Central Perk

luni, 7 ianuarie 2013

From the Archives: Marshmallow Cannon

Your Daily Snapshot for
Monday, January 7, 2013

From the Archives: Marshmallow Cannon

The White House recently crossed 100,000,000 views on its YouTube channel and marked the milestone by looking at some of our most popular videos, including this raw footage of President Obama launching a marshmallow cannon at the White House Science Fair.

Watch the marshmallow cannon launch:

Seth's Blog : Two kinds of mistakes

Two kinds of mistakes

There is the mistake of overdoing the defense of the status quo, the error of investing too much time and energy in keep things as they are.

And then there is the mistake made while inventing the future, the error of small experiments gone bad.

We are almost never hurt by the second kind of mistake and yet we persist in making the first kind, again and again.

• Email to a friend •

duminică, 6 ianuarie 2013

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Startling Look at Employment Demographics by Age Group: Spotlight on Age 25-54
Obama's Chance to Do Something Right: Nominate Hagel for Secretary of Defense; Why the War Party Fears Hagel
The Bears' Prayer

Startling Look at Employment Demographics by Age Group: Spotlight on Age 25-54

Posted: 06 Jan 2013 10:28 PM PST

Last month I posted a chart showing employment by age group. Here is an update as of Friday's job release.

Employment Demographics by Age Group

click on chart for sharper image

Note that 100% of the job growth since the recession is in age group 55 and over.

Last month, someone proposed the above chart was blatantly misleading because it does not reflect the aging workforce.

Let's investigate that hypothesis with a look at actual data (numbers in tables and charts in thousands).

Civilian Institutional Population (CP) and Labor Force (LF)

Year	16-19 CP	20-24 CP	25-54 CP	55+ CP	16-19 LF	20-24 LF	25-54 LF	55+ LF
2000	15912	18311	120656	57697	8271	14250	101393	18668
2001	15929	18877	121604	58683	7902	14557	101789	19485
2002	15994	19348	122077	60151	7585	14781	101719	20778
2003	16096	19801	123289	61981	7170	14928	102309	22104
2004	16222	20197	123410	63527	7114	15154	102122	23011
2005	16398	20276	124175	65233	7164	15127	102773	24257
2006	16678	20265	124884	66988	7281	15113	103566	25468
2007	16982	20427	125696	68761	7012	15205	104353	26554
2008	17075	20409	125652	70652	6858	15174	104396	27858
2009	17043	20524	125565	72668	6390	14971	103742	29040
2010	16901	21047	125290	74591	5906	15028	102940	30014
2011	16774	21423	124704	76716	5727	15270	101744	30876
2012	16984	21799	124314	80187	5823	15462	101253	32437

Age Group 25-54 Key Facts

In 2007 the civilian population was 125,652,000
In 2007 the labor force was 104,353,000
In 2012 the civilian population was 124,314,000
In 2012 the labor force was 101,253,000

Numbers are non-adjusted from BLS tables.

Simply put, the decrease in civilian population in age group 25-54 was 1,340,000. The decrease in the labor force was a staggering 3,100,000!

Let's explore this idea in still more detail looking at employment, unemployment, and non-employment.

Spotlight on Age Group 25-54

Year	25-54 CP	25-54 LF	25-54 Employed	25-54 Not Employed	25-54 Unemployed
2000	120656	101393	98292	22364	3102
2001	121604	101789	97948	23656	3842
2002	122077	101719	96823	25254	4896
2003	123289	102309	97178	26111	5131
2004	123410	102122	97472	25938	4650
2005	124175	102773	98517	25658	4256
2006	124884	103566	99672	25212	3894
2007	125696	104353	100450	25246	3904
2008	125652	104396	99369	26283	5027
2009	125565	103742	95144	30421	8597
2010	125290	102940	94082	31208	8858
2011	124704	101744	93674	31030	8069
2012	124314	101253	94150	30164	7103

Notes

Unemployment is the difference between employment and the labor force.
Not-employed is the difference between employment and the civilian population.
Numbers are non-adjusted from BLS tables.
There may be rounding errors.

