The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[thaiboxerken]

Given the context, it means ABOUT 2.1million.

 

[Just thinking]

Not exactly as reported here.

The CBO says there were between 1 million and 2.1 million more jobs during the last three months of 2009 than there would have been without the stimulus law. The White House Council of Economic Advisers pegged that number as between 1.5 and 2 million jobs in a January report.

As Republicans are keen to point out, the nation's unemployment rate also peaked at more than 10% during that time. That doesn't mean the estimates are wrong; the measurements are how many jobs can be chalked up to the effects of the stimulus package, not whether the stimulus caused an overall increase in employment nationwide.

The CBO says the nation's unemployment rate was between 0.5% and 1.1% lower because of the stimulus. In other words, the unemployment rate could have been more than 11% without the stimulus package, according to the CBO's analysis.

First, the number can be actually half of what's said earlier, not to mention the presumption of what might have been.

Second, too much speculation as to what happened in the alternate universe.

Car buyer: How much for that model?

Salesman: About $21,000

Buyer: Sold ... I'll give you $10,000.

Salesman: I said $21,000.

Buyer: No ... you said about $21,000.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Between 1 million and 2.1 million is quite a huge change in your assertion that it could be between 0 and 2.1 million.

 

[Just thinking]

It was your assertion that it was up to 2.1 million ... I merely defined what that means. Now we see that the actual numbers are all over the map, depending on who reports it. We also keep seeing speculation on how much worse things would have been if ... if whatever. Nobody knows for sure, it's only a guess. I'm not picking sides, I'm just saying it's become way too political anymore to have real meaning. And have you been watching the weekly jobless claims of late ... they ain't exactly going down much. The word everyone keeps repeating a good deal is "unexpected". That gives me not too much confidence in their financial modeling abilities.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It was your assertion that it was up to 2.1 million ...

No, it was not. That was the assertion of the CBO.

I merely defined what that means.

I redefined it based on context.

Now we see that the actual numbers are all over the map, depending on who reports it.

True.

We also keep seeing speculation on how much worse things would have been if ... if whatever. Nobody knows for sure, it's only a guess. I'm not picking sides, I'm just saying it's become way too political anymore to have real meaning.

I think it has plenty of meaning. The evidence seems to point to the stimulus bill actually working. The employment numbers are but a small part of it.

 

[Just thinking]

No, it was not. That was the assertion of the CBO.

Not exactly ... the actual report went from 1 to 2.1 million. You posted just the 2.1 million number. But it is their number, not yours.

I redefined it based on context.

Context went from 1 - 2.1 million in the actual report as I linked to.

I think it has plenty of meaning. The evidence seems to point to the stimulus bill actually working. The employment numbers are but a small part of it.

I'll give it more time to work out the minutia.

 

[BeAChooser]

CBO: Stimulus bill created up to 2.1 million jobs

Actually, the CBO said the bill created OR SAVED, at the upper bound, about 2 million jobs. The CBO said it could just as likely have been somewhat less than a million that were created OR SAVED. And either way, we paid a small fortune for those jobs. That's between $100K and $200K each, on average. Considering that many of them are teachers and pencil pushers who make considerably less than that, that's kind of expensive.

 

[Yoink]

Actually, the CBO said the bill created OR SAVED, at the upper bound, about 2 million jobs. The CBO said it could just as likely have been somewhat less than a million that were created OR SAVED. And either way, we paid a small fortune for those jobs. That's between $100K and $200K each, on average. Considering that many of them are teachers and pencil pushers who make considerably less than that, that's kind of expensive.

That 2 million jobs in fall. Some of the stimulus package involved measures that were designed to rapidly boost employment (i.e., direct employment measures), others were more indirect (such as the enormous tax cuts; funny how you think tax cuts are a wonderful, wonderful thing except when they're enacted by Democrats).

And even the money spent directly on hiring people has indirect and delayed effects on employment down the line. The total impact of the stimulus bill remains to be seen and remains to be measured. The only thing we know for certain is that no matter what the research shows, you'll insist that if the government had done nothing at all then for mysterious and miraculous reasons that you can't quite ever explain, the free market would have made up the entire shortfall in employment all by itself. But for some reason this miraculous free market is terribly easily startled, and chooses not to act if it sees the government acting in its place.

 

[BeAChooser]

you'll insist that if the government had done nothing at all then for mysterious and miraculous reasons that you can't quite ever explain, the free market would have made up the entire shortfall in employment all by itself.

