New CBO Report Finds Up to 2.9 Million People Owe Their Jobs to the Recovery Act

[8537]

How is that any different from what you're doing?

The CBO is not a rightwing or leftwing talking point manufacturer.

The CBO doesn't do any independent research or analysis. They rely on the numbers they're given.

of course they do independent analysis. That's the whole point of having a CBO - to do independent analysis.

 

[8537]

You believe that you can release a credible economic report without paying attention to what happened in the economy.

well of course. It depends on what you're attempting to report.

 

[8537]

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?

Is that what the stimulus did?

Hint: No.

You are incapable of answering that question, aren't ya?

 

[8537]

The CBO is not a rightwing or leftwing talking point manufacturer.

The CBO doesn't do any independent research or analysis. They rely on the numbers they're given.

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.

If the GOP gives the CBO garbage, they will get garbage.
If the Democrats give the CBO garbage, they get a bed of roses without thorns.

get with the program Dave.

Indeed, the CBO is a leftwing tool

Heritage, on the other hand - they are a reliable source of nonbiased information!

Cons are funny folks.

 

[daveman]

The CBO is not a rightwing or leftwing talking point manufacturer.

The CBO doesn't do any independent research or analysis. They rely on the numbers they're given.

of course they do independent analysis. That's the whole point of having a CBO - to do independent analysis.

You're right -- I misspoke. However, they do not gather their own data. They rely solely on what's given them.

GIGO.

 

[daveman]

You believe that you can release a credible economic report without paying attention to what happened in the economy.

well of course. It depends on what you're attempting to report.

Don't you think when you're reporting on what the economy did you should look at what the economy did?

I do. And they didn't.

 

[daveman]

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?

Is that what the stimulus did?

Hint: No.

You are incapable of answering that question, aren't ya?

Stamp your feet and pout some more.

 

[daveman]

The CBO is not a rightwing or leftwing talking point manufacturer.

The CBO doesn't do any independent research or analysis. They rely on the numbers they're given.

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.

If the GOP gives the CBO garbage, they will get garbage.
If the Democrats give the CBO garbage, they get a bed of roses without thorns.

get with the program Dave.

 

[Trajan]

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?

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?

I do, in that this $1.80 is absolute hogwash and at a $1.20 its basically a wash.


I would ( and Toro too I bet) would very much like to see your evidence , that transfer payments benefits create jobs and benefit the economy in a meaningful way.

 

[8537]

You believe that you can release a credible economic report without paying attention to what happened in the economy.

well of course. It depends on what you're attempting to report.

Don't you think when you're reporting on what the economy did you should look at what the economy did?

I do. And they didn't.

This is where you're falling for Heritage spin. They did report on what the economy did, based on models from derived from previous economic history.

What they did NOT do is provide a counterfactual of the current economy.

 

[Trajan]

well, I give you credit - you're proud of the fact that you don't know what you're talking about! AND you admit that the act created a minimum of 1 million jobs.

Thanks, Frank.

It
was
a
guess.

No, it was not a guess. It was the results of statistical modelling. The 1 and 2.9M figures are the extremes of either two or three standard deviations from the mean.

did you read my thread?


and so, why it is when cons say for example; supply side works, they get the shit kicked out of them yet here, its a done deal?this modeling is on the same basis and , frankly your numbers suck worse than the supply side numbers do.

and I will ask one more time on top of the 7-8 times I have asked, even talking the median estimate, how much money did it take to "create" that job?......AND, since we have a net job loss, where and how is it counted ?

 

[8537]

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?

I do, in that this $1.80 is absolute hogwash and at a $1.20 its basically a wash.

First of all, $1.20 is far from a wash.

Secondly, I'd be interested to know how you arrived at the conclusion that $1.80 is "Absolute hogwash" other than your own ideological bent.

I would ( and Toro too I bet) would very much like top see your evidence , that transfer payments benefits create jobs and benefit the economy in a meaningful way.

Transfer payments in an economy well below full employment where capital spending is depressed can create jobs and benefit the economy.

 

[Cuyo]

$800 billion (800,000 x $1 million) divided by 2.9 million = over $275k/job.

Popular tactic on the right... Unfortunately, moot because it ignores 1. The multiplier effect and 2. The actual tangible benefits besides the jobs (eg, the actual road, the actual power plant, etc.)

 

[daveman]

well of course. It depends on what you're attempting to report.

Don't you think when you're reporting on what the economy did you should look at what the economy did?

I do. And they didn't.

This is where you're falling for Heritage spin. They did report on what the economy did, based on models from derived from previous economic history.

What they did NOT do is provide a counterfactual of the current economy.

Uh huh. Riiiight.

 

[8537]

It
was
a
guess.