More Key Facts For Age Group 25-54

Between 2007 and 2012 the civilian population declined by 1,340,000
Between 2007 and 2012 the labor force declined by 3,100,000
Between 2007 and 2012 employment fell from 100,450,000 to 94,150,000.
Between 2007 and 2012 employment declined by 6,300,000 jobs on a mere decrease in the civilian population of 1,340,000!

Let's take a look at the above table in chart form.

Civilian Population, Labor Force, Employed, Not-Employed

click on chart for sharper image

Irrefutable Evidence Falling Employment Not Based on Boomer Demographics

This plunge in employment in the prime working age group of 25-54 is irrefutable proof that the drop in employment and the falling participation rate is not based on aging boomer demographics.

By calculation, 4,960,000 jobs (6,300,000 - 1,340,000) simply vanished into thin air (in age group 25-54 alone).

Thus, the plunge in employment in the prime working age group of 25-54 also provides strong evidence the stated unemployment rate of 7.8% is bogus by a more sensible measure of unemployment.

Better Measure of Unemployment

I propose this simple definition: If you want a job, are physically able to work a job, and you don't have a job, then you are unemployed.

Actual measures are purposely defined to hide the true state of the economy.

For a close scrutiny of the latest jobs report, please see Establishment Survey +155,000 Jobs; Household Survey +28,000 Jobs; Unemployment Rate Revised Up, Flat Since September

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

"Wine Country" Economic Conference Hosted By Mish
Click on Image to Learn More

Obama's Chance to Do Something Right: Nominate Hagel for Secretary of Defense; Why the War Party Fears Hagel

Posted: 06 Jan 2013 05:43 PM PST

The Financial Time reports Hagel nomination expected this week.

US President Barack Obama is poised to nominate Chuck Hagel as secretary of defence, setting the stage for a tough nomination fight focusing on the former Republican senator's views on Israel and Iran.

The announcement by Mr Obama of a new Pentagon chief to replace Leon Panetta could come as early as Monday, administration officials indicated. Mr Obama returned from a holiday in Hawaii on Sunday.

Mr Hagel's possible nomination has caused an uproar among neoconservatives over his questioning of sanctions and military action against Iran and his statement that a "Jewish lobby" intimidates Congress.

Many Democrats have been unenthusiastic as well, because he is a Republican and over a past statement criticising a Clinton-era diplomatic appointment as "openly, aggressively gay".

But the criticism has been especially virulent from the right, with Israel conservatives labelling him borderline anti-Semitic and suggesting he was intent in making dangerously deep cuts to the defence budget.

Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina and a prominent defence hawk, said on Sunday he was inclined not to support his former Senate colleague because of his "antagonistic" attitude to Israel.

"This is an in-your-face nomination by the president for all those who are supportive of Israel," Mr Graham told CNN.

Got That?

Democrats don't want Hagel simply because Hagel is a Republican. The Republicans do not want him because he is not a war-monger.

That's what this whole thing boils down to.

Why the War Party Fears Hagel

Let's fill in the details with a look at Why the War Party Fears Hagel

Who is Chuck Hagel?

Born in North Platte, Neb., he was a squad leader in Vietnam, twice wounded, who came home to work in Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign, was twice elected U.S. senator, and is chairman of the Atlantic Council and co-chair of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

To The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, however, Hagel is a man "out on the fringes," who has a decade-long record of "hostility to Israel" and is "pro-appeasement-of-Iran."

Hagel's enemies contend that his own words disqualify him.

First, he told author Aaron David Miller that the "Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up there" on the Hill. Second, he urged us to talk to Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran. Third, Hagel said several years ago, "A military strike against Iran ... is not a viable, feasible, responsible option."

Hagel has conceded he misspoke in using the phrase "Jewish lobby." But as for a pro-Israel lobby, its existence is the subject of books and countless articles. When AIPAC sends up to the Hill one of its scripted pro-Israel resolutions, it is whistled through. Hagel's problem: He did not treat these sacred texts with sufficient reverence.

