Unfortunately, employment will be one of the last things to recover. There is still lots of money on the sidelines and most potential employers are still nervous that things will go south again. The fact that the gold bubble is starting to break is encouraging, that means at least some people are getting back into legitimate investments.

We will see when and if the massive stimulation effort stops. The stimulation in theory is to build a bridge. The question like many years ago is what is going to anchor this bridge at the other end? They did not know in the 1930s either but a convienient world war came along.

We Canadians have a simular way of coming up with an unemployment number. There seems little way to get it accurate. The official number discounts anyone whose claim has run out.

So generally speaking the monthly posted numbers are far from realistic. Job creation numbers may be based on a sounder footing. Personally I see so much out of order and extensive problems there is no assurance this current period is not the best it can get.

That is until some new directions and realities are addressed. There are serious resistances to even examine them. Change is hard but may really be required. Otherwise much of the money on the sidelines may continue to sit there or leave the country.

With 17% total effective unemployment, your crystal ball is right on.

Can you name a country where top-down, socialist-style economic planning has worked long term? Several seem to work well for a few years and then they run out of other people's money.
Trickle down in the ONLY way that economics has ever worked.

It works for the few at the top.

Orders are up in the manufacturing sector, though moving slowly. My employer, al rather large stamping company with facilities in 4 countries, froze all bonuses in 2008, and started them back up Q4 of 2010. We're also hiring in different areas...business is getting better.

The reality is that 20th century america practiced corporate top-down "central planning" instead of socialist-style economic planning. Once you get past the political rhetoric, it isn't really that different. Manipulating the tax code to advantage large business is very similar to the soviet system. I was always amazed that the US and USSR were so similar during the Reagan era; they were both playing the same game, using slightly different language.

For there to be no effective difference between centralized gov planning and corporate planning you'd have to demonstrate that corporations collude in their planning. I believe that kind of activity is illegal, Might be fun to watch them perp walk if you have any proof.

It is not exactly the same, but it's close enough for macroeconomics. How much difference do you see between the operations and planning of the major US energy companies, airlines, investment banks, auto manufactures, media companies, defense contractors, etc.? Each of those industries has it's own lobbing and industry groups who are able to legally coordinate just about everything except specific pricing.

The collusion I see is an unholy matrimony of humungous businesses with the federal government. We have politicians who save these humungous businesses, essentially the first step in national socialism, with the palliative that the businesses are too big to fail and saving them actually protects the little guy.

Right.

Well, I don't believe it. I think we are far safer when the business community and government are at each others throats rather than in each other's bed.

Just as the two major parties have stacked the election laws against other political parties, the government gives a happy blow-job to failing big business and a backhand to small, privately held businesses.

Then there's the unions -- why did the gov bail out GM and Chrysler? It was a happy confluence of saving union jobs by giving the car companies a handjob using taxpayers' hands.

I agree, and I also don't see either party taking a pro-small business position. One party thinks small business owners are too "rich" and should be punished; the other party doesn't think they are rich enough to create a trickle down contribution and ignores them.

But the feds can drop the corporate tax rate so smaller companies can compete better. Granted, the big guys have always gotten around taxes using skillful sleight of hand. Its the small and medium sized companies that need a boost.

"Humongous Business" as Bot coined the term and its collusion with government is the problem.
When the Risk is removed from "risk/reward" the system cannot be considered a free market. As I have posted previously, humongous business LOVES government regulation. Regulation compliance is a minor cost to them that simply gets passed on to the consumer as a tiny fraction of their overhead. The smaller business has the same dollar amount as a cost of compliance, but it's impact on their prices is significantly higher, making the small business less competitive than the humongous business.

When the Risk is removed from "risk/reward" the system cannot be considered a free market (quote from MS fowler).

This is exactly the problem with our system.

Our system is the best going but it is not perfect and this issue is it's biggest weakness.....and the resulting collusion between elected officials and the relationship of that to our method of financing elections.

(I never thought I could agree so wholeheartedly with MS on any political issue!)

I like it.;)

It is good when the brothers dwell in unity.

The question then becomes, If two such opposite types as you and me can see the issue with such clarity, Why do the people we elect have such difficulty? and more importantly, How can we fix that?