American People’s Verdict On Democratic Socialist Debate: Lying Lunatic Left — Hillary Clinton — Bernie Sanders — Martin O’Malley — Lincoln Chaffee — Guilty As Charged — Indict or Nominate or Pardon Hillary Clinton — Biden Biding Time Until Benghazi Testimony of Clinton — Worse Economic Recovery Since Great Depression and 7 Years of Economic Stagnation Under Obama — No Change — No Hope — Videos

Posted on October 14, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Data Storage, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, Genocide, government, history, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Money, Narcissism, National Security Agency (NSA), Newspapers, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Political Correctness, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Press, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religious, Resources, Security, Speech, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 553: October 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 552: October 13, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 551: October 12, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 550: October 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 549: October 8, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 548: October 7, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 547: October 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 546: October 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 545: October 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 544: September 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 543: September 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 542: September 28, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 541: September 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 540: September 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 539: September 23, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 538: September 22, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 537: September 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 536: September 18, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 535: September 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 534: September 16, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 533: September 15, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 532: September 14, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Story 1: American People’s Verdict On Democratic Socialist Debate: Lying Lunatic Left — Hillary Clinton — Bernie Sanders — Martin O’Malley — Lincoln Chaffee — Guilty As Charged — Indict or Nominate or Pardon Hillary Clinton —  Biden Biding Time Until Benghazi Testimony of Clinton — Worse Economic Recovery Since Great Depression and 7 Years of Economic Stagnation  Under Obama — No Change — No Hope — Videos

BILL-DAY-HILLARY-PHISHING hillary nsacartoon hillary emails  hillary-clinton-e-mails-cartoon-beeler Hillary-Clinton-s-shadowy-emails hillary-email-cartoon-cole

LAS VEGAS, NV - OCTOBER 13: (L-R) Democratic presidential candidates Jim Webb, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chafee take the stage for a presidential debate sponsored by CNN and Facebook at Wynn Las Vegas on October 13, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The five candidates are participating in the party's first presidential debate. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

LAS VEGAS, NV – OCTOBER 13: (L-R) Democratic presidential candidates Jim Webb, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee take the stage for a presidential debate sponsored by CNN and Facebook at Wynn Las Vegas on October 13, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The five candidates are participating in the party’s first presidential debate. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton | Democratic Presidential Debate Analysis

Obama’s message to Democratic debate candidates

In a taped message to the Democratic candidates, President Barack Obama urged Democrats to work hard and fight to keep the White House in 2016.

Who were the winners and losers of the Democratic debate?

Bernie Sanders : People are sick of hearing about Hillary Clinton’s “damn emails”

Mom Of Benghazi Victim Demands Answers While Hillary Clinton Laughs Off Email Scandal

Winners and losers at first Democratic debate

Clinton and Sanders dominate first Democratic debate

The Best Moments From The First Democratic Primary Debate

Democratic debate CNN — democratic debate 2016 Full … Sanders,Clinton,Omalley,Webb,Chafee

Bernie Sanders continues to shock the political world

Hillary & Democrats May Not Cooperate With Benghazi Committee

Dem Debate #1: Mature Adults, Not Lunatics. Did Hillary or Bernie Win?

Emails Show Clinton Worked With George Soros To Run Shadow Gov’t

The real scandal surrounding Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton’s private email system may be that she was running, in concert with a private consulting firm tied closely to George Soros, an outsourced and parallel State Department answerable only to her and not President Obama, the Congress, or the American people.

INFOWARS Nightly News: CNN Democratic Debate Coverage Tuesday October 13 2015

Who Won The First Democratic Debate In Terms Of Body Language?

Carol Kinsey Goman

The major story of the first televised presidential debate in 1960 became the photogenic appeal of John F. Kennedy versus the sickly look of his opponent, Richard Nixon, who refused to wear makeup although his recent illness had left him with a pallid complexion. In addition, Kennedy looked directly at the camera when answering questions (rather that at the journalists who asked them), which made viewers see him as someone who was talking right to them and giving straight answers. To make matters worse, the cameras caught Nixon wiping perspiration from his forehead while Kennedy was pressing him on the issues.

When the debate ended, a large majority of television viewers recognized Kennedy as the winner. Radio listeners, who heard the debate but hadn’t seen it, gave the victory to Nixon.

Never again would politicians under estimate the importance of physical appearance and body language – especially when appearing on television. Today’s political figures are fully aware of, and heavily coached on, the impact of nonverbal communication.

And when it comes to nonverbal cues, everything matters: Gender, age, skin color, hair style, attractiveness, height, clothing, facial expressions, hand gestures, posture — audiences judge it all. Superficial? Maybe. But this potent (and often unconscious) process is also hardwired in the human brain.
There are two sets of nonverbal signals that are especially important for candidates to project: warmth and authority. Warmth cues project likeability and candor and authority cues denote power and status. The most appealing politicians (at least from a body language standpoint) are those whose behaviors encompass both sets of signals.

Which brings me to the first Democratic debate of the 2016 election cycle — and how I would grade the body language of the debaters.

Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state

Grade: A-

How she did it: Clinton is often described, by both supporters and critics, as strong, tough, and aggressive. So it was no surprise to see those qualities exhibited in her body language through expansive gestures, erect posture, and well-prepared responses.

Recommended by Forbes
MOST POPULAR Photos: The World’s Top-Earning YouTube Stars 2015
TRENDING ON FACEBOOK Bernie Sanders Clearly Won Tuesday’s Debate — On Twitter
SungardASVoice: How Cloud Orchestration Keeps Cloud Computing In Perfect Harmony

Leadership Presence And The GOP Debate
Hits And Misses From The Second GOP Debate
So, Who Won The First Republican Primary Debate of 2012? -Media Training

But Clinton’s body language won the debate by doing more than displaying authority. She successfully “warmed up” her image, with smiles, head nods in agreement/support of other’s comments, and (at one point) even laughter.

Visually, being the only woman on stage was also to her advantage. The contrast between Clinton and the rest of the (white, male) candidates was visually striking – especially for someone who wants to show how she would be different from previous presidents.

Bernie Sanders, senator of Vermont

Grade: B+

How he did it: Unlike Clinton, who (for better or worse) is a known national figure, Sanders needed to give the audience a clear picture of who he is and what he stands for – and he was very effective doing so last night. Sanders was animated and used gestures (like finger pointing and palms rotated down) to effectively emphasize his resolve – although at times, his movements were a bit jerky, instead of smooth. And for those who were wondering if a 74-year old could keep his energy high for two hours, the answer was a resounding “yes.”

Sanders nonverbal negatives include his leaning too often on the lectern (as if he needed physical support) and in his lack of warm cues. He is much more expressive when showing anger, disgust, and impatience – but rarely does he display joy or express optimism.

Martin O’Malley, former governor Maryland

Grade: C

How he did it: While he never had the “break through” moment his campaign was hoping for, nonverbally O’Malley had a significant nonverbal advantage: He looked fit and athletic – and he was the tallest person in the line up. Don’t discount the effect of these seemingly trivial facts. We are biased toward attractive, healthy people, and we unconsciously attribute leadership characteristics to tall people. (The effects of this are seen not only in politics, but in business. For example, in the U.S. population, 14.5% men are 6’ tall and over, but with CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, that statistic climbs to 58%.) But his softer, slower communication style often lacked the energy and passion needed to support his rhetoric. And his deadpan, almost angry expression when other candidates were speaking was tweeted about as the “death stare” – not a good look for someone who is usually seen as upbeat and happy.

Jim Webb, former senator of Virginia

Grade C-

How he did it: Webb is known as being “gruff” and “stiff,” and both of those qualities were displayed nonverbally: Outside of a slight lean backward and a shoulder shrug now and then, he rarely moved his body – adding to his stoic image.

Lincoln Chaffee, former governor of Rhode Island

Grade: D

How he did it: Chafee’s body language was filled with nervous facial gestures (lip licking was especially prevalent) and conflicting nonverbal messages, the most noticeable being a smile with tightened or compressed lips that made the otherwise warm signal look forced and inauthentic.

The only missing contender in last night’s debate was Vice President Joe Biden, who hasn’t declared his intention to run. Too bad. He is passionate and expressive. He would have been interesting to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvjU0xLWrv4

 

EVIDENCE SHOWS CLINTON RAN A PARALLEL, OUTSOURCED STATE DEPT.

Clinton received help from George Soros to run shadow gov’t
The real scandal surrounding Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton’s private email system may be that she was running, in concert with a private consulting firm tied closely to George Soros, an outsourced and parallel State Department answerable only to her and not President Obama, the Congress, or the American people.

The media has tried to separate two dubious operations of Mrs. Clinton while she was at the State Department. The first is the private email server located in her Chappaqua, New York residence. The second is the fact that her government-paid State Department personal assistant, Huma Abedin, wife of disgraced New York “sexting” congressman Anthony Weiner, was simultaneously on the payroll of Teneo, a corporate intelligence firm that also hired former President Bill Clinton and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as advisers. Abedin has been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which has recently buried the hatchet with longtime rival Saudi Arabia and common cause against the Assad government in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Iran.

It is clear that Mrs. Clinton used her private email system to seek advice on major foreign policy issues, from her friend and paid Clinton Foundation adviser Sidney Blumenthal providing private intelligence on Libya’s post-Qaddafi government and possible business ventures to Clinton friend Lanny Davis seeking favors from Mrs. Clinton. It should be noted that Davis was a paid lobbyist for the military junta of Honduras that overthrew democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya in 2009. It also should be noted that Mrs. Clinton voiced her personal dislike for the late Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, when, after he was assassinated by U.S.-armed jihadist rebels, boasted, “We came, we saw, he died!”

It was highly unusual for Abedin to receive a U.S. government paycheck while also receiving a consultant’s salary from Teneo. Teneo was founded in 2011 by Doug Band, a former counselor to Bill Clinton. Teneo, which is as much a private intelligence firm as it is an investment company and “governance” consultancy, has its headquarters in New York and branches in Washington DC, Brussels, São Paulo, London, Dublin, Dubai, Hong Kong, Beijing, and Melbourne. With the exception of its investment arm, Teneo closely resembles the former CIA-connected firm where Barack Obama worked after he graduated from Columbia, Business International Corporation (BIC). Teneo’s marketing claims match those made by BIC during its heyday: Teneo works “exclusively with the CEOs and senior leaders of many of the world’s largest and most complex companies and organizations.”

Teneo has staked a position in the international news media with its recent purchase of the London-based firm Blue Rubicon, formed in part by the former home news editor for Channel 4 News in the United Kingdom. Teneo also recently acquired London’s Stockwell Group, which provides consultancy services to the National Bank of Greece and Pireaus Bank. It appears that Mrs. Clinton’s friends are cashing in on the global banking austerity being levied against Greece.

The head of Teneo Intelligence is Jim Shinn, a former assistant secretary for Asia for the Defense Department. What is troubling is that Teneo has been offering statements to the media designed to heighten tensions between NATO and Turkey on one side and Russia on the other over Russia’s military attacks on the Islamic State in Syria. Shinn’s intelligence chief in Teneo’s London office, Wolfgango Piccoli, who has worked for the Soros-linked Eurasia Group consultancy, told CNN that Russia’s “reinforcement of the Assad regime and the consolidation of separate areas of control is more likely to prolong the conflict by forcing a stalemate.” The Teneo statement came in a CNN report that suggests members of the Bashar al Assad government in Syria and Russian President Vladimir Putin and his government could be charged by international or “national” tribunals for war crimes in a manner similar to those convened on members of the Yugoslavian and Serbian governments.

The entire International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague and in Africa has fallen under the control of George Soros and his operatives. Soros has made no secret of his support for overthrowing Assad and Putin and he has resorted to a “weapon of mass migration” of Syrian, Iraqi, and other refugees into Europe in order to destabilize the entire continent and endanger its Christian culture and social democratic traditions. Mrs. Clinton and Soros extensively used Mrs. Clinton’s private email system to exchange, among other things, information on the political situation in Albania, a country where Soros’s operatives are plentiful and powerful. Soros is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Soros also pressed Mrs. Clinton for State Department support for his American University of Central Asia, which, as seen with Soros’s Central European University in Budapest and its graduate ranks of pro-U.S. leaders throughout central and eastern Europe, is designed to manufacture a new generation of pro-U.S. leaders in the Central Asian states of the former Soviet Union.
The “wiping” of Mrs. Clinton’s email systems’ hard drives appear to be part of a classic case of an intelligence operation destroying data after being exposed.

The Clinton outsourcing of U.S. foreign policy not only involves Teneo but also the Clinton Foundation, for which Mrs. Clinton solicited donations from foreign sources while she served as Secretary of State. Moreover, in a classic example of racketeering, Bill Clinton was paid by Teneo as an adviser while his Clinton Foundation hired Teneo as as a consultant. The Clinton Foundation is directed by Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with their daughter Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky. Mrs. Clinton’s private email use also extended to Clinton Foundation chief financial officer Andrew Kessel and longtime Bill Clinton friend Bruce Lindsey.

One of the emails sent via Mrs. Clinton’s private system was from her State Department counsel Cheryl Mills to Amitabh Desai, the head of foreign policy for the Clinton Foundation. Mills wanted Desai to arrange a meeting between Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame with the Democratic Republic of Congo strongman Joseph Kabila during Kagame’s visit to Kinshasa in 2012. This effort was conducted outside the State Department with the sole exception that Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, a close friend of Mrs. Clinton, was involved in the email exchange with Mills and Desai.

Other private email use involved Hollywood magnate Haim Saban, Loews heir Andrew Tisch, and Lynn de Rothschild, all of whom were peddling Israel’s interests to Hillary and Bill Clinton in return for sizable donations to the Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Under the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, the Clinton Foundation received generous financial support totaling some $31 million from Frank Giustra, a Canadian uranium mining magnate. Giustra relied on the Clintons to use their influence to open up lucrative uranium exploitation opportunities in places like Kazakhstan and Africa.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has been stonewalled in his attempt to obtain more information about Teneo’s relationship with Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton.

Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist who consistently exposes cover-ups from deep within the government. Want to be the first to learn the latest scandal? Go to WayneMadsenReport.com subscribe today!

http://www.infowars.com/evidence-suggests-clinton-ran-a-parallel-outsourced-state-dept/

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 546-553

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

John B. Taylor — First Principles: Five Keys To Restoring America’s Prosperity — Videos

Posted on February 8, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

john-taylor-economisatFirstPrinciplesjohn taylor

Uncommon Knowledge with John B. Taylor

5 Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity: John B. Taylor

Steine Lecture Series with John B. Taylor

getting off track

Crisis Management with John Taylor

global_financial_warrios

John B Taylor – Policy Options to Restore Prosperity – 26 June 2014

John Taylor: Economic Freedom, Wealth and the Alleviation of Poverty

John Taylor Receives the Bradley Prize — 2010

John B. Taylor, the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics at the Hoover Institution, is perhaps best known for formulating an equation on setting interest rates that has become known as the Taylor rule. The economist has also, however, been recognized throughout his career for his contributions to teaching, research, and public service, in addition to policy making. On June 16, 2010, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation awarded one of its four 2010 Bradley Prizes to Taylor. The Bradley Prizes, awarded annually, are given to prominent scholars and engaged citizens for outstanding achievement in their fields of endeavor.

John B. Taylor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other people named John Taylor, see John Taylor (disambiguation).
John B. Taylor
JohnBTaylor.jpg

John B. Taylor
Born December 8, 1946(age 68)
Yonkers, New York
Nationality United States
Institution Stanford University
Field Monetary economics
School or tradition
New Keynesian economics
Alma mater Shady Side Academy
Stanford University
Princeton University
Influences Milton Friedman
John Maynard Keynes
Paul Volcker
E. Philip Howrey
Contributions Taylor rule
Information at IDEAS / RePEc

John Brian Taylor (born December 8, 1946) is the Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University, and the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.[1]

Born in Yonkers, New York, he graduated from Shady Side Academy[2] and earned his A.B. from Princeton University in 1968 and Ph.D. from Stanford in 1973, both ineconomics. He taught at Columbia University from 1973–1980 and the Woodrow Wilson School and Economics Department of Princeton University from 1980–1984 before returning to Stanford. He has received several teaching prizes and teaches Stanford’s introductory economics course as well as Ph.D. courses in monetary economics.[3]

In research published in 1979 and 1980 he developed a model of price and wage setting—called the staggered contract model—which served as an underpinning of a new class of empirical models with rational expectations and sticky prices—sometimes called new Keynesian models.[4] [5] In a 1993 paper he proposed the Taylor rule,[6]intended as a recommendation about how nominal interest rates should be determined, which then became a rough summary of how central banks actually do set them. He has been active in public policy, serving as the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs during the first term of the George W. Bush Administration. His book Global Financial Warriors chronicles this period.[7] He was a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors during the George H. W. Bush Administration and Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisors during the Ford and Carter Administrations.

In 2012 he was included in the 50 Most Influential list of Bloomberg Markets Magazine. Thomson Reuters lists Taylor among the ‘citation laureates’ who are likely future winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics.[8]

Academic contributions

Taylor’s research—including the staggered contract model, the Taylor rule, and the construction of a policy tradeoff (Taylor) curve[9] employing empirical rational expectations models[10]–has had a major impact on economic theory and policy.[11] Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that Taylor’s “influence on monetary theory and policy has been profound,”[12] and Federal Reserve Vice Chair Janet Yellen has noted that Taylor’s work “has affected the way policymakers and economists analyze the economy and approach monetary policy.”[13]

Taylor contributed to the development of mathematical methods for solving macroeconomic models under the assumption of rational expectations, including in a 1975Journal of Political Economy paper, in which he showed how gradual learning could be incorporated in models with rational expectations; a 1979 Econometrica paper in which he presented one of the first econometric models with overlapping price setting and rational expectations, which he later expanded into a large multicountry model in a 1993 book Macroeconomic Policy in a World Economy; and a 1982 Econometrica paper,[14] in which he developed with Ray Fair the first algorithm to solve large-scale dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models which became part of popular solution programs such as Dynare and EViews.[15]

In 1977, Taylor and Edmund Phelps, simultaneously with Stanley Fischer, showed that monetary policy is useful for stabilizing the economy if prices or wages are sticky, even when all workers and firms have rational expectations.[16] This demonstrated that some of the earlier insights of Keynesian economics remained true under rational expectations. This was important because Thomas Sargent and Neil Wallace had argued that rational expectations would make macroeconomic policy useless for stabilization;[17] the results of Taylor, Phelps, and Fischer showed that Sargent and Wallace’s crucial assumption was not rational expectations, but perfectly flexible prices.[18]

Taylor then developed the staggered contract model of overlapping wage and price setting, which became one of the building blocks of the New Keynesian macroeconomics that rebuilt much of the traditional macromodel on rational expectations microfoundations.[19] [20]

Taylor’s research on monetary policy rules traces back to his undergraduate studies at Princeton.[21][22] He went on in the 1970s and 1980s to explore what types of monetary policy rules would most effectively reduce the social costs of inflation and business cycle fluctuations: should central banks try to control the money supply, the price level, or the interest rate; and should these instruments react to changes in output, unemployment, asset prices, or inflation rates? He showed[23] that there was a tradeoff—later called the Taylor curve[24]—between the volatility of inflation and that of output. Taylor’s 1993 paper in the Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy proposed that a simple and effective central bank policy would manipulate short-term interest rates, raising rates to cool the economy whenever inflation or output growth becomes excessive, and lowering rates when either one falls too low. Taylor’s interest rate equation has come to be known as the Taylor rule, and it is now widely accepted as an effective formula for monetary decision making.[25]

A key stipulation of the Taylor rule, sometimes called the Taylor principle,[26] is that the nominal interest rate should increase by more than one percentage point for each one-percent rise in inflation. Some empirical estimates indicate that many central banks today act approximately as the Taylor rule prescribes, but violated the Taylor principle during the inflationary spiral of the 1970s.[27]

Recent research

Taylor’s recent research has been on the financial crisis that began in 2007 and the world economic recession. He finds that the crisis was primarily caused by flawed macroeconomic policies from the U.S. government and other governments. Particularly, he focuses on the Federal Reserve which, under Alan Greenspan, a personal friend of Taylor, created “monetary excesses” in which interest rates were kept too low for too long, which then directly led to the housing boom in his opinion.[28] He also believes that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae spurred on the boom and that the crisis was misdiagnosed as a liquidity rather than a credit risk problem.[29] He wrote that, “government actions and interventions, not any inherent failure or instability of the private economy, caused, prolonged, and worsened the crisis.”[30]

Taylor’s research has also examined the impact of fiscal policy in the recent recession. In November 2008, writing for The Wall Street Journal opinion section, he recommended four measures to fight the economic downturn: (a) permanently keeping all income tax rates the same, (b) permanently creating a worker’s tax credit equal to 6.2 percent of wages up to $8,000, (c) incorporating “automatic stabilizers” as part of overall fiscal plans, and (d) enacting a short-term stimulus plan that also meets long term objectives against waste and inefficiency. He stated that merely temporary tax cuts would not serve as a good policy tool.[31]His research[32] with John Cogan, Tobias Cwik, and Volcker Wieland showed that the multiplier is much smaller in new Keynesian than in old Keynesian models, a result that was confirmed by researchers at central banks.[33] He evaluated the 2008 and 2009 stimulus packages and argued that they were not effective in stimulating the economy.[34]

In a June 2011 interview on Bloomberg Television, Taylor stressed the importance of long term fiscal reform that sets the U.S. federal budget on a path towards being balanced. He cautioned that the Fed should move away from quantitative easing measures and keep to a more static, stable monetary policy. He also criticized fellow economist Paul Krugman‘s advocacy of additional stimulus programs from Congress, which Taylor said will not help in the long run.[35] In his 2012 book First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity, he endeavors to explain why these reforms are part of a broader set of principles of economic freedom.

Selected publications

  • Taylor, John B. (1975), ‘Monetary Policy During a Transition to Rational Expectations.’ Journal of Political Economy 83 (5), pp. 1009–1021.
  • Phelps, Edmund S., and John B. Taylor (1977), ‘Stabilizing powers of monetary policy under rational expectations.’ Journal of Political Economy 85 (1), pp. 163–90.
  • Taylor, John B. (1979), ‘Staggered wage setting in a macro model’. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 69 (2), pp. 108–13. Reprinted in N.G. Mankiw and D. Romer, eds., (1991), New Keynesian Economics, MIT Press.
  • Taylor, John B. (1979), ‘Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations’. Econometrica 47 (5), pp. 1267–86.
  • Taylor, John B. (1986), ‘New econometric approaches to stabilization policy in stochastic models of macroeconomic fluctuations’. Ch. 34 of Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 3, Z. Griliches and M.D. Intriligator, eds. Elsevier Science Publishers.
  • Taylor, John B. (1993), ‘Discretion versus policy rules in practice’. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 39, pp. 195–214.
  • Taylor, John B. (1999), ‘An historical analysis of monetary policy rules’. Ch. 7 of John B. Taylor, ed., Monetary Policy Rules, University of Chicago Press. Paperback edition (2001): ISBN 0-226-79125-4.
  • Taylor, John B. (2007) Global Financial Warriors, WW Norton, N.Y.
  • Taylor, John B. (2007), “Housing and Monetary Policy,” in Jackson Hole Symposium on Housing, Housing Finance, and Monetary Policy, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
  • Taylor, John B. (2008), “The Financial Crisis and the Policy Response: An Empirical Analysis of What Went Wrong,” Festschrift in Honor of David Dodge’s Contributions to Canadian Public Policy, Bank of Canada, Nov., pp. 1–18.
  • Taylor, John B. (2009), “Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis,” Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0-8179-4971-2
  • Scott, Kenneth E., George P. Shultz, and John B. Taylor (2010), “Ending Government Bailouts as We Know Them,” Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0-8179-1124-3
  • Taylor, John B. (2012), “First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity,” W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-07339-4

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ “Hoover Institution Senior Fellow: Biography”. Hoover Institution. Retrieved 2011-10-27.
  2. Jump up^ Shady Side Academy list of notable alumni
  3. Jump up^ Curriculum vitae, John B. Taylorhttp://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/cv/TaylorCV-Jan-2012.pdf
  4. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1979) “Staggered Wage Setting in a Macro Model,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 69 (2), May, pp. 108–113, Reprinted in N. Gregory Mankiw and David Romer (Eds.) New Keynesian Economics, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1991.
  5. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1980) “Aggregate Dynamics and Staggered Contracts,” Journal of Political Economy, 88 (1), February, pp. 1–23.
  6. Jump up^ Taylor. John B. (1993) “Discretion Versus Policy Rules in Practice,” Carnegie-Rochester Series on Public Policy, North-Holland, 39, pp. 195–214.
  7. Jump up^ Taylor, John B, (2007) Global Financial Warriors: The Untold Story of International Finance in the Post- 9/11 World, W.W. Norton.
  8. Jump up^ Thomson-Reuters list of ‘citation laureates’ in economics
  9. Jump up^ Taylor, John B, (1979) “Estimation and Control of a Macroeconomic Model with Rational Expectations,” Econometrica, 47 (5), September, pp. 1267–1286. Reprinted in R.E. Lucas and T.J. Sargent (Eds.) Rational Expectations and Econometric Practice, University of Minnesota Press, 1981
  10. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1993) Macroeconomic Policy in a World Economy: From Econometric Design to Practical Operation, W.W. Norton
  11. Jump up^ Ben Bernanke refers to the “three concepts named after John that are central to understanding our macroeconomic experience of the past three decades—the Taylor curve, the Taylor rule, and the Taylor principle.” in “Opening Remarks,” Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy
  12. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben (2007), “Opening Remarks”, Remarks at the Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy.
  13. Jump up^ Yellen, Janet (2007), “Policymaker Roundtable”, Remarks at the Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy.
  14. Jump up^ Fair, Ray C. and John B. Taylor (1983) “Solution and Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Dynamic Nonlinear Rational Expectations Models,” Econometrica, 51 (4), July, pp. 1169–1185
  15. Jump up^ Kenneth Judd, Felix Kubler, and Karl Schmedders “Computational Methods for Dynamic Equilibria with Heterogeneous Agents,” In Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications, Vol 3. Mathias Dewatripont, Lars Peter Hansen, Stephen J. Turnovsky, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 247, and “Eviews Users Guide II.”
  16. Jump up^ Phelps, Edmund and John B. Taylor (1977), “Stabilizing Powers of Monetary Policy under Rational Expectations”, Journal of Political Economy, 85 (1), February, pp. 163–190.
  17. Jump up^ Sargent, Thomas and Wallace, Neil (1975), “‘Rational’ Expectations, the Optimal Monetary Instrument, and the Optimal Money Supply Rule,” Journal of Political Economy 83 (2): 241–254.
  18. Jump up^ Blanchard, Olivier (2000), Macroeconomics, 2nd ed., Ch. 28, p. 543. Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-013306-X.
  19. Jump up^ . King, Robert G. and Alexander Wolman (1999), “What Should the Monetary Authority Do When Prices are Sticky?” in Taylor, John B. (1999), Monetary Policy Rules, University of Chicago Press
  20. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1999). “Staggered Price and Wage Setting in Macroeconomics” in John B. Taylor and Michael Woodford (Eds.) Handbook of Macroeconomics, North-Holland, Elsevier, pp. 1009–1050.
  21. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1968) “Fiscal and Monetary Stabilization Policies in a Model of Cyclical Growth,” (1968), Undergraduate Thesis, Princeton University, April
  22. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1968). “Fiscal and Monetary Stabilization Policies in a Model of Endogenous Cyclical Growth”. Research Memorandum No. 104 (Econometric Research Program, Princeton University, October).
  23. Jump up^ Taylor, John B, (1979) “Estimation and Control of a Macroeconomic Model with Rational Expectations,” Econometrica, 47 (5), September, pp. 1267–1286.
  24. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben (2004), “The Great Moderation”, Remarks at the meeting of the Eastern Economic Association.
  25. Jump up^ A. Orphanides, Athanasios (2007), ‘Taylor rules‘, Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2007–18, Federal Reserve Board.
  26. Jump up^ Davig, Troy and Eric Leeper (2005) “Generalizing the Taylor Principle,” NBER Working Paper 11874.
  27. Jump up^ Clarida, Richard; Mark Gertler; and Jordi Galí (2000), “Monetary policy rules and macroeconomic stability: theory and some evidence.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 115. pp. 147–180.
  28. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2007), “Housing and Monetary Policy,” in Housing, Housing Finance, and Monetary Policy, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, September, pp. 463–476.
  29. Jump up^ Taylor (2007), “Housing and Monetary Policy” in Taylor, John B. (2008), “The Financial Crisis and the Policy Response: An Empirical Analysis of What Went Wrong” in Festschrift in Honour of David Dodge’s Contributions to Canadian Public Policy, Bank of Canada, November, pp. 1–18.
  30. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2009), “How Government Created the Financial Crisis,” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 9, 2009, p. A19.
  31. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (November 25, 2008). “Why Permanent Tax Cuts Are the Best Stimulus”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 30,2011.
  32. Jump up^ Cogan, John F., Tobias Cwik, John B Taylor and Volker Wieland (2010), “New Keynesian versus Old Keynesian Government Spending Multipliers,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 34 (3), March, pp. 281–295.
  33. Jump up^ Guenter Coenen, et al. (2012), “Effects of Fiscal Stimulus in Structural Models,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, Vol. 4, No. 1, January, pp. 22–68.
  34. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2011), “An Empirical Analysis of the Revival of Fiscal Activism in the 2000s,” Journal of Economic Literature, 49 (3), September, pp. 686–702.
  35. Jump up^ “Taylor Says U.S. Needs `Sound’ Monetary, Fiscal Policies”.Bloomberg Television thru Washington Post. June 27, 2011. RetrievedJune 30, 2011.

