Unemploymnent Up Again. (why Smart People Read The News On Friday Afternoon.)

You sure use a lot of St. Louis Federal Bank statistics. I don't know that bank well, but it seems like an odd source. I'd say "okay" since the numbers seem conservative but otherwise in line with what see elsewhere. Then I see your line "The overall ratio is about what it was in the latter 1970s, which I remember as being fairly good times." I'm sorry, I don't know too many people - actually anyone - that would characterize the late 1970's that way. I believe the words that were used at the time were "economic malaise" characterized by staggeringly high inflation, low employment, the demise of our manufacturing base without the corresponding rise in the IT economy. Not a good time by any stretch anywhere.

As I've told you elsewhere, they are merely a convenient one stop shop for a host of standard data prepared by a number of Federal govt. agencies.
1977-79 were fairly good years. Inflation was 6%-7% a year, but not much of a problem for anyone except long term lenders (during those years, the bond market was a dog). Unemployment was higher than in 1960s, but not higher than in much of the 1950s. Unemployment then was markedly lower than now. IT was definitely on the march: mainframes and minicomputers were very strong. IBM, DEC, Oracle, Unysis. Desktop systems were being born: Apple, Visicalc. Uses were being found everywhere for integrated circuits and primitive microprocessors. Old line manufacturing was in trouble, but that was true before and after the latter 1970s. I worked part of that decade for Bethlehem Steel, and can speak from experience to obsolete plant and machinery. But the overall investment in plant and equipment wasn't bad. Finally, many women that weren't working in 1970 had jobs by 1980, and the ability of the American economy to make room for many millions of married women going to work was remarked at the time.

That is the problem with the data "government agencies." Anyone who hasn't seen the bending of reporting for political purposes over the last 12 years isn't paying attention. (For a quick schooling on how those numbers fluctuate - read the day end reporting on a Friday afternoon before a three day weekend to see all the "corrections.") As for the IT economy, you are close and yes Apple did sell a very few motherboards in the 1970s, but anyone who knows the history of the PC era (and I do) knows that it was very much a 1980s phenomenon. As for your continued assertation that everything was fine in the Carter era, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I was more of a student of the era than a participant, but reading through the newpaper clippings of the times around the Ford and Carter administrations doesn't show that, and the fact that both Ford and Carter were one term Presidents tends to make me believe that perhaps your view was not universally held.

In Nov. 2007, the total number of jobs in the US economy reached an all time high of 139M. The number declined to 127.3M by Jan. 2010. It has since risen to 133.7M. So the net loss of jobs to date, relative to the pre-crisis peak, has been 5.4M. Over the same period, the number of adult men (women) has risen from 104.1M (111.8M) to 108.5M (117.4M).
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/LNU00000025.txt
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/LNU00000026.txt
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PAYNSA

Consa -- thank you for providing the precise numbers. I did not have the time to research and provide them.

You can have it one of two ways but not both: Either the 2008 recession was Bush's fault AND the failure of the economy to recover and employment to improve is Obama's fault, OR neither president has the power to really have that much of an impact on the economy. You cannot possibly have it that the 2008 recession was Bush's fault and today's lack of recovery is NOT Obama's fault. Take your choice.

President Bush had a Democrat House AND a Democrat Senate from 2006 through 2008. Obama had a Democrat Senate AND a Democrat House from 2008 through 2010. Which president was more handicapped by his opposition? Hmmm?

Caamelicious - If you think that it's all "businesses" fault, think about the fact that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government entities that directly affected the mortgage mess and that we have a banking oversight committee that spents 10's of billions a year and was supposed to avoid problems like this from happening. You want to know why banks were giving loans to people who couldn't afford them? It's because a government entity not only told those banks that the government would back every loan they brought in but also told them if they denied loans to blacks, latinos, etc. they would be investigated for discrimination.

Wow angry much? All of our leaders screw up regardless of the party.

What was angry about that response? (Either likitysplits or myown.) Those are facts - every single one of them - and though I am quite capable of being sarcastic I tried hard not to be. As for "ever leader screwing up," you are right - but Obama criticised Bush without mercy for spending and abuse of power and he's spent more in 3 years than Bush did in 8 and not only didn't cancel the Patriot Act, he actually gave himself the right to kill any American anywhere without due process. (Something that the left would have howled had Bush done it.) Everything Obama claimed to be, he has proven himself to be the opposite. Promising to do one thing and working hard to do exactly the opposite is not "screwing up." It's lying and it's failure of leadership, pure and simple.

Fannie and Freddie walked away from all common sense. First, they threw away their 20th century rules limiting what kind of mortgages they could buy and repackage. Second, they invested in several hundred billion of subprime mortgage backed securities created by Wall Street. By doing this, they koshered what proved to be a suicidal line of business. Also, the Bush 2 admin tried to rein in the mortgage industry in 2005, but Barney Frank and others on Capitol Hill said "no way". The ostensible reason was that the subprime industry was putting more families into owned homes. The real reason was that Wall Street banksters were the biggest campaign contributors in the USA. The insane subprime mortgages were not initiated so much by regular banks and S&Ls, but by mortgage banks, a type of business that originates mortgages and then resells them to Fannie/Freddie/Ginnie or Wall Street. Countrywide was one of the biggest and worst mortgage banks. A downpayment of at least 20% should be required to purchase any residential real estate. Otherwise, we will experience meltdown after meltdown until the end of time. It should also be possible for a borrower to negotiate a reduction in monthly payments, in exchange for the lender getting a larger share of the proceeds upon sale, as long as the resulting loan to value ratio does not exceed 80%.

What a well reasoned review of the facts Consa. It is a government that is too big that is working with Wall St. that feeds on that power and unlimited supply of money that is at the roots of this. To quote Shakespeare "A pox on both houses."