Hiding the decline in employment

Here’s a story I wouldn’t normally have looked at, Hillary Clinton to campaign in Hanover Friday, but seeing I will be in Hanover on Friday, am there now, it sprang off the page. More detail:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will visit Hanover this afternoon at 12:30 p.m. and speak at a “grassroots organization event,” according to Clinton’s campaign website.

This is not, need I point out, Hanover in Germany, but Hanover in New Hampshire, where may be found the campus of Dartmouth University. I am here for a small symposium on Keynes, but was all set to abandon ship, except that this “grassroots” event is more like the “tallest poppies” event, in that it would cost thousands to get in the door. Will therefore stick to Keynes.

Which brings me to the latest news on the American economy, this from Drudge – and you will not find the first part of this anywhere near the front of The New York Times, or USA Today, but you will find the second.

Record 93,626,000 Not in Labor Force…
Unemployment rate drops to 5.3%…

Rush Limbaugh did a take on this today as well, where he discussed the disastrous labour market in the US, where the stats keep showing improvement despite the vast disappearance of jobs:

Twice as many people left the workforce in May as found jobs, which cancels out the 223,000 jobs created. If 223,000 jobs are created and 432,000 jobs were lost, would somebody explain to me where all this job creation is? Now, the AP and the rest of the Obama sycophant media is not telling you about the decline in the labor force. Some are talking about the labor force participation rate, and they’re relying on the fact that most in the low information category are not going to understand it. “Labor force participation, what’s that? It doesn’t matter to me, Mabel.” All they’re going to hear is the unemployment rate is 5.3%. (laughing)

I laugh too, but it’s not funny at all. But Obama has ramped up welfare so that people do not starve to death in the street, but the numbers are shocking.

And what’s it got to do with Keynes? Everything, alas, but where are the economists to point it out. They must be working at the bureau of stats in this massive effort to hide the decline.