ZOMFG WTF!!!!! 9.5% THIRD QUARTER PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH NUMBER!!!!

I WAS EXPECTING A 6% PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH QUARTER, BUT THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!

Productivity increased 9.5 percent in the nonfarm business sector during the third quarter of 2009 as unit labor costs fell 5.2 percent (seasonally adjusted annual rates). In manufacturing, productivity increased 13.6 percent while unit labor costs fell 7.1 percent...

Back in the 1930s there was a Polish Marxist economist, Michel Kalecki, who argued that recessions were functional for the ruling class and for capitalism because they created excess supply of labor, forced workers to work harder to keep their jobs, and so produced a rise in the rate of relative surplus-value.

For thirty years, ever since I got into this business, I have been mocking Michel Kalecki. I have been pointing out that recessions see a much sharper fall in profits than in wages. I have been saying that the pace of work slows in recessions--that employers are more concerned with keeping valuable employees in their value chains than using a temporary high level of unemployment to squeeze greater work effort out of their workers.

I don't think that I can mock Michel Kalecki any more, ever again.

How long can this productivity growth continue? At some point, businesses will run out of ways to squeeze more production out of their current workers ... But will they be able to meet demand with productivity growth alone?

A Year After Obama’s Election, How Do You Feel?

By The New York Times

One year ago, we asked NYTimes.com readers for a single word to describe their mood about the presidential election. The response was overwhelming (73,400 words) and varied widely, with “hopeful” and “anxious” as the top choices.

Now, a year after the election of Barack Obama, we want to know: Has your mood changed? Are you energized, hopeful, disappointed, ambivalent or outraged? As Jeff Zeleny wrote Tuesday, Mr. Obama has now seen his pledge to transform the country give way to some of the hardened realities of office. While it will be years before it is possible to gauge the success of his governing agenda, his record for some of the issues on which he campaigned is beginning to come into focus.

What one word best describes how you feel a year after President Obama’s election? Let us know.

Watching Democrats' single words to describe their mood after Obama's election scroll across the page (like "betrayed"), all I could think of was: "We were thiiiis close to a McCain administration that would have driven us right into a second depression."

Progressive anger that Obama isn't living up to their (lofty) expectations is understandable, but misplaced. This administration is so much better than the alternative that we should still be thanking each and every one of our lucky stars that he was able to get elected.

Gosh, she's good.

Our civilization's pursuit of parallel processes of innovation and preservation, in a handy postcard-sized image.

I'm growing increasingly concerned that this will become a perennially relevant ecard ...

Democrat Nora Bredes for Monroe County Legislature District 18

October 23, 2009

Nora Bredes, who moved to the Rochester area from downstate in 1999, continues to demonstrate she is fully invested in this community.

Bredes, a Democrat, is running for the Monroe County Legislature from District 18, which includes parts of Perinton and Pittsford. Her impressive credentials and vision for improving county government earned her the Democrat and Chronicle's endorsement.

She just received the endorsement of Rochester's largest newspaper, but it's still going to be a tough uphill battle ...

And yet what is on display in this seemingly nonsensical rise of 10 percent in the value of the Dow over the past few weeks? Nothing more than speculation that certain numbers look promising going forward. In other words, what we have here is a case of the “efficient markets hypothesis” working for the benefit of a Democratic politician, in that the collective wisdom of the market has it that the economy is going to grow at some point relatively soon and that the time to buy is now, so that stocks don’t get more expensive later.

This from John Podhoretz, explaining why it's grossly unfair that liberal economists get to bash conservative, "efficient market hypothesis"-believing economists and take credit for the rising Dow for their man, Obama. Two things:

1. What Podhoretz described isn't the efficient market hypothesis. The "Let's buy now before things get pricier because other people are going to buy now" is a rational response to an inefficient, irrational market -- i.e. one in which you expect crowds of people to stampede in and drive up share prices, even if the underlying assets haven't increased in value. In an efficient market hypothesis world, markets go up because we're getting more information about the underlying assets -- they're making lots of money, or their long-term money-making potential is improving. But we're not hearing uniformly good news. Citi's being dragged down by credit losses; consumers are still stretched thin; unemployment's still going up. All in all, signs are mixed at best. Which is why folks like Robert Reich (liberal economist extraordinaire) thinks this is an irrational market movement, not evidence of "efficient markets."

2. Podhoretz admits that Krugman, whose article about the battles in macroeconomics, won't be taking credit for the market gains. Neither is Robert Reich. So two leading liberal economists who criticize efficient markets aren't taking credit for the market gain. Who is Podhoretz talking about?

So, this isn't evidence of efficient markets, and liberal economists aren't taking credit for it. Why did Podhoretz bother writing all this?