The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[Chucky]

I'm curious. Will all the stimulus money be spent 18 months after the bill was signed? Are they still promising that now?

And here's something else the Obama administration promised back in early 2009 when they sold this slush fund to the people:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press...k-obama-address-to-joint-session-of-congress/

No, that is what was stated then from the start. You are dodging my initial point. That we still have 6 months to go before those who claimed the clock on stimulus results be started to how it all shakes out. Which would probably take a year before all results are in. It’s about half way done.

Since the money is spent by the states evidently a lot of governors and other officials decided otherwise regarding Obama’s promise. But still, a job’s a job. Unless the idea of government gaining a job or two makes one retch their guts, its helping people gain employment and most people see that as a plus. Some of us think that governments that are too lean run poorly. One will never have an efficient government that’s not funded and manned sufficiently. There is an argument to be made that agencies like FEMA may have been much more efficient had they been better funded, continued being an independent agency and such. Too small government becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy when one complains that they suffer from`` inefficient government.

Furthermore, the stimulus governors in states who now complain that “Yeah we have jobs but dag-nab it, they’re not turning into private jobs” are ultimately in charge of how the dollars are spent. LOL. A point that has become recognized in the media over the last few days.

Let's see how that turned out. Where have most of the new/saved jobs actually been?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31stimulus.html

Oh my god. No. Not jobs in education. Say it isn’t so. </snark>

Its next beneficiary is the dept. of Transportation, Health care follows that as far as agencies report. Much of the money is being spent on training as well. Those potential jobs will not translate yet either, for a while. Again, it will take time for the stimulus to shake out. Again, Obama is not in control of how these funds are spent.

Oh yeah. I started with a point about how some of the money will be administrative jobs to create the other jobs. Who does the administration when the money comes from the feds? That's right. State government agencies. And they have billions of new dollars to spend so... maybe they need a few more clerks and accountants and what not to handle the load.

Before you issued your complaints about it, I'd already stated that I expected government jobs to be sustained or created. I’m not shocked by this. Really.

In other words, most of the jobs created have been in government, rather than 90% of them being in the private sector as promised.

Furthermore, do you know that http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/dirty-stimulus-jobs-data-exaggerates-stimulus-impact/ :

Again a summary of what the CBO released :
1. The stimulus created up to 2.1 million jobs in the last three months of 2009.
2. It boosted the economy by up to 3.5 percent.
3. It lowered the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent during that period.
4. In 2010, the package expected to boost GDP by between 1.4 percent and 4 percent.
5. In 2010 the package expected to bring down the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percent and 1.8.

Yes, you've already been over this with others and it probably doesn't need a re-hash. I'm of the opinion that any jobs in an extraordinarily fierce recession is a good thing. YMMV. But let’s not forget. Again it’s too early to see how it goes. We're at half-time so to speak. But you’ve got a nice yardstick there to measure against the stimulus over the next year and ½.

These are all government jobs. We were lied to by Obama.

http://www.nowhampshire.com/2009/10...ted-221-private-sector-jobs-in-new-hampshire/

Then on the other hand, you have Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Christ. States can choose how they will invest the money. Can it be, not every state has the most capable people at the helm to spend the money? I haven’t looked to see if that is being said about New Hampshire but outta 50 states some of them won’t do as well as others. Some are using it more effectively.

Again, the states seemed (so far) to have different ideas than Obama. How did Obama lie about this when he only provides the money for a range of purposes but has no say in how it is spent by the states? They decide on private or government jobs.

We were lied to because Obama and his staff had to have known how the money was going to actually be spent at the time he made that promise that 90% of the new and saved jobs would be in the private sector.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9090878
We were lied to, Chucky.

Sigh. Again, the feds provided the money, the states decided how to spend it.

This one shows that out of $5.2 billion for Michigan only $1.2 has arrived. Not good. Yet they should get that full funding and then lets see what they can do. They have created 22,500 jobs on about 1/5 of the total amount they should receive.

I’ve been lied to by Presidents before. I think I kind of expect it. As always I will see how many there are, and how big as we near the end of this term. At least this one is trying to get paygo back into play as opposed the the financially responsible conservative administration which came before him.

Lied to by Obama when he sold his porkulus package designed to fund his union friends and rob from everyone else. And you folks still haven't woken up to that plain and simple fact.

LOL! By all means, show us your backup sources to prove that claim.

I don’t know. Let’s look. Here. Search for (I can’t post URLs yet) governmentjobadvice.com

Here’s a government agency that runs the Recovery act job hunt. Search for.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Jobs

I bet people work there. Probably have for years. Oh, wait a minute. The recovery act didn’t exist years ago. New jobs.

Oops! I came across what appears to be a private sector .com trying to get people in to private jobs through government contractors: governmentsupportjobs.com

SO, to recap:

1. My main point is that the stimulus program is not over and by the claims of the people who put it into place it still has about a year and a half before its effects recede. Perhaps you don’t have a direct response you can make to that – I didn’t see one in your post – but none the less this is a reminder to people that the Democrats initial guideline says it is too early to judge as it will continue to provide stimulus for perhaps another 18 months.

2. We have had jobs saved or started. Not as many as some would like but not that far off the mark at the half-way point. And this red herring about them being government jobs must be some kind of sour grapes. A job is a job, and since governments create the business environment that exists within a nation these could be expected to create more jobs. Especially as much of the money is being spent on education and training. Which, guess what, not only creates jobs but hopefully better jobs and a more experienced private work force.

