The New Republic

How about spicing it up even more, Jonathan, and calling it "Chart Du Jour?"

- liberalref

August 5, 2011 at 4:18pm

"Chart," perhaps not; but "CHART!!!!11" for sure.

- subterran

August 5, 2011 at 4:44pm

Even the troughs are trending upward, and look how anemic the last cycle of growth was.

- subterran

August 5, 2011 at 4:46pm

By this chart, the worst of times before Reagan were just about on par with the best of times after Dubya took office.

- Dausuul

August 5, 2011 at 5:20pm

How about Chait Chart? You don't understand Jonathan. The explanation for this chart is simple. Paying all of those extended unemployment benefits deprives the currently unemployed of any incentive to go out and look for work. If you just quit paying such generous benefits the trendline would turn back down in a hurry. It is a simple economic principle, when you pay for more unemployment you get more unemployment. Next question.

- dhuey0

August 5, 2011 at 8:10pm

dhuey, two points: 1) Recipients of unemployment benefits are required to remain engaged in an active search for work and to provide documentation of their efforts. 2) The extension of benefits last December was enacted IN RESPONSE to unprecedented numbers of long-term unemployed. I don't know how you do things in your universe, but in mine we try not to impute causation to factors that took place after their putative effects.

- AaronW

August 5, 2011 at 10:26pm

@AaronW: I *think* DHuey0 was being sarcastic.

- Dausuul

August 6, 2011 at 12:04am

I don't. I'm pretty sure dhuey is, along with Mr Rationale and seattleeng, one of TNRD's resident libertarian trolls. If I have made a mistake, dhuey, please accept my apologies.

- AaronW

August 6, 2011 at 5:32am

AaronW: "1) Recipients of unemployment benefits are required to remain engaged in an active search for work and to provide documentation of their efforts." Spoken like someone who doesn't have a working knowledge of how unemployment benefit works in the real world. Yes, they are required to remain in active search, and provide documentation of their efforts, but only on demand, not to mention the requirements are pretty low to begin with. Personally, I don't even think it makes sense to have those requirements in the first place, as most people would prefer to work than sit home and collect a fraction of the money they could be earning. The point is, you can't counter what you claim to be inaccurate with more inaccuracies. "2) The extension of benefits last December was enacted IN RESPONSE to unprecedented numbers of long-term unemployed. I don't know how you do things in your universe, but in mine we try not to impute causation to factors that took place after their putative effects." This is irrelevant, and does not address his assertion that paying people not to work engenders more unemployment, or that "if you just quit paying such generous benefits the trendline would turn back down in a hurry." While I don't necessarily agree with him, I don't think you can dismiss him by changing the subject either. If you think he's wrong, please offer a cogent counter argument, but this, for sure, isn't it. "I don't. I'm pretty sure dhuey is, along with Mr Rationale and seattleeng, one of TNRD's resident libertarian trolls." Oh, lay off the Gestapo-like tactics! Now, there's something to be said for freedom of speech and how some of you attempt to limit it through this type of bullying. Proffer a coherent counter argument to that of those you disagree with. What if they are what you say they are? How do we know you're who you say you are? And should it even matter? The only criteria I know for commenting here is that you have to be a paid subscriber.

- wkwami

August 6, 2011 at 12:19pm

dhuey,wkwami, libref, Mr. Rat,and seatlle are right on. They have shown me the true path to ecomomic success. FDR reduced unemployment from >20% to less than 15% 1933-36 by ending Hooverian follies like the WPA,CCC, etc. Those so employed were so dense that it took them 3-4 years to realize what had happened and that's why unemployment went up again in 1937-38. Furthermore, the real intent of Togo, Hitler, amnd Mussolini was to end world hunger by gainfully emplying millions in military operations-- and together with Stalin--remove those who did not properly understand Hooverian economics and/or contribute to the new economic order nas each defined it.

- drofnats1

August 6, 2011 at 4:34pm

wkwami, are you just out to contradict me on anything I say? What could possibly be your purpose here? Do you believe that unemployment benefits prolong unemployment? And guess what, dickhead, back in the 1992 recession I applied for unemployment benefits "in the real world."

- AaronW

August 6, 2011 at 5:08pm

And, yes, I know that it is possible for a person who wants to continue receiving benefits and not work to game his job search so that he doesn't find work even when work is available. I also know that such behavior is classified as fraud.

- AaronW

August 6, 2011 at 5:32pm

AaronW, I stated very clearly that "...I don't necessarily agree with him" and also "personally, I don't even think it makes sense to have those requirements in the first place, as most people would prefer to work than sit home and collect a fraction of the money they could be earning." My purpose here is to get you to focus on making the counter argument on the merits as opposed to being dismissive or attacking the messenger. I enjoy a good debate even if someone gets the better of me, but let's try to keep it civil. Now, do I believe unemployment benefits prolong unemployment? My answer is I can see that as being possible in very small cases, but again, largely irrelevant when you factor in that someone collecting unemployment is spending that money and helping the economy at large. I simply don't see the downside. Next time there is a government surplus, they ought to give it out to the poor who will spend it and spur even more growth, as opposed to giving tax cuts to the rich or waging war.

- wkwami

August 6, 2011 at 7:30pm