View Full Version : The Geography of a Recession
Time lapse county level unemployment map of the U.S.
January 2007 - September 2009
http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html
:mad:
Looks like the lights going out
Looks like the lights going out
You're right, Pete.
Wonder how these trends compare to previous years, in that some of the increases are relative to seasonal work, such as logging in the PACNORWEST.
Regardless, it's grim. Be interesting to see this map globally by country.
You're right, Pete.
Wonder how these trends compare to previous years, in that some of the increases are relative to seasonal work, such as logging in the PACNORWEST.
Regardless, it's grim. Be interesting to see this map globally by country.
Probaboly some seasonality from from the starting frame until the ending, but the overall trend is there. It's hard to do, but there is a definate worsening even in the Pacific NW year over year when like months are compared.
Be nice to be able to stop the playback in mid-stream.
If only the growing number of purple counties reflected the popularity of the L.A. Lakers or Minnesota Vikings.:(
Cross thread references. IIRC, NMAP provided links to other interactive maps related to the recession earlier this year, here (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=265407) and there (http://www.slate.com/id/2216238/).
Spending a moment with those maps after watching the one ABC_123 provided gives "festival of lights" an unhappy meaning during the Christmas season.
One thing seems clear: this is a great time to be a statistician or an Adobe guru.
Cross thread references. IIRC, NMAP provided links to other interactive maps related to the recession earlier this year, here (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=265407) and there (http://www.slate.com/id/2216238/).
Dang it. Thanks for the cross-reference. Maybe one of the mods could merge this onto one of those threads ?
Thanks for the cross-reference.Insomnia has a couple of 'advantages' when coupled Firefox's multi-tabbed browsing feature.:)
Roguish Lawyer
12-11-2009, 16:09
That was cool, thanks for the post.
If anyone wants some real-time depression (in both the economic and clinical senses), one can follow the tweets about layoffs in real time.
LINK (http://search.twitter.com/search?q=+%22laid+off%22+OR+layoff+OR+layoffs+OR+% 23layoff+OR+%23layoffs)
When one considers the size and frequency of the layoffs, along with the relative minority who use Twitter, it is suggestive that the green shoots are poison ivy or worse.
I've attached a copy of the latest Dow Theory newsletter. It considers globalization, China - and why our employment problems won't end anytime soon.
From that newsletter, I include the quote below...
Below is an excerpt from a very important article by Niall Ferguson that appeared in Newsweek, December 7. Ferguson is a brilliant professor of history at Harvard and author of the book, "The Ascent of Money."
This is how empires decline. It begins with a debt explosion. It ends with an inexorable reduction in the resources available for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Which is why voters are right to worry about America's debt crisis. According to a recent Rasmussen report, 42 percent of Americans now say that cutting the deficit in half by the end of the president's first term should be the administration's most important task - significantly more than the 23 percent who see health-care reform as the No. 1 priority. But cutting the deficit in half is simply not enough. If the United States doesn't come up soon with a credible plan to restore the federal budget to balance over the next five to 10 years, the danger is very real that a debt crisis could lead to a major weakening of American power.
The precedents are certainly there. Habsburg Spain defaulted on all or part of its debt 14 times between 1557 and 1669 and also succumbed to inflation due to a surfeit of New World silver. Prerevolutionary France was spending 62 percent of royal revenue on debt service by 1788. The Ottoman Empire went the same way: interest payments and amortization rose from 15 percent of the budget in 1860 to 50 percent in 1875. And don't forget the last great English-speaking empire. By the interwar year, interest payment were consuming 44 percent of the British budget, making it intensely difficult to rearm in the face of a new German threat.
Call it the fatal arithmetic of imperial decline. Without radical fiscal reform, it could apply to America next.
GratefulCitizen
12-11-2009, 18:04
I've attached a copy of the latest Dow Theory newsletter. It considers globalization, China - and why our employment problems won't end anytime soon.
From the newsletter:
As oceans of fiat currencies are created, it will be seen that the nations issuing thesecurrencies will be piled high with liabilities. The result -- all central bank paper will besuspect. There is only one money that is not some one else's liability -- and that's gold. Gold is not a product or a liability of any one nation. Gold is wealth on its own. In time, savers and investors will understand that. Once that's understood, there will be a panic own real money -- gold.
And that, as I see it, is how gold will fare in the new world of deflation.
I see a trend...