 

[BeAChooser]

Again a summary of what the CBO released :
1. The stimulus created up to 2.1 million jobs in the last three months of 2009.

You are misrepresenting the CBO. The CBO in actuality stated that between 1 million and 2.1 million jobs were added over what there would have been without the law (so that would include jobs saved as opposed to only jobs created, and that's an important distinction).

Of course, I can't really blame you. All you did was repeat what the leftwing media reported. But here's the CBO's report, direct from the CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11044/02-23-ARRA.pdf

2. It boosted the economy by up to 3.5 percent.

Or as little as 1.5%.

3. It lowered the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent during that period.

Actually the report indicates an unemployment rate decrease of between 0.5% and 1.1% during the period.

4. In 2010, the package expected to boost GDP by between 1.4 percent and 4 percent.

And how rose colored are your glasses. Most observers are expecting a TOTAL GDP growth rate in 2010 of around 2 percent … which isn't very spectacular as far as growth rates following major recessions go. Even the ones where there wasn't a stimulus.

5. In 2010 the package expected to bring down the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percent and 1.8.

Maybe, maybe not.

Did you notice the CBO stated in their report that the

CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about the effects of previous similar policies on the economy and using various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy.

But then later the CBO seems to admit that they don't really have the means to know what "path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law." Which is a question I've asked before. Has the CBO taken their models and run past historical examples with the known parameters to see if their models actually do produce the same result as what actually occurred in those cases? Or are there so many knobs and buttons they can't do that? In other words, have they validated their models? No one seems able to give me an answer to this question. Sure, CBO's wags may be the best we have, but how good are they … really? And keep reminding yourself that the CBO uses numbers supplied by the administration. But are those numbers accurate or are they shaded by what they want to hear from the CBO?

Then on the other hand, you have Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Christ.

You think I'm going to defend Arnold or Charlie, just because they claim to be conservatives? But don't misrepresent them either. What Charlie Crist said is that republicans who say the stimulus created NO jobs are wrong. And I'm not claiming that. The truth is even some republicans are political animals who when facing tight budgets and lots of people with hands out will violate certain principles we thought they held. If the Feds are giving out free money, they will accept the money. It's still not the right thing to do and they deserve some heat for it … especially when they turn around and justify it by claiming that not accepting the money would have been "disrespectful of the Presidency".

How did Obama lie about this when he only provides the money for a range of purposes but has no say in how it is spent by the states?

Don't be so naive. He deliberately sold the program by claiming outright that 90% of the jobs would be in the private sector. Being as intelligent as he is, with so many smart advisors at his beck and call, he had to have known that was going to be untrue. Either that, or Obama and his advisors are absolutely clueless. Now there is reason to suspect that. One is that previously Obama and his staff have demonstrated that they can't even read a CBO report and understand what it said. And perhaps they are clueless … because so few of his advisors have anything but public sector experience (compared to past President's staffs).

Again, the feds provided the money, the states decided how to spend it.

Then Obama shouldn't have promised that 90% of the jobs would be in the private sector (a promise that was taken up by other democrats, by the way). If you're not willing to call that a lie, what do you call it (remembering that Obama is supposed to be such a very smart and erudite person)?

I’ve been lied to by Presidents before. I think I kind of expect it.

Many of the people who voted for Obama made the claim that "Bush lied, people died" as the reason we needed a democrat in the Oval Office. There is no denying that being against lies … desiring a change … was a big motivation in voting for Obama. Funny how once it became clear he's as big a liar, if not worse, than most past Presidents, the chant suddenly became "all Presidents lie, I kind of expected it".

Originally Posted by Chucky
Also, my understanding is that part of the large cost per worker is that workers already in place are being paid for the task of creating the new jobs.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
LOL! By all means, show us your backup sources to prove that claim.

I don’t know. Let’s look.

I think I'll just wait until you actually can post.

 

[Dymanic]

But then later the CBO seems to admit that they don't really have the means to know what "path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law." Which is a question I've asked before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem

...5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.

...7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.

Some of us need to hear the answers to our questions a few times before they sink in. Especially if we don't like the answers.

 

[Chucky]

I see you still haven’t put any of your comments into perspective that the stimulus isn’t over. Considering what's happened so far, I think your take on a supposed stimulus fail is nothing more than a thread fail.

You are misrepresenting the CBO. The CBO in actuality stated that between 1 million and 2.1 million jobs were added over what there would have been without the law (so that would include jobs saved as opposed to only jobs created, and that's an important distinction).

Of course, I can't really blame you. All you did was repeat what the leftwing media reported.

Leftwing media? ROFL. As you say, according to the CBO without the law we could have lost jobs. It's not a good thing that those jobs weren't lost?

And how rose colored are your glasses. Most observers are expecting a TOTAL GDP growth rate in 2010 of around 2 percent … which isn't very spectacular as far as growth rates following major recessions go. Even the ones where there wasn't a stimulus.

Am I supposed to take it that you would only see a rosy situation if GDP declined?

