Weekly Economic Activity through September 10th

Year-on-year, activity still seems to be increasing. Shown below are the Lewis-Mertens-Stock (NY Fed) WEI, and the Woloszko (OECD) Weekly Tracker, and the Baumeister-Leiva-Leon-Sims Weekly Economic Conditions Index for the US, for data up to a week ago (September 10th):

Figure 1: Lewis-Mertens-Stock (NY Fed) Weekly Economic Index (blue), Woloszko (OECD) Weekly Tracker (tan), Baumeister-Leiva-Leon-Sims Weekly Economic Conditions Index for US plus 2% trend (green) Lilac shading denotes a hypothetical H1 recession dates. Source: NY Fed via FREDOECDWECI, and author’s calculations.

The WEI reading for the week ending 9/10 of 2.6 is interpretable as a y/y quarter growth of 2.6% if the 2.6 reading were to persist for an entire quarter. The OECD Weekly Tracker reading of 2.1 is interpretable as a y/y growth rate of 2.1% for year ending 9/10. The Baumeister et al. reading of 1.5% is interpreted as a 1.5% growth rate in excess of long term trend growth rate. Average growth of US GDP over the 2000-19 period is about 2%, so this implies a 3.5% growth rate for the year ending 9/10.

Since these are year-on-year growth rates, it’s possible we were in a recession in H1 as one observer suggested a month ago (the period is highlighted by the lilac shading), but it (still) seems unlikely.

70 thoughts on “Weekly Economic Activity through September 10th

  1. Barkley Rosser

    Hmm, well WaPo and other MSM outlets have as top headline stories that the world is going into a recession. They may be right, although at least recent indicacators out of US seem not to be going that way, job market still hot hot hot.

    1. New Deal democrat

      With gas prices declining from $5.02/gallon in early June to $3.64 this morning according to GasBuddy, US consumers have a strong wind at their backs. Third quarter GDP should be positive. It’s not surprising that the coincident measures look pretty good at the moment.

      But the indicators that tell us where the economy is likely to be a year from now have not just been negative since earlier this year, but they have gotten worse. In particular, the yield curve, some measures of which had been quite positive up until recently, has deteriorated further. Historically the longer end has tended to invert first (10 year minus 2 year), and then inversions spread to earlier maturities. At the moment, the yield curve is fully inverted from 1 year out to 10 years, and the 10 year minus 6 month measure is also inverted. The Fed is very unlikely to help matters later this week.

      For my part, not only does it look very likely that a recession begins in the early part of next year, but I am now focusing on how bad and long it will be. The more aggressively the Fed raises rates, the worse it is likely to be.

      1. Macroduck

        Recession risks elevated next year? Yep. There has been reason to believe this since mid-Q1 this year. There have been a number of economists who have guessed at recession starting in Q2 or Q3 of next year, but Christmas spending issues probably move that risk forward. The FedEx story certainly increases concern for Q4/Q1.

        And there’s all that goods spending pulled forward as a result of the pandemic that is not available to keep things going now. Looks like there is still more pay-back coming:


        That’s separate from any fiscal or monetary policy effects. Cooling in goods spending is disinflationary (ask Target and FedEx), which a forward-looking central bank ought to take into account.

      2. Macroduck

        The sequence of recession among major economic regions appears to China first, then Europe, then the U.S. That is largely due to the differential effects of various shocks.

        Nomura forecasts real Q3 GDP growth in China at 2.7% (annualized), well below trend:


        This follows an outright contraction in Q2:


        China’s contraction in Q2 contrasted with growth for the G20 as a whole. I don’t know of an accepted definition for recession for China, but in terms of shortfall from trend, China’s slowdown has been massive and is continuing.

        Fitch has just published a new global outlook which forecasts recession in Europe later this year, in the U.S. next year:


        There is some slop in contemporaneous recession timing, of course, but the Fitch forecast is pretty conventional.