LOL! I did explain the reasons, Yoink. And unlike you, I cited NUMEROUS examples of recessions and depressions where without a stimulus, the economy recovered ... and recovered faster and stronger than it has in this or any other recession/depression you can name where a *stimulus* of the type Obama is trying was applied. Hate to tell you ... history is on my side and no amount of spinning or hand waving on your part is going to change that.

 

[Yoink]

LOL! I did explain the reasons, Yoink. And unlike you, I cited NUMEROUS examples of recessions and depressions where without a stimulus, the economy recovered ... and recovered faster and stronger than it has in this or any other recession/depression you can name where a *stimulus* of the type Obama is trying was applied. Hate to tell you ... history is on my side and no amount of spinning or hand waving on your part is going to change that.

Here's what you actually said:

LOL! The mechanism is called the Free Market. It's called Capitalism. It's called Profit Motive. It's called Self Interest.

Now explain to me how the stimulus package prevents any of those magical forces from operating. What is it about the stimulus package that has prevented the Free Market and Self Interest and their trusty sidekick Profit Motive from creating all these jobs? Please feel free to use as many capital letters as you like in your explanation.

 

[BeAChooser]

Now explain to me how the stimulus package prevents any of those magical forces from operating.

Let me add a few more words to your vocabulary. INCREASED UNCERTAINTY for making business decisions (wait and see what the government is going to do). REALLOCATION OF RESOURCES to the government sector from the private sector. INCREASED DEPENDENCY (I'll let the government take care of me rather than go out and look for work). Really, Yoink, given the number of times these impacts from Obama-like stimulus efforts have been discussed in the media and literature, I'm surprised you're unaware of them. And I'm sure I missed a few, given that I put no effort into this response. It just didn't deserve much effort.

 

[Yoink]

I put no effort into this response.

That went without saying.

What private resources did the stimulus bill "reallocate" from the private sector to the government sector? Given the high unemployment, what possible effect could "increased dependency" have if the private sector was in fact creating jobs? What "uncertainty" was there about the stimulus bill? It was passed pretty quickly and it's effects are pretty predictable. Instead of trotting out meaningless slogans why don't you give a "for instance." Describe to me the situation of a business owner who would have created a job if it hadn't been for that pesky stimulus. A job that meets your own criteria for a "real" job.

 

[Yoink]

What private resources did the stimulus bill "reallocate" from the private sector to the government sector? Given the high unemployment, what possible effect could "increased dependency" have if the private sector was in fact creating jobs? What "uncertainty" was there about the stimulus bill? It was passed pretty quickly and it's effects are pretty predictable. Instead of trotting out meaningless slogans why don't you give a "for instance." Describe to me the situation of a business owner who would have created a job if it hadn't been for that pesky stimulus. A job that meets your own criteria for a "real" job.

Oh, and while you're failing to answer this question, let's have a look at some of your data points that are supposed to prove the unfailing success of laissez-faire economics in curing recessions.

I point you to examples like the recessions and depressions that took place in 1837, 1893, 1921, 1815, 1873, 1958 and 1979. And what do you point me too?

Thus you. I'm not sure why you think your nineteenth century examples help your case. The 1815 depression lasted 6 years. That's longer than any C20th depression. Longer than any post-Keynesian depression. Are you suggesting that if there had been more government stimulus back then it would have lasted 12 years?

The 1837 recession lasted two years. So? There have been shorter depressions than that in the post-Keynesian world. How is this supposed to prove the inherent superiority of the free market? (Sorry Free Market!!).

The 1873 depression is also called the "Long Depression." It lasted, by the most generous measures, about five and a half years. The longest period of economic contraction recognized by National Board of Economic Research figures (they don't go back as far as the 1821 depression). Some economic historians suggest a much longer period, stretching from '73 to the early 90's. THIS is the great triumph of the Free Market? Are you really some closet socialist deliberately trying to undermine the position you pretend to espouse?

1893: "The Depression of 1893 was one of the worst in American history with the unemployment rate exceeding ten percent for half a decade....The National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that the economic contraction began in January 1893 and continued until June 1894. The economy then grew until December 1895, but it was then hit by a second recession that lasted until June 1897" Source.

Oh, man BeAChooser--stop it. You're really making that poor BeAChooser guy look like an utterly clueless jerk. Hey, I bet all those unemployed people were really relieved that the government didn't help to create jobs for them, eh? Much better to be unemployed for three years while you wait for the Invisible Hand to pull its thumb out of the Invisible Arse of the economy and wave the Magic Wand of Private Enterprise so as to make everything All Better, right?

Oh, well--maybe you'll have better luck in the C20th?

