Bob Rubin is out at Citi, claiming he wants to help non-profits, among other thigns.

Funny thing, I thought he helped make Citi INTO one this past year.

Ohh, do NOT believe eXXXonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson has seen the "green light," except for Gatsby's orgiastic future, when he supports a carbon tax, instead of cap-and-trade, for transparency and other reasons. (I've protested at multiple eXXXon shareholder meetings here in Dallas, wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

Dammit, Begich. Don't make me side with Lieberman. No ANWR drilling.

Finally, can the MSM, like CNN in this case, put the job-loss figures into some historical context? The 1945 population was about half of today.

In fact, looking at more recent times, 1982's job losses, as a percentage of population, were a full percentage point worse.

If you're not over 40, you may not remember the "double-dip" 1980-82 recession. But can we hold off saying this is the worst crisis since the Depression?

Sometimes, whistling past the graveyard is just that -- PR and nothing more. Sometimes, though, worrying too much about the graveyard becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Speaking of alleged corruption, did you see the charges facing Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon?

I explain why this blog is so stupid.

Yet another leak at a coal ash pond in Jackson County Alabama - Widow's Creek Fossil Plant. Coal ash spilled out of the ash pond, into Widow's Creek, and into the Tennessee River.

TVA is of course rushing to assure everyone that it's basically no big deal.

Tell me that after (an independent lab) determines the water is safe.

What is it going to take to get this stuff regulated/reformed?

Ten reasons why you all should spend less time here than you see me doing.

Friday afternoon extra: Steve Benen still doesn't know anything about anything. But I do.

I dunno, lymphatic asswipe, considering none of your links worked I'm not inclined to think you know much.

If you're not over 40, you may not remember the "double-dip" 1980-82 recession. But can we hold off saying this is the worst crisis since the Depression?

Except that you aren't taking into account that unemployment is no longer calculated the same way. It has been defined more and more narrowly until today's numbers show just a fraction of the overall problem. Comparing today's unemployment numbers with the 1980s or other times is comparing apples to oranges. The unemployment calculations of today dramatically understate actuality.

Concerned, tis true, as Kevin Phillips has so well noted. That said, some of the fudging had been done before then.

And, as Phillips also has noted, fudging numbers has been a bipartisan affair, with Democrats back to JFK "trimming" on unemployment and the GOP "trimming" on inflation.

That said, as I note, there's a full percentage point difference between 2008 job losses and 1982. Even with allowance for fudging, I don't think you can say problems now are significantly worse than they were then.

===

Chris: Environmental Integrity says this spill could be more toxic than Kingston.

I can think of at least one reason lymphatic asswipe should not be commenting here at all....

According to this story concerning his role in East Timor in 1999, Dennis Blair is an odd choice to promote "change we can believe in."
See http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/9/did_obama_aide_admiral_dennis_blair

When Mark Begich's campaign workers came door-to-door (about weekly) during the campaign season, and when they called asking for donations, I brought up his stance on ANWR each time. Every single time, they suggested that he just had to say what he was saying about ANWR to get elected. For him to come out swinging on it the first week of his Senate career suggests he's as Republican as I told his campaign he is. Glad I didn't give him any money and sorry I caved and voted for him. It won't happen again. Opening ANWR would do nothing to assuage the oil supply problem - and we need to shift from dependence on oil. So many Alaskans just want the next short-term jobs boom!

SocraticGadfly,

"Finally, can the MSM, like CNN in this case, put the job-loss figures into some historical context? The 1945 population was about half of today. In fact, looking at more recent times, 1982's job losses, as a percentage of population, were a full percentage point worse. If you're not over 40, you may not remember the "double-dip" 1980-82 recession. But can we hold off saying this is the worst crisis since the Depression?"

No.

The Augmented Unemployment Rate is likely approaching 12%, and the Average Weekly Hours worked fell to 33.3, its lowest level dating back to at least 1964.

The House vote on "Praise Israel!" resolution:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll010.xml

At least, in the House, *a few* Congress-critters showed some spine/independence.

But can we hold off saying this is the worst crisis since the Depression?

Even if the employment results are not yet worse than the 1980-82 period (and, as others have pointed out, methodological changes make easy comparisons potentially misleading), the indicators are that this is likely to end up far worse. It is the worst economic crisis since the Depression, though it has not yet (quite) produced become the worst period of economic performance since then, at least by some important measures. (Though, even with ideal policy responses, its likely to do that, too.)

As they would say on the floor of Congress, I'd like to revise and extend my remarks...

The Augmented Unemployment Rate is now 13.5% !

Oh, the Anchorage Daily News, in shades of the New York Times, admits it DID try to investigate Trig Palin parentage rumors, starting in October, then, when Sarah P. basically stiffed them, sat on the coverage and still didn't try to fold what it had found into some kind of story.

The link above for my blog has background, and links directly to ADN's editor's blog, where Editor Pat Dougherty officially fesses up to the cowardly streak.