        I find headlines warning of the damage to Southeast Asia from recession in Europe:


        And in the U.S.:


        Perhaps there are fewer headlines about China’s drag on Southeast Asia because that’s old news; Sri Lanka and Thailand have been badly hurt by declines in Chinese tourism. Factory shutdowns in China create swings in demand for intermediate goods throughout China’s supply chains.

        So, this all works out to China first with a massive shortfall from trend, then Europe with a middling shortfall from trend, then the U.S. with a modest shortfall from trend.

        So of course, it’s Biden’s fault.

    2. baffling

      let us not allow the peanut gallery to move the goal posts. for political reasons, they have been arguing the usa is ALREADY in a recession. and the data does not suggest that to be the case. it is still possible the world, and the usa, will eventually enter a recession. in fact, it is almost a guaranteed fact that eventually we will have a recession in the future. but the peanut gallery does not appear to be correct that earlier this year we were in a recession. the peanut gallery does not get to claim they were correct, if the usa eventually ends up in a recession. they have been notably wrong.

      1. Macroduck

        Yep. The troll choir has tried to turn recession risk after the mid-term in recession before the mid-term. No concern for the truth, only for politics. In troll-world, recession became like Tinkerbell – ya just gotta believe!

      2. Barkley Rosser


        Well, if one sticks with the old headline definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters with declining GDP, they claim we were in recession, although those numbers may get revised upward. Of course we were not in recession by pretty much any other measure, especially the labor market.

        But, even if one wants to grant them right on that, it looks like the “recession” is over as Q3 looks to be coming in with positive GDP growth.

    3. Ivan

      I think they have predicted the last 15 out of 5 recessions. There is always good sellable news in claiming the wolf is coming. Fear gets attention, attention gets advertising dollars, news outlet makes money – – Repeat, – – Repeat, – – Repeat. At Faux news they do that with complete disregard for events in the observable world and they make a ton of money milking their gullible minions.

      We are at a point where reserve banks completely on their own can determine if we have a recession. We will either have a fairly shallow recession or a very low level of growth. The difference is so small that mistakes from just our own Fed could make the difference. The world is on your shoulders Jerome!

  2. pgl

    Putin’s latest combines the worst of JohnH and Bruce Hall:


    Russian President Vladimir Putin denied Russian responsibility for Europe’s energy crisis and said the EU can simply turn on the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline if it wants more natural gas from his country. “The bottom line is, if you have an urge, if it’s so hard for you, just lift the sanctions on Nord Stream 2, which is 55 billion cubic metres of gas per year, just push the button and everything will get going,” said Putin after the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Uzbekistan on Friday, per Reuters. He also criticized the “green agenda” — the EU’s renewable energy push — which he said started the energy crisis even before the war in Ukraine.

    Shorter Putin – blame Joe Biden for not just sitting by and letting my army rape every Ukrainian. And of course climate change efforts led me to invade nations to restore the Soviet Empire.

    Hey having to endure the lies and stupidity from the likes of Bruce Hall and JohnH is bad enough but when it comes from a war criminal – ugh!

    1. JohnH

      What’s indisputable is that it was Europe that made the decision to sanction Russian gas and block NordStream 2. It was a reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

      Although pgl insists that Europe had no choice but to have that specific reaction, that was clearly not the case. And so, European leaders bear responsibility for shooting themselves in the foot.

      pgl needs to take a course in logic.

      1. pgl

        There you go again celebrating the fact that Putin invade Ukraine and committing war crimes that probably get you off.

        You are not only a liar – you are as disgusting as the Nazis were 80 years ago.

      2. Macroduck

        No, no, no Johnny! Bad Johnny!

        Nobody here has said Europe didn’t have a choice. Europe made the moral choice to sancion Russia’s nakd, murderous agression. The fact that Europe face harm from that choice makes it all the more honorable. this has beem pointed out to you before and you have pretended not to see it.

        You just keep lying about what others have said and what they believe. If your position is so wewk that you need to lie about the position of other’s, what does that say about the strength of your position.

      3. Barkley Rosser


        Actually the German government decided to cancel Nordstream II shortly before Putin invaded Ukraine.