External links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Taylor

 

John B. Taylor

Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University
George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics at the Hoover Institution and Chair of Working Group on Economic Policy

Contact Information   One-Page Bio   Curriculum Vitae   Photo   Other Pictures

Blog Economics One EconomicsOne.com

Twitter @EconomicsOne

 

Recent Books

First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity, New Paperback Edition  (with new introduction), 2013, Hardcover or Kindle Edition, 2012

Bankruptcy Not Bailout: A Special Chapter 14, with Kenneth Scott (Eds.) Hoover Press, 2012, Hardcover on Amazon or Kindle version

Government Policies and the Delayed Economic Recovery, with L. Ohanian and I. Wright, (Eds.), Hoover Press, 2012, Hardcover on Amazon or  Kindle version 

Ending Government Bailouts as We Know Them with Kenneth Scott and George Shultz (Eds.) 2010, Hardcover or Kindle or Download Chapters in PDF Formats

The Road Ahead for the Fed with John Ciorciari (Eds.) 2009 Hardcover or Kindle or Download Chapters in PDF Formats

Getting Off Track  How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis Kindle edition ($2.40), February 2009.

GlobalFinancialWarriors.com The Untold Story of International Finance in the Post-9/11 World Paperback Edition, 2008

Principles of Economics, Macroeconomics, and Microeconomics: Seventh Edition introductory economics text, 2012 Kindle version

 

Interviews and Biographical

Game Changers Interview, MONEY Magazine, August 2012

Interview on Research on Policy and the Response to the Crisis, Region Focus, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, First Quarter 2012, pp,29-33.

Interview on Economic Policy, Citadel Conversation, June 2012

Fiscal Follies, Monetary Mischief, Barron’s Interview with Gene Epstein, April 2012

Interview on Teaching Economics with Simon Bowmaker, in The Heart of Teaching Economics: Lessons from Leading Minds, 2011

Bradley Prize Recipient 2010, YouTube of Award Ceremony at John F. Kennedy Center, Written version of acceptance remarks

One Economist’s Solution for Financial Reform and Government Policy and the Recovery, Interviews with Motley Fool, March 2010

The Quest for Rules, Interview in Finance and Development, International Monetary Fund, March 2008

Adam Smith Award, National Association of Business Economics, September 2007

NZZ Profile on Monetary Policy, Translation, Neue Zurcher Zeitung, Zurich, September 2007

Back to the World of Ideas Article about returning to research and teaching after Washington, February 2007

Interview on Global Imbalances and Monetary Policy Rules, Special Report, Citigroup Global Economic and Market Analysis, 2006

Interview on Monetary Research and Policy, From The Region, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, June 2006

Shorter Interview on Monetary Research and Policy, From Hoover Digest, Fall 2006, adapted from The Region

Profile on International Policy Making, From The Washington Diplomat, December 2005

Interview about Research in the 1990s, From Conversations with Leading Economists, 1999

Profile on Teaching, From Stanford Today, 1998

 

Books and Collections of Articles on Monetary Policy and International Finance

The Taylor Rule and the Transformation of Monetary Policy, Even Koenig, Robert Leeson, and George Kahn (Eds.), Stanford: Hoover Press, 2012

Contributions to Macroeconomics in Honor of John Taylor, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 55, Pages S1-S126, October 2008.

Dallas Fed Conference on “John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy,” October 2007

Policies in International Finance 2001-2005: Speeches and testimony given as Treasury Under Secretary with short background pieces, 2005

Monetary Policy Rules Home Page

Conference Recognizing 10th Anniversary of the Taylor Rule (Nov 2002) Conference Volume, Journal of Monetary Economics Vol. 50, No. 5
Monetary Policy Rules, (Editor), University of Chicago Press, 1999

Macroeconomic Policy in a World Economy also available on line  WW Norton

Inflation, Unemployment, and Monetary Policy, (with Robert Solow), MIT Press

Handbook of Macroeconomics, (Editor with Michael Woodford)

 

Recent Papers

 

Using Hybrid Macro-Econometric Models to Design and Evaluate Fiscal Consolidation Strategies , presented at AEA Annual Meetings, January 5, 2015

Inflation Targeting in Emerging Markets: the Global Experience, Keynote Address at the Conference on Fourteen Years of Inflation Targeting in South Africa and The Challenge of a Changing Mandate, South African Reserve Bank Conference Centre, Pretoria, South Africa, October 30, 2014

Introduction to Frameworks for Central Banking in the Next Century, with Michael Bordo, A Special Issue of the Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, forthcoming

Foreword to Sovereign Debt Management , Rosa M. Lastra and Lee Buchheit (Eds,) Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2014, pp. vii-ix

Re-Normalize, Don’t New-Normalize Monetary Policy, October 2014

The Federal Reserve in a Globalized World Economy, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, September 19, 2014

Rapid Growth or Stagnation: An Economic Policy Choice, Journal of Policy Modeling, May/June 2014

The Role of Policy in the Great Recession and the Weak Recovery, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, May 2014

Causes of the Financial Crisis and the Slow Recovery: A 10-Year Perspective, Prepared for the October 1, 2013 Brookings/Hoover Financial Crisis Conference, December 2013

International Monetary Policy Coordination: Past, Present and Furture, Prepared for the 12th BIS Conference, June 21, 2013

Simple Rules for Financial Stability, Dinner Keynote Address at the Financial Markets Conference, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Stone Mountain, Georgia, April 9, 2013

Fiscal Consolidation Strategy: An Update for the Budget Reform Proposal of March 2013, with John F. Cogan, Volker Wieland, Maik Wolters, SIEPR Discussion Paper, 2013

Remarks on Monetary Policy Challenges, Bank of England Conference on “Challenges to Central Banks in the 21st Century” in Honor of Mervyn King, March 26, 2013

International Monetary Coordination and the Great Deviation, Journal of Policy Modeling, March 2013, Wkg Paper, presented at the AEA Annual Meetings, January 5, 2013

The Effectiveness of Central Bank Independence Versus Policy Rules, Business Economics, Vol 48, No 3, Wkg Paper, presented at AEA Annual Meetings, January 4, 2013

Monetary Policy During the Past 30 Years With Lessons for the Next 30 Years, Presented at Cato Institute’s 30th Annual Monetary Conference on Money, Markets and Government: The Next 30 Years, November 15, 2012

Questions about Recent Monetary Policy, Presented at the Centennial Celebration of Milton Friedman and the Power of Ideas, University of Chicago, November 9, 2012

Fiscal Consolidation Strategy, with John F. Cogan, Volker Wieland, and Maik Wolters, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, February 2013 (Sept 21, 2012 version posted)

Monetary Policy Rules Work and Discretion Doesn’t: A Tale of Two Eras, Journal of Money Credit and Banking, September 2012

Surprising Comparative Properties of Monetary Models: Results from a New Monetary Model Database with Volker Wieland, Review of Economics and Statistics, August 2012

Estimated Impact of the Federal Reserve’s  Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program with Johannes C. Stroebel, International Journal of Central Banking June 2012

Commentary on Capital Flows and the Risk-Taking Channel of Monetary Policy, Discussion at BIS conference, June 2012

Why We Still Need To Read Hayek, The Hayek Prize Lecture (with introduction by Paul Gigot), May 31, 2012

A Comparison of Government Regulation of Risk  in the Financial Services and Nuclear Power Industries with F.A. Wolak, The Nuclear Enterprise, S. Drell and G. Shultz (Eds.) Hoover Press, Stanford, 2012

Towards an Exit Strategy: Discretion or Rules? Published in English and Italian with introduction by Alberto Mingardi and Andrea Battista, 2012, e-book on Kindle

Falling Behind the Curve: A Positive Analysis of Stop-Start Monetary Policies and the Great Inflation, (with Andrew Levin), in Michael Bordo and Athanasios Orphanides. (Eds.) The Great Inflation University of Chicago Press, 2012

What the Government Purchases Multiplier Actually Multiplied in the 2009 Stimulus Package, (with John F. Cogan), in Government Policies and the Delayed Economic Recovery, Lee Ohanian, John B. Taylor, Ian Wright (Eds,) Hoover Press, Stanford, 2012

Swings in the Rules-Discretion Balance, In Rethinking Expectations: The Way Forward for Macroeconomics, Roman Frydman and Edmunds Phelps, (eds.), Princeton University Press, 2012.

 

Less Recent Papers

1968-2011

 

Recent Congressional Testimony

Requirements for Policy Rules for the Fed, Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, July 10, 2014

After Unconventionnal Monetary Policy, Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, March 26, 2014

Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy, Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, February 11, 2014

Too Big to Fail, Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act and Bankruptcy Reform, Testimony Before The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, May 15, 2013

A Steadier Course for Monetary Policy, Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, April 18, 2013

A Review of Recent Monetary Policy, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade Committee on Financial Services US House of Representatives, March 5, 2013

Government Regulatory Policies and the Delayed Economic Recovery, Testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, September 20, 2012

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy of the Committee on Financial Services at the Hearing on “Improving the Federal Reserve System: Examining Legislation to Reform the Fed and Other Alternatives,” May 8, 2012

A Regulatory Moratorium as Part of a Comprehensive Economic Strategy, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, Committee on the Judiciary, February 27, 2012

Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee at the Hearing on “Monetary Policy Going Forward: Why a Sound Dollar Boosts Growth and Employment,” March 27, 2012

The Need for a Comprehensive Economic Strategy, Testimony before the Committee on Finance Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth, U.S. Senate, September 13, 2011

An Assessment of the President’s Proposal to Stimulate the Economy and Create Jobs, Testimony Before the Committee on Oversight and Goverment Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending, U.S. House of Representatives, September 13, 2011

Why a Credible Budget Strategy Will Reduce Unemployment and Increase Economic Growth Testimony Before the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress of the U.S., June 21, 2011
Slides to Accompany Why a Credible Budget Strategy Will Reduce Unemployment and Increase Economic Growth Testimony, June 21, 2011

Evaluating the TARP, Senate Banking Committee Written Testimony, March 17, 2011

The 2009 Stimulus Package: Two Years Later, Testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, February 16, 2011

Economic Growth and Job Creation: The Road Forward, Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, January 26, 2011

Assessing the Federal Policy Response to the Economic Crisis, Testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, September 22, 2010

Testimony before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, July 1, 2010

An Exit Rule for Monetary Policy, Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 25, 2010

Response to Questions from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, November 2009

Testimony, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, U.S. House of Representatives, October 22, 2009

Monetary Policy and Systemic Risk Regulation, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representative, July 9, 2009

Monetary Policy and the Recent Extraordinary Measures Taken by the Federal Reserve, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Feb. 26, 2009

The State of the Economy and Principles for Fiscal Stimulus, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Nov. 19, 2008

Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Feb. 26, 2008

 

Papers on the Long Boom and the Great Moderation

Monetary Policy and the Long Boom

Remarks on “Recent Changes in Trend and Cycle”

The Long Boom: Sosa, McGwire, and Greenspan (slides)

 

Op-Eds and Articles

A New Twist in Online Learning at Stanford, Wall Street Journal, September 1, 2014

The Fed’s Ad Hoc Departures from Rule-Based Monetary Policy Has Hurt the Economy, Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2014

How to Spark Another ‘Great Moderation’, Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2014

The Fed Needs to Return to Monetary Rules, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2014

Obama and the IMF Are Unhappy With Congress? Good, Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2014

The Economic Hokum of ‘Secular Stagnation’, Wall Street Journal, January 1, 2014

Economic Failure Causes Political Polarization, Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2013

The Weak Recovery Explains Rising Inequality, Not Vice Versa, Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2013

Once Again, the Fed Shies Away From the Exit Door, Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2013

Please Be Sure to Share Your Thoughts, Mr Governor, Financial Times, July 2, 2013

How to Let Too-Big-To-Fail Banks Fail (with Kenneth E. Scott), Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2013

A Better Strategy for Faster Growth (with George P. Shultz, Gary S. Becker, Michael J. Boskin, John F. Cogan, Allan H. Meltzer), Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2013

How the House Budget Would Boost the Economy, Wall Street Journal, March 18, 2013

Sequester Impact Small, Says Stanford Professor: Chart, Bloomberg, March 1, 2013

Fed Policy Is a Drag on the Economy, Wall Street Journal, January 29, 2013

Raw Deal, A critique of Michael Grunwald’s review of the stimulus, Foreign Policy, November 2012

Intro to Romneynomics, Defining Ideas, October 29, 2012

The Romney Cure for Obama-Induced Economic Ills, Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2012

The Magnitude of the Mess We’re In (with George P. Shultz, Michael J. Boskin, John F. Cogan, Allan H. Meltzer), Wall Street Journal, September 17, 2012

The Hidden Costs of Monetary Easing (with Phil Gramm), Wall Street Journal,September 12, 2012

When Volcker Ruled, Wall Street Journal,September 8, 2012

The Road to Recovery, City Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, Summer 2012

Monetary Policy and the Next Crisis, Wall Street Journal, July 5, 2012

Slowing Foreclosures Will Harm Housing Market, San Francisco Chronicle (with Doug Holtz-Eakin), July 2, 2012

Rules for America’s Road to Recovery, Wall Street Journal, June 1, 2012

The Dangers of an Interventionist Fed, Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2012

A Better Grecian Bailout, Wall Street Journal, February 22, 2012

Economics for the Long Run, Wall Street Journal, January 25, 2012

Less recent op-eds and articles

 

Videos of Interviews and Talks

Fed’s Policy ‘Disappointing’ CNBC Squawk Box, September 10, 2014

Revolutionizing Higher Education CNBC Squawk Box, September 10, 2014

Nice-Squared Bretton Woods Conference , September 2, 2014

Legislation to Reform the Federal Reserve on Its 100-year Anniversary Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, July 10, 2014

Time to Reform the Fed CNBC Squawk Box, July 10, 2014

Sudden Interest Rate Hike Could Shake Markets: Pro CNBC Squawk Pretrade, June 25, 2014

