Unemployment falls to 6.7% as more Americans quit looking for work

More Americans had jobs in January 2008 than do today, despite population growth. That means we have not grown fast enough to get back where we were, much less grow beyond the troubles. Nobody expected things to stay this bad for this long. Looking at the bright side, it is energy due to the fracking revolution. While total employment is still down .2% since the start of the recession, employment in oil and gas is up 55.1%. In other words, w/o fracking, we would be much worse off than we are today.

I think we are seeing a very interesting scenario playing out. Government efforts to stimulate the economy directly have failed miserably. What worked was relatively good management by the Federal Reserve and the unexpected energy boom. So what are the lessons for government?

Government can do much good by balancing the money supply and protecting the financial system. In the long run, investments in research pay big dividends, but nobody can predict when or how that will work. Fracking research received government funding, but no government officials predicted or understood how that innovation would be executed. Smart officials know that they should not mess with things they cannot understand.

Government does little good and might cause much harm when it tries to directly manage the economy. The Obama folks bet on the Solyndra, not fracking. They did not understand what the heck they were doing, and why should we expect them to understand. Politicians are among the people least likely to understand innovation in business. Politics is a very different activity.

So smart government creates general conditions for prosperity, but makes no attempt to pick winners or losers and generally allows developments to flower on their own. Stupid government thinks it can run the show and ends up producing costly failure.

What kind of government does Obama want to give us?

Posted by Christine & John at January 13, 2014 5:27 PM
Comments
Comment #375590

Yup, I’m a nobody on this one, C&J. Seems the guy with the big conspiracy theory got lost in all the excitement.

Recall that I blogged about the NAU, hasty backroom trade deals, the rush to globalise, harmonize all laws, mobilize world workers, and, and, doing everything in their corpocratic power to push wages down so that, at some point, we could begin to compete with developing countries on a more even playing field.

Could be why Bush didn’t hesitate to bail out the biggest and stimulize the rest, while leaving to workers to figure it out on their own.

COuld be why Obama followed suit with more $T’s of stimulus, QE1, QE2 and QE3, Maybe they know something the folks don’t. Maybe jobs aren’t coming back. Maybe wages aren’t going up. Maybe there is a reason why the stock market and income inequality are thru the roof while the number of unemployed and wages are back to the 60’s.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 10, 2014 6:09 PM
Comment #375592

Roy

There is a problem with corporate capitalism. If that is what you mean by corpocracy, I agree that it is a bad thing.

Posted by: CJ at January 10, 2014 7:22 PM
Comment #375597

C&J, solution please.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 10, 2014 9:56 PM
Comment #375598

Roy

There is no solution. We don’t have a problem that can be solved; we have a situation that must be managed. Thus has it always been and will always be.

Our current U.S. situation is not that bad. I would not advocate a radical solution. Simply work to get government to limit its role to those things it can do. If we limit government ability to pick winners and losers, we limit its ability to support crony capitalism. But there will never come a time when we will win this struggle.

Posted by: CJ at January 10, 2014 10:09 PM
Comment #375599

I like to think we can weaken, reduce, remove the money influence sufficiently to move us from corpocracy to democracy without infringing on the Constitution.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 10, 2014 11:35 PM
Comment #375600

Roy

We can probably reduce it sometimes and sometimes it will be stronger. But money is not the only source of corrupting power. Consider a union that can mobilize tens of thousands of members to disrupt operations of parties or firms. Just because people are not paid to do things does not mean they do the right things.

I am also happy to have money in politics to explain facts. It is easy to be superstitious about advances. A good example is vaccines. There are a growing number of ignorant people who want to avoid vaccines. I would hope that corporate financed campaigns can negate that stupidity. The same goes for GMOs.

Most of the world’s truly horrible rulers were not motivated primarily by money. There is no indication that Hitler or Stalin were particularly greedy. In fact, most of what they did made no sense from a greed point of view.

Posted by: CJ at January 11, 2014 5:39 AM
Comment #375602

I like to think we can weaken, reduce, remove the money influence sufficiently to move us from corpocracy to democracy without infringing on the Constitution.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 10, 2014 11:35 PM

The general answer is actually quite simple…it’s a matter of politicians having the political will, along with the citizens pushing for it. What is it?

Complete Tax Reform.

