Stimulus To Solve Unemployment???

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In the short 3-5 year term how did the Reagan plan or the Bush/Obama plan of deficit spending hurt the economy?

by requiring more and more federal spending and less and less private spending

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Or you could just support policies that encourage domestic production of good consumed domestically and say to hell with exports and imports.

dear, world class goods and services come from decades of international competition. If we want to be a world class country we need to have world class goods and services!

In 1980 you paid 10 years salary in Hungary for a car without a gas gage (dip stick instead) that had to be backed up a hill because of a gravity fed carburetor. They employed engineers by the 1000's all of whom swore that was the best they could do.
It is not until you have had years and years of free Republican capitalist international competition that you have any idea how many engineers are needed, at what salary, to produce what quality.
Can you understand the analogy?

 

[sameech]

Or you could just support policies that encourage domestic production of good consumed domestically and say to hell with exports and imports.

dear, world class goods and services come from decades of international competition. If we want to be a world class country we need to have world class goods and services!

In 1980 you paid 10 years salary in Hungary for a car without a gas gage (dip stick instead) that had to be backed up a hill because of a gravity fed carburetor. They employed engineers by the 1000's all of whom swore that was the best they could do.
It is not until you have had years and years of free Republican capitalist international competition that you have any idea how many engineers are needed, at what salary, to produce what quality.
Can you understand the analogy?

I don't care about hungary and the last thing we need is more people consuming more useless crap destroying the planet even faster

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Or you could just support policies that encourage domestic production of good consumed domestically and say to hell with exports and imports.

dear, world class goods and services come from decades of international competition. If we want to be a world class country we need to have world class goods and services!

In 1980 you paid 10 years salary in Hungary for a car without a gas gage (dip stick instead) that had to be backed up a hill because of a gravity fed carburetor. They employed engineers by the 1000's all of whom swore that was the best they could do.
It is not until you have had years and years of free Republican capitalist international competition that you have any idea how many engineers are needed, at what salary, to produce what quality.
Can you understand the analogy?

I don't care about hungary and the last thing we need is more people consuming more useless crap destroying the planet even faster

so you want an international liberal Nazi govt telling the people of China and India they must remain dirt poor and can never have what Americans have?

 

[Toronado3800]

In the short 3-5 year term how did the Reagan plan or the Bush/Obama plan of deficit spending hurt the economy?

by requiring more and more federal spending and less and less private spending

What do you mean by "requiring"?

This school down the road got more or less stimulus funds and ordered some solar panels with it. That money then went to the construction company next to my work and boy their cranes were moving back and forth to the job site and their employees were taking home money...my tax money lol, but money to spend.

Plus, we are talking 3 to 5 years while taxes are kept low waiting for the recovery and increase in GDP to offset the new deficit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

China has been using stimulus funds to help their economy and it's working, but then again they don't have to deal with evangelical repubs...

It appears that post #17, revealing that the Stimulus had a far from salutary effect.....really took the wind out of your sails, huh?



You didn't like including Canada there, I guess.

Why, did you miss Canada at anytime?

The Stimulus also had the less than desired affect because of GOP obstructionism and tunnel vision on the ACA...Much of the stimulus was in tax reductions, which is another reason it didn't work as well.It should have been modeled on Reagan or Bush's stimulus programs that allowed the govt. to spend money to spur the economy...

I buried you earlier...now you're back! What are you, some sort of Liberal zombie???
Gonna have to bury you again!

"The Stimulus also had the less than desired affect because of GOP obstructionism...."

So....is there an obstructurist GOP in every country?

No?
Then how do you explain this:

12. Japan tried eight fiscal-stimulus plans in the 1990s and early 2000s to end a nearly two-decade long depression that began in 1991. “Keynesian ‘pump-priming’ in a recession has often been tried, and as an economic stimulus it is overrated.”
(“Barak Obama-san”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html)

And the result of these enormous public-works programs? In 1991, the Nikkei was at 30,000; by 2000, after spending $1.4 trillion in today’s dollars on stimulus programs, the Nikkei was at 12,000.


a. And how successful was the FDR stimulus?In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”


b. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.
Andrew Wilson is right: the New Deal did not end the Great Depression ("Five Myths About the Great Depression," November 4).


c. No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. 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!"
http://www.burtfolsom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/Morgenthau.pdf





13. But, hey...but how could Obama have known all of this???

Here's how: he hired Christina Romer as the Obama chief economic advisor...what was her perspective?