John Taylor’s Growth Outlook CNBC’s Street Signs, May 29, 2014

Fed policy Under Fire CNBC’s Santelli Exchange, April 30, 2014

Fed policy hasn’t worked well: Expert CNBC’s Santelli Exchange, March 21, 2014 (2:34)

Federal Reserve Announces Pull Back on Stimulus as Bernanke Nears End of Tenure PBS NewsHour, December 18, 2013 (12:37)

Interview with Rick Santelli on the Fed (after his auction report) CNBC’s Santelli Exchange, December 18, 2013 (3:41)

Debate with Alan Greenspan and John Taylor (1) The Kudlow Report, December 10, 2013 (4:27)

Debate with Alan Greenspan and John Taylor (2) The Kudlow Report, December 10, 2013 (4:23)

After 100 years, What’s Next for the Fed Chart Cast from Hoover Retreat, November 12, 2013 (26:25)

John Taylor Urges Fed Return to Predictable Policy, Bloomberg’s Market Makers November 1, 2013 (6:04)

Yellen to return to old Fed policies? Fox Business, November 1, 2013 (3:59)

A Climate Change in Economic Policy Speech at Dallas Fed, October 3, 2013 (12:54)

Summers out, Yellen in? CNBC’s Kudlow Report, September 17, 2013 (11:28)

Is Janet Yellen the likely pick for Fed? Fox Business, September 16, 2013 (6:20)

The Debt Limit Showdown CNBC’s Rise Above, August 27, 2013 (7:22)

Fed Should Be Deliberative on Tapering, Taylor Says Bloomberg’s Street Smart , August 23, 2013 (7:57)

The 5 Principles to Restoring the U.S. Economy Fox Business , August 22, 2013 (5:56)

Will We See the Fed Begin to Taper in September? Bloomberg TV, Bottom Line, July 31, 2013 (5:39)

First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity Book TV , July 29, 2013 (19:19)

Taper Talk & the Fed Debate on the Kudlow Report , June 14, 2013 (8:30)

Introduction to Yang Jisheng, author of Tombstone 2013 Hayek Prize winner, May 29, 2013 (7:14)

Worst Recovery We’ve Seen in Years CNBC, April 30, 2013 (4:24)

Complete US Growth Likely 3 Percent in First Quarter Bloomberg TV, April 22, 2013 (6:27)

Bulging Budget Bothers Market Master CNBC’s, Squawk Box, April 12, 2013 (4:31)

Slowest Recovery in History  Wall Street Journal, Uncommon Knowledge, April 2013 (2:29)

Is There Anything We Can Do? Wall Street Journal, Uncommon Knowledge. April, 2013 (1:46)

Complete Interview on the Economic Recovery Wall Street Journal, Uncommon Knowledge, April 2013 (34:32)

Economic Freedom, Wealth, and the Alleviation of Poverty, Lecture in Stanford’s Ethics of Wealth Series, March 14, 2013 (1:23:51)

Beyond the Cuts, CNBC, March 5, 2013 (3:59)

How Uncertainty is Hurting the Economy, CNBC’s Squawk Box, February 7, 2013 (2:38)

Why the Economy is Stuck in Neutral, CNBC’s Squawk Box, February 7, 2013 (5:09)

John Taylor on Spending Cuts, Fox Business, February 7, 2013 (3:42)

Where’s the Inflation?, Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal, February 7, 2013 (4:50)

John Taylor on Fed’s Dual Mandate, Bloomberg’s Bottom Line, February 7, 2013 (5:37)

Slow Growth Is Biggest Economic Challenge Facing Incoming President, (with Austan Goolsbee), PBS NewsHour November 2, 2012 (11:39)

Our Unemployment Number is a Tragedy, Bloomberg’s in the Loop, November 2, 2012, (4:24)

We Could Be Doing Better, CNN, November 2, 2012 (2:56)

Recovery Would Have Been Better Without Quantitative Easing, Fox Business News, October 26, 2012

Part II of Recovery Would Have Been Better…, Fox Business News, October 26, 2012

Taylor: Romney Did a Terrific Job on Economy October 4, 2012, Bloomberg’s In the Loop (2:35)

Discussion-Debate with Kenneth Arrow on the Economy and the 2012 Election, October 9, 2012 (1:26:54)

Is This a Recovery in Name Only? September 21, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (7:44)

Will Fed’s Sprint to Print Ease Economic Woes?  September 21, 2012, CNCB’s Squawk Box (7:43)

Will Bernanke Announce Policy Changes in Jackson Hole? August 30, 2012, Fox Business (6:38)

Will Americans Buy Romney’s Proposals to Turn Around the Economy? August 28, 2012, PBS Newshour (8:41)

Taylor Says Fed Should Return to Rules-Based Policy August 28, 2012, Bloomberg Street Smart (9:11)

The Biggest Threats to the U.S. Economy August 23, 2012, Fox Business Willis Report (4:53)

Romney’s Economic Proposal Gaining Support Among Economists?, August 21, 2012 Fox Business (4:04)

What Can the Fed Do to Prop Up the Economy July 31, 2012, Fox Business (3:47)

Interview on Hayek and Policy Rules with Rick Santelli June 26, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk on the Street (6:25)

Interview on Economics, Leading Economists Series, Center for Advanced Studies in Economic Efficiency, December 2011

How US Can Reclaim Its Economic Strength? June 8, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (6:25)

The Eighth Annual Hayek Lecture June 1, 2012, The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (57:48)

Monetary, Fiscal Policies Stall Growth, Taylor Says May 31, 2012, Bloomberg Television’s Inside Track (4:34)

First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity April 19, 2012, C-Span (37:47)

Tracking Gains in the Job Market April 9, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (6:53)

The Power of the Markets April 9, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (3:55)

Economic Debate: John Taylor and Larry Summers April 4, 2012, SIEPR (1:14:00)

Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity April 3, 2012, Reason TV (5:31)

Stocks Swing Higher March 8, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (7:27)

Bernanke’s Testimony and the Economy March 1, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (8:46)

First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity February 24, 2012, The Heritage Foundation (37:20)

The Greek Bailout Equation February 22, 2012, Wall Street Journal TV  (6:36)

Taylor on U.S. Budget Deficit February 21, 2012, Bloomberg Television’s Street Smart  (4:10)

Will Greece Get Bailout Package? February 14, 2012, CNBC (3:13)

Taylor on U.S. Deficit, Fed, Greece February 6, 2012, Bloomberg TV (7:09)

Economics for the Long Run January 24, 2012, Wall Street Journal TV (8:27)

Restoring Prosperity: Trust Markets, Not Bailouts January 24, 2012, The Street (3:13)

John Taylor’s Spending Rules to Live By January 23, 2012, Wall Street Journal TV (8:27)

The 5 Steps to Fixing the Economy January 20, 2012, Fox Business’ Willis Report (4:24)

Taylor on Fed Policy, US Economy January 20, 2012, Bloomberg’s Surveillance Midday (12:51)

Carnegie’s Meltzer on Fed Policy, Taylor Rule January 20, 2012, Bloomberg’s Surveillance Midday with Allan Meltzer (7:22)

Principles to Restore the Economy January 20, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (9:58)

Market Anticipates FOMC January 20, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box, segment on monetary policy with Steve Liesman (6:55)

“Economic Principles for Growth” January 20, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (1:30)

Less recent videos of interviews and talks

 

Podcasts

John Taylor on the John Batchelor Show June 3, 2014, John Bachelor Show.

Taylor on Hays Advantage May 29, 2014, Hays Advantage, Bloomberg Radio.

Taylor on the Larry Kudlow Show March 22, 2014, The Larry Kudlow Show (86:34).

Taylor on the Larry Kudlow Show February 15, 2014, The Larry Kudlow Show (78:28).

John Taylor on the John Batchelor Show January 14, 2014, John Bachelor Show (19:27).

Extreme Policies Are a Big Problem, Despite Naysayer November 5, 2013, John Batchelor Show (10:07).

What Will It Take to Get the US Economy Moving? October 3, 2013, National Press Club Update-1 (9:47).

Republican Convention Coverage Part 2 August 30, 2012, WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show (44:25).

The Romney Economic Plan August 29, 2012, NPR’s On Point (47:31).

Taylor on a Gold Standard and a Rules Based Fed Policy August 27, 2012, Hays Advantage (15:29).

First Principles and the Rule of Law June 26, 2012, John Bachelor Show.

First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity June 18, 2012, Money, Riches, and Wealth (21:55).

Fixing the weak US economy requires more long-term policy June 5, 2012, Market Place (4:04).

John Taylor’s 2012 Hayek Prize May 15, 2012, John Batchelor Show.

2012 Hayek Prize for First Principles May 15, 2012, John Batchelor Show (39:47).

John Batchelor Show Debate at the Hoover Institution, April 28-29, 2012

Keynes and Hayek, with attention to Milton Friedman’s conversation on Keynes and Hayek. Nicholas Wapshott, John Taylor, Michael Boskin, Russ Roberts. (Three segments broadcast on April 28 and 29, 2012 on the John Batchelor Show)

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Taylor on Rules, Discretion and First Principles April 30, 2012, EconTalk. 1:02:34

Taylor on the John Batchelor Show April 3, 2012, John Batchelor Show.

First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity March 3, 2012, Larry Kudlow Show.

John Taylor on Returning Economy to Prosperity February 27, 2012, The Foundry (7:27).

Rebecca Costa’s Interview with John B. Taylor February 17, 2012, The Costa Report (51:20).

Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity February 16, 2012, KQED’s Forum (52:00).

John Taylor on Payne Nation January 25, 2012, Payne Nation.

John Taylor on the Tom O’Brien Show January 25, 2012, Tom O’Brien Show (starts around 1:21:00).

Stanford’s Taylor Says Economic Crisis Not Over January 20, 2010, Bloomberg’s Surveillance (13:50).

First Principles Broadcast on January 17, 2012, John Batchelor Show (starts at 19:27).

Less recent podcasts

 

Economics Teaching

Monetary Theory and Policy Lecture Slides and Syllabus for Stanford Ph.D. course, Spring 2013

Lessons From the Financial Crisis for Teaching Economics, Slide Presentation for AEA Conference on Teaching. June 2011

Economics 1A  Debt Charts from Lecture 2, S&P 500 Box, Adam Smith on the Woolen Coat; Smith Bio, The Role of Private Organizations, Rose Friedman, McKinnon on China, Lehman Weekend, JPMorgan-Money Multiplier, Monetary Imbalance Table-GDW, Phelps On Tunisia, Shultz on Steady as You Go, Requirements for Policy Rules for the FOMC

Caps for Sale: The Economic Side of the Story Stanford Economics Graduation, June 2008

Remarks at Stanford Economics Graduation Ceremony 1999

Economics 169, Spring 2008

Economics 212, Spring 2008

Ideas for the Economics Lecture Innovative Techniques for Teaching Economics

Surprise Side Economics: Ideas for Introductory Economics

Teaching Modern Macroeconomics at the Principles Level

 

Earlier Editions of Textbooks

Economics, Second Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Economics, Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Economics, Fifth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Economics, Sixth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Microeconomics, Second Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Microeconomics, Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Microeconomics, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Microeconomics, Fifth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Microeconomics, Sixth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Macroeconomics, Second Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Macroeconomics, Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Macroeconomics, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Macroeconomics, Fifth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Macroeconomics, Sixth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Macroeconomics , Principles Text for Australian Economy with Bruce Littleboy, Third Edition, John Wiley

Microeconomics, Principles Text for Australian Economy with Lionel Frost), Third Edition, John Wiley

Handbook of Macroeconomics, (Editor with Michael Woodford)

Macroeconomics Intermediate Text with Robert E. Hall and David Papell, Sixth Edition, WW

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Economy Still Stagnating As The 10 Million Plus Jobs Gap Widens — Videos

Posted on February 8, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Diasters, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 206: February 7, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 205: February 5, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 204: February 4, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 203: February 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 202: January 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 201: January 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 200: January 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 199: January 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 198: January 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 197: January 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 196: January 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 195: January 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 194: January 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 193: January 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 192: January 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 191: January 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 190: January 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 189: January 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 188: January 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 187: January 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 186: January 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-206

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Story 2: The Economy Still Stagnating As The 10 Million Plus Jobs Gap Widens — Videos

Making Sense of Today’s January Jobs Report

February 7th 2014 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (January Jobs Report)

gdp_large

sgs-emp

non-farm-payrolls-wide-201312

Employment Level

145,224,000

Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

employment_level
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150(1) 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028(1) 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378(1) 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152(1) 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138451(1) 138599 138752 139309 139247 139148 139179 139427 139393 139111 139030 139266
2011 139287(1) 139422 139655 139622 139653 139409 139524 139904 140154 140335 140747 140836
2012 141677(1) 141943 142079 141963 142257 142432 142272 142204 142947 143369 143233 143212
2013 143384(1) 143464 143393 143676 143919 144075 144285 144179 144270 143485 144443 144586
2014 145224(1)

Civilian Labor Force

155,460,000

Series Id:           LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Civilian_Labor_Force_Level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150214(1) 150641 150813 150881 151069 151354 151377 151716 151662 152041 152406 152732
2007 153144(1) 152983 153051 152435 152670 153041 153054 152749 153414 153183 153835 153918
2008 154063(1) 153653 153908 153769 154303 154313 154469 154641 154570 154876 154639 154655
2009 154210(1) 154538 154133 154509 154747 154716 154502 154307 153827 153784 153878 153111
2010 153404(1) 153720 153964 154642 154106 153631 153706 154087 153971 153631 154127 153639
2011 153198(1) 153280 153403 153566 153526 153379 153309 153724 154059 153940 154072 153927
2012 154328(1) 154826 154811 154565 154946 155134 154970 154669 155018 155507 155279 155485
2013 155699(1) 155511 155099 155359 155609 155822 155693 155435 155473 154625 155284 154937
2014 155460(1)

Labor Force Participation Rate

63.0%

Series Id:           LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

labor_participation_rate

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.2 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.9 63.8 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.7 63.6 63.6
2013 63.6 63.5 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.5 63.4 63.2 63.2 62.8 63.0 62.8
2014 63.0

Unemployment Level

10,236,000

Series Id:           LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

unemployment_level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762
2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645
2008 7685 7497 7822 7637 8395 8575 8937 9438 9494 10074 10538 11286
2009 12058 12898 13426 13853 14499 14707 14601 14814 15009 15352 15219 15098
2010 14953 15121 15212 15333 14858 14483 14527 14660 14578 14520 15097 14373
2011 13910 13858 13748 13944 13873 13971 13785 13820 13905 13604 13326 13090
2012 12650 12883 12732 12603 12689 12702 12698 12464 12070 12138 12045 12273
2013 12315 12047 11706 11683 11690 11747 11408 11256 11203 11140 10841 10351
2014 10236