1921. Hey, you got one! Well, sort of. It's true that this extremely sharp economic downturn was quite brief (unlike your other examples) and the turnaround was accomplished without government stimulus. But how, exactly does that prove that government stimulus is "never" helpful, or wouldn't have been helpful then? Just because people throughout history have been known to recover from pneumonia without the help of antibiotics, that's not proof that antibiotics don't help with the process of recovery. Nor is the fact that people sometimes die from pneumonia despite taking antibiotics proof that the antibiotics are harmful.

And one more thing. If the Free Market is always right and all the government needs to do is to step out of the way, why was there a slump in 1920-21 in the first place?

1958 is really your best example (and one that lots of people of your political ilk like to point to as the example of what we should have done in this recession). But again there is the problem that the mere fact of the existence of short recessions is not proof that there are not longer recessions that need a different response (and you have, as it happens, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the market in laissez-faire conditions is capable of prolonged and very damaging recessions). The parallels between the 58 recession and the '09 one are very weak (nothing like the job loss, utterly dissimilar causes, no risk of a breakdown of the financial system etc. etc.). And, furthermore, there was a stimulative response by the government:

Fiscal policy was eased somewhat through higher government spending, but tax reductions were rejected on the basis that they would lead to unacceptably large budget deficits. The budget balance moved from a budget surplus of 0.8% of GDP in 1957 to a budget deficit of 0.6% of GDP in 1958 and 2.6% of GDP in 1959. Source.

Now, admittedly, that is a much smaller response than the Stimulus Bill--but it was also a much less dramatic set of conditions. Nobody thought the country remotely likely to tip into a second Great Depression. Oh, and notice that they didn't engage in your favorite economic stimulus (well, favorite unless Democrats do it), tax cuts? The top rate at that time was something like 95%, I believe. Ah yes, the glory days indeed.

1979. There was no recession in 1979. I can only suppose you call the double dip recession of the early 80s the "1979" recession because you can't bear to acknowledge that St. Ronald presided over most of that particular fiasco. The mess St. Ronny made of things during his first term in office is one of the great Inconvenient Truths of the conservative gospel, isn't it? Tell most conservatives that Carter presided over a far greater drop in unemployment from his inauguration to the 1980 election than Reagan did in his first term and their little heads tend to explode. It goes so utterly counter to the myth. At this point, actual history is a lost cause; the myth has won.

So...what do we have, BeAChooser? We have an appalling history of economic suffering in the C19th in pretty much your ideal laissez-faire conditions. We have a couple of short, sharp recessions in the 20th century, neither of which are at all comparable in their underlying causes and scope to the current recession, and one of which which was, in fact, met with an increase in Government spending and a staunch refusal to cut tax rates so high that anyone who suggested them today would be torn to pieces by an enraged mob of tea-partiers.

How is any of that supposed to be proof in the perfect wisdom of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market?

 

[BeAChooser]

What private resources did the stimulus bill "reallocate" from the private sector to the government sector?

Good grief, Yoink. This conversation is getting more and more ridiculous.

Since (as I've shown) 90% of the jobs that have been saved or created by the stimulus bill have been government sector jobs (despite the promise by Obama that 90% would be private sector jobs), and since the bulk of the revenue to fund those jobs comes from the private sector, isn't it utterly obvious that there has been a massive reallocation of resources from the private to the public sector? Or do you think money just grows on trees?

 

[drkitten]

Good grief, Yoink. This conversation is getting more and more ridiculous.

It is indeed. Every time you make a false or irrelevant assertion, it gets more ridiculous.

Which is why everyone is ridiculing you.

They're not laughing with you, they're laughing at you....

 

[Yoink]

Good grief, Yoink. This conversation is getting more and more ridiculous.

Since (as I've shown) 90% of the jobs that have been saved or created by the stimulus bill have been government sector jobs (despite the promise by Obama that 90% would be private sector jobs), and since the bulk of the revenue to fund those jobs comes from the private sector, isn't it utterly obvious that there has been a massive reallocation of resources from the private to the public sector? Or do you think money just grows on trees?

My God. That is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read.

I'm trying to imagine how you think Government spending is achieved. Do you think that when the Government sends, say, $1 million to fund some road somewhere in Iowa that they send out raiding parties to steal that money from "the private sector" before bundling it up in a big canvas sack and sending it off? Seriously?

You can't possibly be THIS stupid, BeAChooser (although I'm leaning further and further towards the idea that you're a lefty deliberately setting out to parody the right's talking points).

