazy, but we are on the path to hyperinflation if the Fed doesn’t stop printing money to buy assets nobody wants and continue artificially inflating the stock market.

At some point, people are just going to have to accept massive losses. They can come in the form of bankruptcies that result in creditors losing money they thought they were getting. They can come in the form of massive taxing events. They can come in the form of holding the bag after buying equities much higher than you find them currently worth. 

We seem to have this mindset that we can get out of debt by printing money. It’s almost like central banks have realized it’s easier to devalue currency and slowly deliver pain to people over time, than it is to allow massive metaphorical financial earthquakes to re-set the landscape.

I'll be curious to see how the Dems choose to address this.  Will they raise enormous taxes on the wealthy, the upper class, the upper-middle class, less so for the middle class, and not quite as much for the lower-middle class?  I don't really see any other way to get there.  Confiscatory estate taxes?  I would imagine so.  Anything that nudges us towards Socialism.

[Mick]

Maybe people in North Dakota have realized their money will soon have no value and are finding other ways to support themselves? I know this seems crazy, but we are on the path to hyperinflation if the Fed doesn’t stop printing money to buy assets nobody wants and continue artificially inflating the stock market.

At some point, people are just going to have to accept massive losses. They can come in the form of bankruptcies that result in creditors losing money they thought they were getting. They can come in the form of massive taxing events. They can come in the form of holding the bag after buying equities much higher than you find them currently worth. 

We seem to have this mindset that we can get out of debt by printing money. It’s almost like central banks have realized it’s easier to devalue currency and slowly deliver pain to people over time, than it is to allow massive metaphorical financial earthquakes to re-set the landscape.

I'll be curious to see how the Dems choose to address this.  Will they raise enormous taxes on the wealthy, the upper class, the upper-middle class, less so for the middle class, and not quite as much for the lower-middle class?  I don't really see any other way to get there.  Confiscatory estate taxes?  I would imagine so.  Anything that nudges us towards Socialism.

[OutsiderFan]

Maybe people in North Dakota have realized their money will soon have no value and are finding other ways to support themselves? I know this seems crazy, but we are on the path to hyperinflation if the Fed doesn’t stop printing money to buy assets nobody wants and continue artificially inflating the stock market.

At some point, people are just going to have to accept massive losses. They can come in the form of bankruptcies that result in creditors losing money they thought they were getting. They can come in the form of massive taxing events. They can come in the form of holding the bag after buying equities much higher than you find them currently worth. 

We seem to have this mindset that we can get out of debt by printing money. It’s almost like central banks have realized it’s easier to devalue currency and slowly deliver pain to people over time, than it is to allow massive metaphorical financial earthquakes to re-set the landscape.

I'll be curious to see how the Dems choose to address this.  Will they raise enormous taxes on the wealthy, the upper class, the upper-middle class, less so for the middle class, and not quite as much for the lower-middle class?  I don't really see any other way to get there.  Confiscatory estate taxes?  I would imagine so.  Anything that nudges us towards Socialism.

I have an idea, let's not call things that aren't socialism "Socialism."

Socialism is the government owning the means of production. Cuba is a socialist country. Even China isn't.  So let's make sure to use the correct terms so the correct discussion can happen, unless you want to argue there are people in the United States in positions of power who want to become Cuba?

No, what the United States is, is a welfare state that doesn't raise enough money to pay for its outlays, be it in the form of direct payments or tax reductions. Social Security and Medicare are the most solvent welfare programs we have because they are paid for through consistent payments. The percentage contribution rate hasn't increased since the 1980s. People claim those programs are at risk of going bankrupt.  Yes, they will, if contribution inputs aren't adjusted to reflect the inflation that has happened since they were last adjusted. We have other federal programs like WIC (food stamps) to make sure we feed people who can't afford to eat otherwise. Then states have their own welfare programs.

Then you have corporate welfare. That's subsidies to ADM to grow crops nobody wants. That's tax breaks to oil companies for drilling wells. That's lower taxes on corporate profits. That's allowing companies to do business in the U.S. and have their HQ in Bermuda so they don't have to pay the full tax bill they would pay if their HQ was in the U.S. That's bailouts to companies who gambled and lost.

What do you want to do Mick?  Print more money or tax more? Because people need to eat and be sheltered. Those are the only two choices.  I'd argue taxing existing money is way more in the interest of the masses than making our money worthless by printing and giving away more.

