Obama's Final Jobs Report Is A Fitting End To His Presidency

In my area (northeastern NJ/NYC metro area) 2007/08 was bad; very real job losses as NYC basically lost many of its financial sector jobs (and that impact rippled through local economies with foreclosures and such). Couple that with a horrible candidate like McCain and Obama was a shoe-in (anyone would have been).

2012 was a frightening indication of the enemedia’s strength, as the proven failure Otoken was re-elected. Again, in my area things never recovered (and still haven’t).

2016 showed (as you point out) that Trump learned how to beat the same media that dragged Otoken to a second term; it was impossible to hide the economic stagnation, and nobody believed there was anything the Dems would do to fix things. They were too busy pretending everything was fine...

Thanks (and I’m not an economist; it’s been forever since even my basic economics course). I was just quoting the page, which isn’t the formula you cited, but

“Calculated as the ratio of quarterly nominal GDP
(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP) to the quarterly average of M2 money stock.”

Since, as you noted in your original, they’re printing money by the bucketloads, of course GDP/M2 will decrease; intuitively to me that says that while whatever $ are flying about might not be recessionary, the real world IS because each $ is worth that much less in real wealth.

Here’s a major problem with the jobs situation.

We have approximately 350,000 people turning 21 each and every month.

This means that in the age range of 18 to say 25, we have 33,600,000 new potential workers.

I address it this way because some try to enter the workforce at 18 (or even before) and others are potential new workers at another point in the eight year period.

When another 150,000 people enter the workforce in a certain month, it sounds great. The fact is, it is terrible. It means 200,000 more potential workers didn’t find work that month. Our out of work numbers go up. In a year that’s 2,400,000 people

There is a new potential workforce of 33,600,000 people who could enter the workforce in that eight year period. Right now we are only adding about 14,400,000 during the eight years. This means we are adding 19,200,000 to our non-working worker rolls.

Think of the new families not being started. Think of the new homes not being bought. Thinks of the children not being born. Think of the potential tax receipts not materializing.

This 150,000 figure each month, is symptomatic of a very sick situation.

In 16 years, just a little over a decade and a half, we’re talking about another 38,400,000 idle workers.

We are only putting to work 42.85% of our new potential workforce members. We are not putting to work 57.15% of our potential new workers every 16 years.

Each month, 57.15% of our potential new workers are added to the body of people in this nation were are able to work, but are not employed.

This doesn’t even touch the underemployed and part-timers who are classified as employed.

This is closer to a Potter’s field than anything else.

This is just plain dismal. It’s a national disgrace what has taken place over the last 16 years.

I do have a little advantage: I taught this stuff for 30 years at several universities. The quote you gave:

“Calculated as the ratio of quarterly nominal GDP
(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP) to the quarterly average of M2 money stock.”

is actually the same, since the output of an economy is Q which is sold at some average price (or price level) P. Velocity is actually the number of times the money supply must work its way through the economic system to buy that output (i.e., V * M). Hence my original equation PQ = MV. Therefore:

V = P * Q / M

Or V = GDP / M

which is what your quote says. While some argue for using M1 for M above, your quote choose to include near money, or M2.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.