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-coming-collapse-of-the-global-gold-mining-industry-2009-12
The people and the charts seem somehow familiar.
Over at The Oil Drum, Jean Laherrére has been attempting to model global gold production to show that indeed, the amount we pull out of the earth annually is set to decline permanently.
The price is going to keep going up!!!
Ignore that peak in 1980.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Gold/Gold_inflation_chart.htm
But this time it's different!!!
Peak gold is here!!!:D
The Reaper
12-11-2009, 18:06
Bottom line up front, from my perspective.
There is not going to be a real recovery as long as the Dims (with their anti-business policies) and their union stooges are in control.
You cannot tax or legislate prosperity.
We could have a real train wreck by the next Presidential election. The Dims know that and are trying to spend their way out of it. I do not think that is going to work.
TR
I was listening to some economists on NPR today while running errands who were talking about the increasingly critical importance in the balance between spending, debt, and saving - and how Americans in the public and private sectors have begun to show positive signs of a noticably slow shift from > debt accumulation and > spending to a state of moderate saving and spending - however, the effects of this shift (if any) upon the looming threat of the burgeoning national debt load is :confused: pending any sort of results from the affects of the Govt's OOC budgets/policies/debts and the global economic stagnation.
Their views seemed to be - we just don't know and will have to wait and see how it all plays out. Not optimistic - but certainly not gloom n' doom, either...but who knows.
Richard
and how Americans in the public and private sectors have begun to show positive signs of a noticably slow shift from > debt accumulation and > spending to a state of moderate saving and spending - however, the effects of this shift (if any) upon the looming threat of the burgeoning national debt load is :confused: pending any sort of results from the affects of the Govt's OOC budgets/policies/debts and the global economic stagnation.
Well...let's see now. 70% of the U.S. economy is consumer spending.
If savings increase, then that implies present spending declines.
Does this not suggest that over the next several years we will have reduced growth as Americans reduce debt and increase savings?
Their views seemed to be - we just don't know and will have to wait and see how it all plays out. Not optimistic - but certainly not gloom n' doom, either...but who knows.
Optimism and gloom n' doom are all a matter of perspective. Cheap goods are great for those who can afford to buy - but not so good for those who seek to produce such things at a profit.
My perception is that the current administration is more interested in power for its own sake than in sound policy or even prosperity.
I am not looking forward to the time of reckoning when his left of center base realizes what many have long known. Namely, the president's only true cause is himself.
What makes this dynamic more worrisome is that the man seems uncertain in his attempt to define his own interests and how to pursue them. As a consequence, the growing sense of unease many Americans across the political spectrum are experiencing is so variegated that it may be difficult to find a consensus on why the president is the wrong man job.
A consensus on "why" may not be necessary to vote the man out of office in 2012. Yet, the absence of broader agreement will make undoing his policies more difficult. Then will be the hard work of addressing the causes of the recession and GWOT and undoing this administration's exacerbation of both.
All of this brings up two grim ironies. First, much of the outrageous, unsustainable rhetoric liberal critics used to demonize Bush the Younger more aptly describes his successor. Second, the incumbent--as intellectually lazy as any president to occupy the White House--is benefiting from his indolence. His continued incoherence is working almost as well as a deliberate plan to divide and to conquer his political opposition.
At least for now.
My perception is that the current administration is more interested in power for its own sake than in sound policy or even prosperity.
Concur, Sigaba. Would it be in the best interest of the country to let BHO win another term? Here's the thought: the current majority in Congress will not, by 2012, be able to un-screw the various problems created by the Chicago Gang (GWOT, healthcare, housing collapse, stock market collapse, Palestine, etc). If a conservative is elected in 2012 he/she will not be able to un-screw the mess, either, and everyone will be expecting big things from the POTUS. The only salvation is not going to be in the Executive Branch but in the Legislative Branch. That's where the solution is going to come from. Regardless of party. I say we forget the POTUS (let the idiot hang himself) and focus on cleaning out the cronies in Congress. Then in 2016 we can bring in a majority in Congress with the same politic as the Executive Branch. Basically what I'm suggesting is to write off the next 6 years as political suicide for any President, and let that misery be BHO's legacy. Kind of a variation on the Johnson years. IMHO. :munchin
Concur, Sigaba. Would it be in the best interest of the country to let BHO win another term? Here's the thought: the current majority in Congress will not, by 2012, be able to un-screw the various problems created by the Chicago Gang (GWOT, healthcare, housing collapse, stock market collapse, Palestine, etc). If a conservative is elected in 2012 he/she will not be able to un-screw the mess, either, and everyone will be expecting big things from the POTUS. The only salvation is not going to be in the Executive Branch but in the Legislative Branch. That's where the solution is going to come from. Regardless of party. I say we forget the POTUS (let the idiot hang himself) and focus on cleaning out the cronies in Congress. Then in 2016 we can bring in a majority in Congress with the same politic as the Executive Branch. Basically what I'm suggesting is to write off the next 6 years as political suicide for any President, and let that misery be BHO's legacy. Kind of a variation on the Johnson years. IMHO. :munchin
On our present course and rate of speed I would suggest that 2016 is too late and would ask what majority is going to change the course being that both Parties are high on promises and very weak on following through on those promises. Current events are proof that Congressional and Executive majorities are no guarantee that they will work for The People..