One thing that should terrify everyone is that China is reducing its U.S. debt.  For a long time China was always a reliable buyer of treasuries. If they stop, the only alternative for the U.S. to raise money other than taxes is to print even more money and buy U.S. treasuries. They call it "Quantitative Easing" to make it sound highbrow when in fact it literally is just printing money and giving it to the government. 

Our deficit is greater than our GDP now. I don't think most people truly understand how terrible of a place we are in.

[OutsiderFan]

Maybe people in North Dakota have realized their money will soon have no value and are finding other ways to support themselves? I know this seems crazy, but we are on the path to hyperinflation if the Fed doesn’t stop printing money to buy assets nobody wants and continue artificially inflating the stock market.

At some point, people are just going to have to accept massive losses. They can come in the form of bankruptcies that result in creditors losing money they thought they were getting. They can come in the form of massive taxing events. They can come in the form of holding the bag after buying equities much higher than you find them currently worth. 

We seem to have this mindset that we can get out of debt by printing money. It’s almost like central banks have realized it’s easier to devalue currency and slowly deliver pain to people over time, than it is to allow massive metaphorical financial earthquakes to re-set the landscape.

I'll be curious to see how the Dems choose to address this.  Will they raise enormous taxes on the wealthy, the upper class, the upper-middle class, less so for the middle class, and not quite as much for the lower-middle class?  I don't really see any other way to get there.  Confiscatory estate taxes?  I would imagine so.  Anything that nudges us towards Socialism.

I have an idea, let's not call things that aren't socialism "Socialism."

Socialism is the government owning the means of production. Cuba is a socialist country. Even China isn't.  So let's make sure to use the correct terms so the correct discussion can happen, unless you want to argue there are people in the United States in positions of power who want to become Cuba?

No, what the United States is, is a welfare state that doesn't raise enough money to pay for its outlays, be it in the form of direct payments or tax reductions. Social Security and Medicare are the most solvent welfare programs we have because they are paid for through consistent payments. The percentage contribution rate hasn't increased since the 1980s. People claim those programs are at risk of going bankrupt.  Yes, they will, if contribution inputs aren't adjusted to reflect the inflation that has happened since they were last adjusted. We have other federal programs like WIC (food stamps) to make sure we feed people who can't afford to eat otherwise. Then states have their own welfare programs.

Then you have corporate welfare. That's subsidies to ADM to grow crops nobody wants. That's tax breaks to oil companies for drilling wells. That's lower taxes on corporate profits. That's allowing companies to do business in the U.S. and have their HQ in Bermuda so they don't have to pay the full tax bill they would pay if their HQ was in the U.S. That's bailouts to companies who gambled and lost.

What do you want to do Mick?  Print more money or tax more? Because people need to eat and be sheltered. Those are the only two choices.  I'd argue taxing existing money is way more in the interest of the masses than making our money worthless by printing and giving away more.

One thing that should terrify everyone is that China is reducing its U.S. debt.  For a long time China was always a reliable buyer of treasuries. If they stop, the only alternative for the U.S. to raise money other than taxes is to print even more money and buy U.S. treasuries. They call it "Quantitative Easing" to make it sound highbrow when in fact it literally is just printing money and giving it to the government. 

Our deficit is greater than our GDP now. I don't think most people truly understand how terrible of a place we are in.

[oregontim]

I'll be curious to see how the Dems choose to address this.  Will they raise enormous taxes on the wealthy, the upper class, the upper-middle class, less so for the middle class, and not quite as much for the lower-middle class?  I don't really see any other way to get there.  Confiscatory estate taxes?  I would imagine so.  Anything that nudges us towards Socialism.

There is obvious low-hanging fruit there, if we have the political will. We've screwed up the fundamentals on progressive taxation. Our highest rates are about 50% including both federal and state taxes, and they kick in at less than a million dollars. First go back to realistic graduated rates going up to 70% or more on incomes of X million or more. Then increase inheritance taxes substantially for amounts over $Y million or so. Add a net wealth tax that kicks in at Z million.

We could argue the right numbers for X, Y, and Z. But conceptually it's a no brainer. IMO.

If only it were that easy. I think the underlying problem is that for decades we've failed to control political contributions. Now wealth = political power = the winners of the game are the ones who have to change it. And it's not in their interest.