    2. JohnH

      Whenever a “public policy” decision is taken, it’s always wise ask yourself “cui bono?”

      “For major multinational fossil fuel companies, it’s the best of times.”

      Antonio Guiterres”The combined profits of the largest energy companies in the first quarter of this year are close to $100 billion.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/08/oil-companies-profits-inflation/

      “”Price of LNG goes stratospheric. Will LNG shipping rates follow?” https://www.freightwaves.com/news/price-of-natural-gas-goes-stratospheric-will-lng-shipping-rates-be-next

      “Traders are hoarding gas at sea so they can cash in once prices surge over Europe’s winter supply squeeze: report”

      Of course, we know that energy companies have had inordinate influence on “public policy” for years. Think about the Iraq War.

      “When you have a bad argument, the only way to win is to corrupt the decision-making process. And that’s exactly what the fossil fuel industry does: in order to feed their greed for massive profits, the oil, gas, and coal corporations buy support for their polluting practices.

      A recent Financial Times article (subscription) noted that “[t]he oil and gas industry was subject to the most prosecutions for bribery and graft in the UK of any sector over the past four years” and that “most of [these cases] involved payments made abroad, or kickbacks to foreign government officials.”. In the United States, regulations and legislation to promote transparency and fight corruption was opposed for years by the oil industry. The worldwide trend of corruption surrounding oil and gas projects is well documented.

      The United States is no exception to this global rule.

      The fossil fuel industry undoubtedly has a stranglehold on U.S. democracy, bribing elected officials with campaign contributions and pressuring them with millions of dollars of spending in strong-armed lobbying. In return, the industry is provided massive subsidies while raking in mind-boggling profits and giving their executives lavish compensation packages.”

      So when low-price Russian gas threatened the market expansion plans of high-priced LNG companies, what better solution than to gin up a war that would shut down Russian competition? The US had been trying to dissuade Germany from using Russian gas for years, but to no avail. With the advent of war, well… US energy companies are making out like bandits!

      Never underestimate the importance of crass mercantile interests lurking behind decisions that are promoted as being for freedom, democracy and human rights. Again, remember the Iraq War.

      Could pgl and MacroDuckyDuckyDucky actually be sponsored by those commercial interests? Or could they just be naive enough to believe that this is only about freedom, democracy and human rights?

      This grotesque greed of the fossil fuel industry and their financiers is punishing the poorest and most vulnerable people, while destroying our only home.

      1. JohnH

        I forgot to finish the Guterres quote: “This grotesque greed of the fossil fuel industry and their financiers is punishing the poorest and most vulnerable people, while destroying our only home.”

        Cui bono? Indeed!

      2. AndrewG

        Conspiracy theorist JohnH has it wonderfully backwards. Years of dependence on Russian oil – with many, many US warnings about the situation going back 20 years – suddenly turns to sanctions on Russian oil *for the benefit of Western energy companies*.

        So Shell and BP and others had no power to protect their markets over the last 20 years, but suddenly got powerful after the Russian invasion? Cui bono indeed! You’re so smart, JohnH!

        Of course, simply mentioning this – and other implicit criticisms of Russia and China – are “McCarthyism,” amirite?

        1. JohnH

          How about gas, Andrew? The problem the LNG suppliers had was that there was no way to penetrate the European market, because Russian gas is so cheap. Europe’s reaction to the Russian invasion solved that problem, even though dependence on high priced LNG will probably hurt Europe’s competitiveness for the foreseeable future.

          Cui bono?

          Last year the US became the leading supplier of LNG to Europe, but European storage terminals were still only at 49% utilisation. Tremendous opportunity! This year LNG exports soared. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenroberts/2022/08/13/lng-fastest-growing-us-export-since-covid-19-heading-to-europe/?sh=6c6a04a367c5

          Remember Iraq…the US and its energy companies will do whatever it takes. But Andrew thinks that US policy is drive by freedom, democracy and human rights…and that’s exactly what the oil marinated foreign policy establishment wants you to think.

          1. AndrewG

            Oil *and* gas.

            cUI bONo!?!?!