ETA: btw, your complete inability to come up with even one plausible scenario under which the stimulus bill would have caused someone to choose not to invest more money in their business or not to risk starting up a new one is duly noted.

 

[BeAChooser]

The 1815 depression lasted 6 years. That's longer than any C20th depression.

LOL! Really? And how long do you think the Great Depression lasted, oh wise one? I'll give you a clue … it was more than 6 years. It began in 1929. And lasted through most of the 30s. In fact, many economists and historians say it didn't end until 1941.

The 1837 recession lasted two years. So? There have been shorter depressions than that in the post-Keynesian world.

Really? Which ones? Let's see, Keynes was born in 1883 and his great work, Treatise on Money, was published in the early 1930s. So I guess we'd have to conclude that the "post-Keynesian world" started in the early 1930s. And how many depressions have there been since the early 1930s? And which ones lasted less than 2 years?

The answer is ONE to the first question. And none to the second.

All I can say is that the content of your posts is getting bizarre.

The 1873 depression is also called the "Long Depression." It lasted, by the most generous measures, about five and a half years.

Yes, 5 years sounds about right.

1893: "The Depression of 1893 was one of the worst in American history with the unemployment rate exceeding ten percent for half a decade....The National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that the economic contraction began in January 1893 and continued until June 1894. The economy then grew until December 1895, but it was then hit by a second recession that lasted until June 1897"

And your point? Mine was that the 1893 depression (which apparently even your source acknowledges was one of the worst in US history) was over just as fast as the Great Depression or Obama's Recession (will be), all without any government interference in the way of massive stimulus, etc. In fact, like I noted earlier, Grover Cleveland cut taxes and spending.

1921. Hey, you got one!

Actually, I've gotten more than one but you didn't realize it.

If the Free Market is always right and all the government needs to do is to step out of the way, why was there a slump in 1920-21 in the first place?

Oh please. Surely you don't think that in your glorious government controlled economy, recessions and depressions will be a thing of the past? Don't you understand that they have a purpose that government is no substitute for?

1958 is really your best example

Well, thanks. But you are wrong again. It's a good example, but not by any stretch of the imagination, the best. Which is why I only mentioned it as an aside.

1979. There was no recession in 1979.

Yeah, technically the recession began in January 1980 (according to the NBER) and yes, those doldrums sort of continued through 1982. So sue me for lumping the two recessions together. My point stands, however. Reagan cut taxes, cut regulations and certainly tried to cut spending, and the economy took off. He most certainly didn't try the sort of stimulus that Obama and company are having such *great* (wink, wink) success with now.

The mess St. Ronny made of things during his first term in office

Mess Ronny made? Compared to Carter?

Tell most conservatives that Carter presided over a far greater drop in unemployment from his inauguration to the 1980 election than Reagan did in his first term and their little heads tend to explode.

LOL!

Actually, the unemployment rate when Carter took office was 7.2%. True, at the middle of his term it was down to 5.8%. But it went back up to 7.8% and finally ended at 7.2%. In fact, during the last 10 months of Carter's term, the unemployment rate only dropped as low as 7.2% once.

And while unemployment climbed during the first 2 years of Reagan's term (we were, afterall, in a recession), it fell thereafter, ending below Carter's 5.8%.

Perhaps a better way to compare the success of these 2 Presidents is to look at what the Misery Index (the combination of unemployment rate and inflation rate) did during their terms (http://theconservativepost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/misery20index.jpg ). Carter's "misery index" started at about 12.7 and ended at about 19.7. "Ronny"'s Misery Index started at … well you guessed it … 19.7 and ended at 9.7. Oh yeah … the "mess Ronny made".

So...what do we have, BeAChooser?

I think I'll let our readers decide, based on the above.

 

[BeAChooser]

Do you think that when the Government sends, say, $1 million to fund some road somewhere in Iowa that they send out raiding parties to steal that money from "the private sector" before bundling it up in a big canvas sack and sending it off?

Ever hear of the IRS, Yoink? If you don't pay what they demand, they put you in jail.

 

[Yoink]

Where to begin with this latest truckload of stupid?

LOL! Really? And how long do you think the Great Depression lasted, oh wise one? I'll give you a clue … it was more than 6 years. It began in 1929. And lasted through most of the 30s. In fact, many economists and historians say it didn't end until 1941.

The Great Depression lasted from 29-33. The economy started growing in 33 and grew until 37. We sometimes loosely lump the recession of 1937 (caused by FDR pulling back prematurely on the stimulative spending he had pumped into the economy) with the "Great Depression"--but by any proper technical measure of recessions/depressions that is incorrect.