My .0002
I didn't say it would be easy.
I didn't say it would be easy.
I would agree it won't be easy.
IMO, People not Politicians are the only way to solve it. However that grows more difficult by the day considering the .GOV is the largest employer (51%) of the people and the increase of those on .GOV programs.
Most are not likely to bite the hand that feeds them.
Surf n Turf
12-11-2009, 21:23
Would it be in the best interest of the country to let BHO win another term? Remember the “executive” powers of the President, His cabinet (think EPA), and his TZAR’s – Then I don’t think so
Here's the thought: the current majority in Congress will not, by 2012, be able to un-screw the various problems created by the Chicago Gang (GWOT, healthcare, housing collapse, stock market collapse, Palestine, etc). If a conservative is elected in 2012 he/she will not be able to un-screw the mess, either, and everyone will be expecting big things from the POTUS. The only salvation is not going to be in the Executive Branch but in the Legislative Branch. That's where the solution is going to come from. Regardless of party. I say we forget the POTUS (let the idiot hang himself) and focus on cleaning out the cronies in Congress. Then in 2016 we can bring in a majority in Congress with the same politic as the Executive Branch. Basically what I'm suggesting is to write off the next 6 years as political suicide for any President, and let that misery be BHO's legacy. Kind of a variation on the Johnson years. IMHO. :munchin
Larry,
You are forgetting the years left under Řbama, and the harm he can still / will ( current term) cause this country. Immigration Reform legislation will certainly occur next year, and all 15-40 million “Illegal Democrats” (to coin TS) will become citizens. Then comes the 2010 Census (think Acorn / SEIU) and the gerrymandering that will occur (Calif will NOT lose seats because all the Americans left), but will gain seats because of our “New Citizens”. That will cause the House of Representatives to become a permanent institution of the Democrat Party. Come 2012, with 15-40 million new voters, (with the assistance of Acorn / SEIU) all of the major urban areas of America will vote Democrat, and that will pretty well give the Democrats their permanent 60+ vote majority in the Senate. So in 2012, it really doesn’t matter which party wins the White House – we will already be a banana republic.
Oh, and I didn’t mention the greatest “transfer of wealth” in the history of the world, which when you realize that the “elderly” have over $41 TRILLION in assets, could be a real source of mild irritation to those whose wealth is being confiscated.
SnT
Would it be in the best interest of the country to let BHO win another term?MOO, no. Surf n Turf lays out some excellent reasons in post #19, above.
To his list I would add the following scenario. Imagine the political advantage that would go to the current president's party if (a) the economy were to recover and regain the momentum it had in the 1990s or even earlier this decade, and (b) through a sequence of events U.S. made a significant stride forward in GWOT.
Even if a whole range of experts were to demonstrate that these fortuitous events transpired despite the president's policies rather than because of them, the power of the "Bully Pulpit" would allow the current incumbent to establish the political narrative and hand that narrative to his chosen successor. (Vice President Gore did not become President Gore--thankfully--because in his infinite wisdom, he decided he didn't want the advantage of being the successor to the most popular Democrat in that party's history in decades.)
For this reason, I think the GOP needs to field viable candidates in 2012 during the primary season and run a good race in the campaign for the general election. (What makes a "viable" candidate is a topic for heated discussion--some will want a candidate well to the right of center, others will want a candidate more towards the center.)
Even if the writing is on the wall from early on--1996 was depressing--the GOP has to do what it can to bring down the house when it is on the national stage.The only salvation is not going to be in the Executive Branch but in the Legislative Branch. That's where the solution is going to come from. Regardless of party. I agree.