Take away the myriad loopholes, corporate giveaways, etc.
Think about it…even Senators and Congressional Reps on the Ways & Means Committee use these loopholes on a regular basis. It’s not technically illegal, but it sure ain’t fair!!!

Let’s level the playing field where ALL have ‘skin in the game.’

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 11, 2014 12:43 PM
Comment #375603

A smaller government will attract less money corruption. If the politician cannot give you something, you will not have incentives to give him anything.

Posted by: CJ at January 11, 2014 12:58 PM
Comment #375604
A smaller government will attract less money corruption. If the politician cannot give you something, you will not have incentives to give him anything.

Conservative logic at it’s silliest C&J. Were this true Mexico and many other countries would not have corruption, yet it does and they do. Small government just means the corruption isn’t illegal.

http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/

Posted by: j2t2 at January 11, 2014 5:06 PM
Comment #375605

j2t2

In Mexico, government regulates much more of the economy. Perhaps I can clarify to say a government that has a smaller role.

It is true that some bigger government places work okay. I am thinking of Scandinavia. But people there are really more honest than most of the world’s people, including many of ours, unfortunately. And they are much smaller in general.

Returning to Mexico, the problem with the Latin model in general is that everything officially comes under the purview of the central authorities. Most things are technically illegal, so the only way to get anything is to find a way around the rules. This is one of the quirks that explains why they progressed so much more slowly than the U.S. and became so much poorer.

Posted by: CJ at January 11, 2014 5:15 PM
Comment #375610

So some “big government” countries are much less corrupt than “small government” countries (which was my point), C&J, but you say it is because they are just more honest! Canada is more honest so they don’t count as a “big government” country? New Zealand as well? I would suggest the conservative myth of “small government” you seek to perpetuate just falls apart with a wee bit of scrutiny and a few facts. Even the US which is “big government” ranks 19th which is less corrupt than many “small government” countries, how do you explain this?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 11, 2014 8:32 PM
Comment #375611

Kevin, et al,

Posting ideas/suggestions on improving gov’t is fine but, if you take a hard look at what you are suggesting do you really think it is possible to achieve in your lifetime, etc.

Kevin suggest : Complete tax reform. Take away the myriad loopholes, corporate giveaways, etc.

I sincerely suggest the corpocracy, while they may be willing to some fringe change with the tax code, would never agree to something like a flat tax, VAT tax, or exempt corporations from taxation. So much of the power/influence of the corpocracy is to create winners and losers and micro manage the economy. The tax code does wonders to keep the folks ‘invested’ in their representatives. Give the folks a loophole or two, a write off or two, make them feel like the corpocracy is doing something for them, and the voters/taxpayers will praise their benefactors at the polls, IMO.

I believe the solution to the myriad of problems we face is thru the abolishment of CP, driven by a new 3rd party w/a/dif - - =- or attain access to AVC at some point. I see no other possible way of real reform available to the citizenry.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 11, 2014 8:52 PM
Comment #375612

j2t2

It is cultural. I lived in Norway for four years. They are just really honest people. The same goes for small towns in the Midwest where these sorts of cultures were transplanted. If you look at the least corrupt place, you notice that all of them, with the partial exception of Belgium, are Northern European roots and/or former British colonies. So, indeed, if you have a country with those traditions, you can probably pull off a bigger government. If you think of U.S. states with mostly populations like that, they also have less corruption, less crime and healthier population.

Let’s also notice that the combined population of the top fifteen countries is about the same as that of the U.S. alone.

Our country is big and diverse. We don’t have all the same options that small, homogeneous countries do. It is important that they are small. People know each other and have similar norms.

Beyond that, I doubt people like you would like to live as a Norwegian. There is significant social discipline related to the long-standing cultural norms.

Finally, I said money in politics, not corruption. They are not exactly the same thing. You may use your money to influence politics in a way that benefits you w/o it being corrupt.

Think of the case of old-fashioned light bulbs. Big bulb producers like GE pushed for the new standards because they could be more competitive or maybe they really believed in energy conservation. We really cannot tell, probably both. It is not corrupt to advocate for laws you consider good, but it can be self-serving.

If you want the bad example, it is Solyndra. I don’t think there was corruption there in the sense of really dishonest dealing, but it was politically influenced.