Unemployment Rate

6.6%

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

unemployment_rate_U_3
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9
2013 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2014 6.6

Employment-Population Ratio

58.8%

Series Id:           LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status:  Employment-population ratio
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.4 64.5 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.4
2001 64.4 64.3 64.3 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.2 63.5 63.2 63.0 62.9
2002 62.7 63.0 62.8 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.7 63.0 62.7 62.5 62.4
2003 62.5 62.5 62.4 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.1 62.1 62.0 62.1 62.3 62.2
2004 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.5 62.4
2005 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.7 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.7 62.8
2006 62.9 63.0 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.3 63.3 63.4
2007 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7
2008 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7 62.5 62.4 62.2 62.0 61.9 61.7 61.4 61.0
2009 60.6 60.3 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.4 59.3 59.1 58.7 58.5 58.6 58.3
2010 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.7 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.3 58.2 58.3
2011 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.2 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.5 58.5
2012 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.4 58.6 58.8 58.7 58.6
2013 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.6 58.6 58.2 58.6 58.6
2014 58.8

Unemployment Rate – 16-19 Yrs

20.7%

Series Id:           LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 to 19 years

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 12.7 13.8 13.3 12.6 12.8 12.3 13.4 14.0 13.0 12.8 13.0 13.2
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.1 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.3 15.2 14.8 14.6
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.9 15.9 16.3 15.3 15.9 15.9 15.4 16.2 16.8
2008 17.8 16.6 16.1 15.9 19.0 19.2 20.7 18.6 19.1 20.0 20.3 20.5
2009 20.7 22.3 22.2 22.2 23.4 24.7 24.3 25.0 25.9 27.2 26.9 26.7
2010 26.0 25.6 26.2 25.4 26.5 26.0 25.9 25.6 25.8 27.3 24.8 25.3
2011 25.5 24.1 24.3 24.5 23.9 24.8 24.8 25.1 24.5 24.2 24.1 23.3
2012 23.5 23.8 24.8 24.6 24.2 23.7 23.7 24.4 23.8 23.8 23.9 24.0
2013 23.5 25.2 23.9 23.7 24.1 23.8 23.4 22.6 21.3 22.0 20.8 20.2
2014 20.7

Average Weeks Unemployed

35.4 Weeks

Series Id:           LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number of weeks
Age:                 16 years and over
average_weeks_unemployed
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 13.1 12.6 12.7 12.4 12.6 12.3 13.4 12.9 12.2 12.7 12.4 12.5
2001 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.1 12.7 12.9 13.3 13.2 13.3 14.3 14.5
2002 14.7 15.0 15.4 16.3 16.8 16.9 16.9 16.5 17.6 17.8 17.6 18.5
2003 18.5 18.5 18.1 19.4 19.0 19.9 19.7 19.2 19.5 19.3 19.9 19.8
2004 19.9 20.1 19.8 19.6 19.8 20.5 18.8 18.8 19.4 19.5 19.7 19.4
2005 19.5 19.1 19.5 19.6 18.6 17.9 17.6 18.4 17.9 17.9 17.5 17.5
2006 16.9 17.8 17.1 16.7 17.1 16.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 16.3 16.2 16.1
2007 16.3 16.7 17.8 16.9 16.6 16.5 17.2 17.0 16.3 17.0 17.3 16.6
2008 17.5 16.9 16.5 16.9 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.7 18.6 19.9 18.9 19.9
2009 19.8 20.2 20.9 21.7 22.4 23.9 25.1 25.3 26.6 27.5 28.9 29.7
2010 30.3 29.9 31.6 33.3 33.9 34.5 33.8 33.6 33.4 34.2 33.9 34.8
2011 37.2 37.5 39.2 38.7 39.5 39.7 40.4 40.2 40.2 39.1 40.3 40.7
2012 40.1 40.0 39.4 39.3 39.6 40.0 38.8 39.1 39.4 40.3 39.2 38.0
2013 35.4 36.9 37.0 36.6 36.9 35.7 36.7 37.0 36.8 36.0 37.1 37.1
2014 35.4

Median Weeks Unemployed

16.0 weeks

Series Id:           LNS13008276
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Median Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number of weeks
Age:                 16 years and over

median_weeks_unemployed

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5.8 6.1 6.0 6.1 5.8 5.7 6.0 6.3 5.2 6.1 6.1 6.0
2001 5.8 6.1 6.6 5.9 6.3 6.0 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.3 7.7 8.2
2002 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.9 9.5 11.0 8.9 9.0 9.5 9.6 9.3 9.6
2003 9.6 9.5 9.7 10.2 9.9 11.5 10.3 10.1 10.2 10.4 10.3 10.4
2004 10.6 10.2 10.2 9.5 9.9 11.0 8.9 9.2 9.6 9.5 9.7 9.5
2005 9.4 9.2 9.3 9.0 9.1 9.0 8.8 9.2 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.7
2006 8.6 9.1 8.7 8.4 8.5 7.3 8.0 8.4 8.0 7.9 8.3 7.5
2007 8.3 8.5 9.1 8.6 8.2 7.7 8.7 8.8 8.7 8.4 8.6 8.4
2008 9.0 8.7 8.7 9.4 7.9 9.0 9.7 9.7 10.2 10.4 9.8 10.5
2009 10.7 11.7 12.3 13.1 14.2 17.2 16.0 16.3 17.8 18.9 19.8 20.1
2010 20.0 19.9 20.5 22.1 22.3 25.0 22.2 20.9 20.2 21.4 21.0 22.0
2011 21.5 21.2 21.7 20.9 21.6 22.1 21.8 22.2 21.9 20.7 20.9 20.6
2012 20.9 20.0 19.6 19.2 19.8 19.8 17.2 18.2 18.7 20.0 18.6 17.8
2013 16.0 17.7 18.1 17.3 16.9 16.2 15.8 16.5 16.4 16.5 17.0 17.1
2014 16.0

Not in Labor Force, Searched for Work and Available

2,592,000

Series Id:                       LNU05026642
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:                    (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available
Labor force status:              Not in labor force
Type of data:                    Number in thousands
Age:                             16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force:  Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force:      Available to work now
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 1207 1281 1219 1216 1113 1142 1172 1097 1166 1044 1100 1125 1157
2001 1295 1337 1109 1131 1157 1170 1232 1364 1335 1398 1331 1330 1266
2002 1532 1423 1358 1397 1467 1380 1507 1456 1501 1416 1401 1432 1439
2003 1598 1590 1577 1399 1428 1468 1566 1665 1544 1586 1473 1483 1531
2004 1670 1691 1643 1526 1533 1492 1557 1587 1561 1647 1517 1463 1574
2005 1804 1673 1588 1511 1428 1583 1516 1583 1438 1414 1415 1589 1545
2006 1644 1471 1468 1310 1388 1584 1522 1592 1299 1478 1366 1252 1448
2007 1577 1451 1385 1391 1406 1454 1376 1365 1268 1364 1363 1344 1395
2008 1729 1585 1352 1414 1416 1558 1573 1640 1604 1637 1947 1908 1614
2009 2130 2051 2106 2089 2210 2176 2282 2270 2219 2373 2323 2486 2226
2010 2539 2527 2255 2432 2223 2591 2622 2370 2548 2602 2531 2609 2487
2011 2800 2730 2434 2466 2206 2680 2785 2575 2511 2555 2591 2540 2573
2012 2809 2608 2352 2363 2423 2483 2529 2561 2517 2433 2505 2614 2516
2013 2443 2588 2326 2347 2164 2582 2414 2342 2302 2283 2096 2427 2360
2014 2592

Total Unemployment Rate U-6

12.7%

Series Id:           LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:  Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6
2009 14.2 15.2 15.8 15.9 16.5 16.5 16.4 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 17.0 17.1 17.2 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.8 16.6 16.9 16.6
2011 16.1 16.0 15.9 16.1 15.8 16.1 16.0 16.1 16.3 15.9 15.6 15.2
2012 15.1 15.0 14.5 14.6 14.8 14.8 14.9 14.7 14.7 14.4 14.4 14.4
2013 14.4 14.3 13.8 13.9 13.8 14.2 13.9 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.1 13.1
2014 12.7

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until                      USDL-14-0168
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, February 7, 2014

Technical information:
Household data:        (202) 691-6378  •  cpsinfo@bls.gov  •  www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data:    (202) 691-6555  •  cesinfo@bls.gov  •  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:         (202) 691-5902  •  PressOffice@bls.gov

                                 THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JANUARY 2014

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 113,000 in January, and the unemployment rate
was little changed at 6.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment grew in construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, and mining. 

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |                        Changes to the Employment Situation Data                    |
 |                                                                                    |
 |Establishment survey data have been revised as a result of the annual benchmarking  |
 |process and the updating of seasonal adjustment factors. Also, household survey data|
 |for January 2014 reflect updated population estimates. See the notes at the end of  |
 |this release for more information about these changes.                              |
 |                                                                                    |
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 10.2 million, and the unemployment rate, at
6.6 percent, changed little in January. Since October, the jobless rate has decreased by
0.6 percentage point. (See table A-1.)  (See the note and tables B and C for information
about the effect of annual population adjustments to the household survey estimates.) 

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (6.2 percent), adult
women (5.9 percent), teenagers (20.7 percent), whites (5.7 percent), blacks (12.1 percent),
and Hispanics (8.4 percent) showed little change in January. The jobless rate for Asians
was 4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted), down by 1.7 percentage points over the year.
(See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 3.6 million,
declined by 232,000 in January. These individuals accounted for 35.8 percent of the
unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 1.1 million over the year.
(See table A-12.)

After accounting for the annual adjustment to the population controls, the civilian labor
force rose by 499,000 in January, and the labor force participation rate edged up to 63.0
percent. Total employment, as measured by the household survey, increased by 616,000 over
the month, and the employment-population ratio increased by 0.2 percentage point to 58.8
percent. (See table A-1. For additional information about the effects of the population
adjustments, see table C.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as
involuntary part-time workers) fell by 514,000 to 7.3 million in January. These individuals
were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to
find full-time work. (See table A-8.)

In January, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little changed
from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in
the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in
the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for
work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 837,000 discouraged workers in January, about
unchanged from a year earlier. Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for
work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.8 million persons
marginally attached to the labor force in January had not searched for work for reasons such
as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 113,000 in January. In 2013, employment growth
averaged 194,000 per month. In January, job gains occurred in construction, manufacturing,
wholesale trade, and mining. (See table B-1.)

Construction added 48,000 jobs over the month, more than offsetting a decline of 22,000 in
December. In January, job gains occurred in both residential and nonresidential building
(+13,000 and +8,000, respectively) and in nonresidential specialty trade contractors
(+13,000). Heavy and civil engineering construction also added 10,000 jobs.

Employment in manufacturing increased in January (+21,000). Over the month, job gains
occurred in machinery (+7,000), wood products (+5,000), and motor vehicles and parts
(+5,000). Manufacturing added an average of 7,000 jobs per month in 2013.

In January, wholesale trade added 14,000 jobs, with most of the increase occurring in
nondurable goods (+10,000).

Mining added 7,000 jobs in January, compared with an average monthly gain of 2,000 jobs
in 2013.

Employment in professional and business services continued to trend up in January (+36,000).
The industry added an average of 55,000 jobs per month in 2013. Within the industry,
professional and technical services added 20,000 jobs in January. 

Leisure and hospitality employment continued to trend up over the month (+24,000). Job
growth in the industry averaged 38,000 per month in 2013. 

Employment in health care was essentially unchanged in January for the second consecutive
month.  Health care added an average of 17,000 jobs per month in 2013. 

Employment in retail trade changed little in January (-13,000). Within the industry, sporting
goods, hobby, book, and music stores lost 22,000 jobs, offsetting job gains in the prior 3
months. In January, motor vehicle and parts dealers added 7,000 jobs.

In January, federal government employment decreased by 12,000; the U.S. Postal Service
accounted for most of this decline (-9,000).

Employment in other major industries, including transportation and warehousing, information,
and financial activities, showed little or no change over the month.

In January, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged
at 34.4 hours. The manufacturing workweek declined by 0.2 hour to 40.7 hours, and factory
overtime edged down by 0.1 hour to 3.4 hours. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.5 hours. (See
tables B-2 and B-7.)

Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 5 cents to
$24.21. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 46 cents, or 1.9 percent. In
January, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees
increased by 6 cents to $20.39. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for November was revised from +241,000 to
+274,000, and the change for December was revised from +74,000 to +75,000. With these
revisions, employment gains in November and December were 34,000 higher than previously
reported. Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses since
the last published estimates and the monthly recalculation of seasonal factors. The annual
benchmark process also contributed to the revisions in this news release.

_____________
The Employment Situation for February is scheduled to be released on Friday, March 7, 2014,
at 8:30 a.m. (EST).

                                  Revisions to Establishment Survey Data

In accordance with annual practice, the establishment survey data released today have been
benchmarked to reflect comprehensive counts of payroll jobs for March 2013. These counts
are derived principally from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which
enumerates jobs covered by the UI tax system. The benchmark process results in revisions
to not seasonally adjusted data from April 2012 forward. Seasonally adjusted data from
January 2009 forward are subject to revision. In addition, data for some series prior to
2009, both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, incorporate revisions.

The total nonfarm employment level for March 2013 was revised upward by 369,000 (+347,000
on a not seasonally adjusted basis, or 0.3 percent). The average benchmark revision over
the past 10 years was plus or minus 0.3 percent. 

This revision incorporates the reclassification of jobs in the QCEW. Private household
employment is out of scope for the establishment survey. The QCEW reclassified some
private household employment into an industry that is in scope for the establishment
survey--services for the elderly and persons with disabilities. This reclassification
accounted for an increase of 466,000 jobs in the establishment survey. This increase of
466,000 associated with reclassification was offset by survey error of -119,000 for a
total net benchmark revision of +347,000 on a not seasonally adjusted basis. Historical
time series have been reconstructed to incorporate these revisions. 

The effect of these revisions on the underlying trend in nonfarm payroll employment was
minor. For example, the over-the-year change in total nonfarm employment for 2013 was
revised from 2,186,000 to 2,322,000 seasonally adjusted. Table A presents revised total
nonfarm employment data on a seasonally adjusted basis for January through December 2013.

All revised historical CES data, as well as an article that discusses the benchmark and
post-benchmark revisions and other technical issues can be accessed through the CES
homepage at www.bls.gov/ces/. Information on the data released today also may be obtained
by calling (202) 691-6555.