“…multiple studies have shown, government spending has little stimulative value. One of those studies was done by Obama’s new chief economic adviser, Christina Romer of UC Berkeley, who found $3 in increased Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for every $1 in tax cuts. Increased spending generates at best a mere 40 cents of GDP growth on the dollar. Third, that 40 cents actually goes to special interests like labor unions, politically influential contractors in favored industries and state and local political allies of the party in power.”
The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks [PDF], April 2009. American Economic Review, forthcoming.



Bottom line....Obama knew....Liberal elites know.
They have other reasons to support government spending.....and those reasons don't include solving recessions, unemployment, or poverty.


But dopes who buy their lies.....they keep defending wasteful spending by big government no matter what logic, experience and research show.
True?
Raise your paw.

Hey, how does a stimulus retard an economy in the short term 3-5 year terms we are talking about?

Where did the money that the scam....er, stimulus....wasted, come from?
What would it be used for had it not been appropriated by the crooks in government?

 

[Toronado3800]

China has been using stimulus funds to help their economy and it's working, but then again they don't have to deal with evangelical repubs...

It appears that post #17, revealing that the Stimulus had a far from salutary effect.....really took the wind out of your sails, huh?



You didn't like including Canada there, I guess.

Why, did you miss Canada at anytime?

The Stimulus also had the less than desired affect because of GOP obstructionism and tunnel vision on the ACA...Much of the stimulus was in tax reductions, which is another reason it didn't work as well.It should have been modeled on Reagan or Bush's stimulus programs that allowed the govt. to spend money to spur the economy...

I buried you earlier...now you're back! What are you, some sort of Liberal zombie???
Gonna have to bury you again!

"The Stimulus also had the less than desired affect because of GOP obstructionism...."

So....is there an obstructurist GOP in every country?

No?
Then how do you explain this:

12. Japan tried eight fiscal-stimulus plans in the 1990s and early 2000s to end a nearly two-decade long depression that began in 1991. “Keynesian ‘pump-priming’ in a recession has often been tried, and as an economic stimulus it is overrated.”
(“Barak Obama-san”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html)

And the result of these enormous public-works programs? In 1991, the Nikkei was at 30,000; by 2000, after spending $1.4 trillion in today’s dollars on stimulus programs, the Nikkei was at 12,000.


a. And how successful was the FDR stimulus?In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”


b. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.
Andrew Wilson is right: the New Deal did not end the Great Depression ("Five Myths About the Great Depression," November 4).


c. No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. 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!"
http://www.burtfolsom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/Morgenthau.pdf





13. But, hey...but how could Obama have known all of this???

Here's how: he hired Christina Romer as the Obama chief economic advisor...what was her perspective?


“…multiple studies have shown, government spending has little stimulative value. One of those studies was done by Obama’s new chief economic adviser, Christina Romer of UC Berkeley, who found $3 in increased Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for every $1 in tax cuts. Increased spending generates at best a mere 40 cents of GDP growth on the dollar. Third, that 40 cents actually goes to special interests like labor unions, politically influential contractors in favored industries and state and local political allies of the party in power.”
The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks [PDF], April 2009. American Economic Review, forthcoming.



Bottom line....Obama knew....Liberal elites know.
They have other reasons to support government spending.....and those reasons don't include solving recessions, unemployment, or poverty.


But dopes who buy their lies.....they keep defending wasteful spending by big government no matter what logic, experience and research show.
True?
Raise your paw.

Hey, how does a stimulus retard an economy in the short term 3-5 year terms we are talking about?

Where did the money that the scam....er, stimulus....wasted, come from?
What would it be used for had it not been appropriated by the crooks in government?

The money in the short term is created.

The downside is it devalues the currency, which while it lowers your buying power also sorta according to Edward (in his Chinese labor post, and I don't disagree) makes your country more attractive as a place to build things and hire people because on a global scale thanks to your devalued currency their wages are lower.

So in the 3 - 5 year period how does the stimulus hurt the economy?

 

[PoliticalChic]

A wise wonk once said that not experience, nor logic, nor research will convince Liberals.
The question of the efficacy of 'stimulus' proves exactly that.


Have Obama and his coterie studied history?

Do they know that President Harding took a different tack in solving a recession, and did in a year what Roosevelt's 'stimulus' couldn't in a decade?

Harding cut spending.


And if they do know it....how to explain his wasting a couple of trillion of taxpayer dollars?


14. "A similar debate is occurring in Europe, with the contest presented as “austerity” versus “growth.” Yet many of the nations which practiced austerity have grown the fastest. Germany remains the continent’s powerhouse even though its post-2008 stimulus was far less relative to its GDP than in the U.S. and other European states. Both Germany and Sweden enjoyed strong growth as they brought their budgets into closer balance.