            Repeating Latin phrases doesn’t make your conspiracy theories any more coherent.

      3. Barkley Rosser


        Actually, aside from Cheney’s Halliburton, the US oil companies were not in favor of the invasion of Iraq. They saw it disrupting oil production and supplies, which indeed happened, although the resulting higher oil prices did increase most of their profits. But despite the fantasies of Cheney, in the end they got little of the action in the still-messed-up oil industry in Iraq.

        You really have no idea what you are talking about with regard to either the Iraq war, much less Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which most cettainly was not due to some plot by US oil and gas companies. You are just widly delusional.

        1. JohnH

          Rosser: your ignorance astounds me.

          “ Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil… Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq’s domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.”

          Cui bono?

          Why wouldn’t US energy companies lobby hard to get Europe off cheap Russian gas and get them hooked on expensive LNG, much of it supplied by the US?

          1. pgl

            JohnH tries to school Barkley on who owns Iraqi oil since the 2003? JohnH once again shows he knows nothing beyond what he read in some dumb CNN rant. Try real research:


            The Ownership of Oil, Democracy, and Iraq’s Past, Present, and Future
            W A Razzak
            First Version 2021
            Second Version 2022
            School of Economics and Finance, Massey University, New Zealand
            Effectively, the government of Iraq, not the Iraqi people, owns the oil wealth; the oil industry is a government monopoly. We make the case against such monopoly and for a competitive oil industry. We estimate the share of oil in real output to be relatively large, and show that most macroeconomic variables are highly associated with the price of oil. This oil dependence is consistent with the rentier economy. In addition, the elasticity of oil production with respect to global oil consumption is greater than one. Such monopolistic industry would not be suitable for the future in a zero carbon state of the world. We estimate the dynamics of real oil prices and quantity; human capital, the stock of capital, labor, and real GDP, and conduct stress tests by producing dynamic stochastic
            projections for the period from 2020 to 2050 under the baseline and two adverse counterfactual scenarios. Permanent income is higher under a competitive scenario than a monopolistic one. A quick transfer of ownership of oil to the Iraqi people should guarantee a competitive market economy, a functional democracy, and a better future for the Iraqis.

          2. pgl

            You should consult with your BFF Princeton Steve on this one as Barkley has some respect for him as an alleged expert on the oil sector. While I have my doubts about that – I bet Stevie gets something about how multinationals entering oil rich nations like Iraq have to behave. Let me explain the basics so even a moron like you gets it.

            Let’s say Exxon owns 40% of an Iraqi Oil company with the government owning the rest (a common structure). Exxon cannot abuse transfer pricing to shift oil rents out of Iraq as the government controls that. Ah but Exxon gets 40% of those oil rents – right? Except governments can impose economic rent taxes or simply impose royalties to capture the lion’s share of the oil rents. So Iraq gets Exxon’s capital and maybe Exxon receives a modest return on that capital.

            Now everyone who gets this sector knows this but of course a moron like you needs a lot of help. CNN is not up to that.

          3. Macroduck

            Johnny? Settle down.

            Here’s what you need to understand. A thing that you can make up in your head is not necessarily true. A thing that somebody else makes up in their head that agrees with a thing you made up in your head? Not necessarily true.

            Ms. Juhasz has a point of view; she doesn’t much like the oil industry. Fair enough, but her point of view doesn’t trump facts.

            Oil firms benefited from the war? Maybe. I’m not familiar with the numbers out of Iraq. I am unwilling to believe that you are, either, but that’s beside the point. Profit figures don’t distinguish between intention and a windfall.

            There are plenty of alternative theories, many of which involve the small mind and large ego of Bush the Lesser. You are hardly the person to decide which theory is true. You’re an intellectual lightweight even among the partisan trolls cluttering conversation here.

          4. JohnH

            MacroDucky…maybe you should try reading Juhasz’ piece. It is very ell researched and compelling. It is consistent with everything I read at the time about the shenanigans going on in the background, including the utter disregard of Iraqi law. Apparently the Iraqi government gets a pittance for the oil that is exported

            Instead of simply dismissing Juhasz as an oil company hater, perhaps you could try to actually contribute to the conversation with facts that refute her thorough research. Oh, but that’s not propagandists do…they know nothing about a subject, refuse to do any research, yet gladly smear people who don’t parrot the official narrative.