Table A. Revisions in total nonfarm employment, January-December 2013, seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    |                                    |                                
                    |                Level               |      Over-the-month change     
                    |---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Year and month  |    As     |           |            |    As    |         |           
                    |previously |    As     | Difference |previously|   As    | Difference
                    |published  |  revised  |            |published | revised |           
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    |           |           |            |          |         |           
          2013      |           |           |            |          |         |           
                    |           |           |            |          |         |           
 January............|  134,839  |  135,261  |     422    |    148   |    197  |      49   
 February...........|  135,171  |  135,541  |     370    |    332   |    280  |     -52   
 March..............|  135,313  |  135,682  |     369    |    142   |    141  |      -1   
 April..............|  135,512  |  135,885  |     373    |    199   |    203  |       4   
 May................|  135,688  |  136,084  |     396    |    176   |    199  |      23   
 June...............|  135,860  |  136,285  |     425    |    172   |    201  |      29   
 July...............|  135,949  |  136,434  |     485    |     89   |    149  |      60   
 August.............|  136,187  |  136,636  |     449    |    238   |    202  |     -36   
 September..........|  136,362  |  136,800  |     438    |    175   |    164  |     -11   
 October............|  136,562  |  137,037  |     475    |    200   |    237  |      37   
 November...........|  136,803  |  137,311  |     508    |    241   |    274  |      33   
 December (p).......|  136,877  |  137,386  |     509    |     74   |     75  |       1   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   p = preliminary

                Adjustments to Population Estimates for the Household Survey

Effective with data for January 2014, updated population estimates have been used in the
household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the U.S.
Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new information
and assumptions about the growth of the population since the previous decennial census. The
change in population reflected in the new estimates results from adjustments for net
international migration, updated vital statistics and other information, and some
methodological changes in the estimation process. 

In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household survey estimates
for December 2013 and earlier months. To show the impact of the population adjustments, however,
differences in selected December 2013 labor force series based on the old and new population
estimates are shown in table B. 

The adjustments increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in
December by 2,000, the civilian labor force by 24,000, employment by 22,000, and unemployment
by 2,000. The number of persons not in the labor force was reduced by 22,000. The total
unemployment rate, employment-population ratio, and labor force participation rate were
unaffected. 

Data users are cautioned that these annual population adjustments can affect the comparability
of household data series over time. Table C shows the effect of the introduction of new
population estimates on the comparison of selected labor force measures between December 2013
and January 2014. Additional information on the population adjustments and their effect on
national labor force estimates is available at www.bls.gov/cps/cps14adj.pdf.

Table B. Effect of the updated population controls on December 2013 estimates by sex, race, and
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, not seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                        |      |     |      |       |        |       |            
                                        |      |     |      |       |  Black |       |            
                                        |      |     |      |       |    or  |       |  Hispanic  
                  Category              | Total| Men | Women| White | African| Asian | or Latino  
                                        |      |     |      |       |American|       | ethnicity  
                                        |      |     |      |       |        |       |            
________________________________________|______|_____|______|_______|________|_______|____________
                                        |      |     |      |       |        |       |            
  Civilian noninstitutional population..|    2 |  29 |  -27 |   -65 |     48 |    33 |     -57    
    Civilian labor force................|   24 |  24 |    0 |   -17 |     34 |    15 |     -38    
      Participation rate................|   .0 |  .0 |   .0 |    .0 |     .0 |    .0 |      .0    
     Employed...........................|   22 |  22 |    0 |   -16 |     31 |    14 |     -34    
      Employment-population ratio.......|   .0 |  .0 |   .0 |    .0 |     .0 |    .0 |      .0    
     Unemployed.........................|    2 |   3 |   -1 |    -1 |      4 |     1 |      -4    
      Unemployment rate.................|   .0 |  .0 |   .0 |    .0 |     .0 |    .0 |      .0    
    Not in labor force..................|  -22 |   4 |  -27 |   -48 |     14 |    18 |     -18    
________________________________________|______|_____|______|_______|________|_______|____________

   NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates for the above race groups
(white, black or African American, and Asian) do not sum to totals because data are not presented
for all races. Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.

Table C. December 2013-January 2014 changes in selected labor force measures,
with adjustments for population control effects
(Numbers in thousands)

______________________________________________________________________________
                                       |           |            |             
                                       |           |            |  Dec.-Jan.  
                                       | Dec.-Jan. |    2014    |   change,   
                                       |  change,  | population |  after re-  
                Category               |    as     |   control  |  moving the 
                                       | published |   effect   |  population 
                                       |           |            |   control   
                                       |           |            |  effect (1) 
_______________________________________|___________|____________|_____________
                                       |           |            |             
  Civilian noninstitutional population.|    170    |       2    |     168     
    Civilian labor force...............|    523    |      24    |     499     
      Participation rate...............|     .2    |      .0    |      .2     
     Employed..........................|    638    |      22    |     616     
      Employment-population ratio......|     .2    |      .0    |      .2     
     Unemployed........................|   -115    |       2    |    -117     
      Unemployment rate................|    -.1    |      .0    |     -.1     
    Not in labor force.................|   -353    |     -22    |    -331     
_______________________________________|___________|____________|_____________

   (1) This Dec.-Jan. change is calculated by subtracting the population 
control effect from the over-the-month change in the published seasonally
adjusted estimates.
   NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |                                                                                    |
 |                            Change to the Household Survey Tables                   |
 |                                                                                    |
 |Effective with this release, household survey table A-10 includes two new seasonally|
 |adjusted series for women age 55 and over--the number of unemployed persons and the |
 |unemployment rate. These replace the series that were previously displayed for this |
 |group, which were not seasonally adjusted.                                          |
 |                                                                                    |
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |                                                                                    |
 |               Updated Veteran Weighting Methodology for Household Survey           |
 |                                                                                    |
 |Beginning with data for January 2014, estimates for veterans in table A-5 of this   |
 |release incorporate updated weighting procedures. The new weighting methodology more|
 |accurately reflects the current demographic composition of the veteran population.  |
 |The primary impact of the change was an increase in the "Gulf War-era I" veteran    |
 |population and a decrease in the number of veterans in the "Other service periods"  |
 |category. The updated methodology had little effect on unemployment rates for       |
 |veterans, regardless of gender or period of service. Additional information on the  |
 |effect of the change on labor force estimates for veterans is available at          |
 |www.bls.gov/cps/vetsweights2014.pdf.                                                |
 |                                                                                    |
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]

CategoryJan.
2013Nov.
2013Dec.
2013Jan.
2014Change from:
Dec.
2013-
Jan.
2014Employment status Civilian noninstitutional population244,663246,567246,745246,915-Civilian labor force155,699155,284154,937155,460-Participation rate63.663.062.863.0-Employed143,384144,443144,586145,224-Employment-population ratio58.658.658.658.8-Unemployed12,31510,84110,35110,236-Unemployment rate7.97.06.76.6-Not in labor force88,96391,28391,80891,455- Unemployment rates Total, 16 years and over7.97.06.76.6-Adult men (20 years and over)7.46.76.36.2-Adult women (20 years and over)7.26.26.05.9-Teenagers (16 to 19 years)23.520.820.220.7-White7.16.15.95.7-Black or African American13.812.411.912.1-Asian (not seasonally adjusted)6.55.34.14.8-Hispanic or Latino ethnicity9.78.78.38.4- Total, 25 years and over6.55.85.65.4-Less than a high school diploma12.010.69.89.6-High school graduates, no college8.17.37.16.5-Some college or associate degree7.06.46.16.0-Bachelor’s degree and higher3.83.43.33.2- Reason for unemployment Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs6,6755,7315,3665,407-Job leavers984890862818-Reentrants3,5203,0653,0362,937-New entrants1,2741,1691,2011,184- Duration of unemployment Less than 5 weeks2,7532,4392,2552,434-5 to 14 weeks3,0772,5852,5062,429-15 to 26 weeks1,8671,7421,6511,689-27 weeks and over4,7074,0443,8783,646- Employed persons at work part time Part time for economic reasons7,9837,7237,7717,257-Slack work or business conditions5,1174,8694,8844,405-Could only find part-time work2,6132,4992,5922,571-Part time for noneconomic reasons18,55618,85818,73119,165- Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted) Marginally attached to the labor force2,4432,0962,4272,592-Discouraged workers804762917837– December – January changes in household data are not shown due to the introduction of updated population controls.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Jan.
2013
Nov.
2013
Dec.
2013(p)
Jan.
2014(p)
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm 197 274 75 113
Total private 219 272 89 142
Goods-producing 43 68 -13 76
Mining and logging 3 1 1 7
Construction 23 32 -22 48
Manufacturing 17 35 8 21
Durable goods(1) 9 19 2 15
Motor vehicles and parts 3.5 4.7 3.3 4.7
Nondurable goods 8 16 6 6
Private service-providing(1) 176 204 102 66
Wholesale trade 16.9 16.8 10.2 13.9
Retail trade 26.9 22.3 62.7 -12.9
Transportation and warehousing 9.8 32.4 10.6 9.9
Information -1 1 -10 0
Financial activities 8 -4 3 -2
Professional and business services(1) 45 73 4 36
Temporary help services 4.9 36.6 30.1 8.1
Education and health services(1) 17 25 -4 -6
Health care and social assistance 23.5 24.4 1.1 1.5
Leisure and hospitality 47 37 20 24
Other services 7 -1 7 4
Government -22 2 -14 -29
WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2)
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES
Total nonfarm women employees 49.4 49.5 49.5 49.4
Total private women employees 48.0 48.0 48.0 47.9
Total private production and nonsupervisory employees 82.6 82.6 82.6 82.6
HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 34.4 34.5 34.4 34.4
Average hourly earnings $23.75 $24.15 $24.16 $24.21
Average weekly earnings $817.00 $833.18 $831.10 $832.82
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3) 97.5 99.6 99.4 99.5
Over-the-month percent change 0.2 0.5 -0.2 0.1
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4) 110.5 114.8 114.6 114.9
Over-the-month percent change 0.4 0.8 -0.2 0.3
HOURS AND EARNINGS
PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 33.6 33.7 33.5 33.5
Average hourly earnings $19.95 $20.30 $20.33 $20.39
Average weekly earnings $670.32 $684.11 $681.06 $683.07
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3) 104.9 107.1 106.6 106.7
Over-the-month percent change -0.2 0.5 -0.5 0.1
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4) 139.8 145.3 144.8 145.3
Over-the-month percent change 0.1 0.8 -0.3 0.3
DIFFUSION INDEX(5)
(Over 1-month span)
Total private (264 industries) 64.0 66.9 56.4 61.2
Manufacturing (81 industries) 56.8 65.4 59.9 54.3
Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(p) Preliminary
NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2013 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.

Weakness Continues as 113,000 Jobs Are Added in January

Employers added jobs at a slower-than-expected pace in January, the second month in a row that hiring has been disappointing and a sign that the labor market remains anemic despite indications of growth elsewhere in the economy.

Payrolls increased by 113,000, the Labor Department reported Friday morning, well below the gain of 180,000 that economists expected. The unemployment rate, based on a separate survey of households that was more encouraging, actually fell by a tenth of a percentage point, to 6.6 percent.

The data for January come after an even more disappointing report on the labor market for December, which was revised upward only slightly Friday, to show a gain of just 75,000 jobs, from 74,000. The level of hiring in January was also substantially below the average monthly gain of 178,000 positions over the last six months, as well as the monthly addition of 187,000 over the last year.

The two weak months in a row will prompt questions about whether the Federal Reserve acted prematurely when policy makers in December voted to begin scaling back the central bank’s expansive stimulus efforts.

The new data is not expected to alter the Fed’s course, economists said, but another poor report on hiring next month might force policy makers to rethink their plan when they next meet in late March.

“In one line: grim,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, in a note to clients Friday morning.

While seasonal adjustments may have played a role and upward revisions for hiring in October and November were more encouraging, he said, “The payroll rebound clearly is disappointing; none of the ground lost in December was recovered.”

Other economists conceded the picture for January was hardly bright, but cautioned it was too soon to conclude there had been a fundamental loss of momentum in the economy, especially given seasonal fluctuations in the data and the possibility that weather inhibited some hiring.

“We’re not seeing the takeoff that people wanted to see, but it’s not a disaster,” said Julia Coronado, chief economist for North America at BNP Paribas. “The 113,000 figure is definitely way below trend, but we want another month or two of data before we can draw conclusions.”

One mystery economists will be focusing on is why employment gains have not kept up with economic growth as measured by gross domestic product, which picked up substantially in the second half of 2013. The annualized pace of expansion was 3.2 percent in the fourth quarter, and 4.1 percent in the third quarter.

One reason may be that new technologies are allowing employers to make do with fewer workers, for instance the use of automated customer service systems instead of call centers, or Internet retailers’ taking over from brick-and-mortar stores where sales associates prowl the floors.

Another shift is evident from the yawning gap in employment for college graduates versus workers who lack a high school diploma. For people with a college degree or higher, the jobless rate was 3.1 percent, compared with 9.6 percent for Americans who did not finish high school.

Wintry conditions that held back hiring were blamed for the weakness in December, a theory popular among more optimistic economists after those numbers came out in early January.

But despite what seems like an endless series of snowstorms on the East Coast and arctic conditions in the Midwest recently, the reference week for the latest survey was Jan. 12-18, when conditions were fairly normal as Januaries go, limiting some of the impact of the weather in this report.

In the report on January, one sector holding back payrolls was the government, which shrank by 29,000 jobs in January. Excluding that loss, private employers added 142,000 positions, a slightly better showing.

Several other sectors which had been strong in recent months – education and health care as well as retailing – also lost positions, contributing to the overall weakness.

The falloff in hiring in the health care sector was especially notable. In December and January together, just 2,600 health care positions were filled. By contrast, as recently as November, nearly 25,000 health care workers were added to payrolls.

Although this area of the economy is going through a transformation as President Obama’s new health care plan is slowly introduced, that is unlikely to have caused the abrupt slowdown in hiring, said Ethan Harris, a head of global economics at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. If anything, he said, the law should create new jobs in the sector as health care coverage is expanded, even if higher costs for some employers result in job cuts elsewhere in the economy.

As for retail, which lost nearly 13,000 jobs in January, some of that reduction could have essentially been because of excessive hiring in December, Mr. Harris said, when stores added nearly 63,000 positions as the holiday shopping season peaked. The cuts may also have been spurred by weak results at some retailers, with chains like J. C. Penney announcing major job cuts last month, and Loehmann’s, the venerable discounter, now in liquidation.