Posted by: CJ at January 11, 2014 9:03 PM
Comment #375622


C&J, while it sounds nice, you are tilting at windmills on this cultural thing. Corpocracy has driven this diversity thing to a point where a person living anywhere in the world has to relocate to some other place in the world to get a job, etc. I would think Chinese is the most popular language being taught in the univ’s today.

Unemployment by country:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html

Per capita income by country:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

Isle of Man
$ 53,800 2007 est.

13 United States
$ 51,700 2012 est.

14 Hong Kong
$ 50,900 2012 est.

15 Switzerland
$ 44,900 2012 est.

16 Guernsey
$ 44,600 2005

17 Cayman Islands
$ 43,800 2004 est.

18 Gibraltar
$ 43,000 2006 est.

19 Austria
$ 42,600 2012 est.

20 British Virgin Islands
$ 42,300 2010 est.

21 Canada
$ 42,300 2012 est.

22 Australia
$ 42,000 2012 est.

23 Netherlands
$ 41,500 2012 est.

24 Ireland
$ 40,700 2012 est.

25 Sweden
$ 40,300 2012 est.

26 Kuwait
$ 39,900 2012 est.

27 Iceland
$ 39,700 2012 est.

28 Germany
$ 38,700 2012 est.

29 Taiwan
$ 38,400 2012 est.

30 New Caledonia
$ 37,700 2008 est.

31 Belgium
$ 37,500 2012 est.

32 Greenland
$ 37,400 2008 est.

33 Denmark
$ 37,300 2012 est.

34 Andorra
$ 37,200 2011 est.

35 United Kingdom
$ 36,600 2012 est.

36 Japan
$ 35,900 2012 est.

37 Finland
$ 35,800 2012 est.

38 France
$ 35,300 2012 est.

39 Saint Pierre and Miquelon
$ 34,900 2006 est.

40 European Union
$ 34,100 2012 est.

41 Israel
$ 33,900 2012 est.

42 Korea, South
$ 31,900 2012 est.

43 Bahamas, The
$ 31,300 2012 est.

44

I see where Japan is 4% unemp with $31k per capita. The US comes in at 8% unemp with $51k per capita. Your theory seems to hold water in some places while not in others. Corpocracy is mad as hell that Japan, Russia and some others won’t embrace diversification. Corpocrats seem determined to stamp out ‘culture’ where ever it raises it’s ugly head, etc.

The idea seems to be that if a country will diversify they will win the race. Most of us aren’t sure what the race is or how we will know when we’ve won. We just know that it’s going to take several more millions of immigrants to get us over the hump so to speak.

IMO, we would have to go way back to get any culture, C&J. To the era when one parent made a living wage while the other reared the offspring. When most folks recognized the ten commandants and lived accordingly. Today, two working have a hard time making it. And, there ain’t no going to the larder, the garden, the henhouse etc for groceries. Latch key kids grow up on digital games, cell phones, smoking joints and having sex in their bedrooms now and then. But, we are in the race, so I’ve been told, etc. If I have any more kids they are going to study Chinese fer shure.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 12, 2014 4:07 PM
Comment #375623

Roy

English is the world language. No American in his right mind will move to China for a job in our lifetimes, except as a high-powered executive in a multinational firm or a teacher of that world language - English.

Re relocation in general - mobility is useful. We do need to go where jobs are, but most of us will not leave the U.S. to do that.

Posted by: CJ at January 12, 2014 4:19 PM
Comment #375649

Well as usual C&J you have beat around the bush without answering anything regarding whether “small government” or “big government” is a culprit. I still consider your original comment to be conservative myth. However I need to correct one thing.

Finally, I said money in politics, not corruption. They are not exactly the same thing. You may use your money to influence politics in a way that benefits you w/o it being corrupt.

No, this is what you said and I quoted “A smaller government will attract less money corruption. If the politician cannot give you something, you will not have incentives to give him anything.”

But lets move on…

That means we have not grown fast enough to get back where we were, much less grow beyond the troubles. Nobody expected things to stay this bad for this long.