And I see this leaking into all of the national soul, which we can see in the leadership failure that's hurt us so badly with Covid-19. Our leaders depend on campaign contributions. They aren't the best or the brightest. And division works. More than a third of the country is convinced (by our leadership) that the dangers of Covid-19 are exaggerated. And that's a campaign strategy now.

[oregontim]

I'll be curious to see how the Dems choose to address this.  Will they raise enormous taxes on the wealthy, the upper class, the upper-middle class, less so for the middle class, and not quite as much for the lower-middle class?  I don't really see any other way to get there.  Confiscatory estate taxes?  I would imagine so.  Anything that nudges us towards Socialism.

There is obvious low-hanging fruit there, if we have the political will. We've screwed up the fundamentals on progressive taxation. Our highest rates are about 50% including both federal and state taxes, and they kick in at less than a million dollars. First go back to realistic graduated rates going up to 70% or more on incomes of X million or more. Then increase inheritance taxes substantially for amounts over $Y million or so. Add a net wealth tax that kicks in at Z million.

We could argue the right numbers for X, Y, and Z. But conceptually it's a no brainer. IMO.

If only it were that easy. I think the underlying problem is that for decades we've failed to control political contributions. Now wealth = political power = the winners of the game are the ones who have to change it. And it's not in their interest.

And I see this leaking into all of the national soul, which we can see in the leadership failure that's hurt us so badly with Covid-19. Our leaders depend on campaign contributions. They aren't the best or the brightest. And division works. More than a third of the country is convinced (by our leadership) that the dangers of Covid-19 are exaggerated. And that's a campaign strategy now.

[Mick]

Maybe people in North Dakota have realized their money will soon have no value and are finding other ways to support themselves? I know this seems crazy, but we are on the path to hyperinflation if the Fed doesn’t stop printing money to buy assets nobody wants and continue artificially inflating the stock market.

At some point, people are just going to have to accept massive losses. They can come in the form of bankruptcies that result in creditors losing money they thought they were getting. They can come in the form of massive taxing events. They can come in the form of holding the bag after buying equities much higher than you find them currently worth. 

We seem to have this mindset that we can get out of debt by printing money. It’s almost like central banks have realized it’s easier to devalue currency and slowly deliver pain to people over time, than it is to allow massive metaphorical financial earthquakes to re-set the landscape.

I'll be curious to see how the Dems choose to address this.  Will they raise enormous taxes on the wealthy, the upper class, the upper-middle class, less so for the middle class, and not quite as much for the lower-middle class?  I don't really see any other way to get there.  Confiscatory estate taxes?  I would imagine so.  Anything that nudges us towards Socialism.

I have an idea, let's not call things that aren't socialism "Socialism."

Socialism is the government owning the means of production. Cuba is a socialist country. Even China isn't.  So let's make sure to use the correct terms so the correct discussion can happen, unless you want to argue there are people in the United States in positions of power who want to become Cuba?

No, what the United States is, is a welfare state that doesn't raise enough money to pay for its outlays, be it in the form of direct payments or tax reductions. Social Security and Medicare are the most solvent welfare programs we have because they are paid for through consistent payments. The percentage contribution rate hasn't increased since the 1980s. People claim those programs are at risk of going bankrupt.  Yes, they will, if contribution inputs aren't adjusted to reflect the inflation that has happened since they were last adjusted. We have other federal programs like WIC (food stamps) to make sure we feed people who can't afford to eat otherwise. Then states have their own welfare programs.

Then you have corporate welfare. That's subsidies to ADM to grow crops nobody wants. That's tax breaks to oil companies for drilling wells. That's lower taxes on corporate profits. That's allowing companies to do business in the U.S. and have their HQ in Bermuda so they don't have to pay the full tax bill they would pay if their HQ was in the U.S. That's bailouts to companies who gambled and lost.

What do you want to do Mick?  Print more money or tax more? Because people need to eat and be sheltered. Those are the only two choices.  I'd argue taxing existing money is way more in the interest of the masses than making our money worthless by printing and giving away more.

One thing that should terrify everyone is that China is reducing its U.S. debt.  For a long time China was always a reliable buyer of treasuries. If they stop, the only alternative for the U.S. to raise money other than taxes is to print even more money and buy U.S. treasuries. They call it "Quantitative Easing" to make it sound highbrow when in fact it literally is just printing money and giving it to the government. 

