More Economic Good News- Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs

[rightwinger]

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com

A recent study by two prominent economists generally agrees, crediting the pump-priming with averting "what could have been called Great Depression 2.0."

Eighteen months later, the consensus among economists is that the stimulus worked in staving off a rerun of the 1930s. But the spending's impact was dwarfed by other crisis-fighting tools deployed by the Bush and Obama administrations, including costly efforts to stabilize crippled banks and the Fed's unconventional monetary policy.

"I think it was important for confidence. ... But fiscal stimulus was the least important of the three planks of the government's strategy," said Harvard University's Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund.

 

[DiamondDave]

2 whole economists, eh??

Funny that the stats and reality don't agree with them

 

[rightwinger]

Their conclusion: The fiscal stimulus created 2.7 million jobs and added $460 billion to gross domestic product. Unemployment would be 11% today if the stimulus hadn't been passed and 16.5% if neither the fiscal stimulus nor the banks' rescue had been enacted, according to Zandi and Blinder. "It's pretty hard to deny that it had a measurable impact," Zandi said.

 

[boedicca]

Absolute poppycock.

This is all based on a what if model that assumes a high multiplier on government spending which is not accurate. Any dollar the government spends is a dollar taken away from the private sector. An honest analysis would deduct from that 3M the amount of jobs that weren't created because of the removal of money from the private sector.

Fortunately, we have actual unemployment stats and smart people who know how to perform real analysis to provide the real picture:

 

[DiamondDave]

Their conclusion: The fiscal stimulus created 2.7 million jobs and added $460 billion to gross domestic product. Unemployment would be 11% today if the stimulus hadn't been passed and 16.5% if neither the fiscal stimulus nor the banks' rescue had been enacted, according to Zandi and Blinder. "It's pretty hard to deny that it had a measurable impact," Zandi said.

Yeah... their theory.. but again reality does not show anything of the sort...

What are the odds the press would write a story about 2 Obama or DEM shills??

Give it a rest, winger

 

[Big Black Dog]

The economic news isn't so good here. My allowance got cut by 20%!

 

[VaYank5150]

Absolute poppycock.

This is all based on a what if model that assumes a high multiplier on government spending which is not accurate. Any dollar the government spends is a dollar taken away from the private sector. An honest analysis would deduct from that 3M the amount of jobs that weren't created because of the removal of money from the private sector.

Fortunately, we have actual unemployment stats and smart people who know how to perform real analysis to provide the real picture:

An honest analysis would deduct from that 3M the amount of jobs that weren't created because of the removal of money from the private sector.

Please show me that formula so I can do the math, too....

 

[8537]

Absolute poppycock.

This is all based on a what if model that assumes a high multiplier on government spending which is not accurate.

What leads you to believe Rogoff's work is based on a "high" multiplier for government spending?

Any dollar the government spends is a dollar taken away from the private sector.

Current government borrowing is coming from foreign nations and from people so risk averse that they'll accept a near-negative interest rate. They allocated that money to the most productive place they could find, and that place is paying almost nothing.

 

[fyrenza]

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs

Where???

'Cuz OVERSEAS doesn't exactly count...

 

[Jarhead]

500 billion created 3 Million jobs...at cost of 167,000 a job.
Seeing as I assume each job created probably averaged less than 50 per salary, I m nt overly impressed.
The rest of that giubbersih such as "where unemployment would be without it" and "without it we would have spiraled into another great depression"....that is all speculation and not based on anything.

 

[VaYank5150]

500 billion created 3 Million jobs...at cost of 167,000 a job.
Seeing as I assume each job created probably averaged less than 50 per salary, I m nt overly impressed.
The rest of that giubbersih such as "where unemployment would be without it" and "without it we would have spiraled into another great depression"....that is all speculation and not based on anything.

So, Jarhead, what are your thoughts on this gibberish:

An honest analysis would deduct from that 3M the amount of jobs that weren't created because of the removal of money from the private sector.