My Cato Institute colleague Michael Tanner also pointed to the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. All cut government outlays; all are growing. Canada and Switzerland similarly rejected profligacy as policy. He wrote: “All these countries are following the successful examples set by other nations such as Chile, Ireland, and New Zealand in the 1980s and ‘90s, and Slovakia from 2000 to 2003.”


In contrast, Portugal’s Finance Minister, Vitor Gaspar, warned the New York Times: “My country definitely provides a cautionary tale that shows that, in some instances, short-run expansionary policies can be counterproductive.” He added: “There are some limitations to the intuitions from Keynes.” In fact, Portugal may be headed for a second European Union bail-out."
Federal Spending Killing the Economy With Government Stimulus - Forbes



If one were to apply an understanding of human nature, rather than trying to imbue (Leftist) politicians with more than human integrity....
...well, one would quickly see that corruption is the basis of 'stimulus' economic theory.

 

[Toronado3800]

A wise wonk once said that not experience, nor logic, nor research will convince Liberals.
The question of the efficacy of 'stimulus' proves exactly that.


Have Obama and his coterie studied history?

Do they know that President Harding took a different tack in solving a recession, and did in a year what Roosevelt's 'stimulus' couldn't in a decade?

Harding cut spending.


And if they do know it....how to explain his wasting a couple of trillion of taxpayer dollars?


14. "A similar debate is occurring in Europe, with the contest presented as “austerity” versus “growth.” Yet many of the nations which practiced austerity have grown the fastest. Germany remains the continent’s powerhouse even though its post-2008 stimulus was far less relative to its GDP than in the U.S. and other European states. Both Germany and Sweden enjoyed strong growth as they brought their budgets into closer balance.


My Cato Institute colleague Michael Tanner also pointed to the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. All cut government outlays; all are growing. Canada and Switzerland similarly rejected profligacy as policy. He wrote: “All these countries are following the successful examples set by other nations such as Chile, Ireland, and New Zealand in the 1980s and ‘90s, and Slovakia from 2000 to 2003.”


In contrast, Portugal’s Finance Minister, Vitor Gaspar, warned the New York Times: “My country definitely provides a cautionary tale that shows that, in some instances, short-run expansionary policies can be counterproductive.” He added: “There are some limitations to the intuitions from Keynes.” In fact, Portugal may be headed for a second European Union bail-out."
Federal Spending Killing the Economy With Government Stimulus - Forbes



If one were to apply an understanding of human nature, rather than trying to imbue (Leftist) politicians with more than human integrity....
...well, one would quickly see that corruption is the basis of 'stimulus' economic theory.

I read the Forbes article. The fella who said military deficit spending helps the economy while building power plants does not has an interesting outlook.

Another person was quoted as saying it discourages private investment...to which I say, if I give you or Bank of America a hundred million dollars, what are you going to do? I might get my cars repainted and buy up my neighbor's houses. Maybe go drinking. BOA is going to give executive bonuses, pay some bills and advertise their products. All of which mean the money is spent doing SOMETHING even if it is just invested back into money market funds because that gives other companies capital.

But yeah, my fellow journalism student did not explain how in a 3 - 5 year period deficit stimulus type spending does not help the economy. Do you know?

 

[PoliticalChic]

A wise wonk once said that not experience, nor logic, nor research will convince Liberals.
The question of the efficacy of 'stimulus' proves exactly that.


Have Obama and his coterie studied history?

Do they know that President Harding took a different tack in solving a recession, and did in a year what Roosevelt's 'stimulus' couldn't in a decade?

Harding cut spending.


And if they do know it....how to explain his wasting a couple of trillion of taxpayer dollars?


14. "A similar debate is occurring in Europe, with the contest presented as “austerity” versus “growth.” Yet many of the nations which practiced austerity have grown the fastest. Germany remains the continent’s powerhouse even though its post-2008 stimulus was far less relative to its GDP than in the U.S. and other European states. Both Germany and Sweden enjoyed strong growth as they brought their budgets into closer balance.


My Cato Institute colleague Michael Tanner also pointed to the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. All cut government outlays; all are growing. Canada and Switzerland similarly rejected profligacy as policy. He wrote: “All these countries are following the successful examples set by other nations such as Chile, Ireland, and New Zealand in the 1980s and ‘90s, and Slovakia from 2000 to 2003.”