"I am a United States senator, not an Israeli senator," he told Miller. "I support Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath ... to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not to a party. Not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that."

Hagel puts U.S. national interests first. And sometimes those interests clash with the policies of the Israeli government.

Chuck Hagel allies launch counter-attack

Politico reports Chuck Hagel allies launch counter-attack.

Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, said Hagel "has a very broad view of American foreign policy and the role in the world. He is very judicious, and he has an outstanding record as a senator, which gives him the knowledge and background to understand about the sometimes fractious relationship between the Congress, especially the Senate, and the administration."

"He got two Purple Hearts on the front lines," Scowcroft added. "That's about the best recommendation you can get from somebody whose job would be to advise on the use of troops around the world. I am honestly surprised, even astonished, at the attacks. I do know where they're coming from, but I don't understand the genesis of them.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a former Army Ranger who serves on the Armed Services Committee and has traveled to war zones with Hagel, said: "Every man and woman in uniform in the Pentagon and across the world will know that he's not only talked the talk, he's walked the walk. … He also has a successful business record. He is an entrepreneur who's succeeded.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, forcefully defended Hagel on MSNBC's "Morning Joe": "Unlike some of his critics, … he has fought for his country. He has been wounded for this country. He is a man who knows what war is like."

Nonviable Options

I support anyone willing to make this statement "A military strike against Iran ... is not a viable, feasible, responsible option." vs. anyone not willing to make the same statement.

A military strike on Iran would be idiotic, and I have no doubt one would have happened had Romney been elected.

It remains to be see if Obama can get this right. However, Hagel as Secretary of Defense would be a step in the right direction.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

The Bears' Prayer

Posted: 06 Jan 2013 09:58 AM PST

Given the Chicago Bears were put out of their misery last week, missing the playoffs I offer this prayer for 2013

Our Papabear
Who art in heaven
Hallas be thy name
We're havin' no fun
Cause we sure play dumb
At home as we do away
Give us this season
Coach Lovie's Leavin'
And forgive us you must
As we forgive those, scoring big against us
And lead us not into the playoffs
But deliver us from Cutler
Amen

I wrote that in 1997 and only needed to change a few words. Back then it was

Give us this season
Dave Wanstedt's Leavin'

In 1997 I ended with "deliver us from the Packers"

Since Lovie is gone, part of the prayer has been realized already. Fans still await much needed delivery from Cutler.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

SEO Blog

Sunday Exclusive | Best online games sites for 2013

Posted: 05 Jan 2013 09:59 PM PST

I think everybody in spite of age bar like spending time in activities which give them pleasure and happiness after hectic work schedule at office, home or school/colleges. Online games are one of the best ways for recreation and give your mind and body relaxation. The world of online games...
Read more »

Seth's Blog : What people buy when they buy something on sale

What people buy when they buy something on sale

Assuming it's not something they were shopping for in the first place...

The impulse big-sale buy is not a matter of acquiring a high value item they'll need later at a bargain price today.

No, the consumer is spending money in exchange for the feeling, right now, of saving big. The joy of a bargain. The item is secondary, the feeling is what we just paid for.

You wouldn't know that from the way people selling things act, but that's what we buy.

[Aside: More than a billion people on Earth have never purchased anything on sale at a store. The clearance-sale emotion is a learned one, and a recent one at that.]

• Email to a friend •

sâmbătă, 5 ianuarie 2013

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Ron Paul on Military Spending, the Fiscal Cliff, Bipartisan Politics, Hypocrite Republicans

Posted: 05 Jan 2013 05:11 PM PST

Here is a post on Facebook a couple days ago that is worth a read in entirety. I will post the entire article along with a few thoughts.