 

[DiamondDave]

500 billion created 3 Million jobs...at cost of 167,000 a job.
Seeing as I assume each job created probably averaged less than 50 per salary, I m nt overly impressed.
The rest of that giubbersih such as "where unemployment would be without it" and "without it we would have spiraled into another great depression"....that is all speculation and not based on anything.

I think it is better to say that ~500BIL (a low estimate) ALLEGEDLY created 3 million jobs, though there is no proof or statistic that actually shows this... but sounds good to the big government types, just as "saved jobs" did

 

[rdean]

George Bush and the Republicans, using their "tax cuts for the rich" theory of economics created 3 million jobs in 8 years. Of course, they lost 750,000 a month just before Obama took office. Guess that doesn't count.

 

[Jarhead]

500 billion created 3 Million jobs...at cost of 167,000 a job.
Seeing as I assume each job created probably averaged less than 50 per salary, I m nt overly impressed.
The rest of that giubbersih such as "where unemployment would be without it" and "without it we would have spiraled into another great depression"....that is all speculation and not based on anything.

So, Jarhead, what are your thoughts on this gibberish:

An honest analysis would deduct from that 3M the amount of jobs that weren't created because of the removal of money from the private sector.

I dont agree with that seeing as the money did not come from the private sector...yet.
It is borrowed money money for now.
However, as a business owner and business planner, I will say as a fact that I am not nor are my clients hiring based on the anticipated increase in taxes, increase in capital gains taxes, anticipated increase in healthcare costs to the employers...and the fear of a lame duck congress putting through agenda crap such as cap and trade in december is also keeping people in the wings "waiting".

Business owners income is based primarily on distributions which come from the gross net after operating costs and payroll costs....and as me, business owners have established a cost of living for ourselves that we can not compromise....not because we are greedy but becuase we can not compromise our credit rating as it will be impossible to rebound if we lose our credit rating.

During a time of growth, one must always have access to bridge loans....if we lose our credit rating now, we will not have access to bridge loans.

As much as people want to claim such is right wing talking points. It is not.

As long as there is the atmospere of "business owners will have to pay for the people in the interim", business owners will not expand.

 

[Jarhead]

George Bush and the Republicans, using their "tax cuts for the rich" theory of economics created 3 million jobs in 8 years. Of course, they lost 750,000 a month just before Obama took office. Guess that doesn't count.

Yeah. That had NOTHING to do with a campaign of gloom and doom.
Nothing at all.
Sure.
I will say one thing.....as I heard the "great depression" and "worst economy" rhetoric for 3months, I cancelled out my vacations planned and cut back on any "extra spending"....

And I am glad I did.

 

[DiamondDave]

George Bush and the Republicans, using their "tax cuts for the rich" theory of economics created 3 million jobs in 8 years. Of course, they lost 750,000 a month just before Obama took office. Guess that doesn't count.

Funny that it keeps being called tax cuts for 'the rich'... yet most Americans saw tax cuts.. and the 'evil rich' still payed a higher % than others.. .all in this country where even DEMs SUPPOSEDLY believe in equal treatment under the law

Funny... as stated many times before... bet you any amount that you and your ilk would be calling for tax cuts, if everyone was taxed on every dollar at the rates that you propose for the 'rich'

 

[VaYank5150]

500 billion created 3 Million jobs...at cost of 167,000 a job.
Seeing as I assume each job created probably averaged less than 50 per salary, I m nt overly impressed.
The rest of that giubbersih such as "where unemployment would be without it" and "without it we would have spiraled into another great depression"....that is all speculation and not based on anything.

So, Jarhead, what are your thoughts on this gibberish:

An honest analysis would deduct from that 3M the amount of jobs that weren't created because of the removal of money from the private sector.