No, it was not a guess. It was the results of statistical modelling. The 1 and 2.9M figures are the extremes of either two or three standard deviations from the mean.

did you read my thread?


and so, why it is when cons say for example; supply side works, they get the shit kicked out of them yet here, its a done deal?

Because there is no empirical evidence to support the claim, of course.

this modeling is on the same basis and , frankly your numbers suck worse than the supply side numbers do.

"This modeling" is not on the same basis. What "Basis" do you think supply-side models are on?

and I will ask one more time on top of the 7-8 times I have asked, even talking the median estimate, how much money did it take to "create" that job?......AND, since we have a net job loss, where and how is it counted ?

The cost per job over the lifetime of the job? That's kinda hard to calculate but I'm sure someone will model it soon enough. The more important question might be: What's the cost to NOT creating that job in terms of future decline in revenues and income?

The net loss of jobs is a relic of how quickly we were losing jobs to begin with. in the months before the bill was passed we were losing 750,000 jobs per month. Of course a stimulus that created 1-3M jobs over about two years isn't going to fully compensate for an economy facing that kind of job loss in 2 to 4 months.

 

[Trajan]

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?

I do, in that this $1.80 is absolute hogwash and at a $1.20 its basically a wash.

First of all, $1.20 is far from a wash.

Secondly, I'd be interested to know how you arrived at the conclusion that $1.80 is "Absolute hogwash" other than your own ideological bent.

I would ( and Toro too I bet) would very much like top see your evidence , that transfer payments benefits create jobs and benefit the economy in a meaningful way.

Transfer payments in an economy well below full employment where capital spending is depressed can create jobs and benefit the economy.

don't try that crap.....put up or....?

 

[Conservative]

This is where you're falling for Heritage spin. They did report on what the economy did, based on models from derived from previous economic history.

What they did NOT do is provide a counterfactual of the current economy.

so.. they said 'the economy today, did this...'

and came to that conclusion not based on current data, but...

'models derived from previous economic history'.

Definition of computer modeling...
Computer simulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Traditionally, building large models of systems has been via a statistical model, which attempts to find analytical solutions to problems and thereby enable the prediction of the behavior of the system from a set of parameters and initial conditions.

It is a 'prediction' of the effects of the stimulus, not a 'measurement' of it's actual effects.

 

[Trajan]

No, it was not a guess. It was the results of statistical modelling. The 1 and 2.9M figures are the extremes of either two or three standard deviations from the mean.

did you read my thread?


and so, why it is when cons say for example; supply side works, they get the shit kicked out of them yet here, its a done deal?

Because there is no empirical evidence to support the claim, of course.

and yours? because job losses have slowed?...you have really got to be kidding. Mine? based on the same non proof you surfaced? we had a recovery within 18 months after a recession....your turn.

this modeling is on the same basis and , frankly your numbers suck worse than the supply side numbers do.

"This modeling" is not on the same basis. What "Basis" do you think supply-side models are on?

and I will ask one more time on top of the 7-8 times I have asked, even talking the median estimate, how much money did it take to "create" that job?......AND, since we have a net job loss, where and how is it counted ?

The cost per job over the lifetime of the job? That's kinda hard to calculate but I'm sure someone will model it soon enough. The more important question might be: What's the cost to NOT creating that job in terms of future decline in revenues and income?

The net loss of jobs is a relic of how quickly we were losing jobs to begin with. in the months before the bill was passed we were losing 750,000 jobs per month. Of course a stimulus that created 1-3M jobs over about two years isn't going to fully compensate for an economy facing that kind of job loss in 2 to 4 months.

I thought so..........heres my evidence..sxhdo 347219 mnsxzb qh, fheioer75**wl. Kge86#^&) dfhreoep!!!!!!

 

[boedicca]

Here's the problem with the "analysis", it doesn't include the jobs that were lost or not created due to the inefficient use of capital by the government.

 

[Trajan]

$800 billion (800,000 x $1 million) divided by 2.9 million = over $275k/job.

Popular tactic on the right... Unfortunately, moot because it ignores 1. The multiplier effect and 2. The actual tangible benefits besides the jobs (eg, the actual road, the actual power plant, etc.)

first, I have said before like 20 times, yes deficit spending has a purpose, it is not all bad....however, we have moved way beyond the degree where ion that becomes a ney benefit.....

there is NO multiplier for short term or created then lost job (except the increase in Union dues).
the after effect is a negative in that its effect on taxes to pay for the borrowing especially at this level of deficit and debt. is beyond this 'multiplier' that anyone has yet to prove btw, ala wealth CREATION via employment and tax revenue long term, is peanuts to zip. If so the soviet union would have eaten our lunch decades ago............I agree the 'road' is a net plus, that is a material or good once laid and paid.