          5. Barkley Rosser


            Your link on Iraq is nearly a decade old and highly misleading. Yes, there are and have been people who have claimed the Iraq war was about oil, and for Dick Cheney and his Halliburton company it was, although the latter has never been involved in actual production there, just getting in on lots of service contracts there mostly through the US military. For the hardcore neeocons like Wolflowitz who drove the policy oil was strictly secondary, with Wolflowitz in particular pushing the idea that grabbing the oil could allow for the war to be paid for. But that never happened, and it shows that grabbing the oil was a secondary motive. Again, most of the majors were not enthusiastic and had to be pressured to join Cheney’s group discussing it.

            And the bottom line out of it all has been hilarious, especially given that you keep chanting “cui bono?” Indeed, who did gain from it? Exactly one US oil company has been involved in oil production in Iraq since the war, Exxon Mobil. That is it. No others. There are curently five Chinese companies and three Russian ones in Iraq. They got the goods, along with companies from many other nations.

            And as for the Exxon Mobil holdings, pretty far down the list of ones they have in nations around the world, as of Jan. 2021 they tried to leave entirely, attempting to sell their holdings to Sinopec of China. Big joke is that the Iraqi government would not let them do so because they have become afraid of domination by China of their oil industry. They effectively insisted that the one last US oil company there could not leave, even though that is what it wants to do.

            You are just completely out of it on this, JohnH.

          6. pgl

            MacroDucky…maybe you should try reading Juhasz’ piece. It is very ell researched and compelling.

            He did read it – lying troll. Now I have provided a real research paper on the history and economics of Iraqi oil. Have you read it? Do so hypocrit.

          7. pgl

            I have been doing a little research on Antonia Juhasz. Her research on this topic was published in a book published in 2004. What you did not know that? Oh yea – your research is Googling for ANYTHING that promotes your soap box barking. But you rarely have a clue what you are babbling about. Juhasz was sort of speculating as to what would happen. Alas for you – the subsequent reality does not fit you little soap box barking at all. But of course this is par for the course for Johnny Know Nothing.

        2. pgl

          Remember when Kudlow applauded the invasion by predicting a 4 fold increase in Iraqi production and $12 a barrel for oil. How did that forecast work out?

        3. pgl

          Given Johnny boy sucks at real research I tried to find an intelligent discussion of the role of multinationals in Iraq post 2003. This was interesting:


          Paragraph 6 (this cite does not allow cut and pasting) notes how a lot of nations other than the US had their state owned oil companies dominate Iraqi oil production. Once again Johnny boy makes a bold statement that is completely at odds with reality. Yea – his research skills SUCK!

  3. pgl


    Ukrainian forces say they have regained control of the east bank of the River Oskil, seen as the front line with Russian troops in north-east Ukraine. Russia’s army has been almost completely pushed out of the Kharkiv region and a regional leader said the next target would be neighbouring Luhansk. President Volodymyr Zelensky said the next offensive was being prepared.

    Most people would see this as good news. Most people would hope Putin finally realizes he needs to stop his war crimes.

    But wait for it – Putin’s pet poodle will go beserk over this.

    1. pgl

      Alla Pugacheva is Russia’s version of Madonna. She has turned on Putin for his war crimes.


      The Russian singer Alla Pugacheva has spoken out against the war in Ukraine and the “death of our boys for illusory goals”. The remarks are the first time that the pop star, an icon in Russia, has publicly criticised the conflict.Her husband, Maxim Galkin, joined journalists, human rights activists and Kremlin opponents in being labelled a “foreign agent” last week for opposing the war. Addressing the Russian justice ministry, Pugacheva told her 3.4 million Instagram followers: “I am asking you to include me on the foreign agents list of my beloved country.