Our deficit is greater than our GDP now. I don't think most people truly understand how terrible of a place we are in.

To your points: 

1) I think you're reading into my statement something that isn't there.  I'm not against raising taxes, and I know society needs to meet our needs.  Although I think printing money/quantitative easing isn't he world's worst thing depending on certain conditions.  I've been in favor of confiscatory estate taxes, and a massive increase on wealth taxes for quite a while now -- with a reduction in income taxes.

2) I'm well aware that we have a welfare state.  But I think we're progressing towards Socialism.  Every generation from the so-called Greatest Generation to Generation X have had a shot at the American Dream.  The Millenials definitely do not.  I remember one of the Silent Generation types (about 20 years older than me) said "We've built this great house and left you the mortgage."  I don't know that it was true for the Baby Boomers, we never paid it off.  But the Millenials are well and truly hosed.  If I were them, I'd demand Socialism across the board.  And I think it's coming.

3) China doesn't own much of our debt.  They've been slightly net negative on U. S. Treasuries for nearly a decade now.  They own less now than they did in 2011.

[Mick]

Maybe people in North Dakota have realized their money will soon have no value and are finding other ways to support themselves? I know this seems crazy, but we are on the path to hyperinflation if the Fed doesn’t stop printing money to buy assets nobody wants and continue artificially inflating the stock market.

At some point, people are just going to have to accept massive losses. They can come in the form of bankruptcies that result in creditors losing money they thought they were getting. They can come in the form of massive taxing events. They can come in the form of holding the bag after buying equities much higher than you find them currently worth. 

We seem to have this mindset that we can get out of debt by printing money. It’s almost like central banks have realized it’s easier to devalue currency and slowly deliver pain to people over time, than it is to allow massive metaphorical financial earthquakes to re-set the landscape.

I'll be curious to see how the Dems choose to address this.  Will they raise enormous taxes on the wealthy, the upper class, the upper-middle class, less so for the middle class, and not quite as much for the lower-middle class?  I don't really see any other way to get there.  Confiscatory estate taxes?  I would imagine so.  Anything that nudges us towards Socialism.

I have an idea, let's not call things that aren't socialism "Socialism."

Socialism is the government owning the means of production. Cuba is a socialist country. Even China isn't.  So let's make sure to use the correct terms so the correct discussion can happen, unless you want to argue there are people in the United States in positions of power who want to become Cuba?

No, what the United States is, is a welfare state that doesn't raise enough money to pay for its outlays, be it in the form of direct payments or tax reductions. Social Security and Medicare are the most solvent welfare programs we have because they are paid for through consistent payments. The percentage contribution rate hasn't increased since the 1980s. People claim those programs are at risk of going bankrupt.  Yes, they will, if contribution inputs aren't adjusted to reflect the inflation that has happened since they were last adjusted. We have other federal programs like WIC (food stamps) to make sure we feed people who can't afford to eat otherwise. Then states have their own welfare programs.

Then you have corporate welfare. That's subsidies to ADM to grow crops nobody wants. That's tax breaks to oil companies for drilling wells. That's lower taxes on corporate profits. That's allowing companies to do business in the U.S. and have their HQ in Bermuda so they don't have to pay the full tax bill they would pay if their HQ was in the U.S. That's bailouts to companies who gambled and lost.

What do you want to do Mick?  Print more money or tax more? Because people need to eat and be sheltered. Those are the only two choices.  I'd argue taxing existing money is way more in the interest of the masses than making our money worthless by printing and giving away more.

One thing that should terrify everyone is that China is reducing its U.S. debt.  For a long time China was always a reliable buyer of treasuries. If they stop, the only alternative for the U.S. to raise money other than taxes is to print even more money and buy U.S. treasuries. They call it "Quantitative Easing" to make it sound highbrow when in fact it literally is just printing money and giving it to the government. 

Our deficit is greater than our GDP now. I don't think most people truly understand how terrible of a place we are in.

To your points: 

1) I think you're reading into my statement something that isn't there.  I'm not against raising taxes, and I know society needs to meet our needs.  Although I think printing money/quantitative easing isn't he world's worst thing depending on certain conditions.  I've been in favor of confiscatory estate taxes, and a massive increase on wealth taxes for quite a while now -- with a reduction in income taxes.

