Brad DeLong posted an item today confronting one of life's greatest frustrations: interpreting statistics from the Labor Department. The figure in question is the number of U.S. workers who filed new jobless claims last week. The number is low—if you can call the seasonally adjusted figure 522,000 low—enough. In fact, it's the smallest number of new unemployment claims since January. Great news, right? Well, not so fast. The Department of Labor claimed that this figure reflects the unexpectedly low number of workers laid off from auto field and general manufacturing (fewer auto workers have been laid off than anticipated? Didn't see that one coming) and doesn't necessarily suggest that our work force is doing better. In the Reuters piece from which DeLong excerpted, a Labor official cautiously reminds us that there is more to the jobless claims than meets the eye: "The big drop is not necessarily a reflection of what is going on in the economy."

Paul Krugman argued that the 1970s' stagflation is an overused mechanism with which conservatives attempt to "beat liberal policies of any kind" (ahem, Niall Ferguson). To Krugman, the 1970s don't debunk Keynesian ideals. His two main points of contention are a) that unrelated events, including "two big oil shocks," influenced the development of the stagflated '70s and b) that the Federal Reserve's irresponsible behavior is, in part, to blame for the inflation of the era. At the end of the post, Krugman promised to touch on this next logical question shortly: Why do economists focus on the 1970s to such a great degree?

In the wake of Goldman Sachs' (GS) dynamite Q2 earnings, Barry Ritholtz pondered how those figures would change, given that GS provided CIT (whose bankruptcy appears imminent) with a $3 billion credit a little over a year ago. It's a fair question to ask, and, as Ritholtz discovered, a little fancy footwork saved Goldman's proverbial rear end. While the company has made it clear it has little vulnerability in regard to CIT's (CIT) demise, perhaps it would make sense to explore this hedging and collateralization (upon which, to be fair, the Goldman representative wouldn't elaborate).

Felix Salmon shed light on some encouraging new legislation that would allow homeowners to pay rent (at the market rate, adjusted annually) on their foreclosed homes, so they can continue living where they are. Salmon discussed the two plans currently on the burner—the first, conceived by economist Dean Baker (to which Sen. Chuck Schumer has lent his support), is clearly Salmon's favorite. The other plan, which Rep. Raul M. Grijalva already pitched to the House, needs to be "expanded significantly," Salmon said. "It shouldn't require case-by-case judicial approval." Sen. Schumer has been a longtime advocate for preventing home foreclosure, so it will be interesting to see where the chips fall on this one.