Fed delayed rate hike but claimed to “keep its options open”

Maybe We Won’t Have to “End The Fed”–Maybe it Will End On It’s Own, Under the Weight of its Own Lies, Fraud and Declining Power.
[courtesy Google Images]

I wrote the following article in June just after the Federal Reserve announced that it would not raise interest rates.  It wouldn’t been more timely, if I’d published then.  But, it was lost in the piles.  However, even though the article is late, there’s still an insight to be gained from reading it.

.

In June, the Federal Reserve declined to raise interest rates.  In response, Yahoo Finance reported:

.

“The Federal Reserve pushed back its plans to raise its benchmark short-term interest rate, a widely expected move following a series of mixed US economic reports.

“After a two-day policy meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee unanimously voted to hold the federal funds rate between 0.25% and 0.50%, citing weakness in recent employment data.”

.

That “weakness” was a surprising jobs report that, although economists had generally expected about 162,000 new jobs to be created in May, only 38,000 jobs were actually created—”the lowest level in six years.”

“Although the unemployment rate has declined, job gains have diminished,” the central bank wrote in its statement.

Say whut?

Does it make sense that the “unemployment rate declined” at the same time that the number of “jobs gains diminished” from an expected 162,000 to just 38,000? I won’t say that’s impossible, but it seems odd that, even though expected “job gains” fell by 76% (from 162,000 to an actual 38,000), the unemployment rate nevertheless continued to decline.

If the unemployment rate really declined, it sounds more like 124,000 people (who were expected to get new jobs but didn’t) simply “disappeared” from the unemployment rolls. They didn’t get jobs. Instead, they were simply deleted from unemployment calculations.

Result? Unemployment rates fell mathematically, but not actually.

.

 

Abbott & Costello Explain Unemployment

Abbott & Costello
[courtesy Google Images]

COSTELLO: I want to talk about America’s unemployment rate.
.ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 4.7%.
.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.
.

COSTELLO: You just said 4.7%.
.

ABBOTT: 4.7% Unemployed.
.

COSTELLO: Right–4.7% out of work.
.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.
.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 23% unemployed.
.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 4.7%.

 

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 4.7% or 23%?
.

ABBOTT: 4.7% are unemployed. 23% are out of work.
.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

.

ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

.

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.
.

COSTELLO: What point?

.

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

.

COSTELLO: To whom?

.
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
.

COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.
.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?
.

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
.

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?
.

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how it gets to 5.6%. Otherwise it would be 23%.

.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

.
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
.

ABBOTT: Correct.
.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
.

ABBOTT: Bingo.
.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.
.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like a Democrat.
.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!
.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Hillary.

 

 

World’s Savior: “Helicopter Money”?

Helicopter Money: Modern Manna?
[courtesy Google Images]

We live in times that are not merely “interesting” but spectacularly so.

According to Zero Hedge.com (“Helicopter Money Arrives: Switzerland To Hand Out $2500 Monthly To All Citizens”),

 

“Citi Bank’s chief economist has recently proclaimed that, ‘only helicopter money can save the world now’.

“The Finns are considering a ‘basic monthly income’ for the entire population.

“And soon, Swiss residents are to vote on a countrywide referendum about a radical plan to pay every single adult a guaranteed income of around $2500 per month, with authorities insisting that people will still want to find a job. . . .  Under the proposed initiative . . . each child would also receive 625 francs ($750) a month.”

 

 

The Bernie Sanders Revolution

Bernie Sanders
An Improbable Revolutionary
[courtesy Google Images]

Bernie Sanders is the junior US Senator from Vermont.  He’s a member of the Democrat Party and an avowed socialist.  He’s a balding, white-haired gentleman and 74 years old.  He’s nobody’s idea of a left-wing, radical revolutionary.

When Senator Sanders announced his candidacy for the Democrat nomination for President last May, it seemed to be a fool’s errand.   Hillary Clinton seemed virtually unstoppable.

My first reaction to his candidacy was, “Awww–isn’t that cute?  An elderly, white-haired socialist is running for President.  Gee, it’s really true; anyone can grow up to run for President in the USA.  Is this a great country, or what?”

Of course, I didn’t believe Bernie had a chance in heck of winning the Democrat nomination or even raising any funds.  I kind of expected him to campaign from his walker, make a brave show of it, take a nap and quickly fade from the campaign.

I was wrong.