      1. AndrewG

        Addressing the Russian justice ministry, Pugacheva told her 3.4 million Instagram followers: “I am asking you to include me on the foreign agents list of my beloved country”

        Holy Jesus. I knew some people were real gutsy. But this is another level.

  4. baffling

    off topic, but quite interesting for those following the energy sector

    geothermal energy is one of those technologies that flies under the radar, but if it is solved, really is a game changer. the added benefit is the oil industry may actually have the ability, and incentive, to push this technology forward.

    iceland has shown how renewables, in the form of hydro and geothermal, can power an electric grid on their own. improving geothermal technology and exporting around the world could be a game changer for renewables. yet again.

    1. pgl

      EGS is a young technology with the potential to become a powerhouse of U.S. economic growth, especially for rural communities. Most geothermal jobs are inherently local and relate to well drilling and construction, which must be performed by a domestic workforce. The geothermal industry and workforce are also similar to oil and gas, presenting an opportunity to transition skilled workers, as well as entire communities, and equipment from fossil fuels to clean energy.

      Biden is wise to promote this technology as the benefits seem to accrue that rural America which in the past was very Trumpian.

      1. baffling

        from an engineering perspective, this technology is probably closer to deployment on economic scale than some other renewables. the biggest issue is the depth of borehole. but that is a very well defined problem, so it is much easier to solve if it must be solved. biden has set year 2035 as the goal. my guess is this is resolved years prior to the goal. i am quite optimistic about esg. especially since it can be easily located next to existing energy infrastructure.
        i see the texas population centers benefiting immensely from egs. lots of western states will benefit as well.

  5. pgl

    Yea Princeton Steve’s comment on August 23rd deserves a lot of ridicule:

    ‘Steven Kopits
    August 23, 2022 at 8:14 am
    Cratering housing market. See CR.

    Suddenly, we’re at record months of homes under construction, although the months of completed homes remains near record lows. The implication would seem to be an emerging recessionary environment resulting from increased interest rates, with the 30 year at 5.72% — pretty stiff.’

    This comment should be ridiculed over and over for lots of reasons including the fact that Steve LIED about interest rates. On that data, Freddie Mac was reporting a 5.13%. Now as I have consistently noted – latter Freddie Mac reported higher interest rates but at the time this claim was false.

    Funny thing – JohnH decided to be Stevie’s BFF defending his false statement here. OK I get it – Johnny boy tells one lie after another so why not defend his BFF?

      1. pgl

        Hey lying little jerk. I used Freddie Mac information which is generally considered reliable. And when he is not lying along with you – so does Princeton Steve. Yea – he is vague about his sources. Sort of like you are.

      2. pgl

        “But since that wasn’t a pgl-authorized data source, anyone using data issued by MND is obviously a liar!!!”

        I just reread the comment in question and Steve never said he was using MND data. In fact, I do not recall a single time he has ever relied on MND data. Now maybe you can point out where that was clearly his source. But until you do – let it be known you are just one STUPID LYING FOOL.

        1. JohnH

          Oh, yeah…it’s just pure coincidence that he nailed the MND number. Fact is, he was right and pgl made a fool of himself mocking the post…something pgl routinely does.

          1. pgl

            How many times do you really want to embarrass your poor mom? You are a lying troll and everyone here knows it.

          2. pgl

            What did I ask you to do? Let me repeat:

            In fact, I do not recall a single time he has ever relied on MND data. Now maybe you can point out where that was clearly his source. But until you do – let it be known you are just one STUPID LYING FOOL.

            You could not do it – could you? Yea – time for you to STFU.

  6. pgl

    Real Private Residential Fixed Investment

    The housing market is not exactly cratering. Now if one goes back to the beginning of the year, residential investment was soaring. Yea it has slipped a bit but cratering?

    Now if we go back to the beginning of the year, the same Princeton Steve was running around like Chicken Little over how high housing prices were. Of course the market responded by having more investment. Market conditions are different now but how does one go from screaming the market is too strong to the market in cratering?

    Oh wait – Stevie uses hyperbole to cover up for the fact that he has no clue what he is screaming about!