In contrast, Portugal’s Finance Minister, Vitor Gaspar, warned the New York Times: “My country definitely provides a cautionary tale that shows that, in some instances, short-run expansionary policies can be counterproductive.” He added: “There are some limitations to the intuitions from Keynes.” In fact, Portugal may be headed for a second European Union bail-out."
Federal Spending Killing the Economy With Government Stimulus - Forbes



If one were to apply an understanding of human nature, rather than trying to imbue (Leftist) politicians with more than human integrity....
...well, one would quickly see that corruption is the basis of 'stimulus' economic theory.

I read the Forbes article. The fella who said military deficit spending helps the economy while building power plants does not has an interesting outlook.

Another person was quoted as saying it discourages private investment...to which I say, if I give you or Bank of America a hundred million dollars, what are you going to do? I might get my cars repainted and buy up my neighbor's houses. Maybe go drinking. BOA is going to give executive bonuses, pay some bills and advertise their products. All of which mean the money is spent doing SOMETHING even if it is just invested back into money market funds because that gives other companies capital.

But yeah, my fellow journalism student did not explain how in a 3 - 5 year period deficit stimulus type spending does not help the economy. Do you know?

I answered in post #66.

As you have done with most of the points raised about 'stimulus,' you side-stepped by claiming that printing money was just peachy keen.

No.

Value is destroyed by the that process.

Money taken by taxation is where most comes from.

 

[Toronado3800]

A wise wonk once said that not experience, nor logic, nor research will convince Liberals.
The question of the efficacy of 'stimulus' proves exactly that.


Have Obama and his coterie studied history?

Do they know that President Harding took a different tack in solving a recession, and did in a year what Roosevelt's 'stimulus' couldn't in a decade?

Harding cut spending.


And if they do know it....how to explain his wasting a couple of trillion of taxpayer dollars?


14. "A similar debate is occurring in Europe, with the contest presented as “austerity” versus “growth.” Yet many of the nations which practiced austerity have grown the fastest. Germany remains the continent’s powerhouse even though its post-2008 stimulus was far less relative to its GDP than in the U.S. and other European states. Both Germany and Sweden enjoyed strong growth as they brought their budgets into closer balance.


My Cato Institute colleague Michael Tanner also pointed to the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. All cut government outlays; all are growing. Canada and Switzerland similarly rejected profligacy as policy. He wrote: “All these countries are following the successful examples set by other nations such as Chile, Ireland, and New Zealand in the 1980s and ‘90s, and Slovakia from 2000 to 2003.”


In contrast, Portugal’s Finance Minister, Vitor Gaspar, warned the New York Times: “My country definitely provides a cautionary tale that shows that, in some instances, short-run expansionary policies can be counterproductive.” He added: “There are some limitations to the intuitions from Keynes.” In fact, Portugal may be headed for a second European Union bail-out."
Federal Spending Killing the Economy With Government Stimulus - Forbes



If one were to apply an understanding of human nature, rather than trying to imbue (Leftist) politicians with more than human integrity....
...well, one would quickly see that corruption is the basis of 'stimulus' economic theory.

I read the Forbes article. The fella who said military deficit spending helps the economy while building power plants does not has an interesting outlook.

Another person was quoted as saying it discourages private investment...to which I say, if I give you or Bank of America a hundred million dollars, what are you going to do? I might get my cars repainted and buy up my neighbor's houses. Maybe go drinking. BOA is going to give executive bonuses, pay some bills and advertise their products. All of which mean the money is spent doing SOMETHING even if it is just invested back into money market funds because that gives other companies capital.

But yeah, my fellow journalism student did not explain how in a 3 - 5 year period deficit stimulus type spending does not help the economy. Do you know?

I answered in post #66.

As you have done with most of the points raised about 'stimulus,' you side-stepped by claiming that printing money was just peachy keen.

No.

Value is destroyed by the that process.

Money taken by taxation is where most comes from.

Sigh.

Ok. The government deficit spends by issuing bonds. SOMEDAY them bonds need paid off. They have a short term benefit at the cost of long term interest. Reagan recovery model. There is an amortization sheet showing what they cost vs projected inflation. It is somewhat similar to a home loan. Day one of the loan I have this great house, but at what a long term cost.

The danger is with money being spent out of the Country for sure. But Americans on the individual level do that just fine. (I gotta put on my Walmart made in Malaysa jeans. I'll be back to check to see if you came up with a good answer to how deficit stimulus spending hurts in the short term).

 

[PoliticalChic]

A wise wonk once said that not experience, nor logic, nor research will convince Liberals.
The question of the efficacy of 'stimulus' proves exactly that.


Have Obama and his coterie studied history?

Do they know that President Harding took a different tack in solving a recession, and did in a year what Roosevelt's 'stimulus' couldn't in a decade?

