MSNBC: Greenspan "convinced" 3,000,000 lost jobs...

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

...will be replaced.

That was just a brief teaser while MSNBC went to commercial (9:30 am, 1/26/04).

The comment was "this one is just coming in over the wire."

They just came back from commmercial and said that the comments were made on CNBC and that Greenspan "is confident that ALL 3,000,000 jobs will be replaced."

Edited to include the full story link (AP):

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040126/ap_on_bi_ge/greenspan_flexibility&e=1

[lcordero]

1. that's a crock of shit

Those jobs will never come back or be replaced.

[liberalnurse]

22. They may be replaced by college grads

with 10 years experience making "Happy Meals".....to support their family......

Its going to be an Upstairs/Downstairs America......

[Skidmore]

2. He's prayn' it's so cause

if he doesn't prop this sorry slob in the WH, he knows the next elected president will ask him to join the ranks of the unemployed.

[barbaraann]

3. The new jobs will be sub-minumum wage with no benefits.

And they will require you to work 100 hours a week with no worker protection or union representation.

[LincolnMcGrath]

11. and no overtime

[ixion]

4. uh, replaced when?

it's been more than two years... how long are people expected to go without jobs in a country where work is everything? this is nuts. :eyes:

[a_random_joel]

5. Bush introduces Wal-Mart Initiative.

5,000 new Wal-Marts to be opened.

[mhr]

6. Yes, But At What Salary Level?

The LA Times reported last week that replacement jobs in California are paying 40% less than previous jobs.

So if the salaries go down is that a success.

One thinks not.

[Drifter]

12. Thats like saying ....

that it is better to have 15 $1 bills in your pocket than a single $20 bill, because there are more of them.

Cheers
Drifter

[arcane1]

18. of course it's a success if the salaries go down!

success for those who pay the salaries, anyway

:grr:

[hang a left]

7. Yep, I bet he is right.

They will all be high paying military jobs. (sarcasm)

[Maeve]

8. Faith-based economics

Glory, glory, Mr Greenspin is confident! :eyes:

[markses]

9. Let's do the math

Let's even give Bushie 5 years (this year plus four more to do it). In order to add 3,000,000 jobs, this economy would have to add, over the next 5 years, 1,644 jobs a day. A day. Starting last New Year's Day, so I'm guessing we're already a little behind. D'oh!

[rock]

10. That makes one

Who thinks that. OK, who says they think that.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

13. I wonder if Greenspan read this...

I'm somewhat "iffy" in the area of economics but this story just hit the MSNBC Web Site, and to ME, it doesn't bode well for the "return" of 3,000,000 jobs...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4063380/

Hill budget office sees record deficit in '04
$477 billion red-ink estimate seen an election issue

Selected quotes:

"WASHINGTON - Federal deficits will total nearly $2.4 trillion over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office projected Monday, a worsening of nearly $1 trillion since its last forecast in August."

Treasury Secretary John Snow, in a speech delivered via satellite to a conference in London, repeated the administration’s commitment to cut the deficit in half — toward a size that is below 2 percent of gross domestic product — over the next five years.

"Make no mistake; President Bush is serious about the deficit," Snow said.

[Tansy_Gold]

33. Oh, yeah, * is serious about the deficit, all right

serious about making sure the deficit continues to benefit his wealthy friends, continues to push the U.S. back into a medieval economy, continues to foment class war on the poor and working classes.

serious? I'm serious about making * employed - in a prison laundry.

[theHandpuppet]

41. I have to agree...

... with another poster here on DU who suggested that Bush is deliberately driving up the deficit so he can do a "slash and burn" of social programs across the board. It's the neocon way to commit genocide against the poor, the elderly, the disabled... if they can't afford shelter, food or medicine that's what it amounts to. But that's also why he's preaching about churches and faith groups taking over the responsiblilty for social programs, for that way he can deflect any responsibility away from his own failed policies and let his wealthy supporters keep more of their own fortunes.

I can tell you from my weekly trips to deliver some groceries to the local food bank that it isn't the wealthiest, most financially capable who are dropping off the bags of food and clothing for the elderly and poor. When's the last time you think Pickles dropped off a sack of beans to a food bank in DC?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

14. Has he looked down the back of the couch?

Maybe in that sports jacket he doesn't wear much?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

15. i know one way he can be right

continue down the path of a military draft.

[Jim Sagle]

16. Yeah - in Bangladesh.

[BeatleBoot]

17. He didn't say where, did he?

India, China....

[OneTwentyoNine]

19. Ohhh Man!!! I'll bet thats a breath of fresh air to laid off workers!!

What a crock of fucking shit,3 million jobs will be recovered?? Not with this bunch of clowns running the country. If Chimp gets elected in 04 watch for 3 million more to go away.

David

[HootieMcBoob]

20. replaced yes ... but not with jobs

with job realted program activities!

:)

[IkeWarnedUs]

21. Maybe he meant . . .

When the Democrats are back in power.