  7. ltr


    September 19, 2022

    China’s FDI inflow up 16.4 pct in first eight months

    BEIJING — Foreign direct investment (FDI) into the Chinese mainland, in actual use, expanded 16.4 percent year on year to 892.74 billion yuan in the first eight months of the year, the Ministry of Commerce said Monday.

    In U.S. dollar terms, the inflow went up 20.2 percent year on year to 138.41 billion U.S. dollars.

    The service industry saw FDI inflow jump by 8.7 percent year on year to 662.13 billion yuan, while that of high-tech industries surged by 33.6 percent from a year earlier, data from the ministry showed.

    Specifically, FDI in high-tech manufacturing rose 43.1 percent from the same period a year ago, while that in the high-tech service sector surged 31 percent year on year.

    During the period, investment from the Republic of Korea, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom climbed by 58.9 percent, 30.3 percent, 26.8 percent, and 17.2 percent, respectively.

    FDI flowing into the country’s western region reported a year-on-year increase of 43 percent, followed by 27.6 percent in the central region and 14.3 percent in the eastern region.

  8. Ivan

    If we could cut through the xenophobic hysteria and political hissy fits (and exploitation) – the problem of housing asylum seekers is not that big. About 330,000 new people every year needs to get a place to live while their applications are processed. That is about 1000 per million Americans. So if we distribute fairly (and yes Texas has a right to expect that we do – and nobody has denied them that) – we need to give New York state about 20,000, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio about 13,000 each (Florida 22,000). Can those states handle that number every year? That would not be a problem at all, they could handle 3 times as many without breaking a sweet (or solving their current labor shortages). Would addition of 0.1% more children to their school systems be a strain? – no it would not even be noticeable. But they would also like to get some of all that associated federal funding to take care of these people.

    All the blue states are fully capable and more than happy to take their fair share of the current backlog (and federal funding). If the Red southern state governors helped setting up a system where the Blue state are given warning (rather than hiding it until those poor people are dumped like garbage at the side of some road), then there would not even be anything to take pictures of (you know good Christian blue staters helping people in need and all that).

    1. AndrewG

      Racism and xenophobia aside (which I admit is 99% of it), I don’t think having tough policy against undocumented immigrants is all that bad in and of itself. Big influxes can really be big shocks to local economies – and not all of that is good. It really did lead to an (at least temporary) rise in local AfD activity in Germany (that’s the far-right party). Nothing to sniff at.

      That being said … your numbers sound about right. 1 per 1000 a year? The United States could absorb those people at that rate *indefinitely.* With minimal disruption and maximal humanity towards the migrants, who, I remind readers, are just looking for a better life *and* have *lower* propensity for crime than native-born Americans (a well-established, long-true statistic my American students repeatedly balk at).

      Plus, US demographic projections have turned to crap thanks to Trump anti-immigrant policy (population growth crashed, especially for the young). The US not only could absorb these people easily … we could *use* them. There’s not enough Americans, especially young ones, given the amount of space we have.

      And as economist Michael Clemens reminds us, open migration is *the single best development policy in history*. If we want a rich, prosperous neighbor to the south – who would stop sending poor migrants this way – this is the way to do it in the long run. Encouraging more high-skill migrants from Mexico (and elsewhere in Latin America) may help too.

      Now if only we could have more housing development on the coasts.

  9. Bruce Hall

    I know it’s Bidenworld out there, but does this make any sense?

    Forecast completed: Sept. 1, 2022
    Forecast released: Sept. 7, 2022
    Next release date: Oct. 12, 2022

    Headline: Winter Fuels Outlook, October 2021

    I would think that with an 11-month historical viewpoint, the government could accurately forecast last winter’s fuel outlook.

    A side note on the EIA webpage:
    Updated: December 7, 2021
    EIA provided the final update to this table for the Winter 2022-23 season on December 7, 2021. Percentage change in fuel bills from last winter (forecast) are consistent with the December edition of the Short-Term Energy Outlook.

    So last winter the EIA forecasted this coming winter’s fuel situation which this fall the EIA is forecasting last winter’s fuel situation. Gives me a warm feeling all over.