Harding cut spending.


And if they do know it....how to explain his wasting a couple of trillion of taxpayer dollars?


14. "A similar debate is occurring in Europe, with the contest presented as “austerity” versus “growth.” Yet many of the nations which practiced austerity have grown the fastest. Germany remains the continent’s powerhouse even though its post-2008 stimulus was far less relative to its GDP than in the U.S. and other European states. Both Germany and Sweden enjoyed strong growth as they brought their budgets into closer balance.


My Cato Institute colleague Michael Tanner also pointed to the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. All cut government outlays; all are growing. Canada and Switzerland similarly rejected profligacy as policy. He wrote: “All these countries are following the successful examples set by other nations such as Chile, Ireland, and New Zealand in the 1980s and ‘90s, and Slovakia from 2000 to 2003.”


In contrast, Portugal’s Finance Minister, Vitor Gaspar, warned the New York Times: “My country definitely provides a cautionary tale that shows that, in some instances, short-run expansionary policies can be counterproductive.” He added: “There are some limitations to the intuitions from Keynes.” In fact, Portugal may be headed for a second European Union bail-out."
Federal Spending Killing the Economy With Government Stimulus - Forbes



If one were to apply an understanding of human nature, rather than trying to imbue (Leftist) politicians with more than human integrity....
...well, one would quickly see that corruption is the basis of 'stimulus' economic theory.

I read the Forbes article. The fella who said military deficit spending helps the economy while building power plants does not has an interesting outlook.

Another person was quoted as saying it discourages private investment...to which I say, if I give you or Bank of America a hundred million dollars, what are you going to do? I might get my cars repainted and buy up my neighbor's houses. Maybe go drinking. BOA is going to give executive bonuses, pay some bills and advertise their products. All of which mean the money is spent doing SOMETHING even if it is just invested back into money market funds because that gives other companies capital.

But yeah, my fellow journalism student did not explain how in a 3 - 5 year period deficit stimulus type spending does not help the economy. Do you know?

I answered in post #66.

As you have done with most of the points raised about 'stimulus,' you side-stepped by claiming that printing money was just peachy keen.

No.

Value is destroyed by the that process.

Money taken by taxation is where most comes from.

Sigh.

Ok. The government deficit spends by issuing bonds. SOMEDAY them bonds need paid off. They have a short term benefit at the cost of long term interest. Reagan recovery model. There is an amortization sheet showing what they cost vs projected inflation. It is somewhat similar to a home loan. Day one of the loan I have this great house, but at what a long term cost.

The danger is with money being spent out of the Country for sure. But Americans on the individual level do that just fine. (I gotta put on my Walmart made in Malaysa jeans. I'll be back to check to see if you came up with a good answer to how deficit stimulus spending hurts in the short term).

It has been explained twice.

You can keep pretending that it is not the case, pretending that 'someday' is not a reality.

It is.

 

[Toronado3800]

China has been using stimulus funds to help their economy and it's working, but then again they don't have to deal with evangelical repubs...

It appears that post #17, revealing that the Stimulus had a far from salutary effect.....really took the wind out of your sails, huh?



You didn't like including Canada there, I guess.

Why, did you miss Canada at anytime?

The Stimulus also had the less than desired affect because of GOP obstructionism and tunnel vision on the ACA...Much of the stimulus was in tax reductions, which is another reason it didn't work as well.It should have been modeled on Reagan or Bush's stimulus programs that allowed the govt. to spend money to spur the economy...

I buried you earlier...now you're back! What are you, some sort of Liberal zombie???
Gonna have to bury you again!

"The Stimulus also had the less than desired affect because of GOP obstructionism...."

So....is there an obstructurist GOP in every country?

No?
Then how do you explain this:

12. Japan tried eight fiscal-stimulus plans in the 1990s and early 2000s to end a nearly two-decade long depression that began in 1991. “Keynesian ‘pump-priming’ in a recession has often been tried, and as an economic stimulus it is overrated.”
(“Barak Obama-san”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html)

And the result of these enormous public-works programs? In 1991, the Nikkei was at 30,000; by 2000, after spending $1.4 trillion in today’s dollars on stimulus programs, the Nikkei was at 12,000.


a. And how successful was the FDR stimulus?In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”


b. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.
Andrew Wilson is right: the New Deal did not end the Great Depression ("Five Myths About the Great Depression," November 4).


c. No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. 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!"
http://www.burtfolsom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/Morgenthau.pdf





13. But, hey...but how could Obama have known all of this???

Here's how: he hired Christina Romer as the Obama chief economic advisor...what was her perspective?