Or, the yellow stripe, if you will, per the title of Jim Hightower's best book, "There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos."

And, while Sarah P. may well be Trig's mother, she may not be. And, contrary to Dougherty, I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist.

Joe, thanks. I'll still say that, as of right now, I don't consider this to be any worse than 1980-82.

That said, I am:
A. Over 40
B. A newspaper editor who may lose his job in the next month due to problems in our industry. That said, even then, I would reject Reagan's definition of it suddenly being a "depression" at that point.

Joe, and CM, also agree on that, and other things. But, none of that, nor what I noted about fudging both unemployment and inflation numbers, gets covered in the press. And, as Phillips noted, Dem presidents, more than GOP, tended to fudge on unemployment.

Re the augmented rate, this is also a major diff between us and Western Europe.

In Germany, for example, IIRC, if you work through a temp agency, even if it's full time, you're considered unemployed. Not here.

And, of course, the WoD locks up many who would likely be un/under-employed, and generates jobs not created in Europe.

At the same time, all this discussion obscures the fact that "jobs lost" is a straightforward, non-fudgeable stat that was worse by a full percentage point, in terms of population percentage, in 1982 than today, and was twice as bad in 1945 than today.

SocraticGadfly,

What you are ignoring, or unaware of, is that there have been fewer workers in the National Work Force over the last eight years, than there were in 2000. This has never occurred in modern history. In the normal course of events, the National Work Force expands every year as the nation's population expands every year.

Because of that, the job losses are from a far lower base point than in the past.

The "Civilian Employment-to-Population Ratio":

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/lostdecade.png

Joe, that's still not enough of a decline to make up for a full percentage point of difference in job loss, I don't think. Anyway, you can't tell for sure, because Krugman's graph only goes back to 1999, not 1982.

That said, I found data back to 1970 at Brad DeLong's site:
http://delong.typepad.com/delongslides/2008/04/us-civilian-emp.html

The ratio was .60 in 1982 and about .63 this year.

Adjusting for that, jobs lost to number of employed, as percentage, was worse yet in 1982, at 15.67 percent, rather than 13.45 percent last year.

I don't mean this snarkily, but yes, you did help strengthen my argument.

Yes, there are other ways of skinning the cat, but per the job-loss measure which, as I said, is not fudgeable, 2008 wasn't as bad as 1982.

Now, 2009 may well be worse. I'm not denying that. But, let's not yet get too much into doom and gloom.

Remember that statement about fear a certain other Democratic president made in 1933?

Celtics need Marbury and Joe Smith. asap.

SocraticGadfly,

You didn't take into account all of the millions of jobs that should have been created over the last eight years.

We are in MUCH worse shape than in 1982.

What we need a lot less of is politicians who want to take a short cut to justice.

The Illinois situation is ripe with examples of elected officials trying to strike the fatal blow to the governor.

Their attempts are identical to any other official abuse of power.

This is why we have constitutions and extremely boringly detailed procedures.

Imagine a situation where the Illinois Secretary of State (really just a clerk) was insane and decided to avoid signing the required certification of the governor's senate appointment.

Who would face impeachment? Hopefully the SoS, who has no discretion to chose when to act, or how.

And which U.S. Senate would reject an appointment based upon the exercise of discretion by an official who lacks such power?

We need a lot less of these "do gooders" in government, mostly because they promise a quick but false solution to the messy process of honest and representative government.

"Factoring in discouraged workers, unemployment is closer to 9.4%," said Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland. "Add workers in part-time positions that cannot find full-time employment and the hidden unemployment rate is 14.5%." - LaTimes, 10Jan09

"...secret-ballot elections and mandatory arbitration, two provisions in the bill that have raised strident opposition from industry."

Seems to me that an awful lot of corporations have no problem at all insisting that their employees submit to binding arbitration by a corporation selected arbitrator when they have a problem with the company. That is why the Halliburton employees that were raped in Iraq by fellow employees can't go to court. It's also a reason that a bunch of rightwing judges are going into industrial arbitration when they leave the bench. Maybe Ms. Solis should ask these companies if they are willing to give up binding arbitration if they feel that it is so bad when the working stiffs are able to use it for their own benefit.

Joe Friday, you're STILL missing the point, and per further info I have, you're DOUBLY missing the point.

Job-loss as a percentage of workforce is NOT a fudgeable stat. How many times do I have to type that.

Therefore, based on that stat, CNN et al are fear-mongering about last year.

Yes, the current year may be worse than 2008, but, the story was about 2008 and not 2009.

That said, I noted that you're DOUBLY wrong.

Turns out that, per the job-loss issue, 1983 was even worse than both last year and 1982.

By this non-fudgeable stat, at least, we're not, at this point, in as bad of shape as we were 25 years ago.

Obviously, you're under 40.

Put down the shovel and stop digging until you get older.

Kids.