But then later the CBO seems to admit that they don't really have the means to know what "path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law." Which is a question I've asked before. Has the CBO taken their models and run past historical examples with the known parameters to see if their models actually do produce the same result as what actually occurred in those cases? Or are there so many knobs and buttons they can't do that? In other words, have they validated their models? No one seems able to give me an answer to this question. Sure, CBO's wags may be the best we have, but how good are they … really? And keep reminding yourself that the CBO uses numbers supplied by the administration. But are those numbers accurate or are they shaded by what they want to hear from the CBO?

Why don't we wait and compare them to the GAO and OMB models and results? Whatever the administration between the three of them we seem to end up with a reasonably good picture. Do you have a history here of having asked the same questions when you see results that you like? It's sounding a bit like you are trying your best to put a negative spin on reasonably good early evaluations.

You think I'm going to defend Arnold or Charlie, just because they claim to be conservatives? But don't misrepresent them either. What Charlie Crist said is that republicans who say the stimulus created NO jobs are wrong. And I'm not claiming that. The truth is even some republicans are political animals who when facing tight budgets and lots of people with hands out will violate certain principles we thought they held. If the Feds are giving out free money, they will accept the money. It's still not the right thing to do and they deserve some heat for it … especially when they turn around and justify it by claiming that not accepting the money would have been "disrespectful of the Presidency".



Don't be so naive. He deliberately sold the program by claiming outright that 90% of the jobs would be in the private sector. Being as intelligent as he is, with so many smart advisors at his beck and call, he had to have known that was going to be untrue. Either that, or Obama and his advisors are absolutely clueless. Now there is reason to suspect that. One is that previously Obama and his staff have demonstrated that they can't even read a CBO report and understand what it said. And perhaps they are clueless … because so few of his advisors have anything but public sector experience (compared to past President's staffs).



Then Obama shouldn't have promised that 90% of the jobs would be in the private sector (a promise that was taken up by other democrats, by the way). If you're not willing to call that a lie, what do you call it (remembering that Obama is supposed to be such a very smart and erudite person)

Soooo… You’re saying that Obama should have known better, back at the start of his term, that conservative governors and legislators would have nothing to do with their frothing about ‘smaller government’ when it came down to it? That he shouldn’t have counted, at least on neocons, to put early money from the stimulus into private hands than into local government? Or, that if the Republicans stated a stimulus was useless that he should have expected hypocrisy would trump principal where they would not reject the money, as many of them said they would, and take it and not put it directly into the private sector?

Well, I guess we’re in agreement on that.

 

[BeAChooser]

I see you still haven’t put any of your comments into perspective that the stimulus isn’t over.

Well if isn't over, why have democrats come begging with another "jobs" bill?

And they better get busy if they are going to find enough jobs in the private sector to make 90% of the jobs come from the private sector like they promised voters would be the case.

Considering what's happened so far, I think your take on a supposed stimulus fail is nothing more than a thread fail.

And by the way, did you miss the promise that help would be "immediate" when they sold the stimulus? And that the bill would keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent?

As you say, according to the CBO without the law we could have lost jobs.

Would we? How can you be sure given that in recession after recession, where no stimulus was applied, the recession ended faster than now, and the recovery afterwords was more dramatic both in terms of job and GDP growth than now. History suggests that if we hadn't engaged in all this stimulus nonsense, we'd now have far fewer people unemployed and GDP growth rates well over the 2% we're now being *promised* (promises, promises ... will they manage to keep this one after breaking so many others?).

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And how rose colored are your glasses. Most observers are expecting a TOTAL GDP growth rate in 2010 of around 2 percent … which isn't very spectacular as far as growth rates following major recessions go. Even the ones where there wasn't a stimulus.

Am I supposed to take it that you would only see a rosy situation if GDP declined?

So you respond to a valid comment about how overly optimistic you may be about future GDP growth by attacking my "compassion"? If you don't want to actually discuss GDP predictions and the history of GDP growth after major recessions, just say so. No need to beat around the bush. No need to attack the messenger.

Why don't we wait and compare them to the GAO and OMB models and results?

Because then all you are doing is waiting for the damage to be done. Damage which may not be easy to undo. Because all you are doing is letting the damage be increased (rather than letting the free-market effectively deal with the problem). Because all you're doing is letting democrats get a whole new group of entitlements and dependencies established (hence the long term estimate that the programs Obama is now enacting will more double the national debt in ten years and mean trillion dollar deficits every single year 10 years from now). You know and I know that government social programs, once established, are next to impossible to dismantle. I can list trillion dollar program after trillion dollar program that liberals and misguided conservatives have established over the last 40 years which have been abject failures but which continue to this day. And this is just more of the same. So the time to stop it is now, before the rest of the money is wasted. Before the damage is increased. Before more entitlements are set in concrete.

It's sounding a bit like you are trying your best to put a negative spin on reasonably good early evaluations.

LOL! "good early evaluations"? What promise have they actually kept, Chucky? I can list dozens that they've broken.

You’re saying that Obama should have known better, back at the start of his term, that conservative governors and legislators would have nothing to do with their frothing about ‘smaller government’ when it came down to it?

LOL! Sooooooo … you're saying that Obama didn't know what the rest of us have known for some time about Arnold? And I thought Obama was sooooo smart.