“…multiple studies have shown, government spending has little stimulative value. One of those studies was done by Obama’s new chief economic adviser, Christina Romer of UC Berkeley, who found $3 in increased Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for every $1 in tax cuts. Increased spending generates at best a mere 40 cents of GDP growth on the dollar. Third, that 40 cents actually goes to special interests like labor unions, politically influential contractors in favored industries and state and local political allies of the party in power.”
The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks [PDF], April 2009. American Economic Review, forthcoming.



Bottom line....Obama knew....Liberal elites know.
They have other reasons to support government spending.....and those reasons don't include solving recessions, unemployment, or poverty.


But dopes who buy their lies.....they keep defending wasteful spending by big government no matter what logic, experience and research show.
True?
Raise your paw.

Hey, how does a stimulus retard an economy in the short term 3-5 year terms we are talking about?

Where did the money that the scam....er, stimulus....wasted, come from?
What would it be used for had it not been appropriated by the crooks in government?

This is post 66, right?

I answered pretty plainly below it I thought.

The money for the stimulus was created. The downside of creating money is incurred years later as you must pay the interest on the bonds and deal with devalued currency.

The crooks in government thing is really cynical but I have made some joke answers. Consider if we give Jerry Jones a billion dollars he will spend it on whores and landscapers and SOMETHING. Not necessarily a long term gain like building a power plant but in the short term it cycles through the economy if he rents a whore or puts it in the bank, long as the crook just does not bury it under a rock or send it to China.

Again. In the long term the stimulus may cost us tons more than it was worth. Ask the Reagan era folks. I agree 100% that you need to be careful with debt.

One answer for you PC lies in the element of time and money cycling. If the fed govt creates money and gives it to a state a year later and that state spends it another year later there is an interest/inflationary loss effect.

Gimme another.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....in this thread you have tons of proof that Keynesian stimulus is a fraud...
Easy enough to understand why the purveyors of the fraud endorse it....but why do so many of the Leftist simpletons....I mean sympathizers.....continue to swear by it??


15. There are reasons why it is easier to convince the less sophisticated that government stimulus projects are good. Those in favor of government projects have lots of ammunition.


a. They say 'the job was so big, private capital could not have built it!'

But it is built by 'private capital'! Said capital was expropriated from the private economy by way of taxation!


b. What if it was done via bonds issued by the government? Where do you think the capital that will be use to retire those bonds will come from???





16. So....what is really behind 'stimulus' proposals, and government projects?

Answer: Progressive bureaucrats.


Shown above, projects claimed as 'putting people to work' really means moving people from the private economy into a position paid for by the government using taxpayer funds....after the government 'wetting its beak.'


That's right....government skims it's cut right off the top.


a. Here's a prime example of government ripping off....I mean maintaining welfare progreams:

Of every "three dollars in food stamps for the needy, seven dollars in salaries and pensions (go to) the bureaucrats who are supposed to be taking care of the poor."
—Michele Bachmannon Saturday, March 16th, 2013 in a speech at the conservative CPAC conference

It might be more accurate to restrict that 70% to welfare as a whole, but the point is essentially correct. There is an entire poverty industry being supported to a far greater degree than the supposed targets of the program!!


b. "Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor.
Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split." https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf





Yup....those ol' "tax and spend Democrats."

Can you imagine how many more jobs, goods and services would have been produce in a private economy not plundered by government, and the funds not squandered???

 

[PoliticalChic]

It appears that post #17, revealing that the Stimulus had a far from salutary effect.....really took the wind out of your sails, huh?



You didn't like including Canada there, I guess.

Why, did you miss Canada at anytime?

The Stimulus also had the less than desired affect because of GOP obstructionism and tunnel vision on the ACA...Much of the stimulus was in tax reductions, which is another reason it didn't work as well.It should have been modeled on Reagan or Bush's stimulus programs that allowed the govt. to spend money to spur the economy...

I buried you earlier...now you're back! What are you, some sort of Liberal zombie???
Gonna have to bury you again!

"The Stimulus also had the less than desired affect because of GOP obstructionism...."

So....is there an obstructurist GOP in every country?

No?
Then how do you explain this:

12. Japan tried eight fiscal-stimulus plans in the 1990s and early 2000s to end a nearly two-decade long depression that began in 1991. “Keynesian ‘pump-priming’ in a recession has often been tried, and as an economic stimulus it is overrated.”
(“Barak Obama-san”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html)

And the result of these enormous public-works programs? In 1991, the Nikkei was at 30,000; by 2000, after spending $1.4 trillion in today’s dollars on stimulus programs, the Nikkei was at 12,000.


a. And how successful was the FDR stimulus?In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”


b. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.
Andrew Wilson is right: the New Deal did not end the Great Depression ("Five Myths About the Great Depression," November 4).


c. No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. 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!"
http://www.burtfolsom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/Morgenthau.pdf





13. But, hey...but how could Obama have known all of this???

Here's how: he hired Christina Romer as the Obama chief economic advisor...what was her perspective?