Your damning indictment on the job creators in this country is spot on. We are not creating enough jobs in this country despite the tax breaks and upside down tax incentives such as secretaries paying more than CEO’s. Why is it conservatives tell us, on one hand, that government cannot create jobs yet on the other blame government when jobs are not created by the private sector despite all the incentives for doing so? Conservatives tell us we must get people off unemployment insurance despite the growing population and failure of the private sector to grow jobs. Unemployment insurance, they tell us, causes these people to stay unemployed. Yet they also tell us the jobs aren’t there. Conservatives also claim we need to keep the incentives for the “job creators”, who so far have failed us, so jobs can be created, while telling us the opposite about the unemployed.

Seems to me conservative governing is an oxymoron.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 14, 2014 12:28 PM
Comment #375650

Well stated, j2t2.

Ironically, though, conservative blame of government for the slow recovery and job growth may be partly correct. Public sector jobs have actually declined during this recovery contrary to past recoveries. Compare the growth of private vs. public sector jobs of Bush and Obama. What is striking is not only the absence of growth in the public sector under Obama but its decline. If there had been comparable growth in the public sector under Obama, the job situation would be significantly better.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs-bush-and-obama.html

In one of his last remarks before leaving office, Ben Bernanke had this to say about job growth: “The recovery clearly remains incomplete,” he said in a speech last week, blaming part of the problem on government policy. “Excessively tight near-term fiscal policies have likely been counterproductive,” he said.” http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/10/news/economy/december-jobs-report/index.html

Conservatives seem unwilling to recognize the consequences of their own governing policies. Perhaps their tight fiscal policies are correct in the long run. But, they should have the common decency to take ownership of the consequences of their policies in the short term.

What really pisses me off is their reluctance to extend unemployment benefits as we work out what is essentially a huge private sector debt problem which imploded in 2008.

Blaming the unemployed for their unemployment is truly blaming the victim. If conservatives were concerned about the negative contingencies, then come forward with innovative job integration and development programs as a component of unemployment benefits such as job relocation vouchers, training, etc. There are a number of conservative economic suggestions for improving unemployment benefit programs but they are lost in this strange ultra conservative thinking that the unemployed are just a bunch of lazy leeches and that we would be doing them a favor by cutting off their benefits.

Posted by: Rich at January 14, 2014 6:08 PM
Comment #375651

j2t2

But Obama is in charge. He is certainly not a conservative and he pushed a massive stimulus. Jobs? More jobs were created by fracking than by Obama. North Dakota alone pumps $2.75 BILLION into the economy each month. And this is real money, not Obama bucks.

Re smaller government, please see my latest post re economic freedom. You will find that the list of least corrupt places fits well with those of most freedom.

Rich

I don’t trust Obama to spend wisely. When he had the chance, he built almost no new infrastructure.

Posted by: CJ at January 14, 2014 6:12 PM
Comment #375657

SO C&J your answer is “But Obama is in charge”! Once again you are running away from the issue. What next 2 or 3 more silly comments then you declare a one sided victory? You do your readers a disservice with such nonsense. I guess Rich is right when he tells us conservatives run from the results of their own governing policies.

Rich, It is conservatives in Congress that demanded the government payroll, at federal state and local levels, be cut during the Obama administration after ramping it up during the GWB administration. Irony is the “massive stimulus” was 40% tax cuts, the conservative told us it would create jobs, yet now tell us it was a failure and of course Obama’s fault. The revisionism of C&J and most other conservatives today tells us much about their policies.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 15, 2014 5:21 PM
Comment #375658

j2t2

I think that pointing out Obama is in charge pretty much negates all your arguments. The bucks stops with him. In the first couple of years you could blame Bush, just as Bush could not be really blamed for the problems of 2001-2. But now, this is full-Obama.

You could argue that presidential policies have significantly less effect, as I sometimes have told you. But in that case, you also need to let go of the blame Bush or Reagan.

You have no argument left. You know it; I know you know it and you know that I know.

But I will leave it to you. Do you want to content that presidents don’t really run the show? In this case, we cannot blame Obama, but we also need to let Bush off the hook. Or do you want to claim that they do run the show, in which case you can blame Bush for past sins, but need to blame Obama for current ones.

Posted by: CJ at January 15, 2014 6:06 PM
Comment #375659

“Irony is the “massive stimulus” was 40% tax cuts, the conservative told us it would create jobs,..”

jt2t,

I understand that it was conservatives in Congress that forced the reduction in public jobs. Like I said before, perhaps their policies are correct in the long run (although, the Fed is critical of their policies in the short term and attributes the tepid recovery partly to their premature fiscal tightening). What I object to is their failure to take ownership of the consequences.