 

[Yoink]

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

That's a reasonably short way of showing that you know you were wrong and think that making a snide joke is the best way to try to deflect attention from the fact that you were wrong. All I said was the depression of 1815-1821, at 6 years, was the longest in US history. It was. There was also, of course, a recession from 1822-23 and from 1825-26 and from 28-29. So if you just want to talk about "long periods of economic distress" the 1810s-20s is still longer than the Great Depression. You're just simply and demonstrably wrong, BeAChooser. I know it's a comfortingly familiar experience for you, so just embrace it. You could, of course, argue that economic records from the early C19th are just too patchy to build a precise argument from. In which case, though, the 15-21 depression just gets eclipsed by the 73-79 depression (known, unsurprisingly, as "The Long Depression"). That's the one the NBER (which doesn't go back as far as 1821) ranks as the longest continuous period of economic contraction in US history. Yes, BeAChooser, you're not just wrong; you're utterly and completely and hilariously wrong. As usual.

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.

And this proves that the economy wasn't growing, how exactly?

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".

Not when I claim it. When the NBER and all competent economic historians claim it. And just because the Depression was over doesn't mean that economic distress had ended. Hence the usefulness of FDR's programs.

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."

So "May 1937" isn't part of 1937? What's your point? If you acknowledge that it was "officially" 1937 you're acknowledging that you're "officially" wrong, aren't you?

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.

Who said anything about them being "unrelated"? As to who "believes" me, I really couldn't care less. What I care about is being demonstrably correct.

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.

And as your "officially" above proves, you know that they're using the term loosely for a period of extended economic distress and not technically for the actual durations of economic contraction.

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.

So first you claim that it would be ludicrous for FDR to enact his New Deal if the Depression had ended, and then you claim that NBER is trying to make FDR look good by claiming that the Depression ended in '33? You're not much troubled by contradiction, are you?

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.

Who says they were unrelated?

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 a bizarre, stupid and uninformed claim. Just look at the 1820s, for god's sake. Or the 1890s. Or the early 1910s. Or the early 1920s. The economy continually lurches out of one recession only to stumble into another.

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?

You got almost all your data wrong, remember?

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?

Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

And isn't it curious that economists are worrying about a double dip in the current recession.

Actually, they're mostly not. It's always possible, of course. There have been plenty of double-dip recessions in the past. With and without government stimulus. Perhaps you should try actually reading some economic history before you post next time.

What makes this one different than so many others before it … which didn't double dip?

Except they did. Over and over again.

Could it be the difference between keeping government mostly out of the solution versus one of massive government intrusion?

No, it really, really, really couldn't.

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.

Yes! And if I define it as "years with 8s in them" then 1928 was a depression! There is no widely agreed upon technical definition of a "depression." So I'm just going to stick with the NBER's rigorous data on periods of economic contraction and expansion, thank you.

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

Yes. I'll keep believing what is, in fact, demonstrated historical fact. Thank you. Of course, if we apply *your* definition, the 1810s-20s depression is still longer than the Great Depression. So I don't see that we gain anything.

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.

Wow. Can you get any more irrelevant to the actual argument at hand?

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.

Why would unemployment go up when the stimulus ends if the stimulus has, as you claimed above, no effect on employment?

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?

If the stimulus spending was what was keeping employment up and then stopping the spending caused it to continue downward, how does that suggest that without the spending it would have risen? Once again I ask you to explain why the magical powers of the Free Market and Private Enterprise and rendered incapable of action by government stimulus?

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.

I'm really not interested in hashing out the tired question of whether or not FDR's New Deal was effective with someone as profoundly ignorant of economic history as you, BeAChooser. That's not what brought me into this argument and I'm not going to be sidetracked. What brought me into this argument was that you were making utterly nonsensical claims about the short term consequences of the stimulus package. I've already said that there's a reasonable argument to be made that the long term costs aren't worth the short term gains.

LOL! I would not call the economic downturn that began in 1837 a "recession". It was the start of depression.

Except that you're wrong. There was a panic in 1837. There was an economic revival in 1838. There was a depression that followed (hey! "Double Dip"!!) from 1839-43. Another one longer than the Great 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.

So hits on Google decides arguments about economic history. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Keep spinning.

You're the one trying to build an argument from Google hits. Can it get more desperate than that?

661282]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?

I think the stimulus money helped shorten the recession. Just because it's finished doesn't mean we're fully recovered. The risk of a double dip is a reason to keep the stimulus money flowing.

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:


I especially like this statement from that source:

I never argued that Keynesian economics "is responsible of [sic] the less frequent and less severe recessions post Keynes." You claimed that state intervention invariably made recessions worse. I simply pointed out that your historical evidence failed to support your case. Whether Keynesian policies are ultimately worthwhile is another, and more complex, question. What is simply indisputable, however, is that there is no clear cut historical evidence that stimulative policies on the part of the government have produced, historically, longer or more severe recessions than occurred under more laissez-faire regimes.

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

"Masturbation" is "gutter language"?

You hang out in some odd gutters.

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

Yes. Random internet nutjobs are so much more reliable than the NBER.

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.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the claim that this latest recession was an unusually severe and dangerous one was something that originated with Obama?

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?

Who knows? Predicting economic performance is a mug's game. One thing I do know, though, is that if the economy is doing well at the end of Obama's term you'll be in here saying that it was the "Bush recovery" finally getting under way, and that it only happened dispite Obama's policies and not because of them.

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.

Why not compare Obama at this stage of his presidency to Reagan at the same stage? Want to know whose growth figures were better?

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.