[Bandit]

23. How many illegals are there that they want to give amnesty to?

Around three million I would venture. :shrug: someone's gotta pick that Cotton

[PVnRT]

24. With what? Low-wage service sector work?

Whatever, Alan... :eyes:

[kcwayne]

25. Dean will fire Greenspan.

Whomever wins the nomination should do the same. Greenspan has let political ideology get in the way of analysis for the last 3 years, and he should be put to pasture. He is performing a great disservice to the country.

[YNGW]

27. Just Wondering.

Who would take his place and/or how would s/he do anything differently than any Central Banker has done? Be Specific.

[kcwayne]

28. I don't know who would be appointed, but my complaints about Greenspan

are that while he warned the Bush/Clinton/Bush administrations about the problems of massive deficits, he suddenly reversed course under pressure from King George and suggested the strength of the economy was such that the deficit spending for Iraq and the Bush tax cut would be absorbed. He knows this is wrong but is bowing to politics.

So now he is between a rock and a hard place. The economy will fall over if interest rates are raised. But with massive deficit spending putting a huge burden on the treasury to cash flow the administrations mis-adventures, where does the Central Banker go to get capital? Our interest rates are so low, and the administration is so mistrusted by the rest of the world it is difficult to generate interest in US Government debt instruments, and we have seen a net outflow of cash from foreign institutions pulling their assets.

The only other thing the CB can do is start printing money which would generate an inflationary effect, and destabilize our ability to export even further.

Its the job of the Central Banker to understand the momentum of money and the affects on it from dynamic world market conditions. If they are going to make recommendations based on political ideology, there really is no reason to have them in place at all.

[YNGW]

30. Reply

Thank you for your response.

I disagee that Central Bankers make recommendations based on political ideology. I'm too familiar with Fed monetary policy to believe this. Most administrations are constantly at odds with the Fed.

We must agree to disagree.

[kcwayne]

31. Then how do you explain his reversal on monetary policies

in regards to deficit spending in the face of the tax cut and funding the Iraq war?

[anti-NAFTA]

35. Your argument is void

Greenspan pushed a monetary policy to avoid recession (fed funds rate reduction). He warned Bush about the deficit. Bush would not listen.

What do you want from Greenspan? Be specific. It is one thing to say "Greenspan is being political and should be fired", and it is another thing to provide evidence to that claim. You have not provided evidence.

[kcwayne]

45. Right

During the Clinton administration, Greenspan was a hawk on government deficits. He inserted himself into the role as a spokesman on fiscal policy, which is not what CBs normally do.

In December 1992, he told Clinton that reducing the massive deficits inherited from President Bush would lower interest rates and improve the economy. He told Clinton that the 1997 budget deficit should be reduced by 140 billion dollars. When the Clinton administration introduced this budget plan, Republicans went into apoplexy and the "focally conservative" party cast not a single vote for the budget. The only marquee support came from Greenspan, who would have looked ridiculous backing away at that point.

Under the BushII administration, deficits were skyrocketing as early as 2002, and the proposals for additional government spending rolled through the door daily. Greenspan no longer felt it necessary to weigh in on fiscal policy for some reason. The deficits were no longer important, and he went along with Bush's tax cut, a move that did nothing but increase the deficits.

As our surplus of 6 trillion evaporated, where was Greenspan on the deficit? He suggests that long term deficits should be avoided, but has only suggested that Congress craft spending limits and build in expirations of spending programs.

Is Greenspan's reversal on the wisdom of keeping deficits under control based on experienced monetary policy or political expediency?
It looks to the that latter to me.

In the spring of 2003, Greenspan issued official Federal Reserve policy stating that the biggest problem the threatened the economy was deflation. He suggested that the Fed would make special buys of treasury bonds to pump new money into the economy. A mere 3 months later he says no, deflation is not a problem, and that the economy was going to rebound in the latter half of the year, and therefor there is no need to add liquidity to the market.

I don't understand the economy the Greenspan is referring to in the latter half of 2003. The administration is fabricating good news about economic growth that has no bearing on the economy on main street where unemployment and massive dislocation of industry overseas is the harbinger of very bad times ahead. Greenspan's timing of his threat reversal looks to be clearly motivated by the administration's needs to promote the idea of a strong economy. The threat of deflation that he spoke about last spring has not disappeared. There is no pricing power today to raise prices. Our trade imbalance is increasing exponentially with low cost goods and nothing about the bogus 8.2% GDP growth reported for 3rd quarter changes that.

[TacticalPeek]

34. "Based on political ideology"

This is not necessarily refuted by observing that "Most administrations are constantly at odds with the Fed". When the Fed and the Admin share ideology or political interest they would not be 'at odds'.