Really? Which ones? Let's see, Keynes was born in 1883 and his great work, Treatise on Money, was published in the early 1930s. So I guess we'd have to conclude that the "post-Keynesian world" started in the early 1930s. And how many depressions have there been since the early 1930s? And which ones lasted less than 2 years?

The answer is ONE to the first question. And none to the second.

Sorry, I mispoke. I meant to say "shorter recessions"--given that you were describing a recessionin the C19th that is the obvious point of comparison. Still, if you want to dance a victory dance because I made a minor word substitution, be my guest. You need to celebrate those rare, rare victories when you can.

And your point? Mine was that the 1893 depression (which apparently even your source acknowledges was one of the worst in US history) was over just as fast as the Great Depression or Obama's Recession (will be), all without any government interference in the way of massive stimulus, etc. In fact, like I noted earlier, Grover Cleveland cut taxes and spending.

So? Once again, some people recover from pneumonia without antibiotics; does that prove that antibiotics are pointless? Not all recessions are the same. And the question of the duration of the "current" recession is open. There was economic growth in the last quarter of 2009. If we have economic growth in this quarter as well then the recession is already over.

Actually, I've gotten more than one but you didn't realize it.

No, no you didn't, BeAChooser--but do feel free to take this handsome "Participant Trophy."

Oh please. Surely you don't think that in your glorious government controlled economy, recessions and depressions will be a thing of the past? Don't you understand that they have a purpose that government is no substitute for?

Recessions were more frequent and more severe in the laissez-faire heyday of the C19th than they have been in the post-Keynesian era. I don't say they can ever be completely avoided, but wittering on about the glory of the Free Market is simply self-confirming masturbation. For you the definition of a "good" recession is that it occurred under Free Market conditions. If it lasts six years without Government stimulus then it is "good" and "proper" that it lasted six years. If the Government intervenes and it lasts three years then it is a terrible catastrophe that the government intervened and if only it hadn't everything would have been fixed much sooner!

Yeah, technically the recession began in January 1980 (according to the NBER) and yes, those doldrums sort of continued through 1982. So sue me for lumping the two recessions together.

My point is you lumped them together and then placed them in a year in which neither of them occurred.

My point stands, however. Reagan cut taxes, cut regulations and certainly tried to cut spending, and the economy took off.

No, it didn't, it faltered badly. Unemployment rose higher than it has in this most recent recession.

He most certainly didn't try the sort of stimulus that Obama and company are having such *great* (wink, wink) success with now.

Try mapping any major economic indicator from Obama's first year in office over the same indicator from Reagan's first year (looking, obviously at the trend rather than at absolute numbers). Oopsy.

I mean, you are aware that almost all key economic indicators have improved markedly during most of Obama's term, right? Sure, they started from a pretty crappy base, but they're nearly all trending upwards fairly sharply.

Mess Ronny made? Compared to Carter?

Yep. Go look at the actual figures, rather than jerking off to the romanticized myth.

Actually, the unemployment rate when Carter took office was 7.2%. True, at the middle of his term it was down to 5.8%. But it went back up to 7.8% and finally ended at 7.2%. In fact, during the last 10 months of Carter's term, the unemployment rate only dropped as low as 7.2% once.

And while unemployment climbed during the first 2 years of Reagan's term (we were, afterall, in a recession), it fell thereafter, ending below Carter's 5.8%.

Oh God! I laughed outloud at that "we were, after all, in a recession"! That's just so deliciously blind! Obama has the unemployment rate falling already--not after TWO YEARS in office. But somehow the increase in unemployment during his first months in office is all his fault and nothing whatsoever to do with what came before. Reagan comes into office and the unemployment rate spikes (the change accelerates dramatically upward after his inauguration), and yet somehow that's all still Carter's fault. You're just precious.

Carter came into office with unemployment at 7.8. He left with it at 7.5. He has presided over a drop down to 5.7. That the Iranian Revolution caused some slight disruption in the last months of his term was hardly unique to the United States at that time. In the month after Reagan's inauguration unemployment had dropped to 7.2 (not even you will claim that that was Reagan's doing, right)? At the end of Reagan's first term it was 7.2. Meantime he'd presided over an increase up to 10.8--higher than anything seen under Obama.

Oopsy again.

What's really amusing, of course, is to consider the massive increase in the public debt during this time. Reagan increased government spending considerably more than Carter did. Your entire argument against the stimulus package is that government spending somehow (you can't explain how) "robs" the private sector of its capacity to innovate. Well, if that's the case, then surely Reagan's enormous increase in government spending should have destroyed the economy, no?