So if high unemployment is likely to persist, that's an argument for less job-related stimulus. Huh? Or are you about to unveil your brilliant example of a private enterprise choosing not to create jobs because the government is doing so. I'm sure you'll get right on that, won't you?

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?

And what is your point? Are you trying to make some argument that California's lost jobs are a result of the stimulus? California's job losses are mostly from the collapse of the building industry in the wake of the housing crisis and from the financially crippled state letting workers go. Care to explain how either of those are the result of the stimulus? And, once again, we find you in the bizarrely self-contradictory position of saying that "when the stimulus ends" there'll be lots of people suddenly looking for work AND claiming that the stimulus had no positive effect on employment. Just how many times do you want to shoot yourself in the foot BeAChooser?

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?

Neither you nor I know.

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.

This is so desperate it's actually funny. "If Reagan did it, it's right; even if I was just saying that it was wrong!"

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.

So we decide whether or not the stimulus included tax breaks on the basis of polls, do we? I mean, the bill itself is, of course, unavailable for examination. It's like the Yeti or Bigfoot; it exists merely as legend.

I lean more and more to thinking that you're a liberal troll, BeAChooser, determined to make the right look as stupid as possible. You're doing a bang-up job!

 

[corplinx]

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.

The CBO said that based on the administration's givens, X many jobs were created.

The CBO model started by automatically assuming that government spending increases GDP by pre-set multipliers, such as:

Every $1 of government spending that directly purchases goods and services ultimately raises the by $1.75;

Every $1 of government spending sent to state and local governments for infrastructure ultimately raises GDP by $1.75;

Every $1 of government spending sent to state and local governments for non-infrastructure spending ultimately raises GDP by $1.25; and

Every $1 of government spending sent to an individual as a transfer payment ultimately raises GDP by $1.45.

(Note that all CBO figures in this post represent the midpoint between their high and low estimates.)

Link

Based on this model, the numbers were rigged to turn out the way they wanted. X many millions of dollars means X many jobs.

In the tech world we call this GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

 

[IchabodPlain]

The CBO said that based on the administration's givens, X many jobs were created.


Link

Based on this model, the numbers were rigged to turn out the way they wanted. X many millions of dollars means X many jobs.

In the tech world we call this GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Evidence for the bolded? Also, who is the mysterious "they?"

 

[daenku32]

It's the inherent distrust of Multiplier Effect that has the "skeptics" doubting CBO numbers.

A WSJ article from a year ago said that "If it were true, the government should spend $10 trillion and we'd all live in paradise." Of course, this could be tested simply by inserting that number into the formula and doing the calculations. Quite likely the multiplier effect in that case would go down.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123292987008414041.html

 

[corplinx]

It's the inherent distrust of Multiplier Effect that has the "skeptics" doubting CBO numbers.

A WSJ article from a year ago said that "If it were true, the government should spend $10 trillion and we'd all live in paradise." Of course, this could be tested simply by inserting that number into the formula and doing the calculations. Quite likely the multiplier effect in that case would go down.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123292987008414041.html

I would think that even a reasonable person would understand "oh, they actually have no real evidence of that number and simply used an estimate based on how much they spent". No need to carry it out to extremes with the 10 trillion example.

 

[BeAChooser]

That's a reasonably short way of showing that you know you were wrong and think that making a snide joke is the best way to try to deflect attention from the fact that you were wrong.

But isn't there a saying that most good jokes have at their core an uncomfortable truth?

All I said was the depression of 1815-1821, at 6 years, was the longest in US history. It was.

Based on what definition of depression? The NBER's? But in the links I supplied earlier, I already showed that NBER's definitions are sometimes tailored to make democrats look good (or not as bad as they really were) and make republicans look bad (or not as good as they really were). And I showed that the NBER is primarily composed of democrats … some of whom are now closely tied to the Obama camp … which might explain why.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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.

And this proves that the economy wasn't growing, how exactly?

I didn't suggest it proves the economy wasn't growing. Nice strawman. But remind us again, Yoink, why FDR needed these programs in the first place, if as you (and the NBER) claim, the depression was already over during this time? Do you think economies don't grow without such help after recessions and depressions? Well, if so I have to tell you that the history of the economy before 1934 (and even since) proves you wrong.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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".

Not when I claim it. When the NBER and all competent economic historians claim it.

Ok, so tell us why such massive intervention was needed when the NBER and *all competent* rolleyes economic historians claim the depression was over? Aren't the NBER and those *competent* economic historians aware of the fact that this country has recovered just fine after numerous recessions and depressions … recovered without such *stimulus* and even recovered after cuts in government spending? In fact, recovered at a faster pace than we recovered from the Great Depression or are now recovering from the current recession.

And just because the Depression was over doesn't mean that economic distress had ended. Hence the usefulness of FDR's programs.

But why weren't such programs needed in the downturns before that? And how do you know they were "useful" when the recovery with FDRs programs was actually more lackluster and drawn out than in so many previous cases where no such programs were applied? Where even spending cuts were applied instead. Your logic makes absolutely no sense, Yoink. Even FDRs Secretary of the Treasury gave FDR's programs a failing grade at job and economic growth. And he was in a position to know.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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."

So "May 1937" isn't part of 1937?

January 1937 is not May 1937 according to the NBER.

If you acknowledge that it was "officially" 1937 you're acknowledging that you're "officially" wrong, aren't you?