Members of congress need to rediscover their professionalism and their political consciousness from an institutional perspective.
In this area, the incumbent may be hastening the process. He did not consult with Senator Feinstein before hand on the appointment of Leon Panetta; he's trying to strong arm "blue dog" Democrats on health care reform after using similar techniques for the stimulus.
Could it be that the reason why congress wants hearings on the White House party crashers but not yet on the Fort Hood massacre because the latter is a sign of deference to the army while the former is a signal to the president of growing skepticism?
While there may be more pressing issues over which to have an institutional donnybrook than a couple of attention whores weaseling their way onto the White House grounds, I won't be upset if this investigation turns into a brush up and then a fight that gets senators and congressmen alike pissed off enough to roll up their sleeves and to do some actual work.:munchin
FWIW, my personal approach to talking politics with my friends who support the president in charge is to put myself in their shoes and look at the president from their POV. From there, I ask friends if the incumbent is really getting the country "back on track." :rolleyes:
My objective is to inspire friends to ask seriously rational and objective--Lord knows how much the Left has cornered the market on those two traits--questions about the president. To ask themselves questions that cannot be answered by saying, "Well, he inherited this issue from..."
I'm an equal opportunity PITA/non-partisan wet blanket.:) "Not the way I'd do it" is my motto.:rolleyes:
FTR - Larry, I catch myself thinking from time to time with the same line of thought as you, in that what if 'My Team' took back control and they reversed this debacle..... Then I come back to reality that they aren't on 'My Team' and they haven't heard or worked in the interest of 'The People' for many years. That Team and system has become a giant self serving entity that sell it's loyalty based on the highest bid.
That Team I bet on last time went down in flames the last election, the new Team will duplicate that very same feat come November 2010. And after Nov. 2010 there there will be deadlock and Veto's, a game of finger pointing and then the cycle will repeat itself once again and it will continue the cycle in that manner as long we maintain the status quo.
Too bad it isn't as easy as a card game and you can ask for some new cards.
Sigaba & Paslode: I guess I'm just trying to find a solution to this insoluable situation that doesn't depend on the second coming. Valid point about the registration of illegals as a voting block to salt the mine. It just strikes me that sometimes one has to use the opponents momentum to rush your position to his own disadvantage. The present political landscape is so barren of integrity that sometimes I dispair of the species. You're right; they aren't My Team, either. Regardless of the approach, the next 6 years are going to be dangerous. How to mitigate that elludes me. The baby's in the bath tub and this time deserves to be tossed out. (Crap!)
The Reaper
12-12-2009, 09:48
I really wish there was a viable third party, but I suppose that they would all too soon turn to the same sorts of shenanigans to stay in office and personally profit from their service.
Whatever happened to men who did not want to serve, but who did so because their country needed them to do so. They served their terms with honor, and as soon as possible, they stepped down and returned to private life.
Can anyone see the current POTUS pulling a George Washington and declining a lifetime leadership position, if offered?
There may be a few such men among our leaders today, but they are difficult to spot among the charlatans which infest our government and seek only to remain in power and enrich themselves at the expense of the public.
As most of you can probably surmise from my posts on other threads, I will not be at all surprised to see the Dims drive the economy of this great nation off the cliff (not that the previous POTUS did not do his own share of damage) and plunge us into hyperinflation or repudiation of our public debt through their spending and wealth redistribution programs, combined with a shameless lack of personal responsibility for ones' actions.
What would the impact be of limiting the right to vote to those who are paying taxes, if it could be done?
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Team Sergeant
12-12-2009, 09:57
I really wish there was a viable third party, but I suppose that they would all too soon turn to the same sorts of shenanigans to stay in office and personally profit from their service.
Whatever happened to men who did not want to serve, but who did so because their country needed them to do so. They served their terms with honor, and as soon as possible, they stepped down and returned to private life.
Can anyone see the current POTUS pulling a George Washington and declining a lifetime leadership position, if offered?
There may be a few such men among our leaders today, but they are difficult to spot among the charlatans which infest our government and seek only to remain in power and enrich themselves at the expense of the public.
As most of you can probably surmise from my posts on other threads, I will not be at all surprised to see the Dims drive the economy of this great nation off the cliff (not that the previous POTUS did not do his own share of damage) and plunge us into hyperinflation or repudiation of our public debt through their spending and wealth redistribution programs, combined with a shameless lack of personal responsibility for ones' actions.