Ever hear of the IRS, Yoink? If you don't pay what they demand, they put you in jail.

Sigh. Once again: taxes were massively cut by the stimulus bill. C-u-t.

If the argument you're trying to make here is that businesses are refusing to innovate and choosing not to expand because they fear future tax hikes which may be required in order to pay off the debt in the future, then that's even nuttier than your apparent delusion that the stimulus money comes directly out of people's taxes right now. Unless, of course, you'd like to try to make the (hilariously laughable) claim that deficit spending can be historically shown to depress economic activity at the time that the money is being spent.

 

[BeAChooser]

The Great Depression lasted from 29-33.

Well, gee, then FDR should have held a celebration in 1933 and stopped interfering in the economy. But he didn't, did he.

On the contrary, in 1934 alone he passed Gold Reserve Act, created the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation, created the Export-Import Bank, passed the Crop Loan Act, passed the Civil Works Emergency Relief Act, passed the Farm Relief Act, established the Securities Exchange Commission, created the Commodity Credit Corporation, passed the Federal Farm Bankruptcy Act, created the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation, passed the Cotton Control Act.

Then in 1935 he passed the Emergency Appropriations Relief Act which created the Works Progress Administration, created the National Youth Administration, passed the Social Security Act, passed the Banking Act, passed the Public Utility Holding Company Act, passed the Revenue Act (Wealth Tax), passed the Federal Power Act, Passed the Motor Carrier Act. All when you claim "the depression was over".

Never mind the fact that in January of 1937, before the start of your *second depression* (which *officially* is May 1937), FDR said "I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished."

Sure, you can "officially" claim that there were 2 separate and, I suppose, unrelated depressions in the 30s. But not many are going to believe you, Yoink. It's splitting hairs. Which is why I can point to source after source after source, many of them highly liberal (like NPR, for instance), which state the Great Depression started in 29' and ended a good ten years later, if not more.

Just because the NBER website says it ended in 33', doesn't make that reality. I've already shown that the NBER displays a political bias. I don't think they're above doing whatever it takes to make it look like FDR's policies worked. Afterall, they still claim the 2000 recession began in Bush's term when it clearly did not … even after the President of the NBER admitted that the data they based their original claim on was wrong. Even after he stated "It is clear that the revised data have made our original March date for the start of the recession much too late." Their bias is obvious (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/nbers_anomalous_recession_call.html, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3691, http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/08/business-cycle-dating.html, http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/08/dating_business.html, http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/conda200403050902.asp, http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.c...sts-on-the-candidates-economic-plans/?apage=3). But you go ahead and rely on their claim that were 2 separate and, I suppose, unrelated depressions in the 30s.

Even if you believe that, did you ever stop to wonder why we experienced a double dip depression in the 1930s, but not in any earlier depression? What made it different than all those other very serious depressions … the ones that actually did end in 5 to 6 years (or less) … that I pointed out to you? Gee … perhaps the New Deal? Perhaps the fact that in the other depressions government primarily stayed out of the solution, instead of engaging in massive government interference? Hmmmmmm?

And isn't it curious that economists are worrying about a double dip in the current recession. What makes this one different than so many others before it … which didn't double dip? Could it be the difference between keeping government mostly out of the solution versus one of massive government intrusion?

And what is the definition of a depression anyway … besides being a "sustained economic downturn"? Many sources define it as a GDP down by 10%. Well if that's the case, then if the GDP in 1929 right before the crash was 100%, then the GDP in 1933 (when you claim the depression was over) was about 71%. And GDP didn't return to 90% of the 1929 figure until mid 1936. So by that definition, it seems to me the first depression lasted almost 7 years. And if you look at it in terms of Per Capita GDP, the picture is even worse. Per Capita GDP didn't recover to it's former level until 1940 making the depression 10 years long. And if you look at the trend line of Per Capita GDP over time (http://www.bmacewen.com/blog/images/GDPGrowthUS18702004.jpg ), you can see that the economy didn't recover from the Great Depression until mid 1945 when it finally reached the point it probably would have been at had there been no depression.

But you go on believing that the depression was only 4 years long.

