The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[daenku32]

Can both sides of discussion agree on the following 1. If the stimulus would have never been implemented the GDP would have taken a steep dive? 2. If this dive would have occurred then the next quarter would have had a better chance to recover?

It seems to me that the stimulus not only failed, it left the situation worse than it would have been otherwise.

Are you arguing that GDP would have needed even a steeper drop and even greater unemployment figures, in order for a recovery?

Kind of like Bush personally taking the deficit from $100 to $500 billion during the years of economic growth, and then taking credit for 'cutting the deficit in half', when he could have been running surpluses the entire time.

 

[joobz]

Can both sides of discussion agree on the following 1. If the stimulus would have never been implemented the GDP would have taken a steep dive? 2. If this dive would have occurred then the next quarter would have had a better chance to recover?

It seems to me that the stimulus not only failed, it left the situation worse than it would have been otherwise.

No and No. It is near impossible to guess what would have happened. I would have to guess that BeaChooser would agree with me on this point. After all, like he said in another thread regarding wild speculations of what would have happened if different choices were made.

Noone can really say with any certainty what would have happened had the Bush administration taken a different approach in 2003-2006.

Noone can really say with any certainty what would have happened had the Obama administration taken a different approach in 2009.

 

[BeAChooser]

Why do you think approvals (which is Dependant upon the types of devices being developed and the level of evaluations needed to be approved) is anything but an indicator of fda stringency?

So *now* you are claiming that the moment Obama took office, the types of devices being developed changed and the level of evaluations for approval increased, causing the reduction in number of approvals?

Let's check out the number of Devices Approved from 2000 to 2003, i.e., during the last recession.

2000 - 48
2001 - 56
2002 - 33
2003 - 33

Well what do you know? Those numbers are also more than twice what they've been during Obama's recession and supposed recovery. Now what do you think that means, joobz?

And I wonder why you ignore my question?

I didn't. I think my response implied that your citations were just what they appear to be ... more empty promises. You didn't show that medical development activity actually went up. You just posted articles by folks claiming it would go up as a result of provisions in the Health Care Bill. Meanwhile, I posted a link showing similar promises that the medical device arena would be improving in 2010, and then a source showing that it didn't. The level of bringing new devices to market is STILL down in 2010. Because of continued concerns about the economy and the failure of Obama's solutions to it.

Healthcare is a wealth generating industry.

Portions of the industry are wealth generating. But the portions where Health Care companies have been hiring are not. All those people are doing are meeting new regulations imposed by the Obama Administration on the industry in the way it provides health care, not develop new technology or ways to save people's lives.

just consider the benefit to society by saving a life that can continue to produce vs. if that person was to have died.

But the people being added to the health care *insured* category are for the most part not producers. Most of the producers already had health care joobz ... they are now just having to pay even more for it.

 

[joobz]

So *now* you are claiming that the moment Obama took office, the types of devices being developed changed and the level of evaluations for approval increased, causing the reduction in number of approvals?

no, I am not claiming that.
as I said

year to year. That doesn't imply some magic this cycle by any means. There are a whole host of reasons to why approvals might be down. YOu would need to speak with the review boards as to why.

Those numbers are also more than twice what they've been during Obama's recession and supposed recovery. Now what do you think that means, joobz?

Asked and answered. You are simply wrong. Approval isn't the marker of industry activity. The number of proposal is. What gets approved is based upon way too many variables(e.g., knoweldge base, saftey board standards, cGMP standards, the validity of the concept) to make any logical affirmation that it is a marker of industry.

I didn't. I think my response implied that your citations were just what they appear to be ... more empty promises. You didn't show that medical development activity actually went up.

False.
you seem to be avoiding the actual number of submissions. (A direct marker of company activity) This is because the facts disagree with your concept.

But the people being added to the health care *insured* category are for the most part not producers.

Are these the economic dead wood that you would rather see ...trimmed?
Oh, but of course, you didn't mean that the sick were economic dead wood.

 

[BeAChooser]

Can both sides of discussion agree on the following 1. If the stimulus would have never been implemented the GDP would have taken a steep dive? 2. If this dive would have occurred then the next quarter would have had a better chance to recover?

I have no problem agreeing with that. History proves over and over it's in the nature of recessions to do that. IF the government leaves them alone.

But if government doesn't, then recessions often get deeper than they probably would have otherwise (as is probably now the case) ... and even turn into depressions (the verdict is still out on whether that might happen here) ... and the recovery takes MUCH longer (as we are clearly seeing right now with talks of a double dip and unemployment hanging around 10%).

Do you know that one formal definition of a depression is a recession where unemployments remains above 10% for an extended time.

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.

We are bordering on that happening.

 

[joobz]

I have no problem agreeing with that.

You should

Noone can really say with any certainty what would have happened had the Bush administration taken a different approach in 2003-2006.

 

[BeAChooser]

Are you arguing that GDP would have needed even a steeper drop and even greater unemployment figures, in order for a recovery?

LOL! Why would he argue that? Obama and his economists told us what the unemployment would be in this recession without a stimulus. And their expectation was far less than it is RIGHT NOW.