Not at all. I'm simply suggesting the NBER is Stuck On Stupid, which seems to be a common democrat affliction.

Who said anything about them being "unrelated"?

Oh … so now they are related? Related how?

And as your "officially" above proves, you know that they're using the term loosely for a period of extended economic distress and not technically for the actual durations of economic contraction.

Yet, as I showed, the "economic contraction" of more than 10% of GDP (which most sources define as characterizing a depression) lasted more than a decade. At the time the NBER said the depression was over, the GDP was down almost 30% from what it was at the start of the crash. And it didn't recover to even the same level for over 7 years. Seems technical enough to me.

And you really aren't going to like this, but the NBER admits they don't actually have an "formal" (meaning official) definition of depression and that they don't have an "formal" duration for the Great Depression. Regardless of what that table on their website suggests. Here, direct from the NBER FAQ:

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html

The term depression is often used to refer to a particularly severe period of economic weakness. Some economists use it to refer only to the portion of these periods when economic activity is declining. The more common use, however, also encompasses the time until economic activity has returned to close to normal levels. … snip … If the term Great Depression is used to mean the period of exceptional decline in economic activity, it refers to the period from August 1929 to March 1933. If it is used to also include the period until economic activity had returned to approximately normal levels, most economists would judge that it ended sometime in 1940 or 1941. However, just as the NBER does not define the term depression or identify depressions, there is no formal NBER definition or dating of the Great Depression.

Did you comprehend the sentence "The more common use, however, also encompasses the time until economic activity has returned to close to normal levels"? Do you comprehend the last sentence? It proves you are wrong in claiming that the NBER "officially" dates the duration of the Great Depression … regardless of what it's website shows. They state that they have no "formal" definition of depression and no "formal" dating of the Great Depression. So that being the case, it's probably best that we go by what is (according to the NBER) the most common definition of depression we can find … the one that most everyone else seems to follow (as I showed earlier) … the one that the NBER admits results in a period from 1929 to "sometime in 1940 or 1941". In other words, a duration of more than a decade.

Game. Set. Match.

So first you claim that it would be ludicrous for FDR to enact his New Deal if the Depression had ended, and then you claim that NBER is trying to make FDR look good by claiming that the Depression ended in '33? You're not much troubled by contradiction, are you?

There is no contradiction in that assertion at all. It is in fact ludicrous for FDR to have enacted his New Deal if the depression was over, and claiming the depression ended in only 4 years because of FDR does indeed bogusly cast FDR's policies in a better light than they deserve.

Who says they were unrelated?

So you'd rather focus on this than contest my "the NBER is biased" assertion? Fine. Game. Set. Match.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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 a bizarre, stupid and uninformed claim.

I'm sorry. Did I miss some other double-dip depression in our history?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And isn't it curious that economists are worrying about a double dip in the current recession.

Actually, they're mostly not.

http://au.biz.yahoo.com/100228/31/2bj11.html "February 28, 2010 … One of the OECD's leading economists says there is a strong chance that the world's leading economies could quickly slide back into recession. The deputy director of the OECD's financial and enterprise affairs, Dr Adrian Blundell-Wignall, has told ABC1's Inside Business program that the threat of a double dip recession remained because problems in the banking system have not been solved."

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
What makes this one different than so many others before it … which didn't double dip?

Except they did. Over and over again.

http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/why-risk-of-a-double-dip-recession-is-low-54096.aspx

Deutsche Bank AG (NYSE: DB) economists – who conducted the research – reviewed U.S. economic history all the way back to the 1850s, and found that double-dip recessions are exceedingly rare: There have only been three episodes in which the economy has fallen back into recession within a year of a previous recession ending. And that’s out of 33 recessions that have taken place since 1854.

What was that you told me? "Perhaps you should try actually reading some economic history before you post next time."

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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/...US18702004.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.

Yes! And if I define it as "years with 8s in them" then 1928 was a depression! There is no widely agreed upon technical definition of a "depression." So I'm just going to stick with the NBER's rigorous data on periods of economic contraction and expansion, thank you.

Like I said. Game. Set. Match. (see above)

Of course, if we apply *your* definition, the 1810s-20s depression is still longer than the Great Depression.

Actually, no. You can't reliably say how much the GDP shrank or grew, year by year, back in the early 1800s. Which is why charts like this, http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/102/gdp.gif , show no details during that time period. All we can use to gauge the severity of downturns at that time are general descriptions of what happened. Which is why there is some confusion as to whether the downturn in 1837 was a recession or a depression. But, as I showed, the vast majority of people label it a depression, not a recession, which is why there are vastly more internet hits under "1837 depression" than "1837 recession".

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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.

Wow. Can you get any more irrelevant to the actual argument at hand?

Wow. Can you get any more desperate to avoid discussing the details about what actually happened in the 1930s and what actually constitutes a depression.

http://economics.about.com/cs/businesscycles/a/depressions.htm

There is an old joke among economists that states:

A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.

A depression is when you lose your job.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/29/how-a-modern-depression-m_n_180541.html

How A Modern Depression Might Look

Wall Street Journal

3/29/09

… snip ...

There is no consensus definition for "depression." Harvard University economist Robert Barro defines it as a decline in per-person economic output or consumption of more than 10%, and puts the odds of a depression at about 20%. Many economic historians say the line between recession and depression is crossed when unemployment rises above 10% and stays there for several years.