2) I'm well aware that we have a welfare state.  But I think we're progressing towards Socialism.  Every generation from the so-called Greatest Generation to Generation X have had a shot at the American Dream.  The Millenials definitely do not.  I remember one of the Silent Generation types (about 20 years older than me) said "We've built this great house and left you the mortgage."  I don't know that it was true for the Baby Boomers, we never paid it off.  But the Millenials are well and truly hosed.  If I were them, I'd demand Socialism across the board.  And I think it's coming.

3) China doesn't own much of our debt.  They've been slightly net negative on U. S. Treasuries for nearly a decade now.  They own less now than they did in 2011.

[Mick]

Speaking of initial unemployment claims, California has decided to cease processing initial unemployment claims for two weeks.  Apparently, we have so many in California that we need to avoid taking care of society's most vulnerable people who have had their lives ripped apart.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/20/e...ms-faster/

[Mick]

Speaking of initial unemployment claims, California has decided to cease processing initial unemployment claims for two weeks.  Apparently, we have so many in California that we need to avoid taking care of society's most vulnerable people who have had their lives ripped apart.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/20/e...ms-faster/

[BostonCard]

Speaking of initial unemployment claims, California has decided to cease processing initial unemployment claims for two weeks.  Apparently, we have so many in California that we need to avoid taking care of society's most vulnerable people who have had their lives ripped apart.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/20/e...ms-faster/

Maybe we should hire some of those newly unemployed to help process claims?  Just spitballing here.

That being said, I don't know about California's system specifically, but a lot of the machines that run the unemployment claims are old and the underlying programs that run it are in an archaic programming language (COBOL) that is rarely used anymore.  It wasn't designed to process that many claims at once and it is struggling under the weight of new claims.

BC

[BostonCard]

Speaking of initial unemployment claims, California has decided to cease processing initial unemployment claims for two weeks.  Apparently, we have so many in California that we need to avoid taking care of society's most vulnerable people who have had their lives ripped apart.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/20/e...ms-faster/

Maybe we should hire some of those newly unemployed to help process claims?  Just spitballing here.

That being said, I don't know about California's system specifically, but a lot of the machines that run the unemployment claims are old and the underlying programs that run it are in an archaic programming language (COBOL) that is rarely used anymore.  It wasn't designed to process that many claims at once and it is struggling under the weight of new claims.

BC

[Mick]

Speaking of initial unemployment claims, California has decided to cease processing initial unemployment claims for two weeks.  Apparently, we have so many in California that we need to avoid taking care of society's most vulnerable people who have had their lives ripped apart.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/20/e...ms-faster/

Maybe we should hire some of those newly unemployed to help process claims?  Just spitballing here.

That being said, I don't know about California's system specifically, but a lot of the machines that run the unemployment claims are old and the underlying programs that run it are in an archaic programming language (COBOL) that is rarely used anymore.  It wasn't designed to process that many claims at once and it is struggling under the weight of new claims.

BC

COmmon Business Oriented Language.  Ugh.  Spare me.  I remember that and BASIC.  yech...

I read once that most government computers are old/outmoded/outdated/inefficient.  I'd also read that government computer installations go particularly badly.  I think Tandem Computers had a botched DMV installation some decades ago.

Also read that some of the IRS computers in use in the late 1990s were so old that the IRS was still using some computers from the 1950s with vacuum tubes.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes....97irs.html

[Mick]

Speaking of initial unemployment claims, California has decided to cease processing initial unemployment claims for two weeks.  Apparently, we have so many in California that we need to avoid taking care of society's most vulnerable people who have had their lives ripped apart.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/20/e...ms-faster/

Maybe we should hire some of those newly unemployed to help process claims?  Just spitballing here.

That being said, I don't know about California's system specifically, but a lot of the machines that run the unemployment claims are old and the underlying programs that run it are in an archaic programming language (COBOL) that is rarely used anymore.  It wasn't designed to process that many claims at once and it is struggling under the weight of new claims.

BC

COmmon Business Oriented Language.  Ugh.  Spare me.  I remember that and BASIC.  yech...

I read once that most government computers are old/outmoded/outdated/inefficient.  I'd also read that government computer installations go particularly badly.  I think Tandem Computers had a botched DMV installation some decades ago.