We Are Already Over the Fiscal Cliff by Ron Paul

Despite claims that the Administration and Congress saved America from the fiscal cliff with an early morning vote today, the fact is that government spending has already pushed Americans over the cliff. Only serious reductions in federal spending will stop the cliff dive from ending in a crash landing, yet the events of this past month show that most elected officials remain committed to expanding the welfare-warfare state.

While there was much hand-wringing over the "draconian" cuts that would be imposed by sequestration, in fact sequestration does not cut spending at all. Under the sequestration plan, government spending will increase by 1.6 trillion over the next eight years. Congress calls this a cut because without sequestration spending will increase by 1.7 trillion over the same time frame. Either way it is an increase in spending.

Yet even these minuscule cuts in the "projected rate of spending" were too much for Washington politicians to bear. The last minute "deal" was the worst of both worlds: higher taxes on nearly all Americans now and a promise to revisit these modest reductions in spending growth two months down the road. We were here before, when in 2011 Republicans demanded these automatic modest decreases in government growth down the road in exchange for a massive increase in the debt ceiling. As the time drew closer, both parties clamored to avoid even these modest moves.

Make no mistake: the spending addiction is a bipartisan problem. It is generally believed that one party refuses to accept any reductions in military spending while the other party refuses to accept any serious reductions in domestic welfare programs. In fact, both parties support increases in both military and domestic welfare spending. The two parties may disagree on some details of what kind of military or domestic welfare spending they favor, but they do agree that they both need to increase. This is what is called "bipartisanship" in Washington.

While the media played up the drama of the down-to-the-wire negotiations, there was never any real chance that a deal would not be worked out. It was just drama. That is how Washington operates. As it happened, a small handful of Congressional and Administration leaders gathered in the dark of the night behind closed doors to hammer out a deal that would be shoved down the throats of Members whose constituents had been told repeatedly that the world would end if this miniscule decrease in the rate of government spending was allowed to go through.

While many on both sides express satisfaction that this deal only increases taxes on the "rich," most Americans will see more of their paycheck going to Washington because of the deal. The Tax Policy Center has estimated that 77 percent of Americans would see higher taxes because of the elimination of the payroll tax cut.

The arguments against the automatic "cuts" in military spending were particularly dishonest. Hawks on both sides warned of doom and gloom if, as the plan called for, the defense budget would have returned to 2007 levels of spending! Does anybody really believe that our defense spending was woefully inadequate just five years ago? And since 2007 we have been told that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next eight years military spending would increase 20 percent without the sequester and would increase 18 percent with the sequester. And this is what is called a dangerous reduction in defense spending?

Ironically, some of the members who are most vocal against tax increases and in favor of cuts to domestic spending are the biggest opponents of cutting a penny from the Pentagon budget. Over and over we were told of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be lost should military spending be returned to 2007 levels. Is it really healthy to think of our defense budget as a jobs program? Many of these allegedly free-market members sound more Keynesian than Paul Krugman when they praise the economic "stimulus" created by militarism.

As Chris Preble of the Cato Institute wrote recently, "It's easy to focus exclusively on the companies and individuals hurt by the cuts and forget that the taxed wealth that funded them is being employed elsewhere."

While Congress ultimately bears responsibility for deficit spending, we must never forget that the Federal Reserve is the chief enabler of deficit spending. Without a central bank eager to monetize the debt, Congress would be unable to fund the welfare-warfare state without imposing unacceptable levels of taxation on the American people. Of course, the Federal Reserve's policies do impose an "inflation" tax on the American people; however, since this tax is hidden Congress does not fear the same public backlash it would experience if it directly raised income taxes.

I have little hope that a majority of Congress and the President will change their ways and support real spending reductions unless forced to by an economic crisis or by a change in people's attitudes toward government. Fortunately, increasing numbers of Americans are awakening to the dangers posed by the growth of the welfare-warfare state. Hopefully this movement will continue to grow and force the politicians to reverse course before government spending, taxing, and inflation destroys our economy entirely.