1990-12-19 6.50
1991-02-01 6.00
1991-04-30 5.50
1991-09-13 5.00
1991-11-06 4.50
1991-12-20 3.50
1992-07-02 3.00
1994-05-17 3.50
1994-08-16 4.00
1994-11-15 4.75
1995-02-01 5.25
1996-01-31 5.00
1998-10-15 4.75
1998-11-17 4.50
1999-08-24 4.75
1999-11-16 5.00
2000-02-02 5.25
2000-03-21 5.50
2000-05-16 6.00
2001-01-03 5.75
2001-01-04 5.50
2001-01-31 5.00
2001-03-20 4.50
2001-04-18 4.00
2001-05-15 3.50
2001-06-27 3.25
2001-08-21 3.00
2001-09-17 2.50
2001-10-02 2.00
2001-11-06 1.50
2001-12-11 1.25
2002-11-06 0.75

http://www.neatideas.com/data/data/DISCOUNT.htm

Looks to me like Dr. Greenspan likes GHWB, hates Clinton, and loves Shrub. Or it could just be coincidence.

[YNGW]

36. Reply

The Fed determines rates based upon ecomomic trends, not politics. The Fed has one purpose: The stable growth of money.

A good start would be to read the book:

Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (William Greider)

That book begins to scratch the surface of understanding how the Fed works.

I've tried to have conversations with people here regarding the Fed, but so far haven't found anyone with a strong foundation of understanding monetary policy. I keep trying though. :) But once I see that they don't, I cut the conversations short.

[Toots]

44. The Fed determines rates based upon economic trends, not politics.

If only this were true.:shrug: It has been extremely apparent over the last couple of decades how it has been working. Lower rates for republicans and raise them for Democrats. That is fact now it's the reasoning that is in doubt. You say economics and economics only. Given that most every single Republican Administration has sent this nation into recession, not only because of economic decisions but also social decisions which create economic concerns. Because of their terrible mishandling of the country the Fed had to come to their aid by lowering rates. There is sound reason in believing that but I believe they work hand in hand with Republicans and use their position of economic authority to aid the Republicans and help sway citizens to believe otherwise. Greenspan said before Bush* was elected that Tax Cuts were not a wise course of action. After Bush* was elected he changed his mind. Go figure.

[kcwayne]

46. You keep telling how smart you are

but you have not offered a single substantive thought. Maybe you should offer up something, or just hang out at Economist Today and don't waste precious time with us unwashed here at DU.

[TacticalPeek]

26. "Irrational exuberance."

:evilgrin:

[gasperc]

29. by workers in third world countries

at 1/50 the wages!!!!!!!

[CO Liberal]

32. Yep - Replacing High-Paying Jobs...

...with minimum-wage jobs.

[hippyleftist]

37. this isn't news

jobs are created and destroyed every day - that's the way the economy has always worked

[Serenity-NOW]

38. In a word, that's ridiculous

since we have history to observe. Try harder. FDR refutes you as does Clinton. You skirt around NAFTA and GATT which were not 'always'.

[Robbien]

39. Yes that is the standard republican response

you forgot to add that there really isn't any poor and that those without jobs are just not applying themselves.

[HootieMcBoob]

43. Unfortunately for the U.S. the Bush* administration is exceptionally good

at destroying them. Better, in fact, than any president since Herbert Hoover during the great depression.

[Strelnikov_]

40. Great, What About The 120k Jobs/MO That Have To Be . .

. . created to keep up with people entering the workforce?

12 mo. x 3 yr. x 120k = still 4,320k behind

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

42. Surprise, surprise: "Greenspan’s comments boost stocks" (MSNBC)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3683270/

This is the game, folks, being played "live" before your very eyes.

"I think Mr. Greenspan has given us some hope," said Peter Cardillo, president and chief strategist of Global Partner Securities Inc. "He’s confident there will be creation of new jobs and that was what the market wanted to hear."

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

47. Unbelievable CNN spin on this: "Greenspan: U.S. to regain lost jobs ...

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/26/news/economy/greenspan_jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes

"...But there will be lots of pain for those displaced; Fed chief also warns against trade barriers."

"Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Monday that new jobs will replace old ones lost to low-wage countries like China but that plenty of workers will suffer in the meantime.

The jobs will come back if the nation's economy remains innovative and workers are retrained, the central bank chief said in a speech prepared for an economic conference in London.

He also warned against building barriers to free trade to protect jobs, noting such a plan could end up hurting economies in the United States and elsewhere.

We can be confident that new jobs will displace old ones as they always have, but not without a high degree of pain for those caught in the job-losing segment of America's massive job-turnover process," Greenspan said."

So he's essentially saying "IT is gone...get over it...get trained for health care, retail and the service sector, don't try to prevent jobs leaving the U.S., and expect a high degree of pain?????"

[Kat45]

48. Workers will have to be retrained?

Who is going to retrain them? Will there be a job for them once they are retrained? Who is going to pay to retrain them? How are they supposed to support themselves while they are have no job or income, but are being retrained? How will they get health care while they are being retrained and don't have a job and an income?