Fed raising interest rates in the 96th month...

[MegaPoke]

...out of 96 months of Obama's reign. For the first time.

I swear to God, it's not the sketchy bullshit these bureaucratic assholes pull so much as the fact that they obviously expect us to believe it's not politicized establishment uniparty self preservation of the status quo.

 

[Medic007]

...out of 96 months of Obama's reign. For the first time.

I swear to God, it's not the sketchy bullshit these bureaucratic assholes pull so much as the fact that they obviously expect us to believe it's not politicized establishment uniparty self preservation of the status quo.

Or the economy is doing well for the first time in 8 years knowing that Kenyan economics is on the out. Blame Bush!

 

[long-duc-dong]

Didn't they raise them In 2015 by .25?

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

It's actually the 2nd time. They raised them in late 2015 also.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Ha! You guys believe that?? Tell em Mega -- they've fallen for more liberal disinformation. Those rates weren't raised, and it's because of the establishment, HRC, etc.

 

[aix_xpert]

It is the second time, but its also a clear sign that the "so called" economic recovery provided by a current leadership lacked any real teeth. I'd argue in fact, that the vast majority of the so called recovery was simply spurred by the Fed setting low interest rates and not due to any particular actions performed by the President (or Congress). Had we spurred real growth with our $800B infrastructure spending (remember those shovel ready jobs) or the various other legislation/XO enacted that rates would have recovered by 2-3% rather than the .25% that had occurred prior to yesterday. I have trouble crediting the current administration for this rate hike, given that until Trump was elected and the market soared, Yellen has been very hesitant to do any rate hikes and potentially harm what little recovery had previously occurred.

 

[07pilt]

It is the second time, but its also a clear sign that the "so called" economic recovery provided by a current leadership lacked any real teeth. I'd argue in fact, that the vast majority of the so called recovery was simply spurred by the Fed setting low interest rates and not due to any particular actions performed by the President (or Congress). Had we spurred real growth with our $800B infrastructure spending (remember those shovel ready jobs) or the various other legislation/XO enacted that rates would have recovered by 2-3% rather than the .25% that had occurred prior to yesterday. I have trouble crediting the current administration for this rate hike, given that until Trump was elected and the market soared, Yellen has been very hesitant to do any rate hikes and potentially harm what little recovery had previously occurred.

Stimulus passed in early 2009.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Who is this Fred guy?

 

[NZ Poke]

Highly suggested new video:

 

[07pilt]

Fred Murtz. You don't know him?

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

 

[aix_xpert]

Sorry Pilt, but the unemployment chart has been discussed around here ample. We all know that its as bogus a measure of our current economic state as there is. Ask any economist, if our real unemployment matched what that chart said, we'd have seen significant wage inflation, but instead, wages have been held back. Yes, some people have returned to work. But under-employed and the non-participating make up a huge chunk of that so called "improvement". And yes, there was stimulus passed in 2009. There was also interest rate drops. Unfortunately, only under President Obama when the interest rate drop improved employment were we not actually able to return the interest rates to a more normalized number.

Let me phrase this in another manner, because one of these two conditions is true: Either Obama's recovery was so mediocre that through 8 years couldn't generate enough consistent economic growth that the Fed would need to raise rates, or the typically apolitical Fed acted in a political manner to artificially hold rates down to benefit the sitting president. Which of these conclusions do you believe?

Justin

 

[07pilt]

Sorry Pilt, but the unemployment chart has been discussed around here ample. We all know that its as bogus a measure of our current economic state as there is. Ask any economist, if our real unemployment matched what that chart said, we'd have seen significant wage inflation, but instead, wages have been held back. Yes, some people have returned to work. But under-employed and the non-participating make up a huge chunk of that so called "improvement". And yes, there was stimulus passed in 2009. There was also interest rate drops. Unfortunately, only under President Obama when the interest rate drop improved employment were we not actually able to return the interest rates to a more normalized number.

My good sir, perhaps, read the chart before reflexively spouting off about "unemployment."

Let me phrase this in another manner, because one of these two conditions is true: Either Obama's recovery was so mediocre that through 8 years couldn't generate enough consistent economic growth that the Fed would need to raise rates, or the typically apolitical Fed acted in a political manner to artificially hold rates down to benefit the sitting president. Which of these conclusions do you believe?

Justin

Oh yeah man the economy hasn't been good and still isn't good. My beef is with "the vast majority of the so called recovery was simply spurred by the Fed setting low interest rates and not due to any particular actions performed by the President (or Congress). Had we spurred real growth with our $800B infrastructure spending (remember those shovel ready jobs) or the various other legislation/XO enacted that rates would have recovered by 2-3% rather than the .25% that had occurred prior to yesterday."
Maybe after you have taken time to review the chart you can see we were losing over 700,000 jobs per month when the stimulus was passed. What do you think the actual Wicksellian interest rate was in 2009?

 

[NZ Poke]

 

[07pilt]

View embedded media

lol

 

[NZ Poke]

lol

Source: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

View embedded media

Why quote her, you can't find something from Putin?

 

[07pilt]

Source: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

and in January 2006 there were 86.5 million who couldn't find work?