The employment-population ratio, which has been falling as more workers drop out of the job market, edged up 0.2 percentage points to 58.8 percent. In recent years, the exit of people from the work force has reduced the unemployment rate, but it is a sign that people are giving up hope of finding a job in the face of slack conditions, hardly the way policy makers would like to see joblessness come down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/business/us-economy-adds-113000-jobs-unemployment-rate-at-6-6.html?_r=0

EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EST, THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2014
BEA 14-03

* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.

Lisa S. Mataloni: (202) 606-5304 (GDP) gdpniwd@bea.gov
Recorded message: (202) 606-5306
Jeannine Aversa: (202) 606-2649 (News Media)
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, 4th quarter and annual 2013 (advance estimate)
      Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013
(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the third quarter, real GDP increased 4.1 percent.

The Bureau emphasized that the fourth-quarter advance estimate released today is based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 4
and “Comparisons of Revisions to GDP” on page 5). The “second” estimate for the fourth quarter, based
on more complete data, will be released on February 28, 2014.

The increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed investment, private inventory
investment, and state and local government spending that were partly offset by negative contributions
from federal government spending and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in
the calculation of GDP, increased.

The deceleration in real GDP in the fourth quarter reflected a deceleration in private inventory
investment, a larger decrease in federal government spending, a downturn in residential fixed
investment, and decelerations in state and local government spending and in nonresidential fixed
investment that were partly offset by accelerations in exports and in PCE and a deceleration in imports.

The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.2 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.8 percent in the third.
Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.7 percent in
the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.5 percent in the third.

_______
FOOTNOTE. Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates. Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. “Real” estimates are in chained (2009)
dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures.

This news release is available on www.bea.gov along with the Technical Note and Highlights
related to this release.
_______

Real personal consumption expenditures increased 3.3 percent in the fourth quarter, compared
with an increase of 2.0 percent in the third. Durable goods increased 5.9 percent, compared with an
increase of 7.9 percent. Nondurable goods increased 4.4 percent, compared with an increase of 2.9
percent. Services increased 2.5 percent, compared with an increase of 0.7 percent.

Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with
an increase of 4.8 percent in the third. Nonresidential structures decreased 1.2 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 13.4 percent. Equipment increased 6.9 percent, compared with an increase of 0.2 percent.
Intellectual property products increased 3.2 percent, compared with an increase of 5.8 percent. Real
residential fixed investment decreased 9.8 percent, in contrast to an increase of 10.3 percent.

Real exports of goods and services increased 11.4 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with
an increase of 3.9 percent in the third. Real imports of goods and services increased 0.9 percent,
compared with an increase of 2.4 percent.

Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 12.6 percent
in the fourth quarter, compared with a decrease of 1.5 percent in the third. National defense decreased
14.0 percent, compared with a decrease of 0.5 percent. Nondefense decreased 10.3 percent, compared
with a decrease of 3.1 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 0.5 percent, compared with an increase of 1.7 percent.

The change in real private inventories added 0.42 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change
in real GDP after adding 1.67 percentage points to the third-quarter change. Private businesses
increased inventories $127.2 billion in the fourth quarter, following increases of $115.7 billion in the
third quarter and $56.6 billion in the second.

Real final sales of domestic product — GDP less change in private inventories — increased 2.8
percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent in the third.

Gross domestic purchases

Real gross domestic purchases — purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced — increased 1.8 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 3.9 percent in the
third.

Disposition of personal income

Current-dollar personal income increased $69.4 billion (2.0 percent) in the fourth quarter,
compared with an increase of $140.0 billion (4.0 percent) in the third. The deceleration in personal
income primarily reflected downturns in personal dividend income and in farm proprietors’ income and
a deceleration in personal current transfer receipts that were partly offset by an acceleration in wages
and salaries.

Personal current taxes increased $23.7 billion in the fourth quarter, in contrast to a decrease of
$11.0 billion in the third.

Disposable personal income increased $45.7 billion (1.5 percent) in the fourth quarter, compared
with an increase of $151.0 billion (5.0 percent) in the third. Real disposable personal income increased
0.8 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in the third.

Personal outlays increased $118.6 billion (4.0 percent) in the fourth quarter, compared with an
increase of $113.4 billion (3.9 percent) in the third. Personal saving — disposable personal income less
personal outlays — was $545.1 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with $618.0 billion in the third.

The personal saving rate — personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income — was
4.3 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with 4.9 percent in the third. For a comparison of personal
saving in BEA’s national income and product accounts with personal saving in the Federal Reserve
Board’s financial accounts of the United States and data on changes in net worth, go to
www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Nipa-Frb.asp.

Current-dollar GDP

Current-dollar GDP — the market value of the nation’s output of goods and services — increased
4.6 percent, or $189.6 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $17,102.5 billion. In the third quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 6.2 percent, or $251.9 billion.

2013 GDP

Real GDP increased 1.9 percent in 2013 (that is, from the 2012 annual level to the 2013 annual
level), compared with an increase of 2.8 percent in 2012.

The increase in real GDP in 2013 primarily reflected positive contributions from personal
consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, residential fixed investment, nonresidential fixed investment,
and private inventory investment that were partly offset by a negative contribution from federal
government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

The deceleration in real GDP in 2013 primarily reflected a deceleration in nonresidential fixed
investment, a larger decrease in federal government spending, and decelerations in PCE and in exports
that were partly offset by a deceleration in imports and a smaller decrease in state and local government
spending.

The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.2 percent in 2013, compared with an
increase of 1.7 percent in 2012.

Current-dollar GDP increased 3.4 percent, or $558.4 billion, in 2013, compared with an increase
of 4.6 percent, or $710.8 billion, in 2012.

During 2013 (that is, measured from the fourth quarter of 2012 to the fourth quarter of 2013) real
GDP increased 2.7 percent. Real GDP increased 2.0 percent during 2012. The price index for gross
domestic purchases increased 1.1 percent during 2013, compared with an increase of 1.5 percent in
2012.

________
BOX. Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data is provided in a technical note
that is posted with the news release on BEA’s Web site. Within a few days after the release, a detailed
“Key Source Data and Assumptions” file is posted on the Web site. In the middle of each month, an analysis
of the current quarterly estimate of GDP and related series is made available on the Web site; click on
Survey of Current Business, “GDP and the Economy.” For information on revisions, see “Revisions to GDP, GDI,
and Their Major Components.

________

BEA’s national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.

* * *

Next release — February 28, 2014 at 8:30 A.M. EST for:
Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter and Annual 2013 (Second Estimate)

* * *

Release dates in 2014

Gross Domestic Product

2013: IV and 2013 annual 2014: I 2014: II 2014: III

Advance… January 30 April 30 July 30 October 30
Second…. February 28 May 29 August 28 November 25
Third….. March 27 June 25 September 26 December 23

Corporate Profits

Preliminary… …… May 29 August 28 November 25
Revised……. March 27 June 25 September 26 December 23

Comparisons of Revisions to GDP

Quarterly estimates of GDP are released on the following schedule: the “advance” estimate, based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency, is released near the end of the
first month after the end of the quarter; as more detailed and more comprehensive data become available,
the “second” and “third” estimates are released near the end of the second and third months, respectively.
The “latest”” estimate reflects the results of both annual and comprehensive revisions.

Annual revisions, which generally cover the quarters of the 3 most recent calendar years, are usually carried
out each summer and incorporate newly available major annual source data. Comprehensive (or benchmark)
revisions are carried out at about 5-year intervals and incorporate major periodic source data, as well as
improvements in concepts and methods that update the accounts to portray more accurately the evolving U.S.
economy.

The table below shows comparisons of the revisions between quarterly percent changes of current-dollar
and of real GDP for the different vintages of the estimates. From the advance estimate to the second estimate (one
month later), the average revision to real GDP without regard to sign is 0.5 percentage point, while from the
advance estimate to the third estimate (two months later), it is 0.6 percentage point. From the advance estimate to
the latest estimate, the average revision without regard to sign is 1.3 percentage points. The average revision
(with regard to sign) from the advance estimate to the latest estimate is 0.3 percentage point, which is larger
than the average revisions from the advance estimate to the second or to the third estimates. The larger average
revisions to the latest estimate reflect the fact that comprehensive revisions include major improvements, such as
the incorporation of BEA’s latest benchmark input-output accounts. The quarterly estimates correctly indicate the
direction of change of real GDP 97 percent of the time, correctly indicate whether GDP is accelerating or
decelerating 72 percent of the time, and correctly indicate whether real GDP growth is above, near, or below trend
growth more than four-fifths of the time.

Revisions Between Quarterly Percent Changes of GDP: Vintage Comparisons
[Annual rates]

Vintages Average Average without Standard deviation of
compared regard to sign revisions without
regard to sign

____________________________________________________Current-dollar GDP_______________________________________________

Advance to second……………….. 0.2 0.5 0.4
Advance to third………………… .2 .7 .4
Second to third…………………. .0 .3 .2

Advance to latest……………….. .3 1.3 1.0

________________________________________________________Real GDP_____________________________________________________

Advance to second……………….. 0.1 0.5 0.4
Advance to third………………… .1 .6 .4
Second to third…………………. .0 .2 .2

Advance to latest……………….. .3 1.3 1.0

NOTE. These comparisons are based on the period from 1983 through 2010.http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 206, February 7, 2015, Story 1, Bombshell: CBO’s Impact of Obamacare On Economy Devastating — Time To Repeal Obamacare and Replace It With Affordable, Portable, Individual Health Insurance With Health Saving Accounts! — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

U.S. Real Gross Domestic Product Growth Still Stagnating At 2.4% in First Quarter of 2013 As Institute for Supply Management Factory Index Sinks to 49.0 Lowest Since June 2009 — Videos

Posted on June 3, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Press, Raves, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

gdp_largegdpind12_adv_chart_01

Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product

[Percent] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates

Last Revised on: May 30, 2013 – Next Release Date June 26, 2013

Line 2011 2012 2013
I II III IV I II III IV I
1 Gross domestic product 0.1 2.5 1.3 4.1 2.0 1.3 3.1 0.4 2.4
2 Personal consumption expenditures 3.1 1.0 1.7 2.0 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 3.4
3 Goods 5.4 -1.0 1.4 5.4 4.7 0.3 3.6 4.3 4.1
4 Durable goods 7.3 -2.3 5.4 13.9 11.5 -0.2 8.9 13.6 8.2
5 Nondurable goods 4.6 -0.3 -0.4 1.8 1.6 0.6 1.2 0.1 2.2
6 Services 2.0 1.9 1.8 0.3 1.3 2.1 0.6 0.6 3.1
7 Gross private domestic investment -5.3 12.5 5.9 33.9 6.1 0.7 6.6 1.3 9.0
8 Fixed investment -1.3 12.4 15.5 10.0 9.8 4.5 0.9 14.0 4.1
9 Nonresidential -1.3 14.5 19.0 9.5 7.5 3.6 -1.8 13.2 2.2
10 Structures -28.2 35.2 20.7 11.5 12.9 0.6 0.0 16.7 -3.5
11 Equipment and software 11.1 7.8 18.3 8.8 5.4 4.8 -2.6 11.8 4.6
12 Residential -1.4 4.1 1.4 12.1 20.5 8.5 13.5 17.6 12.1
13 Change in private inventories
14 Net exports of goods and services
15 Exports 5.7 4.1 6.1 1.4 4.4 5.3 1.9 -2.8 0.8
16 Goods 5.7 3.7 6.2 6.0 4.0 7.0 1.1 -5.0 0.3
17 Services 5.8 5.1 6.1 -8.8 5.2 1.1 4.0 2.5 2.0
18 Imports 4.3 0.1 4.7 4.9 3.1 2.8 -0.6 -4.2 1.9
19 Goods 5.2 -0.7 2.9 6.3 2.0 2.9 -1.2 -3.9 1.1
20 Services -0.6 4.2 13.8 -1.7 9.0 2.3 2.6 -5.6 5.8
21 Government consumption expenditures and gross investment -7.0 -0.8 -2.9 -2.2 -3.0 -0.7 3.9 -7.0 -4.9
22 Federal -10.3 2.8 -4.3 -4.4 -4.2 -0.2 9.5 -14.8 -8.7
23 National defense -14.3 8.3 2.6 -10.6 -7.1 -0.2 12.9 -22.1 -12.1
24 Nondefense -1.7 -7.5 -17.4 10.2 1.8 -0.4 3.0 1.7 -2.1
25 State and local -4.7 -3.2 -2.0 -0.7 -2.2 -1.0 0.3 -1.5 -2.4
Addendum:
26 Gross domestic product, current dollars 2.2 5.2 4.3 4.2 4.2 2.8 5.9 1.3 3.6

Fed’s Advisory Council Admits We’re Screwed

Even more amazing than the admission is how long it took them to figure it out. However the most amazing aspect of all is the lack of reaction. The mainstream media, including the financial media, has completely ignored the warning. It’s as if the report doesn’t even exit. Perhaps it’s part of a psychological defense mechanism whereby any information that casts doubt on the recovery myth, no matter how credible the source, is conveniently ignored.

US ECONOMY GROWS 2 4% IN Q1

U.S. GDP In Q1 Revised Lower As Austerity Measures Bite

Peter Schiff US Economy Living On Borrowed Time..

Peter Schiff predicts another economic crash

EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EDT, THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2013
BEA 13-21

* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.

Lisa S. Mataloni: (202) 606-5304 (GDP) gdpniwd@bea.gov
Andrew Hodge: (202) 606-5564 (Profits) cpniwd@bea.gov
Recorded message: (202) 606-5306
Jeannine Aversa: (202) 606-2649 (News Media)
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, 1st quarter 2013 (second estimate);
Corporate Profits, 1st quarter 2013 (preliminary estimate)
      Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.4 percent in the first quarter of 2013 (that
is, from the fourth quarter to the first quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau
of Economic Analysis.  In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 0.4 percent.

      The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "advance" estimate issued last month.  In the advance estimate, real GDP increased 2.5 percent.
With the second estimate for the first quarter, increases in private inventory investment, in exports, and
in imports were less than previously estimated, but the general picture of overall economic activity is not
greatly changed (for more information, see "Revisions" on page 4).

BOX.______

     Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts

     BEA plans to release the results of the 14th comprehensive (or benchmark) revision of the national
income and product accounts (NIPAs) in conjunction with the second quarter 2013 "advance" estimate
on July 31, 2013.  More information on the revision is available on BEA’s Web site at
www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.  An article in the March 2013 issue of the Survey of Current Business
discusses the upcoming changes in definitions and presentations, and an article in the May Survey
describes the changes in statistical methods.  An article in the September Survey will describe the
estimates in detail.  Revised NIPA table stubs and news release stubs will be available in June.