I recently had a friendly argument at the golf course about stimulus tax cut issue. The strange thing is that even after providing a Wall Street article detailing the 40% in tax cuts, conservatives in the group didn’t believe it. Dammit, it couldn’t be true.

I throw my hands up about this issue.

Posted by: Rich at January 15, 2014 6:53 PM
Comment #375660

Rich

Democrats during the time of the stimulus controlled the presidency, House and Senate with a filibuster proof majority. Never in our lifetimes have conservatives enjoyed such power, never. So, indeed, if Democrats cannot accomplish their goals when they hold all the cards, it would be good to throw up your hands and give up.

If liberal policies cannot be done under these conditions, they cannot be done ever.

Re taking ownership - this is what liberals are avoiding. It was all yours, more than any Republican leader has enjoyed at least in eighty years and maybe ever since Lincoln was president. If there ever comes a time when Republican have the kind of power Democrats had, I will take ownership of what comes from that.

BTW - we have a great stimulus in the form of fracking, which is pumping several billion dollars into the economy each month and creating or saving millions of jobs. Democrats should thank God for the rise of these fossil fuels. It was thanks to the Fed and Fracking that we avoided a depression.

Posted by: CJ at January 15, 2014 7:40 PM
Comment #375672
I think that pointing out Obama is in charge pretty much negates all your arguments.

Of course you do C&J, that is the stock conservative answer for anything. For those of us that are a bit more reality based it is laughable. Here is why:

I write “Your damning indictment on the job creators in this country is spot on. We are not creating enough jobs in this country despite the tax breaks and upside down tax incentives such as secretaries paying more than CEO’s.”

Your answer is “I think that pointing out Obama is in charge pretty much negates all your arguments.”

I asked “Why is it conservatives tell us, on one hand, that government cannot create jobs yet on the other blame government when jobs are not created by the private sector despite all the incentives for doing so?”

Your answer is “I think that pointing out Obama is in charge pretty much negates all your arguments.”

I say “Conservatives tell us we must get people off unemployment insurance despite the growing population and failure of the private sector to grow jobs. Unemployment insurance, they tell us, causes these people to stay unemployed. Yet they also tell us the jobs aren’t there.”

Your answer is “I think that pointing out Obama is in charge pretty much negates all your arguments.”

I say “Conservatives also claim we need to keep the incentives for the “job creators”, who so far have failed us, so jobs can be created, while telling us the opposite about the unemployed.”

You reply “I think that pointing out Obama is in charge pretty much negates all your arguments.”

Seems to me this nonsensical reply to each of these statements would embarrass most people C&J.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 16, 2014 5:21 PM
Comment #375674

j2t2

Simple questions - can we hold Bush responsible in large part for policy results that took place in 2006?

Can we hold Obama largely responsible for policy results that take place in 2014?

You can answer these questions as you please, but the answers to both must be the same.

BTW - I would answer qualified “no” to both. The reason I give you a hard time about Obama is that you believe government policy is more decisive than I do.

So what is your answer to these questions?

BTW - I am greatly encouraged by the energy revolution. This is something that happened almost in spite of Obama policies. Would you like to give Obama credit for a boom in oil and gas and then explain how his green initiatives managed to create this outcome?

Posted by: CJ at January 16, 2014 6:31 PM
Comment #375698
BTW - I would answer qualified “no” to both. The reason I give you a hard time about Obama is that you believe government policy is more decisive than I do.

Kinda makes your previous answer to my questions and comments untruthful C&J. Seems to me you are dispensing propaganda, not knowledge, with this kind of flip flopping.

It amazes me you have no concern for the integrity of members and representatives of your party. You defend them at any cost, refuse to answer anything that calls their governing policies into question with anything more intelligent than “I think that pointing out Obama is in charge pretty much negates all your arguments.”. Even though you don’t believe the answer yourself!

Wow must be time to drag out your degree and declare a one sided victory.

