Today's Employment Numbers

It's just after 8am and I'm listening to CNBC's morning program. The March employment numbers are due at 8:30, so a handful of talking heads are arguing about them, and the economy.

As usual, economic no-nothing Steve Liesman is involved, imagining himself to have a clue about economics.

Bob Barbera, ITG chief economist, the program's obligatory liberal economist, is a guest host. Mark Zandi, the perennial S&P economist and someone who actually focuses on this topic for a living, is on hand.

And, finally, the token supply-side economist, former Bear Stearns chief economist, now NY Senate candidate, David Malpass.

In the runup to the release of the numbers, there was a spirited argument between Malpass and Barbera. The former argued that employment, even if up, is essentially counting government hires as the private sector shrinks. Malpass lamented the huge government footprint in the private sector and its crowding out of both private investment and jobs.

One of the more laughable moments came when CNBC senior economic idiot Liesman tried to argue that near-zero rates are beneficial for funding the "marginal business."

Having just come through a long period of too-low rates which stoked marginal housing development and, consequentially, a serious recession, it's hard to believe anyone who even remotely follows economics would argue that ultra-low rates promote healthy economic growth.

That he does so is a measure of just how stupid Liesman actually is.

Malpass correctly argued that rates have to rise in order to clear out questionable business growth, and, that, ideally, government would get out of the way. He reminded everyone that all the federally-generated liquidity wasn't funding business loans but, in reality, cycling back into Treasuries.

Barbera then attacked Malpass for daring to question government intervention, citing "50 years of classical recovery pattern." According to Barbera, as day follows night, recessions must be ended by hefty doses of federal intervention.

Nevermind Alan Reynolds' piece last August in the Wall Street Journal which exposed this myth for what it is. Reynolds' research provided evidence that the greater the scale of government intervention, the longer and deeper the economic contraction. To repeat his conclusion,

"On the contrary, recessions have become longer as the U.S. government (and the Fed) became larger, more expensive, and more involved in the economy. Foreign countries in which government spending accounts for about half of the economy have also suffered the deepest recessions lately, while economic recovery is well established in countries where government spending is a smaller share of GDP than in the U.S. In short, bigger government appears to produce only bigger and longer recessions."

Funny how so many economists, or those who pretend to be, choose to simply ignore evidence and continue to parrot how wonderful heavy-handed government intervention is for economic growth.

As I write this sentence, it's 8:26, and the CNBC panelists are giving their predictions just prior to the release of the numbers. Malpass forecasts a positive, six-figure number, 250,000, I think, but cautions that what is crucial is the private sector component, not the government.

And the number is.....

+162,000 total.

+110,000 private sector.

9.7% unemployment rate.

positive prior-month revisions.

6.5MM out of work six-months or longer, an all-time high (Santelli will not be surprised).

Overall, a mild expansion of jobs, but hardly a sign of robust recovery.