Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your "straightforward questions" are non sequitur and still attempt to reframe the free lunch.I guess it all depends if the creators of the goods weren't taxed out of business, in order to provide those funds.If someone came here from, say, China and spent a billion dollars on goods and services, do you think that spending would cause the producers of his purchases to make more goods?
More broken windows.....
No one was taxed out of business to create the goods.
I notice that, like Daveman, you are incapable of answering a straightforward question.
CBO Admits their Stimulus Jobs Count Ignored the Economy
CBO Confirms Its Methodology
In a recent speech to the National Association of Business Economics, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed this by stating:
[W]e don't think one can learn much from watching the evolution of particular components of GDP [gross domestic product] over the last few quarters about the effects of the stimulus so we fall back on repeating the sort of analysis we did before. And we tried to be very explicit about it that it is essentially repeating the same exercise we did rather than an independent check on it.[1]
When asked if this means that any actual underperformance of the stimulus would fail to show up in the CBO's stimulus jobs count, Elmendorf replied "That's right." This means the 1.5 million jobs saved estimate was pre-determined.
Of course, the stimulus was originally promised to create (not just save) more than 3 million jobs.[2] Instead, the economy has since lost more than 3 million additional net jobs.
The abject failure of the stimulus policies recommended by Keynesian economic models should induce some fundamental re-analysis of these models' assumptions. Instead, the CBO is re-releasing the same jobs analysis--with the same economic assumptions--that they had used a year ago.
The "Begging the Question" Fallacy
The CBO's conclusion that the stimulus created jobs is based on an economic model that began with the premise that all stimulus bills create jobs. In other words, the conclusion is already assumed as a premise. Logicians call this the fallacy of begging the question. Mathematicians call it assuming what you are trying to prove.
More specifically, the CBO's 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 GDP by $1.75;Then the CBO plugged the stimulus provisions into the multipliers above, came up with a total increase in GDP of 2.6 percent, and then converted that additional GDP into 1.5 million jobs.
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.[3]
(Note that all CBO figures in this paper represent the midpoint between their high and low estimates.)
The problem here is obvious. Once the CBO decided to assume that every dollar of government spending increased GDP by the multipliers above, its conclusion that the stimulus saved jobs was pre-ordained. The economy could have lost 30 million jobs, and the model would have said that the economy would otherwise have lost 31.5 million jobs without the stimulus. An asteroid could have hit the United States, wiping out everyone outside of Washington, D.C., and (as long as Washington still spent the stimulus money) the CBO's economic model would have produced the same stimulus jobs data. There is no adjustment made to reflect what actually happened in the economy after the stimulus was enacted.
Now, who wants to claim CBO reports are accurate?
If someone came here from, say, China and spent a billion dollars on goods and services, do you think that spending would cause the producers of his purchases to make more goods?
ahem
Goods and services from China accounted for only 2.7% of U.S. personal consumption expenditures in 2010
FRBSF Economic Letter: The U.S. Content of Made in China (2011-25, 8/8/2011)
Your "straightforward questions" are non sequitur and still attempt to reframe the free lunch.I guess it all depends if the creators of the goods weren't taxed out of business, in order to provide those funds.
More broken windows.....
No one was taxed out of business to create the goods.
I notice that, like Daveman, you are incapable of answering a straightforward question.
The Chinese wanting to purchase goods scenario is vastly different than economic central planner alchemists, either taxing or inflating the currency in order to provide the "customer base".
I've just shown you that the CBO starts off with an unproven assumption, and you want to claim their work is accurate? With their starting point, there is no way they could report anything BUT a net gain.If someone came here from, say, China and spent a billion dollars on goods and services, do you think that spending would cause the producers of his purchases to make more goods?
Okay, then.
Is that supposed to be an answer to my question? And no, they don't start with an unproven assumption. A rightwing talking point factory claiming that economic multipliers don't exist are stating as much - but it's simply a lie.
Do you deny the existence of economic multipliers?
This is a CBO report and what have you provided to back your claims?
I've just shown you that the CBO starts off with an unproven assumption, and you want to claim their work is accurate? With their starting point, there is no way they could report anything BUT a net gain.
Okay, then.
Is that supposed to be an answer to my question? And no, they don't start with an unproven assumption. A rightwing talking point factory claiming that economic multipliers don't exist are stating as much - but it's simply a lie.
Do you deny the existence of economic multipliers?
More specifically, the CBO's model started by automatically assuming that government spending increases GDP by pre-set multipliers, such as:Prove it.