The fracking boom C&J is a double edged sword. Yes it provides jobs but at a price. Yet another example of the boomer generation borrowing from future generations. Obama and the “green initiatives” may not be responsible for the fracking boom but then they are not responsible for the future costs of clean up after the frackers are gone. Myself, I’m torn on the issue as I don’t see stopping the frackers as the answer,us being such an oil addicted nation and all, so the increase in other forms of energy as well as conservation of energy the “green initiatives” make possible is a good longer term attempt to rectify the problem, if only Reagan had followed in the footsteps of Carter on solar energy and conservation…

Posted by: j2t2 at January 17, 2014 6:04 PM
Comment #375705

j2t2

I have written on many occasions that I believe that presidents get way too much credit or blame for the economy. I have also explained that I continue to write about Obama because he and his advocates so boldly raved and swore that their management of the economy would be such a success. It was one of the reasons Obama was elected in 2008.

So if you are willing to understand that presidents are cannot be blamed or praised to the extent liberals like to believe, we can let Obama off the hook. And Bush too. You want to make excuses for Obama but keep your outlook on others.

Re fracking - I recognize that I could be wrong, but my research and observation tells me that fracking is one of the safest and most effective forms of energy exploration. But whether you believe that or not, it is clearly creating jobs right now. W/o fracking, we might well be in a recession again and we certainly would be in worse shape.

RE solar and conservation - Solar is cheap today. The problem is not the panels; it is installation and maintenance. Unless you plan to pay people way below a living wage, we have that problem.

Posted by: CJ at January 17, 2014 8:37 PM
Comment #375708

C&J, you are so confused that I am actually starting to believe it is unintentional.Just kidding I know it’s BS. Look back at what has been written, you brought up Obama and then GWB as a means to side step questions I asked and comments I made about conservatives in Congress, jobs, so called job creators and conservative policies. You of course blamed Obama and then went off on a tangent about GWb and Obama which had nothing to do with the questions or comments I made. I even repeated the questions and comments with your “answer” to show just how foolish it was.

So when you continue to babble about Obama and GWB instead of answering the questions and comments I can only assume it is intentional and due to your inability to accept the failed policies your representatives are still putting forth in Congress.

I do appreciate your ability to misrepresent the issue whilst covering for the conservatives in Congress, hell to listen to you one would think we had no Congress. This denial of reality is such a typical conservative ploy when it comes to conservative policy , yet still so tedious for anyone with a brain that can think for themselves. I am grateful, however, that you have managed to not resort to your advanced degrees and declartion of victory prematurely as a means of confusing the issue any more than you already have.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 18, 2014 1:04 AM
Comment #375713

j2t2

I believe that attempts to stimulate jobs by simply spending more money doesn’t work or at least is not sustainable. The “stimulus” was generally a failure. It just cost a lot. Conservatives did not block that and could not block that. It rose and fell completely under Democratic control.

Even president Obama admitted that he had misunderstood stimulus. There were few worthy “shovel ready projects,” he admitted. He was learning the job back then.

We should spend government funds on research and infrastructure. I have explained my thinking on this. Government has a strong role to play in creating conditions for prosperity, but little or no role to play in managing it. In other words, do not pick winners of losers. We saw in energy policy that the “favored” firms, like Solyndra floundered and failed. The frackers did very well. Fracking is an excellent example of what I was talking about above. Government was instrumental in developing fracking technologies, but then - probably more from inertia than design - neglected the industry and it developed.

I have also explained why I “blame” Obama. It seems strange to me that you can easily blame Bush when he was in a weaker position in his last two years than Obama is today and Obama was in a stronger position in his first two years than any Republican has been since Calvin Coolidge.

I am not fond of all conservatives do. In fact, I have stopped contributing to Heritage Foundation because I dislike the thrust of some of their policies in recent months. But I see little that Obama is proposing that will increase economic growth or create jobs.

The only thing I have heard out of Obama in recent months that might have a chance of working is his push to innovation hubs. However, I worry about politicization even there.

If you will tell me precisely which Obama programs you believe would have helped stimulate growth and that conservatives blocked, I will happily think about them. But I suffer from a short attention span, so you will have to list them with short explanation rather than just post a link to some site you read.

Re advanced degrees - it is more experience. I have learned that there are some things I cannot understand because I lack the background. I also see that there are some things I cannot explain to others who lack the background. I am sure there are things that you understand but could not explain to me because I lacked the experience.

Posted by: CJ at January 18, 2014 11:52 AM
Post a comment