Even by that definition, ALL of the 1930s was one big depression. Now do you see the relevance to the argument at hand?

Why would unemployment go up when the stimulus ends if the stimulus has, as you claimed above, no effect on employment?

I never said or suggested that. Not once. Are strawmen all you have left in this debate?

Once again I ask you to explain why the magical powers of the Free Market and Private Enterprise and rendered incapable of action by government stimulus?

Asked and already answered. But you weren't listening. But here … I'll try again … but you do have to do some reading.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/defending-the-free-market-an-interview-with-guy-sorman/ "Defending the Free Market: An Interview with Guy Sorman"

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article14117.html "Government Deficit Spending Killing the U.S. Free Market Economy"

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/1316 "Obama Needs to Learn 'Opportunity Cost'"

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-why-government-stimulus-does-not-work/36466/ "Here's Why Government Stimulus Does Not Work"

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg2208.cfm "Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth"

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/fiscal2.htm "Fiscal Stimulus, Fiscal Inflation, or Fiscal Fallacies?"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html "Stimulus Spending Doesn't Work"

And I could go on and on … but will you actually read and absorb any of them? There is the million dollar question.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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. … snip …

I'm really not interested in hashing out the tired question of whether or not FDR's New Deal was effective with someone as profoundly ignorant of economic history as you, BeAChooser.

Oh, you've certainly proven that in this thread.

There was a panic in 1837. There was an economic revival in 1838. There was a depression that followed (hey! "Double Dip"!!) from 1839-43.

Fine, but regardless of the details in the downturn, the response of the government at the time was to NOT massively interfere and yet, somehow, the economy still recovered within 5 years. Unlike what happened in the 1930s when the government did massively interfere.

I think the stimulus money helped shorten the recession.

Based on what evidence? What computer model? What historical examples of similar situations? Or is it just your *belief*?

I never argued that Keynesian economics "is responsible of [sic] the less frequent and less severe recessions post Keynes."

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

That certainly implies that Keynesian economics had something to do with there being less frequent and less severe recessions.

You claimed that state intervention invariably made recessions worse.

No, I claim that MASSIVE government intervention of the type tried in the 1930s and the type Obama is trying now invariably makes recessions/depressions worse. At least TRY to not distort what I claim. Else we might conclude that Strawman is your middle name.

Whether Keynesian policies are ultimately worthwhile is another, and more complex, question.

Backpedal, backpedal.

What is simply indisputable, however, is that there is no clear cut historical evidence that stimulative policies on the part of the government have produced, historically, longer or more severe recessions than occurred under more laissez-faire regimes.

I believe I've provided ample evidence you are wrong.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the claim that this latest recession was an unusually severe and dangerous one was something that originated with Obama?

I'm promoting the fact that at the time Obama claimed this downturn was the worst since the Great Depression, it wasn't. He was lying. Again, at least TRY to not alter my stated views.

One thing I do know, though, is that if the economy is doing well at the end of Obama's term you'll be in here saying that it was the "Bush recovery" finally getting under way, and that it only happened dispite Obama's policies and not because of them.

Oh I doubt Bush will be mentioned by me. He was part of the problem too.

Why not compare Obama at this stage of his presidency to Reagan at the same stage? Want to know whose growth figures were better?

Tell you what, let's look at what each administration's growth figures were/are at the same time in their respective recession cycle (since election years are such an arbitrary thing). What was the GDP growth rate in the first 2 quarters after the current recession supposedly ended (although NBER hasn't yet declared it *officially* over)? 3.5% (3rd quarter) and 5.7% (4th quarter)? Want to guess what the growth rate was in the first two months after the first phase of the 1980-82 recession? 8.4% Then the economy dipped again but when it again started to recover it saw growth rates of, as I've noted previously, 5.1%, 9.3%, 8.1%, 8.5% and 8% in the five quarters that followed. While even the optimists in the Obama administration are predicting about 2% growth in the quarters to come. I really can't believe you are trying to claim Obama outdid Reagan. That's almost pathological in its delusion.

So if high unemployment is likely to persist, that's an argument for less job-related stimulus. Huh?

You really aren't listening, are you. There is no point in repeating what I've already stated several times, if you'd rather employ strawmen and dishonest renditions of economic *history* as your sole debate arguments. Huh, indeed.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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?

And what is your point? Are you trying to make some argument that California's lost jobs are a result of the stimulus?

Again, are strawmen your only argument? Is distorting what I actually say the only tactic you have left in this debate?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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?

Neither you nor I know.

LOL! So you completely discount the predictions of the Obama team? The whole stimulus boondoggle has been justified on the basis of those predictions … and now, suddenly, you want to simply ignore them?

This is so desperate it's actually funny.

Indeed it is.

So we decide whether or not the stimulus included tax breaks on the basis of polls, do we?

Again, a strawman. That seems to be all you have now. I didn't say the stimulus contained no tax breaks. Sure … it did … for some. But then it turned right around and increased taxes on many others (the ones they consider too rich). And democrats (and RINOS) throughout the country are also busy shifting federal taxes to *fees* and other more local taxes. Most important, however, the stimulus levied a tax on future generations … one that they don't even get a chance to vote on or complain about. That's not legend, that's fact that even the most basic economics book would confirm. Since even Obama's own people aren't predicting we will grow our way out of this massive new debt load, your only option will soon be to either force repayment of those new debts (by taxes) or inflate the money supply to the point the amount owed is worthless. Either way, the American public will lose. Game. Set. Match.