Every $1 of government spending that directly purchases goods and services ultimately raises the GDP 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.[3]
This is a CBO report and what have you provided to back your claims?
Facts. Try it sometime.
Dismissed as nonsense.Krugman...
Dismissed as leftist horseshit.Media Matters for America
You said CBO doesn't rely on assumptions.Is that supposed to be an answer to my question? And no, they don't start with an unproven assumption. A rightwing talking point factory claiming that economic multipliers don't exist are stating as much - but it's simply a lie.
Do you deny the existence of economic multipliers?
More specifically, the CBO's model started by automatically assuming that government spending increases GDP by pre-set multipliers, such as:Prove it.
Every $1 of government spending that directly purchases goods and services ultimately raises the GDP 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.[3]
My gawd, between you and Tom you are incapable of answering even the most simple questions. let's try again:
Do you deny the existence of economic multipliers?
How is that any different from what you're doing?This is a CBO report and what have you provided to back your claims?
Facts. Try it sometime.
no, you did not provide "Facts". You provided the usual easily-digestable swill from a rightwing talking point manufacturer. Of course, you accept it as fact because it fits with your preconceived notion of how the world should work - it confirmed your bias.
You said CBO doesn't rely on assumptions.More specifically, the CBO's model started by automatically assuming that government spending increases GDP by pre-set multipliers, such as:Prove it.
Every $1 of government spending that directly purchases goods and services ultimately raises the GDP 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.[3]
My gawd, between you and Tom you are incapable of answering even the most simple questions. let's try again:
Do you deny the existence of economic multipliers?
I showed they do.
How is that any different from what you're doing?Facts. Try it sometime.
no, you did not provide "Facts". You provided the usual easily-digestable swill from a rightwing talking point manufacturer. Of course, you accept it as fact because it fits with your preconceived notion of how the world should work - it confirmed your bias.
From my link:
Test the Multipliers
The debate over the efficacy of Keynesian stimulus is essentially a debate over the correct multipliers. Some believe the multipliers are high[4]; others believe they are as low as zero[5] (or even negative). Testing the stimulus requires testing the multipliers. Yet by simply assuming large multipliers, the CBO effectively pre-ordained its conclusion that the stimulus worked regardless of what actually happened in the economy.
How can you release a credible economic report without paying attention to what happened in the economy?
Hint: You can't.
You said CBO doesn't rely on assumptions.My gawd, between you and Tom you are incapable of answering even the most simple questions. let's try again:
Do you deny the existence of economic multipliers?
I showed they do.
one more time, just in case you missed it the first time: Do you deny the existence of economic multipliers?
And no, I didn't claim the "CBO doesn't rely on assumptions". Of course it does. You can't have an economic model if you don't base it on certain assumptions. If you hypothesize that increasing the cigarette taxes leads to lower consumption of cigarettes, you have to assume that: (A) an increase in price leads to a decrease in the quantity demanded for normal goods and that (B) Cigarettes are not an extremely inferior good.
The CBO doesn't do any independent research or analysis. They rely on the numbers they're given.How is that any different from what you're doing?no, you did not provide "Facts". You provided the usual easily-digestable swill from a rightwing talking point manufacturer. Of course, you accept it as fact because it fits with your preconceived notion of how the world should work - it confirmed your bias.
The CBO is not a rightwing or leftwing talking point manufacturer.
From my link:
Test the Multipliers
The debate over the efficacy of Keynesian stimulus is essentially a debate over the correct multipliers. Some believe the multipliers are high[4]; others believe they are as low as zero[5] (or even negative). Testing the stimulus requires testing the multipliers. Yet by simply assuming large multipliers, the CBO effectively pre-ordained its conclusion that the stimulus worked regardless of what actually happened in the economy.
How can you release a credible economic report without paying attention to what happened in the economy?
Hint: You can't.
Yes, you can. You just don't know what you're talking about so you believe the swill that Heritage offers up.
There is a counterfactual to be tested here, and it's the projected trend growth without stimulus.
One more time, just for posterity: Do you deny the existence of economic multipliers?
Why can't people who claim to be so sure of their own facts answer a simple question?
If someone comes here from China with a billion dollars in their pocket and spends it on goods and services, does that induce producers to produce more goods?
The CBO doesn't do any independent research or analysis. They rely on the numbers they're given.How is that any different from what you're doing?
The CBO is not a rightwing or leftwing talking point manufacturer.
If they're given crappy numbers, they'll put out a crappy report.
But hey, you accept it as fact because it fits with your preconceived notion of how the world should work - it confirmed your bias.