Kind of like Bush personally taking the deficit from $100 to $500 billion during the years of economic growth, and then taking credit for 'cutting the deficit in half', when he could have been running surpluses the entire time.

As already pointed out, this is a complete distortion of the truth. First of all, the CBO made the projection that we would be running surpluses, prior to the collapse of the tech industry. And that collapse began at the end of Clinton's term not after Bush took office so it's hard to blame Bush for it. And the effect of such a collapse wasn't included in the CBO analysis. Second, the CBO's analysis didn't predict 9/11 or the WOT, and the effects they would have on the economy and spending. As I noted, it is actually remarkable that despite all three of those serious negative influences on the economy, the economy recovered quite nicely. From 2003 to 2007, GDP growth was far above what it now is under Obama (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2-oDfgGpQKg/SRW6q8D0whI/AAAAAAAABf4/Aq3MMdgFY2Y/s400/GDP+growth.jpg ). It remained strong until democrat's gained control of Congress in late 2006, then thing headed south, as you can see in that chart. And this chart (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGk...sh_deficit_vs_obama_deficit_in_pictures_2.jpg ) clearly shows that the deficit during all eight fiscal periods of the Bush administration was far below what it now is and is projected to be during all 8 (heaven help us) years of an Obama administration. As you can see from that chart, the deficit peaked at about -400 billion in 2003-2004, following the recession and massive military spending that was required to fight the WOT, then headed dramatically downward. It was at about -150 billion in 2007, when democrats took over both houses of Congress. And then it jumped back up to over -400 billion in just one year. Now whose fault do you really think that is, democrat?

 

[joobz]

LOL! Why would he argue that? Obama and his economists told us what the unemployment would be in this recession without a stimulus. And their expectation was far less than it is RIGHT NOW.

So the Obama administration are nothing but a bunch of Liars and are perpetually stuck on stupid. Except in this case, where their unemployment projections are 100% reliable.

I see.

 

[BeAChooser]

no, I am not claiming that.

Yes you clearly did. Just keep digging, joobz.

You are simply wrong.

What gets approved is based upon way too many variables(e.g., knoweldge base, saftey board standards, cGMP standards, the validity of the concept) to make any logical affirmation that it is a marker of industry.

But one of those reasons must also be the amount of effort and money being put into those proposals after they are submitted. The less resources devoted to them, the less likely they are to get an approval. That certainly seems a more likely explanation than a miraculous change in "knowledge" or "safety" or "device type" at the beginning of the Obama reign, like you suggested.

False.

No, what I said was absolutely true. ALL you proved with your citations is that there were *expectations* that some provisions in the Health Care Bill would increase development in certain technology areas. But have those expectations been fulfilled? You didn't prove that an increase actually occurred. In fact, you are fighting just to claim that the developement numbers are staying about the same. I on the other hand, showed that there were expectations that the medical devices development arena would recover from the deep slump it entered in 2008, and then cited an article stating that no such recover took place, even into mid 2010. That's in line with what the Approved Devices numbers are showing. Plus I've now show that during the Bush recession, the Approved Devices numbers held up. So I think it's clear that Obama's policies are having the negative effect on development that I initially suggested.

Are these the economic dead wood

You tell me, joobz.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Obama and his economists told us what the unemployment would be in this recession without a stimulus. And their expectation was far less than it is RIGHT NOW.

... snip ... Except in this case, where their unemployment projections are 100% reliable.

I see.

You believe that's what I said? Might I suggest a remedial reading class, joobz.

 

[joobz]

Yes you clearly did. Just keep digging, joobz.

Feel free to mischaracterize my point. It doesn't change the fact that submissions have remained unchanged, demonstrating continued activity.

But one of those reasons must also be the amount of effort and money being put into those proposals after they are submitted. The less resources devoted to them, the less likely they are to get an approval. That certainly seems a more likely explanation than a miraculous change in "knowledge" or "safety" or "device type" at the beginning of the Obama reign, like you suggested.

of course, and it could also be the recession that we had reduced the money they had to work with. yet, we know that the number of new submissions hasn't changed, suggesting activity and development is still occurring.

No, what I said was absolutely true.

Nope.

ALL you proved with your citations is that there were *expectations* that some provisions in the Health Care Bill would increase development in certain technology areas. But have those expectations been fulfilled? You didn't prove that an increase actually occurred.

and all you have on the HCB is "expectations" as well. So your distinction is the height of dishonesty.

In fact, you are fighting just to claim that the developement numbers are staying about the same.

Nope. The data stands as I said it does. You are simply wrong.

I on the other hand, showed that there were expectations that the medical devices development arena would recover from the deep slump it entered in 2008, and then cited an article stating that no such recover took place, even into mid 2010. That's in line with what the Approved Devices numbers are showing. Plus I've now show that during the Bush recession, the Approved Devices numbers held up. So I think it's clear that Obama's policies are having the negative effect on development that I initially suggested.

You are conflating the recession and the health care bill. You claimed that the health care bill had a chilling effect on medical technology development. I showed conclusively that to be false.
You are now arguing that med tech hasn't yet recovered from the recession. I do not doubt you on this point, but don't pretend that this has anything to do with the HCB. That was your mistake, not mine.