  10. Bruce Hall

    I know it’s Bidenworld out there, but does this make any sense?

    Forecast completed: Sept. 1, 2022
    Forecast released: Sept. 7, 2022
    Next release date: Oct. 12, 2022

    Headline: Winter Fuels Outlook, October 2021

    I would think that with an 11-month historical viewpoint, the government could accurately forecast last winter’s fuel outlook.

    A side note on the EIA webpage:
    Updated: December 7, 2021
    EIA provided the final update to this table for the Winter 2022-23 season on December 7, 2021. Percentage change in fuel bills from last winter (forecast) are consistent with the December edition of the Short-Term Energy Outlook.

    So last winter the EIA forecasted this coming winter’s fuel situation which this fall the EIA is forecasting last winter’s fuel situation. Gives me a warm feeling all over.

      1. Bruce Hall

        pgl, your brilliant reply adds so much to the discussion about economic activity. How can we thank you? Perhaps a lump of coal for Christmas to keep you warm this winter? I hear everyone in New York thinks they are cool because they’ll be keeping their thermostats at 55º this winter.

        Keep fighting those natural gas pipelines and home hookups. Climate change bogeyman is winning the battle over reality in New York.

        Maybe you can spare some of the poorer residents some of your prodigious hot air.

        1. pgl

          Maybe you should realize that your drill baby drill BS would have no effect on energy costs for this winter. So you are just basically lying to the average citizens here. Of course that is all you ever do. MAGA.

        2. pgl

          Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is calling for $1B to be added to the upcoming budget, in order to help with the costs.

          Chuck is trying but your MAGA buddies blew this on a tax cut for the rich.

        3. pgl

          Cold-weather accounts for almost all temperature-related deaths?

          Seriously? CoRev the barking moron tried to peddle this alleged benefit of global warming. I guess he too is getting emails to copy and paste from Alternative Facts Kelly Anne!

          1. CoRev

            Bark, bark would you show us your evidence otherwise: “Cold-weather accounts for almost all temperature-related deaths?”

            I’ll wait while you disappear again after being challenged. Your ineptness is really boring.

        4. pgl

          September 20, 2022 at 5:39 am

          Hey Brucie – your rapid dog is disturbing the neighbors. Be a decent person and give the damn dog a bone.

          1. CoRev

            And there goes ole LYING bark bark, slinking off again tail between his legs after even another challenge to show proof of another of his claims.

            Yup, the commenter voted most liable to lie when writing also continues to embarrass his family with his blatant lies.

    1. AndrewG

      If it hurts your feelings, Bruce, it must be a conspiracy. Fake news and such. Too many gays, not enough white men, etc.

      1. Bruce Hall

        Gee AndrewG, you’re competing with pgl for the most inane responses. That could escalate into a real hissing contest. But if you ever have anything of consequence to contribute, I’ll be glad to take a few seconds to consider it.

        BTW, are you implying that the EIA is “gay”? Or just too “White”? Nah, the EIA didn’t hurt my feelings so it can’t be either of those.

        1. AndrewG

          “Updated: December 7, 2021
          EIA provided the final update to this table for the Winter 2022-23 season on December 7, 2021. Percentage change in fuel bills from last winter (forecast) are consistent with the December edition of the Short-Term Energy Outlook.”

          If it’s not your reading skills, Bruce, what else could explain *your* inane comment? We all know how the trans people and the diversity bother you so … Your non sequiturs, not mine …

          1. pgl

            Give Brucie a break about his pathetic reading skills. His preK teacher has been working really hard but this clown is too busy copying and pasting that Kelly Anne Alternative Facts.

  11. Merlin Animation

    After nearly twenty years of reading blogs, this is the only one I continue to read (and I do it without fail each and every day). What a wonderful experience it has been to “get to know” about this platform and all of the excellent stuff that you guys are providing. Thank you. Weldon, and I want to encourage you to keep up the fantastic effort. I Recommend You To Check This: How to remove someone from snapchat group

Comments are closed.