Of course, your 1933 view of things also ignores unemployment. Odd, considering that in FDR's First Inaugural Address in March of 1933, he stated (just like Obama has stated) that "our greatest primary task is to put people to work." Even during that period when you claim the depression was over, unemployment only dropped below 15% for a couple of months. And then it went right back up. Roosevelt's own Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, 8 years after the start of the New Deal, wrote the following: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started .... and an enormous debt to boot!". Obviously, he didn't think the Great Depression was over. The Brookings Institute (a left-leaning organization even back then) published a 900 page report on the impact of the New Deal's National Recovery Administration and concluded that "on the whole it retarded recovery." Government stimulus doesn't work.

Tell me, Yoink, do you think the current recession is over like some of Obama administration officials now claim? Or do you see the signs that I and so many others see? Even Obama administration officials are beginning to admit that unemployment is probably headed back up. The moment the stimulus money and census money are gone it is probably headed back up … especially if at the same time Obama and the democrats put even more shackles and disincentives on the Free Market. Then what would that be? A double dip recession? What would make this one different than so many others in the past that had no double dip? Government interference? Massive stimulus spending?

Did you ever look at the reasons for the economy starting to recover when FDR took over and then failing again in 1937? Did you ever stop to consider that the timing of the unemployment rate dropping from 25% to 14% (with GDP climbing) and then going back up to 19% (with GDP falling) might have had more to do with the Supreme Court striking down key elements of the New Deal legislation in July 1935 and January 1936 (in particular, the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which established the Public Works Administration (PWA) and the National Recovery Administration, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and 11 of the 16 Alphabet Laws, which created various New Deal agencies). When that happened, the economy and stock market started improving. But FDR couldn't leave well enough alone. During 1936 and early 1937, he began packing the court with his own people, leading to reversals of the earlier Supreme Court decisions in the spring of 1937. And look what happened immediately after that? The Dow collapsed and the unemployment rate shot back up to 19%. And it was still over 17% in 1939, despite FDR increasing spending yet again and putting in place even more government regulations.

But you go on *believing*. That's what a Truther would do.

Originally Posted by Yoink
The 1837 recession lasted two years. So? There have been shorter depressions than that in the post-Keynesian world.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Really? Which ones? Let's see, Keynes was born in 1883 and his great work, Treatise on Money, was published in the early 1930s. So I guess we'd have to conclude that the "post-Keynesian world" started in the early 1930s. And how many depressions have there been since the early 1930s? And which ones lasted less than 2 years? The answer is ONE to the first question. And none to the second.

Sorry, I mispoke. I meant to say "shorter recessions"--given that you were describing a recessionin the C19th that is the obvious point of comparison.

LOL! I would not call the economic downturn that began in 1837 a "recession". It was the start of depression. In fact, do a search on hits for "1837 Depression" and then do one on "1837 Recession". The first will get you 1,600,000 hits. The second gets you 118,000 hits. So not only did you originally misspeak, you haven't even got your spin to explain that mistake correct.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And your point? Mine was that the 1893 depression (which apparently even your source acknowledges was one of the worst in US history) was over just as fast as the Great Depression or Obama's Recession (will be), all without any government interference in the way of massive stimulus, etc. In fact, like I noted earlier, Grover Cleveland cut taxes and spending.

So? Once again, some people recover from pneumonia without antibiotics; does that prove that antibiotics are pointless? Not all recessions are the same. And the question of the duration of the "current" recession is open. There was economic growth in the last quarter of 2009. If we have economic growth in this quarter as well then the recession is already over.

Keep spinning.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/75401-us-chamber-warns-of-double-dip-recession "U.S. Chamber warns of 'double-dip' recession because of Dem policies … 1/12/10"


http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100225-720860.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines "February 25, 2010 … JPMorgan's Dimon: Still Chance Of Double-Dip Recession"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/35582646 "Double-Dip, Rate Spike 'Danger' Looms: Ex-Fed Governor"


http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/23/the-great-recession-of-2011-20 "The Great Recession of 2011-2012"

Besides, if the recession is already over, why do we need additional stimulus spending? Why do we need to double the National Debt over the next 10 years above what it already is? Have you no faith at all in the Free Market, Yoink?

Recessions were more frequent and more severe in the laissez-faire heyday of the C19th than they have been in the post-Keynesian era.

LOL! So you think Keynesian economics is responsible of the less frequent and less severe recessions post Keynes? Read this:

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/10/29/its-best-keynes-remain-forgott

And you really should read this:

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YzVhZmI5MDAxMDEyZGIzMWVlZTUzZWU1ZDY2ZjExNTQ=

Here's an excerpt:

a 1999 study by Christina Romer showed that the average length of recessions from 1887 to 1929 was 10.3 months — without any Keynesian spending schemes — while the average recession from 1948 to 2000 lasted 10.7 months.

