Unemlpoyment is a Lagging Indicator?

Identifying trend indicators, the independent, small investor-analyst "recognizes" that the unemployment measure is considered a lagging indicator.

Despite accounting for at least two-thirds of GDP, the consumer's job--the income that sustainably drives our economy from the bottom up, or the employment indicator--is curiously relegated the status of the most laggard among the regime of indicators. It is considered (learned) by mainsteam economists to indicate a recovery has occured after the capital infused has sufficiently "trickled down" to drive the economy.

Top-down capital infusion is also the strategy of the current administration and why it will fail as I pointed out when its experts proferred it as the primary means of recovery.

Unemployment continues to rise because it is a lagging indicator. In other words, employment is entirely dependant on the trickle-down "effect" of Keynesian monetary policy, which is the direct cause of the current economic crisis. It is the problem, not the solution, being falsely sold as "change we need."

The independent investor, however, is not constrained by mainstream analysis. The independent is "free" to "re-cognize" (re-think) the folly of monetizing the debt and trickling it down with a complex, regressive tax code.

Notice that the only direct and verifiable change the new congress and executive have made to the tax structure has been regressive. That, of course, just supports the deflationary trend. Both the means and, predictably, the ends (the effect) is neo-conservative (post-Keynesian).

The macro policy determines the micro trends. The large corporate that is too big to fail (largely free of the free-market regulatory function that limits the need for government--the problem) is being recapitalized. That is, the problem is being recapitalized. The too-big-to-fail banks will finance the large corporates that "command" a large return on investment with the minimal risk of being "too big to fail." The effect is to validate the legitimacy (the value) of "too big to fail" and confirm the empirical direction of the trend--stagflationary (sideways).

Employment is a lagging indicator because it is not a priority despite the income being the determining variable (the cause) of a healthy economy. Rather, it is considered the variable to be determined (the effect) by mainstream macro economic policy empirically confirmed to be the preferred practical model (Hamiltonianism). Thus, it is the necessary analytical model for predicitng trends, and thus considered to be the norm with any practical alternative deductively determined to be deviant.

Thus, financing a free and unconsolidated marketplace to ensure a competitive multiplicity of markets that minimizes the need for government regulatory authority and the distortions (the gama risk) it entails is as inimically deviant as any other alternative.

Free-market economics is being treated as highly undesireable because it competitively limits the return on investment (disinflation) and distributes that value to the consumer (the employed), avoiding the crisis that demands the command of elite authority and expertise.

Returning to a more perfect model of free-market economics by government acting to ensure it in priority, rather than correcting for the lack of it in posteriori like we do now, is considered even more inimical, dialectically deviant, than socialism because it does not fit the preferred conservative, elitist model of power that distributes income by command.

At least socialism distributes income more by command and can thus be manipulated to expropriate value with the secret knowledge and mechanisms of elitist expertise cloaked in the General Welfare and Will of The People held in public trust with an inscrutable accountability accessible only to the gnostic agents on the inside.

The graduated, hierarchical initiates of economic gnosticism, the priests of secular intercession, have access to the gods of fate determining the existence of the lesser masses who must sacrifice the quality of their existence, executed by the skillful initiates of furtively applied power, to secure the favorable determination of survival of the fittest (falsely suggesting a "natural" determinism by the hand of God). That would be the more fitting, the more naturally linear progression of capitalism than reverting to the passe, foolish notions of the value of the mechanics for direct democracy (free-market economics) that behavioral economists claim the crude masses are incapable of.

Hardly!

These behavioral economists are just the latest example of shamming the need for the eltist model with the scientific method. It is an incorrigiblity that only persists the human condition in error--of making the same mistakes over an over again, being condemned to the self-satisfied stupidity and ignorance of elitist power (conservatism).

The prophecy of behavioral economics is self-fulfilled, inducing the behavior (the inability to analyze complex relationships) by ensuring the complexity that causes the problem. It is a false induction that would be clearly confirmed by ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace (a less complex and more directly accountable analytical environment) in priority, or the change we really need.

Instead of organizing our economy for democracy (the pluralist model), it is being maintained for the application of tyranny (the elitist model). Our economy, the marketplace, is persistently being organized and conserved for command, and not demand.

We do not build bridges or split atoms based on failed (disconfirmed) deductive theories. Nor should we our economy!