“…multiple studies have shown, government spending has little stimulative value. One of those studies was done by Obama’s new chief economic adviser, Christina Romer of UC Berkeley, who found $3 in increased Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for every $1 in tax cuts. Increased spending generates at best a mere 40 cents of GDP growth on the dollar. Third, that 40 cents actually goes to special interests like labor unions, politically influential contractors in favored industries and state and local political allies of the party in power.”
The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks [PDF], April 2009. American Economic Review, forthcoming.



Bottom line....Obama knew....Liberal elites know.
They have other reasons to support government spending.....and those reasons don't include solving recessions, unemployment, or poverty.


But dopes who buy their lies.....they keep defending wasteful spending by big government no matter what logic, experience and research show.
True?
Raise your paw.

Hey, how does a stimulus retard an economy in the short term 3-5 year terms we are talking about?

Where did the money that the scam....er, stimulus....wasted, come from?
What would it be used for had it not been appropriated by the crooks in government?

This is post 66, right?

I answered pretty plainly below it I thought.

The money for the stimulus was created. The downside of creating money is incurred years later as you must pay the interest on the bonds and deal with devalued currency.

The crooks in government thing is really cynical but I have made some joke answers. Consider if we give Jerry Jones a billion dollars he will spend it on whores and landscapers and SOMETHING. Not necessarily a long term gain like building a power plant but in the short term it cycles through the economy if he rents a whore or puts it in the bank, long as the crook just does not bury it under a rock or send it to China.

Again. In the long term the stimulus may cost us tons more than it was worth. Ask the Reagan era folks. I agree 100% that you need to be careful with debt.

One answer for you PC lies in the element of time and money cycling. If the fed govt creates money and gives it to a state a year later and that state spends it another year later there is an interest/inflationary loss effect.

Gimme another.

"The money for the stimulus was created. The downside of creating money is incurred years later as you must pay the interest on the bonds and deal with devalued currency."
No....it was printed.

By doing so the government reduced the value or everyone's savings and buying power. The difference between the former value and the value after the dilution is the hidden tax on everyone that is squandered as 'stimulus."

At some future time, more is taken in taxation that will be used to retire those bonds.




" Not necessarily a long term gain like building a power plant ..."

The power plant has enriched one area by more than it has impoverished the rest of the nation, whose funds were used to build it.

Only folks like you, who still believe a 'free lunch' is free can make your argument.




" Gimme another."

How about you stop pretending that you have successfully responded to anything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

17.OK...so there are many nations that experimented with a Keynesian stimulus, and found it wanting.

Did it work in Obama's America?

Nope:

"Politically and economically, the U.S. in 2011 fell flat on its face. There are several reasons why our government miserably failed us this year but the most devastating reason is that it did absolutely nothing to help the economy. In fact, the Obama administration helped make matters worse. "Top 6 Reasons Obama s Economic Policies Failed in 2011 Lloyd Chapman
See who that's from?




This should be taken as a lesson for other big government endeavors:

18. Need a good reason to take charity/welfare out of the hands of the government?

"... administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients. Charity Navigator (Charity Navigator - America s Largest Charity Evaluator Home the newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by various criteria and supply that information to the public on their web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent. The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample was only 10.3 percent." https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf

Private Charity!
Government charity.......less than half that.

19. And this: "the more wasteful the work, the more costly in manpower, the better it becomes for the purpose of providing more employment....it is highly improbable that the projects thought up by bureaucrats will provide the same net addition to wealth and welfare, per dollar expended, as would have been provided by the taxpayers themselves, if they had been individually permitted to buy or have made what they themselves wanted, instead of being forced to surrender part of their earnings to the state."
"Economics In One Lesson,"p. 36, by Henry Hazlitt






Seems that the same term can be applied, not only to the stimulus.....

The word is "Wasteful"....fighting recessions, unemployment, or poverty.....all have the same result with big Progressive/Liberal/Democrat government at the helm.