Key Points

The last minute "deal" was the worst of both worlds
According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next eight years military spending would increase 20 percent without the sequester and would increase 18 percent with the sequester. And this is what is called a dangerous reduction in defense spending?
Is it really healthy to think of our defense budget as a jobs program? Many of these allegedly free-market members sound more Keynesian than Paul Krugman when they praise the economic "stimulus" created by militarism.
While Congress ultimately bears responsibility for deficit spending, we must never forget that the Federal Reserve is the chief enabler of deficit spending.
Without a central bank eager to monetize the debt, Congress would be unable to fund the welfare-warfare state without imposing unacceptable levels of taxation on the American people.

Hypocrite Republicans

Please read points four and five repeatedly until both points are permanently etched in your memory.

I am particularly disappointed in Republican hypocrites bitching about non-cuts in military spending, moaning about the loss of jobs if programs are cut. Yet, the fact remains neither Democrats, nor Republicans are interested in cutting the deficit.

If they were, the budget would be cut.

This "fiscal cliff" idea originated at the Fed, and blatant idiots in the mainstream media latched on to the idea. Of course Obama latched onto is as well, as did Wall Street, the latter always begging for a party.

However, Congress did not have to go along with it. Yet Congress did, including Republicans, in the worst possible way, hiking taxes and not cutting one cent from the budget. The entire process was sickening.

Expect more of the same because hypocrite Republicans have shown they have no backbone whatsoever.

As I stated earlier, I'll Believe It When I See It.

Does anyone believe the Republicans will really hold out for budget cuts? I sure don't after all the white flag waving we have seen.

I sure hope I am wrong, but what I fully expect is another can-kicking exercise in which Republicans cave in on cuts to entitlements in return for Democrats caving in on cuts to military.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Lauren Lyster Moves to Yahoo Finance

Posted: 05 Jan 2013 09:59 AM PST

Yesterday I heard rumors that Capital Account, hosted by Lauren Lyster had been cancelled. Some websites had posted that.

Actually, the show was not cancelled. Rather, Lauren accepted an offer to work for Yahoo!Finance in New York.

Because of her incredible talent, I knew it was only a matter of time before someone snatched her away from RT.

I positioned the YouTube clip below at 25:58 so you can watch her announcement.

As a frequent guest on Capital Account, I will miss the show. However, it is time for her and producer Demetri Kofinas to move on to bigger and better things in New York.

Although Lauren will no longer be on Capital Account, we will see her smiling face back in action soon enough, challenging conventional non-wisdom as she does so well.

Lauren, I wish you well in your new role at Yahoo!Finance.

Here is a Tweet on Yahoo!Finance Daily Ticker from Lauren.

Lauren Lyster ‏@LaurenLyster Starting next week, you can see me as a co-host of the #DailyTicker @YahooFinance! Very excited to join the team!!

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Damn Cool Pics

The Growing Need for Emergency Management Experts [Infographic]

Posted: 05 Jan 2013 03:39 PM PST

How does your community handle emergencies? Is your municipality prepared to handle the worst case scenarios? More than ever, there is a great need for emergency management experts. This infographic provides details as to what that looks like.

Click on Image to Enlarge.

Via: Anna Maria College

Best News Bloopers of 2012 [Video]

Posted: 04 Jan 2013 08:44 PM PST

A collection of the best local news bloopers that hit the internet in 2012.

luni, 7 ianuarie 2013

From the Archives: Marshmallow Cannon

Seth's Blog : Two kinds of mistakes

Two kinds of mistakes

More Recent Articles

duminică, 6 ianuarie 2013

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

SEO Blog

SEO Blog

Seth's Blog : What people buy when they buy something on sale

What people buy when they buy something on sale

More Recent Articles

sâmbătă, 5 ianuarie 2013

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Damn Cool Pics

Damn Cool Pics

Pagini

Persoane interesate

Arhivă blog

luni, 7 ianuarie 2013

More Recent Articles

duminică, 6 ianuarie 2013

More Recent Articles

sâmbătă, 5 ianuarie 2013

Pagini

Persoane interesate

Arhivă blog

Subscribe to