- Thread starter
- #61
As Paul Krugman advised.The stimulus needed to be bigger
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.
As Paul Krugman advised.The stimulus needed to be bigger
When you compare the U.S. Federal Government to a family with credit cards, it saves me the trouble of pointing out that you know nothing about economics.The stimulus needed to be bigger
Do you ever pay your bills? Ever heard of anyone getting more credit after maxing out all their credit cards and being downgraded? We are spending ourselves into the poorhouse already and you want to spend more? This is not the stock market or any type of business where you have to spend money to make money. Face it Uncle Sam's pocket has a hole in it and there is nothing left to spend..........
Find some others.So, being a tad obsessive about fact over opinion, I read the article - mainly to answer my first question, which was:
How did the writer determine "the best". What methodology did he apply in order to establish the baseline of "the best". This is what I noticed:
So are they or are they not "the best" or are they just "the found"?
I've read others.
Fact is, he made the claim that it was nine of the best. Define the methodology of 'best'. You can't, because he didn't. It is not factually accurate. Therefore, it is bullshit.
It's not my problem if I spotted the gaping flaw in this blog and you didn't. I guess I'm just smarter than you.
Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject
Here are the nine studies, organized by the conclusion and method used. Click on each one to see my summary of the study, how it reached its conclusions, and potential problems with its approach.
It worked (econometric):
Feyrer and Sacerdote. Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston. Wilson.
It worked (modeling):
Congressional Budget Office. Council of Economic Advisors. Zandi and Blinder.
It worked a little bit (modeling):
Oh and Reis.
It didnt work (econometric):
Conley and Dupor. Taylor.
As the descriptions above make clear, none of the studies are flawless. But while the optimistic studies do, in fact, support the conclusion that the stimulus worked, there is some reason to doubt that the pessimistic studies support the conclusion that it failed. Conley and Dupor found a negative effect on employment and output but, as they concede and critics of the study have emphasized, their results are not statistically significant. Taylor found that the stimulus did not increase government purchases significantly but, as Noah Smith argued, this result could be consistent with the stimulus increasing employment and output. Oh and Reis found a small multiplier for tax transfers of the kind found in the stimulus package, but as they concede, their model produces estimates for key figures that are empirically implausible. Using more plausible figures produces a significantly larger multiplier, meaning the package was more effective than the model initially suggested. Due to these issues, Im inclined to believe that the preponderance of evidence indicates the stimulus worked.
Why are they using models when there are real actual facts available?
There are two measurables that these studies seem to ignor.
1. The growth of the economy in real dollars as compared to historic times of growth.
2. The increase in tax revenue that always accompanies any economic expansion.
Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue
Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue
Since 1965, spending has risen constantly. Federal revenues have dropped recently due to the economic recession, but spending has reached a record high.
U.S. Second-Quarter 2011 GDP Report Disappoints - Forex Analysis, Currency Forecast, FX Trading Signal - Action Forex
Find some others.
I've read others.
Fact is, he made the claim that it was nine of the best. Define the methodology of 'best'. You can't, because he didn't. It is not factually accurate. Therefore, it is bullshit.
It's not my problem if I spotted the gaping flaw in this blog and you didn't. I guess I'm just smarter than you.
You're a liar. Like that's 'breaking news'.
By its own stated objectives (unemployment peaking at 8%), the stimulus was an epic fail.
It's also quite representative of why most government programs fail - they don't meet a measurable objective. In the private sector, such programs would be cancelled due to being Bad Investments.
Prove that first sentence.
And while you are failing to do that, maybe you can compile the total amount of state government workers who have been laid off by wingnut governors, and see if that accounts for the other 1-2% of unemployment.
Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME
Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers leading proponents of a stimulus bill predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn't quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%, the highest level it has reached since 1983
Read more: Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME
Also completely unfalsifiable.As Paul Krugman advised.The stimulus needed to be bigger
Not so. Germany had two stimulus packages totally 109 billion. Their economy is 1/5 the size of the US economy. When you consider that Germany has unlimited means test unemployment compensation plus it got economic stimulus from the EU, the total of the stimulus packages were larger than in the US, yet the recession as measured by the fall in GDP was twice as bad in the US. GDP fell 9% in the US compared to 4.7% in Germany. The US economic stimulus was a weak response compared to many countries.The bill performed as promised, to stop the job lost. Nowhere did the president promise 8% unemployment. The council of economic advisers estimated it would go below 8% and qualified their estimate pointing out the margin of error and the many assumptions the estimate was based. The stimulus reduced the monthly job loss from 600,000 a month to 114,000 a month job gain. It performed exactly as Obama said and yes it was a success. The only flaw in the stimulus was it was not large enough.What utter tripe.
The projection was 8% and unemployment topped 10%...It remains well above that level if you count those who have run out of unemployment benefits and those who have quit looking for work.
There is absolutely no way you can back up the fantasy of "jobs saved"....That one is the biggest heaps of unfalsifiable, post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc horseshit of all time.
By any metric used by people who keep their feet planted in Realityville, the succubus was a towering failure...And the only thing that bullshitters like you can do is claim that failure is evidence that even more failure is called for.