 

[PoliticalChic]

20. So....as the sun sets on this once-happy land.....let's review the salient points of this thread:


"Economic data contradict Keynesian stimulus theory. If deficits represented "new dollars" in the economy, the record $1.2 trillion in FY 2009 deficit spending that began in October 2008--well before the stimulus added $200 billion more[5]--would have already overheated the economy. Yet despite the historic 7 percent increase in GDP deficit spending over the previous year, the economy shrank by 2.3 percent in FY 2009.[6]


To argue that deficits represent new money injected into the economy is to argue that the economy would have contracted by 9.3 percent without this "infusion" of added deficit spending (or even more, given the Keynesian multiplier effect that was supposed to further boost the impact). That is simply not plausible, and few if any economists have claimed otherwise.


This is no longer a theoretical exercise. The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested repeatedly, and it has failed repeatedly. The economic models that assert that every $1 of deficit spending grows the economy by $1.50 cannot explain why $1.4 trillion in deficit spending did not create a $2.1 trillion explosion of new economic activity.


In fact, large stimulus bills often reduce long-term productivity by transferring resources from the more productive private sector to the less productive government. The government rarely receives good value for the dollars it spends.


However, stimulus bills provide politicians with the political justification to grant tax dollars to favored constituencies. By increasing the budget deficit, large stimulus bills eventually contribute to higher interest rates while dropping even more debt on future generations."
Failure of Obama Stimulus Package Stimulating Economic Growth



Get that, Obama voters????

 

[Toronado3800]

20. So....as the sun sets on this once-happy land.....let's review the salient points of this thread:


"Economic data contradict Keynesian stimulus theory. If deficits represented "new dollars" in the economy, the record $1.2 trillion in FY 2009 deficit spending that began in October 2008--well before the stimulus added $200 billion more[5]--would have already overheated the economy. Yet despite the historic 7 percent increase in GDP deficit spending over the previous year, the economy shrank by 2.3 percent in FY 2009.[6]


To argue that deficits represent new money injected into the economy is to argue that the economy would have contracted by 9.3 percent without this "infusion" of added deficit spending (or even more, given the Keynesian multiplier effect that was supposed to further boost the impact). That is simply not plausible, and few if any economists have claimed otherwise.


This is no longer a theoretical exercise. The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested repeatedly, and it has failed repeatedly. The economic models that assert that every $1 of deficit spending grows the economy by $1.50 cannot explain why $1.4 trillion in deficit spending did not create a $2.1 trillion explosion of new economic activity.


In fact, large stimulus bills often reduce long-term productivity by transferring resources from the more productive private sector to the less productive government. The government rarely receives good value for the dollars it spends.


However, stimulus bills provide politicians with the political justification to grant tax dollars to favored constituencies. By increasing the budget deficit, large stimulus bills eventually contribute to higher interest rates while dropping even more debt on future generations."
Failure of Obama Stimulus Package Stimulating Economic Growth



Get that, Obama voters????

I agree about quite a few points. Make work is wasteful for one.

God you type soo much

"To argue that deficits represent new money injected into the economy is to argue that the economy would have contracted by 9.3 percent without this "infusion" of added deficit spending"

Yup. The economy was pretty terrible if I remember. GM was gonna close its doors. And oh them banks and them ill conceived loans in the 00's that u blamed on Clinton...and partially rightfully so I might add"

"The money for the stimulus was created. The downside of creating money is incurred years later as you must pay the interest on the bonds and deal with devalued currency."
No....it was printed."

yup. It was created by a printer or computer lol. Must we disagree about that?

" Not necessarily a long term gain like building a power plant ..."

The power plant has enriched one area by more than it has impoverished the rest of the nation, whose funds were used to build it."

The power plant is useful where the whores are not I was trying to say. How about the power plant is useful decades in the future where just driving empty busses around wastes gas and costs America productivity.

So anyways.

Besides the time costs and inflation which are largely incurred in the future how did the stimulus hurt the economy from its years 1 through 5 or so?

(Bring up a good Reagan point about national moral bit be careful because his recovery was partially from deficit spending)

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

how did the stimulus hurt the economy from its years 1 through 5 or so?

govt spending is wasteful, erratic, not sustainable bubbly, and ,ultimately, depressing. Govt pumped up housing bubble is perfect example. Cash for clunkers is another good example.

 

[Toronado3800]

how did the stimulus hurt the economy from its years 1 through 5 or so?

govt spending is wasteful, erratic, not sustainable bubbly, and ,ultimately, depressing. Govt pumped up housing bubble is perfect example. Cash for clunkers is another good example.

I may agree. Those might be terrible programs. If you wanna discuss them lets fire up a thread on each.

But let me be more direct...

If the government prints or creates a million dollar stimulus and spends it this year, how much more money is in the economy in the short term before debt payments?