A new kind of economic indicator

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,336
66
48
51
Das Kapital
I'm so tired of this quasi-guru, and his stupid "Creative Class'. Anyway, another one of his consultation 'templates'.

A new kind of economic indicator
By Richard Florida
7 July 2009


In 2007 Charlotta Mellander and I examined how various regional factors shape housing prices. We found that two factors combine to shape them. The first is pretty obvious: income. The wealthier the residents, the pricier the housing. The second and much larger factor is reflected by our Bohemian–Gay Index, which combines the concentration of artists, musicians, and designers with the concentration of gays and lesbians in a region. Regardless of which variables we applied, what version of the model we used, or which regions we looked at, the concentration of bohemians and gays consistently had a staggering impact on housing values.


Read the rest here: McKinsey: What Matters: A new kind of economic indicator
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Unemployment in the U.S.A. at 10.2%.

This is the highest achievement of the petulant, narcissist little boy/man who occupies the White House.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Ya, like as if it wouldn't be 30% if he hasn't done what he has.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
"Right, YJ. The last time it was this high was when your hero, Reagan was in office."

Of course, he inherited it from the biggest joke in U.S. Presidential history, the peanut-brain, Nobel Piss-Prize winner, Jimmy Carter.

Obama created the same, all on his own.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
"Right, YJ. The last time it was this high was when your hero, Reagan was in office."

Of course, he inherited it from the biggest joke in U.S. Presidential history, the peanut-brain, Nobel Piss-Prize winner, Jimmy Carter.

Obama created the same, all on his own.


I see, Reagan inherited from Carter, but Obama didn't inherit from Bush? Spoken like a loyal Republican.

And you are wrong anyway. Reagan came to office in Jan 1981, unemployment reached 10% in 1983, it was strictly Reagan’s unemployment, not Carter’s. Reagan had been in office for more than two years by that time.

The current unemployment is Bush’s not Obama’s; Obama has been in office for less than one year.
 
Last edited:

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Ya, like as if it wouldn't be 30% if he hasn't done what he has.
Would it? How do we know? What if someone else did other things? Suppose instead of gov't bailouts of big companies, they bailed out the small ones that are the biggest employers in the continent? Suppose the gov't had held accountable the people behind the economic mess? I see too many variables involved to be able to state there'd be 30% unemployment instead of 10.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
If the entire banking system had collapsed (where it was headed) it's anyone's guess what degree of catastrophic unemployment disaster it would've been (and would still be).
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
If the entire banking system had collapsed (where it was headed) it's anyone's guess what degree of catastrophic unemployment disaster it would've been (and would still be).
Yeah. And?
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
If the entire banking system had collapsed (where it was headed) it's anyone's guess what degree of catastrophic unemployment disaster it would've been (and would still be).


Indeed. And the entire banking system was very much on the brink of collapse, the weekend when Lehman Brothers went belly up. Right after Lehman Brothers went belly up, the credit market had completely frozen up, nobody was lending to anybody, regardless of the risk (or the lack of risk) involved.

These days, more that 99% of the economy runs on credit. If credit market had remained frozen, we would have had worldwide economic chaos within weeks. And it wasn’t just big companies which would be affected. Even most small businesses depend upon credit, most have a line of credit. If the line of credit is frozen out, the business cannot stay afloat for long.

The world was very much looking into an economic abyss after Lehman Brothers went belly up. That is why Bush put together the stimulus package in a hurry, and most Republicans (who would normally oppose such a bailout) agreed to it without delay, without a lot of debate. I assume experts must have explained the situation to them, how the world economies would collapse if credit is not restored.

As it turned out, that stimulus package was not sufficient to pull the world back from the brink, so Obama had to put together another stimulus package. And Republicans, who enthusiastically supported the Bush package, sanctimoniously opposed the Obama package.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
From what I've seen Republicans run one big corporate bailout every time they are in power. Usually it goes under the name of Military Industrial Complex but includes protection to US owned oil and mineral companies in countries they are raping. It is now to the point where the US military is the protection arm of US based multimationals.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
And what? Global Depression. Soup lines.
So what you are saying is ONLY Obama could have done well? He should get a Nobel for being the savior of mankind then.
I asked questions and you gave me stuff about banks. Sorry if I didn't make the connection between what I asked and what you "answered".
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
No I'm not saying that. But to blame the guy for a 10.2% unemployment rate is a little unfair. It could be a lot worse.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The Congressional Budget Office had projected years of growing unemployment, before Obama had even taken office.

The increase in unemployment is Obama's fault as much as the recession in Canada is Harper's fault, ie. not really.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
The Congressional Budget Office had projected years of growing unemployment, before Obama had even taken office.

The increase in unemployment is Obama's fault as much as the recession in Canada is Harper's fault, ie. not really.

Yep, blaming high unemployment on Obama, Harper or Gordon Brown is just plain *(^&%#*^ stupid.