I dont agree with that seeing as the money did not come from the private sector...yet.
It is borrowed money money for now.
However, as a business owner and business planner, I will say as a fact that I am not nor are my clients hiring based on the anticipated increase in taxes, increase in capital gains taxes, anticipated increase in healthcare costs to the employers...and the fear of a lame duck congress putting through agenda crap such as cap and trade in december is also keeping people in the wings "waiting".

Business owners income is based primarily on distributions which come from the gross net after operating costs and payroll costs....and as me, business owners have established a cost of living for ourselves that we can not compromise....not because we are greedy but becuase we can not compromise our credit rating as it will be impossible to rebound if we lose our credit rating.

During a time of growth, one must always have access to bridge loans....if we lose our credit rating now, we will not have access to bridge loans.

As much as people want to claim such is right wing talking points. It is not.

As long as there is the atmospere of "business owners will have to pay for the people in the interim", business owners will not expand.

Maybe it is because of the sector I am in, or perhaps because of how large our company is, my hiring practices have not been tied to "anticipated increase in taxes, increase in capital gains taxes, anticipated increase in healthcare costs to the employers...and the fear of a lame duck congress putting through agenda crap such as cap and trade in december is also keeping people in the wings "waiting"".
I hire additonal resources in order to drive additional revenues where I see the needs and opportunities in my sector. Why do you do things so differently?

 

[Jarhead]

So, Jarhead, what are your thoughts on this gibberish:

I dont agree with that seeing as the money did not come from the private sector...yet.
It is borrowed money money for now.
However, as a business owner and business planner, I will say as a fact that I am not nor are my clients hiring based on the anticipated increase in taxes, increase in capital gains taxes, anticipated increase in healthcare costs to the employers...and the fear of a lame duck congress putting through agenda crap such as cap and trade in december is also keeping people in the wings "waiting".

Business owners income is based primarily on distributions which come from the gross net after operating costs and payroll costs....and as me, business owners have established a cost of living for ourselves that we can not compromise....not because we are greedy but becuase we can not compromise our credit rating as it will be impossible to rebound if we lose our credit rating.

During a time of growth, one must always have access to bridge loans....if we lose our credit rating now, we will not have access to bridge loans.

As much as people want to claim such is right wing talking points. It is not.

As long as there is the atmospere of "business owners will have to pay for the people in the interim", business owners will not expand.

Maybe it is because of the sector I am in, or perhaps because of how large our company is, my hiring practices have not been tied to "anticipated increase in taxes, increase in capital gains taxes, anticipated increase in healthcare costs to the employers...and the fear of a lame duck congress putting through agenda crap such as cap and trade in december is also keeping people in the wings "waiting"".
I hire additonal resources in order to drive additional revenues where I see the needs and opportunities in my sector. Why do you do things so differently?

Becuase smart business owners do not hire additional resources to drive additonal revenues when there are no indicators that additonal revenue can be generated.

Why would you throw in a basic "growth formual" of "addtional resources=additional revenue" when we are in an atmosphere of 9.5% unemployment without a sign of it getting better; a depressed housing market; and no meaningful growth in GDP?

I mean...really?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What happened to the Stimulus keeping unemployment under 8%?

 

[rightwinger]

George Bush and the Republicans, using their "tax cuts for the rich" theory of economics created 3 million jobs in 8 years. Of course, they lost 750,000 a month just before Obama took office. Guess that doesn't count.

Funny that it keeps being called tax cuts for 'the rich'... yet most Americans saw tax cuts.. and the 'evil rich' still payed a higher % than others.. .all in this country where even DEMs SUPPOSEDLY believe in equal treatment under the law

Funny... as stated many times before... bet you any amount that you and your ilk would be calling for tax cuts, if everyone was taxed on every dollar at the rates that you propose for the 'rich'

The rich receive more because they earn more. When 34% of the tax cut goes to 1% of the population, you do not have an equatable distribution

Fact is Obama should have spent the entire stimulus on small business and public works projects. The tax cut was an ill-fated attempt to placate Republican Congressmen who didn't vote for the bill anyway.

Tax cuts do not create jobs....we have learned that over and over