I lean more and more to thinking that you're a liberal troll, BeAChooser

This conversation (I hesitate to call it a debate anymore) gets only gets more and more bizarre.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by corplinx
… snip … Based on this model, the numbers were rigged to turn out the way they wanted. … snip …

Evidence for the bolded?

Last March, the CBO ran a simulation of the economy, with and without the stimulus. Using multipliers. The difference between the two results gave their prediction for the increase in employment and GDP that we should expect. Now the CBO has repeated the analysis and the differences are basically same. The stimulus basically achieved what they expected.

But the actual economy could have seen any measurable amount of job loss/growth and GDP loss/growth and the CBO would still have claimed the stimulus achieved what they expected, because the multipliers they used in that model did not change in any significant way based on what they actually saw. Which is indicative of a problem in their method.

Likewise, the Stimulus could have been (say) twice as large, and the CBO would have claimed the job and GDP growth as a result was also twice as large, regardless of what actually occurred in the economy during the past year. Which is indicative of a problem. And which begs the question, why didn't Obama therefore propose an increase like that since it would have *obviously* been good for the economy and job situation?

The issue therefore becomes whether the multipliers are really valid. Whether the methodology of using them is really valid. Or is this just a case of witch doctors poking sticks at a fire and trying to look like they know what they are doing. Nothing in the way of explanation, data or analysis has been presented by the CBO to prove the multipliers are correct. They could have picked ANY numbers and they'd still be claiming the analysis was valid and Obama's supporters would still be nodding their head in agreement. And that's indicative of a problem.

It's the inherent distrust of Multiplier Effect that has the "skeptics" doubting CBO numbers.

Indeed. Once CBO decided to assume that every dollar of government spending increased GDP by the multipliers, its conclusion was "pre-ordained". The economy could have lost X million jobs and the model still would have said that without the stimulus it would have lost Y million jobs. There's a problem in that sort of methodology.

So are the multipliers correct? There is a LOT of doubt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html

OCTOBER 1, 2009

Stimulus Spending Doesn't Work

Our new research shows no evidence of a Keynesian 'multiplier' effect.

… snip …

These packages typically emphasize spending, predicated on the view that the expenditure "multipliers" are greater than one—so that gross domestic product expands by more than government spending itself.

… snip …

To evaluate typical fiscal-stimulus packages, however, nondefense government spending multipliers are more important. Estimating these multipliers convincingly from U.S. time series is problematical, however, because the movements in nondefense government purchases (dominated since the 1960s by state and local outlays) are closely intertwined with the business cycle.

… snip ...

The bottom line is this: The available empirical evidence does not support the idea that spending multipliers typically exceed one, and thus spending stimulus programs will likely raise GDP by less than the increase in government spending. Defense-spending multipliers exceeding one likely apply only at very high unemployment rates, and nondefense multipliers are probably smaller. However, there is empirical support for the proposition that tax rate reductions will increase real GDP.

 

[Chris Hegarty]

I'm perpetually unwilling to definitively say whether I think the stimulus has worked out or not. I'm sure that to some extent, the bailouts of large financial institutions maintained consumer confidence (granted, tit was still greatly diminished) in the economy, and credit is loosening, albeit slowly. Now, however, I believe that a great deal of the economic intrigue going on has much to do with the machinations of the world economy, especially the STUPID (it's an acronym) countries of the Eurozone and the Middle East. However, without fear of contradicting myself, I can definitely say that the stimuli haven't been the magic pills that the Bush and Obama Administrations implied they would be. Then again, who with an understanding of macroeconomics would think so?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Well I work in health care in Boston and have connections in New York and I know of a couple thousand of hospital jobs in those two cities alone that were saved by stimulus money that was distributed via the NIH. But that's really as far as my knowledge reaches on the subject.

 

[Malerin]

"Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html#ixzz0hRLGlpD8

 

[thaiboxerken]

So their estimations were off by a small margin. Your point?

 

[Malerin]

So their estimations were off by a small margin. Your point?

My point is the title of the thread: The stimulus seems to have failed. It was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%. It has failed to do that. We won't see 8% unemployment for years, most likely.

A 2% difference may seem like a "small margin", unless you're dealing with a metric whose range for the last 65 years has been between 3 and 10 percent. At the time the prediction was made, unemployment was already over 7%, so the range was effectively a three point spread.

The 8% prediction has failed spectacularly, and each month we shed jobs compounds that failure. The best that can be said is that things could have been worse without the stimulus. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of a trillion dollar boondoggle.

If we're going to hold politicians of one party accountable for their loopy predictions (and there wasn't a liberal here, myself included, who didn't rake the Bush Administration over the coals for their rosy Iraq predictions), the other party must also be held accountable.

 

[Travis]

I'm curious. What was the BAC "End the Recession" plan?

 

[BeAChooser]

The best that can be said is that things could have been worse without the stimulus.

And the worst that could be said is that things could have been better without the stimulus. And history seems to prove it.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm curious. What was the BAC "End the Recession" plan?

Same one that worked well in so many other recessions and depressions where government didn't massively interfere. As I've stated previously.