Also read that some of the IRS computers in use in the late 1990s were so old that the IRS was still using some computers from the 1950s with vacuum tubes.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes....97irs.html

[Goose]

Also read that some of the IRS computers in use in the late 1990s were so old that the IRS was still using some computers from the 1950s with vacuum tubes.


https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes....97irs.html

Not what the article said. It said they were using computers DESIGNED in the late 1950s. That turns out to be a brobdingnagian difference, as the reliability of vacuum tube computers was horrible. At least the IRS got 360/XX computers whose design was indeed started in the late 50s. The first systems were shipped in about 1964. Problem was, they kept these old reliables into the 1990s. Some of them still used only magnetic tape, no disk storage at all. IBM had long since washed it's hands of these systems, so the government had to jump through lots of hoops to keep them going.

It is almost impossible for the government to do any IT upgrades. It has to be competed, so everybody gets to play. By the time a specification is agreed upon, it is already obsolete. The low bidder usually can't do the job, but there are so many loopholes and errors in the specification the contractor can't be held accountable. Rinse and repeat.

[Goose]

Also read that some of the IRS computers in use in the late 1990s were so old that the IRS was still using some computers from the 1950s with vacuum tubes.


https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes....97irs.html

Not what the article said. It said they were using computers DESIGNED in the late 1950s. That turns out to be a brobdingnagian difference, as the reliability of vacuum tube computers was horrible. At least the IRS got 360/XX computers whose design was indeed started in the late 50s. The first systems were shipped in about 1964. Problem was, they kept these old reliables into the 1990s. Some of them still used only magnetic tape, no disk storage at all. IBM had long since washed it's hands of these systems, so the government had to jump through lots of hoops to keep them going.

It is almost impossible for the government to do any IT upgrades. It has to be competed, so everybody gets to play. By the time a specification is agreed upon, it is already obsolete. The low bidder usually can't do the job, but there are so many loopholes and errors in the specification the contractor can't be held accountable. Rinse and repeat.

[Mick]

Also read that some of the IRS computers in use in the late 1990s were so old that the IRS was still using some computers from the 1950s with vacuum tubes.


https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes....97irs.html

Not what the article said. It said they were using computers DESIGNED in the late 1950s. That turns out to be a of immense proportions difference, as the reliability of vacuum tube computers was horrible. At least the IRS got 360/XX computers whose design was indeed started in the late 50s. The first systems were shipped in about 1964. Problem was, they kept these old reliables into the 1990s. Some of them still used only magnetic tape, no disk storage at all. IBM had long since washed it's hands of these systems, so the government had to jump through lots of hoops to keep them going.

It is almost impossible for the government to do any IT upgrades. It has to be competed, so everybody gets to play. By the time a specification is agreed upon, it is already obsolete. The low bidder usually can't do the job, but there are so many loopholes and errors in the specification the contractor can't be held accountable. Rinse and repeat.

Right.  I read the line "Charles Rossotti, the new commissioner, told FORTUNE that upgrading his vacuum tube-era technology 'will be like rebuilding Manhattan while we're still living in it.'" to mean that the IRS still used computers with vacuum tubes.

https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/.../index.htm

[Mick]

Also read that some of the IRS computers in use in the late 1990s were so old that the IRS was still using some computers from the 1950s with vacuum tubes.


https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes....97irs.html

Not what the article said. It said they were using computers DESIGNED in the late 1950s. That turns out to be a of immense proportions difference, as the reliability of vacuum tube computers was horrible. At least the IRS got 360/XX computers whose design was indeed started in the late 50s. The first systems were shipped in about 1964. Problem was, they kept these old reliables into the 1990s. Some of them still used only magnetic tape, no disk storage at all. IBM had long since washed it's hands of these systems, so the government had to jump through lots of hoops to keep them going.

It is almost impossible for the government to do any IT upgrades. It has to be competed, so everybody gets to play. By the time a specification is agreed upon, it is already obsolete. The low bidder usually can't do the job, but there are so many loopholes and errors in the specification the contractor can't be held accountable. Rinse and repeat.

Right.  I read the line "Charles Rossotti, the new commissioner, told FORTUNE that upgrading his vacuum tube-era technology 'will be like rebuilding Manhattan while we're still living in it.'" to mean that the IRS still used computers with vacuum tubes.

https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/.../index.htm