FOOTNOTE.______
     Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise specified.
Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates.  Percent changes are
calculated from unrounded data and are annualized.  "Real" estimates are in chained (2005) dollars.  Price
indexes are chain-type measures.

      This news release is available on BEA's Web site along with the Technical Note
and Highlights related to this release.  For information on revisions, see 
"Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components".

________________

      The increase in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, residential fixed investment,
nonresidential fixed investment, and exports that were partly offset by negative contributions from
federal government spending and state and local government spending.  Imports, which are a subtraction
in the calculation of GDP, increased.

      The acceleration in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected an upturn in private
inventory investment, an acceleration in PCE, a smaller decrease in federal government spending, and
an upturn in exports that were partly offset by an upturn in imports and a deceleration in nonresidential
fixed investment.

      Motor vehicle output added 0.28 percentage point to the first-quarter change in real GDP after
adding 0.18 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change.  Final sales of computers added 0.02
percentage point to the first-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.10 percentage point to the fourth-
quarter change.

      The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.2 percent in the first quarter, 0.1 percentage point more than in the advance estimate; this
index increased 1.6 percent in the fourth quarter.  Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for
gross domestic purchases increased 1.4 percent in the first quarter, compared with an increase of 1.2
percent in the fourth.

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 3.4 percent in the first quarter, compared with
an increase of 1.8 percent in the fourth.  Durable goods increased 8.2 percent, compared with an increase
of 13.6 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 2.2 percent, compared with an increase of 0.1 percent.
Services increased 3.1 percent, compared with an increase of 0.6 percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 2.2 percent in the first quarter, compared with an
increase of 13.2 percent in the fourth.  Nonresidential structures decreased 3.5 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 16.7 percent.  Equipment and software increased 4.6 percent, compared with an increase of
11.8 percent.  Real residential fixed investment increased 12.1 percent, compared with an increase of
17.6 percent.

      Real exports of goods and services increased 0.8 percent in the first quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 2.8 percent in the fourth.  Real imports of goods and services increased 1.9 percent, in
contrast to a decrease of 4.2 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 8.7 percent
in the first quarter, compared with a decrease of 14.8 percent in the fourth.  National defense decreased
12.1 percent, compared with a decrease of 22.1 percent.  Nondefense decreased 2.1 percent, in contrast
to an increase of 1.7 percent.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment decreased 2.4 percent, compared with a decrease of 1.5 percent.

      The change in real private inventories added 0.63 percentage point to the first-quarter change in
real GDP, after subtracting 1.52 percentage points from the fourth-quarter change.  Private businesses
increased inventories $38.3 billion in the first quarter, following an increases of $13.3 billion in the
fourth quarter and $60.3 billion in the third.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.8
percent in the first quarter, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent in the fourth.

Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 2.5 percent in the first quarter; it was unchanged in the fourth quarter.

Gross national product

      Real gross national product -- the goods and services produced by the labor and property
supplied by U.S. residents -- increased 1.5 percent in the first quarter, compared with an increase of 0.9
percent in the fourth.  GNP includes, and GDP excludes, net receipts of income from the rest of the
world, which decreased $30.3 billion in the first quarter after increasing $19.2 billion in the fourth; in
the first quarter, receipts decreased $20.8 billion, and payments increased $9.5 billion.

Current-dollar GDP

      Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
3.6 percent, or $140.4 billion, in the first quarter to a level of $16,004.5 billion.  In the fourth quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 1.3 percent, or $53.1 billion.

Gross domestic income

      Real gross domestic income (GDI), which measures the output of the economy as the costs
incurred and the incomes earned in the production of GDP, increased 2.5 percent in the first quarter,
compared with an increase of 5.5 percent (revised) in the fourth.  For a given quarter, the estimates of
GDP and GDI may differ for a variety of reasons, including the incorporation of largely independent
source data.  However, over longer time spans, the estimates of GDP and GDI tend to follow similar
patterns of change.

Revisions

      The "second" estimate of the third-quarter percent change in GDP is 0.1 percentage point, or
$3.9 billion, less than the advance estimate issued last month, primarily reflecting downward revisions
to private inventory investment, to exports, and to state and local government spending that were partly
offset by a downward revision to imports and an upward revision to personal consumption expenditures.

                                                                     Advance Estimate             Second Estimate
                                                                       (Percent change from preceding quarter)

Real GDP..........................................                          2.5                        2.4
Current-dollar GDP................................                          3.7                        3.6
Gross domestic purchases price index..............                          1.1                        1.2

                                             Corporate Profits

      Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital
consumption adjustments) decreased $43.8 billion in the first quarter, in contrast to an increase of $45.4
billion in the fourth.  Current-production cash flow (net cash flow with inventory valuation adjustment) -
- the internal funds available to corporations for investment -- increased $110.9 billion in the first
quarter, in contrast to a decrease of $89.8 billion in the fourth.

      Taxes on corporate income decreased $13.6 billion in the first quarter, compared with a decrease
of $4.4 billion in the fourth.  Profits after tax with inventory valuation and capital consumption
adjustments decreased $30.2 billion in the first quarter, in contrast to an increase of $49.8 billion in the
fourth.  Dividends decreased $101.7 billion in contrast to an increase of $124.3 billion. The large fourth-
quarter increase reflected accelerated and special dividends paid by corporations at the end of 2012 in
anticipation of changes to individual income tax rates.  Current-production undistributed profits
increased $71.4 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $74.3 billion.

      Domestic profits of financial corporations decreased $2.0 billion in the first quarter, compared
with a decrease of $3.5 billion in the fourth.  Domestic profits of nonfinancial corporations decreased
$8.8 billion in the first quarter, in contrast to an increase of $24.8 billion in the fourth.  In the first
quarter, real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations increased, and profits per unit of real value
added decreased.  The decrease in unit profits reflected an increase in the unit nonlabor costs incurred by
corporations that was partly offset by a decrease in unit labor costs; unit prices were unchanged.

      The rest-of-the-world component of profits decreased $33.0 billion in the first quarter, in contrast
to an increase of $24.1 billion in the fourth.  This measure is calculated as (1) receipts by U.S. residents
of earnings from their foreign affiliates plus dividends received by U.S. residents from unaffiliated
foreign corporations minus (2) payments by U.S. affiliates of earnings to their foreign parents plus
dividends paid by U.S. corporations to unaffiliated foreign residents.  The first-quarter decrease was
accounted for by a decrease in receipts and an increase in payments.

      Profits before tax decreased $49.8 billion in the first quarter, in contrast to an increase of $27.3
billion in the fourth.  The before-tax measure of profits does not reflect, as does profits from current
production, the capital consumption and inventory valuation adjustments.  These adjustments convert
depreciation of fixed assets and inventory withdrawals reported on a tax-return, historical-cost basis to
the current-cost measures used in the national income and product accounts.  The capital consumption
adjustment increased $12.9 billion in the first quarter (from -$199.5 billion to -$186.6 billion), compared
with an increase of $0.5 billion in the fourth.  The inventory valuation adjustment decreased $6.9 billion
(from -$9.2 billion  to -$16.1 billion), in contrast to an increase of $17.6 billion.

	The first-quarter changes in taxes on corporate income and in the capital consumption
adjustment mainly reflect the expiration of bonus depreciation claimed under the American Taxpayer
Relief Act of 2012.  For detailed data, see the table "Net Effects of the Tax Acts of 2002, 2003, 2008,
2009, 2010, and 2012 on Selected Measures of Corporate Profits" at
www.bea.gov/national/xls/technote_tax_acts.xls.  Profits from current production are not affected
because they do not depend on the depreciation-accounting practices used for federal income tax returns;
rather, they are based on depreciation of fixed assets valued at current cost using consistent depreciation
profiles based on used-asset prices. For more details on the effect of tax act provisions on the capital
consumption adjustment, see FAQ #999 on the BEA Web site, "Why does the capital consumption
adjustment for domestic business decline so much in the first quarter of 2012?".

                                            *          *          *

      BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov.  By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.

                                            *          *          *

                           Next release -- June 26, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
                           Gross Domestic Product:  First Quarter 2013 (Third Estimate)
                           Corporate Profits:  First Quarter (Revised Estimate)

Surprise Manufacturing Downturn Holds Back U.S. Growth: Economy

 By Shobhana Chandra

the U.S. unexpectedly shrank in May at the fastest pace in four years, showing slowdowns in business and government spending are holding back the world’s largest economy.

The Institute for Supply Management’s factory index fell to 49, the lowest reading since June 2009, from the prior month’s 50.7, the Tempe, Arizona-based group’s report showed today. Fifty is the dividing line between growth and contraction. The median forecast of 81 economists surveyed by Bloomberg was 51.

Across-the-board federal budget cuts and overseas markets that are struggling to rebound will probably continue to curb manufacturing, which accounts for about 12 percent of the economy. At the same time, demand for automobiles, gains in residential construction and lean inventories may spark a pickup in orders and production in the second half of the year.

“Manufacturing is really stymied by slow corporate spending and government spending cutbacks,” said Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott LLC in Philadelphia, who was the only analyst in the Bloomberg survey to correctly project the drop in the index. “Manufacturing will grow at a modest pace this year” although it “is unlikely to accelerate in coming months,” LeBas said. “This is part of the slower expansion we’ll have in the second quarter.”

Estimates in the Bloomberg survey ranged from 49 to 54.

Stocks fluctuated between gains and losses after the report. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index fell 0.3 percent to 1,626.19 at 12:39 p.m. in New York. The gauge had posted its first consecutive weekly losses since November.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/may-ism-manufacturing-index-decreased-to-49-from-50-7-in-april.html

Manufacturing sector contracts in May: ISM

Manufacturing activity contracted in May for the first time in six months as new orders slipped and there was less demand for exports, an industry report showed on Monday.

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) said its index of national factory activity in May fell to 49.0 from 50.7 in April, short of expectations for 50.7.

A reading below 50 indicates contraction in the manufacturing sector. The last time the ISM manufacturing index fell below 50 was November 2012, shortly after the U.S. east coast was hit by a massive storm.

The gauge for new orders dropped to 48.8 from 52.3, while a measure of employment edged down to 50.1 from 50.2. Production fell to 48.6 from 53.5.

The exports index fell to 51.0 from 54.0, while imports held up relatively better, slipping slightly to 54.5 from 55.0.

Though growth has cooled in recent months, before May the national reading had managed to stay in expansion territory, unlike some regional reports that have shown shrinkage.

Economic growth overall in the second quarter is expected to slow from the first quarter’s 2.4 percent pace.

http://www.newsdaily.com/business/28c9c04463c338dbc2557a604a2a7502/manufacturing-sector-contracts-in-may-ism

Fed’s Advisory Council of bankers warns of risks posed by QE3

A Federal Reserve advisory panel of bankers issued a stark warning to the U.S. central bank earlier this month over the dangers of its massive bond purchases, according to documents released on Friday.

“Current policy has created systemic financial risks and potential structural problems for banks,” the Federal Advisory Council noted, according to minutes of its meeting on May 17, which the Fed posted on its public website.

In February, the council, made up of 12 representatives from the banking industry who meet four times a year, stated that it continued to support the Fed’s accommodative monetary policy.

In May, there was an acknowledgment that the policies had provided support for a slow recovery, but no explicit backing.

“However, the effectiveness of the policies in producing healthy economic and employment growth is not clear. Uncertainty about fiscal and monetary policy is deterring business investment that would spur growth,” the Council noted.

Fed officials say they are mindful of the potential costs of a campaign of their massive bond purchases, aimed at spurring growth by holding down borrowing costs, and have signaled that they may scale back buying if the economy continues to improve over the next few months.

The program, currently running at an $85 billon monthly pace, has harsh critics. The Advisory Council echoed some of these concerns in its May meeting, including a trend of low rates pushing investors into riskier assets to make up for lost yield.

The Advisory Council also noted that the Fed’s campaign of so called quantitative easing, which entered a third stage – dubbed QE3 – in September, has tripled the Fed’s balance sheet to around $3.3 trillion, and could be disruptive to exit.

“Uncertainty exists about how markets will reestablish normal valuations when the Fed withdraws from the market. It will likely be difficult to unwind policy accommodation.”

Each of the Fed’s 12 regional branches chooses a banker from its district to sit on the council, whose members include Joseph Hooley, head of Boston’s State Street Corp ; James Gorman, boss of Morgan Stanley in New York; and Kelly King, head of BB&T Corp in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. (Reporting By Alister Bull; Editing by Nick Zieminski)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/usa-fed-council-idUSL2N0EC1KX20130531

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Amnesty Before Enforcement — Congressional Gangsters’ Comprehensive Immigration “Reform” Bill Targets American Citizens For Unemployment — American Citizens Want All Illegal Aliens Deported Not Rewarded With Legal Status — Target The Amnesty Illegal Alien Gangsters For Defeat — Videos

NSC’s PRISM Political Payoff: 40 Million Plus Foreigners Are In USA As Illegal Aliens! — 75% Plus Lean Towards Democratic Party — Pathway To One Party Rule By 2025 If Senate Bill Becomes Law Giving Illegal Aliens Legal Status — 25 Million American Citizens Looking For Full Time Jobs! — Videos

No Such Agency — NSA — National Security Agency — Threat To The Liberty and Privacy of The American People — None Of Their Damn Business — Still Trust The Federal Government? — Videos

Big Brother Barack Targets All The American People As Enemies of The State and Democratic Party — National Security Agency’s PRISM Is The Secret Security Surveillance State (S4) Means of Invading Privacy and Limiting Liberty — Outrageous Overreach — Videos

U.S. Hacking China and Hong Kong — Videos

Digital Campaigns Using Microtargeting and Data Mining To Target Voters — Videos

Sasha Issenberg — The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns — Videos

Related Posts on Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013, Segment 0: Marxist-Leninists Go To The Wall With Holder — The Man Who Knows Where The Bodies Are Buried Enjoys President Obama’s Full Confidence Says Political Fixer Valerie Jarrett — Wall Street Wants Holder To Hang On — American People Say Hit The Road Jack — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013: Segment 1: U.S. Real Gross Domestic Product Growth Still Stagnating At 2.4% in First Quarter of 2013 As Institute for Supply Management Factory Index Sinks to 49.0 Lowest Since June 2009 — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013, Segment 2: Federal Advisory Council (FAC) May 17, 2013 Report — No Exit To A Bridge Over Troubled Waters — Keyboarding Money — We’re screwed! — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013, Segment 3: Official Unemployment Rate Rises To 7.6% with 11.8 Million Americans Unemployed and Only 175,000 Jobs Created in May — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013, Segment 4: No Such Agency — NSA — National Security Agency — Threat To The Liberty and Privacy of The American People — None Of Their Damn Business — Still Trust The Federal Government? — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...