I especially like this statement from that source:

If Keynesian theorists refuse to accept any evidence as contradicting their theory, they are practicing a secular theology, not science.

wittering on about the glory of the Free Market is simply self-confirming masturbation.

If you try to drag this thread down with gutter language, I'll complain. Let's keep it clean, even if we disagree.

My point is you lumped them together and then placed them in a year in which neither of them occurred.

Like I said, sue me. Maybe the NBER just got it wrong AGAIN.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
My point stands, however. Reagan cut taxes, cut regulations and certainly tried to cut spending, and the economy took off.

No, it didn't, it faltered badly. Unemployment rose higher than it has in this most recent recession.

LOL! Like I said, I'll stand by the misery index comparison between Reagan and Carter … as to who was the best.

Try mapping any major economic indicator from Obama's first year in office over the same indicator from Reagan's first year

LOL! I tried that. I used those indicators to show that Obama was lying when he claimed this was the worst recession since the Great Depression. Because at the time he said that, all the major indicators were in much better shape then they were during the 81-82 recession. Of course, none of you and your ilk listened.

And when we get to the end of Obama's first term in office, what will we find? Want to wager on whose economy … Reagan's or Obama's … wins in terms of performance and strength?

At the end of Reagan's first term, he was able to say "American is back and standing tall". And he was right. His economy was consistently seeing GDP growth rates of 7%, 8% and 9% each quarter. What is the Whitehouse predicting after the last quarter of 5% growth? 2%. And that's assuming no double dip.

Unemployment during the 3rd and 4th years of Reagan's first term fell dramatically. It was back to what it was before the recession began by re-election time. So what will Obama be able to say come 2012? Even his advisers are now admitting that high unemployment (8% or more) is likely to persist. And they are probably looking through rose colored glasses.

I mean, you are aware that almost all key economic indicators have improved markedly during most of Obama's term, right?

Such as the ones you apparently are wearing.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Mess Ronny made? Compared to Carter?

Yep. Go look at the actual figures, rather than jerking off to the romanticized myth.

Like I said. Keep it clean. Sexual references are against the forum rules.

And, as I think my last comments prove, you are the one who is holding on to a delusional romanticized myth. And people evidently agree with me.

Reagan consistently ranks near the top in comparisons of Presidents. Carter consistently ranks near the bottom. For example: http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx . Reagan is 10th. Carter is 25th. Here's another: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=869 In it, 25% view Reagan as the best since WWII while only 3% view Carter as the best. Conversely, 13% saw Carter as the worst, compared to 3% for Reagan.

Obama has the unemployment rate falling already--not after TWO YEARS in office.

Does he? See my links above. And have people just given up looking for work? What is the REAL unemployment rate now. Some are saying it's over 20%. And how many of the still employed are now dependent on government funding? Obama promised that 90% of saved or created jobs would go to the private sector. But 90% have been government jobs instead. What happens when the stimulus funding ends, Yoink? Can you think that far into the future? Seems that states like California are finding out, right now. And by the way, I hear that a million people will soon be working for the census. Sure, that's going to make Obama's unemployment numbers look good. But how long will those jobs last?

You're just precious.

So are you.

At the end of Reagan's first term it was 7.2.

Yeah. Where it started. Just like Carter. And where's it going to be at the end of Obama's first term? Dare you look that far into the future?

What's really amusing, of course, is to consider the massive increase in the public debt during this time. Reagan increased government spending considerably more than Carter did. Your entire argument against the stimulus package is that government spending somehow (you can't explain how) "robs" the private sector of its capacity to innovate.

You've got it all wrong. My argument against stimulus spending also has to do with the TYPE of stimulus. Reagan's stimulus helped the private sector. All Obama's is doing is helping to create more government employees and more dependency on the government. The fact that you can't understand that is also the reason you don't understand the reasons I gave for why government spending reallocates resources from sectors of the economy that actually produce wealth and jobs to sectors that do not.

Once again: taxes were massively cut by the stimulus bill.

You really believe that? I hate to tell you, but you are in the minority. A recent poll found that only 12 percent of the public believe Obama has cut their taxes. And that's with Obama loving leftists controlling the mainstream media! What Obama has done is SHIFT the tax burden. He shifted some of it to people leftists really hate and shifted it to future generations who have no voice. You can't possibly think that taxes have gone down when all Obama has done is massively increased the size of government and increase the amount of government dependency in jobs that don't significantly enhance the nation's economic strength. Your belief is delusional and defies all common sense. And the American public are clearly not fooled.