What would the impact be of limiting the right to vote to those who are paying taxes, if it could be done?
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
There was mention this morning on Fox that a study/survey was done and it noted that "if" a "Tea-Party" candidate were to run for office he would be more popular and more likely to become President than a GOP selectee.
I find this idea very interesting.
.............."if" a "Tea-Party" candidate were to run for office he would be more popular and more likely to become President than a GOP selectee.
I find this idea very interesting.
Nope, ain't going to get elected until they are more popular than the D and the R. More popular than the R just means the conservative vote is split - again. Thank you Barr and the Barr voters - for giving NC to Obama.
Watch 2012's R primary. Every "conservative" around is going to come out of the woodwork, play to their section of the conservation camp and split the primary vote giving us another weak, mushy "can't we all just get along" candidate.
Team Sergeant
12-12-2009, 10:37
Nope, ain't going to get elected until they are more popular than the D and the R. More popular than the R just means the conservative vote is split - again. Thank you Barr and the Barr voters - for giving NC to Obama.
Watch 2012's R primary. Every "conservative" around is going to come out of the woodwork, play to their section of the conservation camp and split the primary vote giving us another weak, mushy "can't we all just get along" candidate.
Never say never, look who's governor of Kalif....
armymom1228
12-12-2009, 11:03
Probaboly some seasonality from from the starting frame until the ending, but the overall trend is there. It's hard to do, but there is a definate worsening even in the Pacific NW year over year when like months are compared.
Be nice to be able to stop the playback in mid-stream.
Watch Florida go from 3% to well over 10%, that is truly scary.
It is also scary when you see nurses getting laid off. The Ins are reluctant to approve elective surgery. Medicare is also cutting back. That leaves empty beds in both hosptials and nursing home rehab units. That in turn leads to NH's overworking staff and leaving openings unfilled due to lack of income. Hospitals close entire wings, and consolidate beds, also not hiring and laying off personel.
The VA has lots of nursing openings, but isn't hiring to much. If they do the process is about 3 mos long start to finish. Most of us don't have that much banked to wait. I am retraining and saying to hel with bedpans after 30 yrs...
The gentleman in the White House has been in office 11 mos. He soon cannot lay blame to the economic woes on his predecessor. :munchin
AM
What would the impact be of limiting the right to vote to those who are paying taxes, if it could be done?
Unscientifically based my on friends, Family and acquaintances, those that pay taxes appear to have more interest in the direction their country is headed and play a more active role. Whereas those that don't, they just take what they are served and interested.
I find tax payers vs non-tax payers similar to business owners vs. employees.
Not that all employees don't take an personal interest in the business, but from my experience the vast majority are there only as much as is required to receive a paycheck. They don't care if the business is profitable or not as long as there is a paycheck at the end of the week. They only become concerned when the paycheck or job ceases to exist.
IMO, it comes down to it's not my money so why should I care.
We all pay taxes in one why shape or form, but if you could limit it to 'Income Tax' payers which might also curtail votes from illegals.
It might have merit.
The Third parties. It is good and bad. It would be better than voting for the the lesser of two evil we have become accustomed too, but in the 2010/2012 elections it could end up diluting the voting block and thus putting the sleaze back in office.
If say Palin became President, I can see the Dems and Repub's joining forces to make her a one termer. I believe a Third party President needs to have the numbers in Congress and the Senate to negate that scenario.
Maybe our best hope, is that enough Third Partiers are elected in the 2010 that we have a swing block and neither Democrats nor the Republicans have the numbers to run the show.
But that is all for not if you don't find Supermen for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Those that are willing to say NO! I will not sell out my Country countrymen at any price.
armymom1228
12-12-2009, 12:07
Nope, ain't going to get elected until they are more popular than the D and the R. More popular than the R just means the conservative vote is split - again. Thank you Barr and the Barr voters - for giving NC to Obama.
Watch 2012's R primary. Every "conservative" around is going to come out of the woodwork, play to their section of the conservation camp and split the primary vote giving us another weak, mushy "can't we all just get along" candidate.
The Libertarians are gaining ground in many places.
http://www.lp.org/states/Florida <---whom is in office or running.
I am still not sure I agree with all thier stands on 'the issue'. But I agree with them more than most of the Dems/Repubs. I most definitely agree with fiscal responsibilty of the government and my privacy rights. Others, I am not so sure.
http://www.lp.org/issues