You tell me, joobz.

Read my sig and find out.

 

[joobz]

You believe that's what I said? Might I suggest a remedial reading class, joobz.

Why else would you quote Obama's Predictions as being proof of something?
You've clearly demonstrated a willingness to doubt him at every turn, why do you think he would be right about his predictions in this one case?


let me give you a hint, I've just showed you to be hypocritically dishonest in your rhetoric.

 

[pgwenthold]

Your claim was that effort in medical technology would decrease because of Obama Care, and the new submissions proved that wrong.
You have also ignored my question regarding biotechs.

When was the Healthcare package passed? Early summer, 2010, right?

So why did the approvals drop significantly back in 2009? BEFORE ObamaCare was passed?

It's idiotic.

 

[BeAChooser]

it could also be the recession that we had reduced the money they had to work with.

But Obama proclaimed the recession over. And even during the recession in the early 2000's the number of Devices Approved remained twice what it's been under Obama. So what's different now, joobz ... besides Obama?

Eh ... don't bother answering. I really think we've reached the end of this exchange. I think you've adequately demonstrated what I wanted folks to see about you. Back to ignore you go, joobz. Where you really belong.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Are you arguing that GDP would have needed even a steeper drop and even greater unemployment figures, in order for a recovery?

I'm arguing that allowing the GDP to drop to where it would have been naturally would lower the starting point for a recover to occur. In the Obama situation we have the following GDP…
2009Q1 -4.9
2009Q2 -.07
2009Q3 1.6
2009Q4 5.0
2010Q1 3.7
2010Q2 1.6
It's teetering, it's uncertain, nobody feels comfortable with this. The GDP in 2010Q1 caused everybody to hold on tight for another dip.

I'm saying that absent Economic Stimulus & Recovery Plan of 2009 it could have looked like this…
2009Q1 -6.0
2009Q2 -2.0
2009Q3 0
2009Q4 1
2010Q1 2
2010Q2 3.0
which would have psychologically ringed recover

No and No. It is near impossible to guess what would have happened. I would have to guess that BeaChooser would agree with me on this point. After all, like he said in another thread regarding wild speculations of what would have happened if different choices were made.


Noone can really say with any certainty what would have happened had the Obama administration taken a different approach in 2009.

I agree with your sentiment, but all I got is past examples and speculation.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm saying that absent Economic Stimulus & Recovery Plan of 2009 it could have looked like this…
2009Q1 -6.0
2009Q2 -2.0
2009Q3 0
2009Q4 1
2010Q1 2
2010Q2 3.0
which would have psychologically ringed recover

Actually history shows (look at the example of what happened after the recession at the start of Reagan's term or the one at the start of Bush's term) that absent stimulus attempts by Bush and Obama starting in 2008, it likely would have looked like this ...
2009Q1 -5.0
2009Q2 0.2
2009Q3 5.0
2009Q4 7.0
2010Q1 4.0
2010Q2 3.5

as compared to this:
2009Q1 -4.9
2009Q2 -.07
2009Q3 1.6
2009Q4 5.0
2010Q1 3.7
2010Q2 1.6

 

[joobz]

But Obama proclaimed the recession over. And even during the recession in the early 2000's the number of Devices Approved remained twice what it's been under Obama. So what's different now, joobz ... besides Obama?

This post is nonsensical as it doesn't address anything that I said. It is only meant to score points instead of having a debate.

I demonstrated that "Obamacare" hasn't hurt the medical industry. I've also demonstrated that Healthcare generates wealth. two points which you were wrong about. you could admit your error, or not. One behavior is more respectable than the other.

Eh ... don't bother answering. I really think we've reached the end of this exchange. I think you've adequately demonstrated what I wanted folks to see about you. Back to ignore you go, joobz. Where you really belong.

Remember, ignoring me only hides my posts TO YOU, but not to others. I will be happy to continue to point out your errors and logical contradictions. Putting me on ignore will not stop that.

 

[joobz]

I'm arguing that allowing the GDP to drop to where it would have been naturally would lower the starting point for a recover to occur. In the Obama situation we have the following GDP…
2009Q1 -4.9
2009Q2 -.07
2009Q3 1.6
2009Q4 5.0
2010Q1 3.7
2010Q2 1.6
It's teetering, it's uncertain, nobody feels comfortable with this. The GDP in 2010Q1 caused everybody to hold on tight for another dip.

I'm saying that absent Economic Stimulus & Recovery Plan of 2009 it could have looked like this…
2009Q1 -6.0
2009Q2 -2.0
2009Q3 0
2009Q4 1
2010Q1 2
2010Q2 3.0
which would have psychologically ringed recover

I agree with your sentiment, but all I got is past examples and speculation.

I understand your position, but I do not know how much past examples really fit here. Afterall, this recession came on the back of a severe bank freeze with exceedingly low interest rates already.

 

[Hindmost]

On the contrary, I think I demolished much of your *point* quite judiciously. If anyone missed a point, it would be you in responding to my post 784 as you did.

I am humbled...

glenn

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/11/AR2010091102209.html

The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

How's that stimulus working, folks?