How do you figure? Since the Obama stimulus was passed the US has lost two and a half million jobs. The stimulus was an abject failure. Germany refused to do a huge stimulus like we did, calling it fiscally unsound. So we spent a trillion on stimulus and they didn't. So guess who's economy recovered quicker...theirs or ours? Sorry, Flopper but this Administrations Keynesian "experiment" was a flop.
By its own stated objectives (unemployment peaking at 8%), the stimulus was an epic fail.
It's also quite representative of why most government programs fail - they don't meet a measurable objective. In the private sector, such programs would be cancelled due to being Bad Investments.
Prove that first sentence.
And while you are failing to do that, maybe you can compile the total amount of state government workers who have been laid off by wingnut governors, and see if that accounts for the other 1-2% of unemployment.
From Wikipedia:
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Acronym ARRA
Colloquial name(s) The Recovery Act, Stimulus
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009 by President Barack Obama.
To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 Billion at the time of passage. The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).
Me:
President Obama, speaker Pelosi, Leader Harry Reid, and every other democrat within shouting distance of a microphone told us the stimulus bill would lower unemployment to below 8%. That was the supposed to be the primary objective as stated above. One can argue that many jobs were saved or created, but as you no doubt know the fact is that we have some 2 million fewer people employed now than we did then. Most people would label that as a failure.
Gotta ask, we were supposed to spend money on infrastructure out of this bill, where'd that money go? Why do we need more money on infrastructure?
Effects of passing the stimulus were not immediate. The tax cuts, which were about 1/3 of the bill and the job fund allocation took some months to implement and several more months for the economy to respond. If you look at seasonally adjusted US non-farm labor from the BLS, it shows beginning in the end of 2009 a slow down in job loss followed by a gradual increase in employment resulting in about a 1.6 million job growth.The bill performed as promised, to stop the job lost. Nowhere did the president promise 8% unemployment. The council of economic advisers estimated it would go below 8% and qualified their estimate pointing out the margin of error and the many assumptions the estimate was based. The stimulus reduced the monthly job loss from 600,000 a month to 114,000 a month job gain. It performed exactly as Obama said and yes it was a success. The only flaw in the stimulus was it was not large enough.What utter tripe.
The projection was 8% and unemployment topped 10%...It remains well above that level if you count those who have run out of unemployment benefits and those who have quit looking for work.
There is absolutely no way you can back up the fantasy of "jobs saved"....That one is the biggest heaps of unfalsifiable, post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc horseshit of all time.
By any metric used by people who keep their feet planted in Realityville, the succubus was a towering failure...And the only thing that bullshitters like you can do is claim that failure is evidence that even more failure is called for.
How do you figure? Since the Obama stimulus was passed the US has lost two and a half million jobs. The stimulus was an abject failure. Germany refused to do a huge stimulus like we did, calling it fiscally unsound. So we spent a trillion on stimulus and they didn't. So guess who's economy recovered quicker...theirs or ours? Sorry, Flopper but this Administrations Keynesian "experiment" was a flop.
Effects of passing the stimulus were not immediate. The tax cuts, which were about 1/3 of the bill and the job fund allocation took some months to implement and several more months for the economy to respond. If you look at seasonally adjusted US non-farm labor from the BLS, it shows beginning in the end of 2009 a slow down in job loss followed by a gradual increase in employment resulting in about a 1.6 million job growth.The bill performed as promised, to stop the job lost. Nowhere did the president promise 8% unemployment. The council of economic advisers estimated it would go below 8% and qualified their estimate pointing out the margin of error and the many assumptions the estimate was based. The stimulus reduced the monthly job loss from 600,000 a month to 114,000 a month job gain. It performed exactly as Obama said and yes it was a success. The only flaw in the stimulus was it was not large enough.
How do you figure? Since the Obama stimulus was passed the US has lost two and a half million jobs. The stimulus was an abject failure. Germany refused to do a huge stimulus like we did, calling it fiscally unsound. So we spent a trillion on stimulus and they didn't. So guess who's economy recovered quicker...theirs or ours? Sorry, Flopper but this Administrations Keynesian "experiment" was a flop.
Browse US Employment Data
Not so. Germany had two stimulus packages totally 109 billion. Their economy is 1/5 the size of the US economy. When you consider that Germany has unlimited means test unemployment compensation plus it got economic stimulus from the EU, the total of the stimulus packages were larger than in the US, yet the recession as measured by the fall in GDP was twice as bad in the US. GDP fell 9% in the US compared to 4.7% in Germany. The US economic stimulus was a weak response compared to many countries.The bill performed as promised, to stop the job lost. Nowhere did the president promise 8% unemployment. The council of economic advisers estimated it would go below 8% and qualified their estimate pointing out the margin of error and the many assumptions the estimate was based. The stimulus reduced the monthly job loss from 600,000 a month to 114,000 a month job gain. It performed exactly as Obama said and yes it was a success. The only flaw in the stimulus was it was not large enough.
How do you figure? Since the Obama stimulus was passed the US has lost two and a half million jobs. The stimulus was an abject failure. Germany refused to do a huge stimulus like we did, calling it fiscally unsound. So we spent a trillion on stimulus and they didn't. So guess who's economy recovered quicker...theirs or ours? Sorry, Flopper but this Administrations Keynesian "experiment" was a flop.
US GDP in second quarter of 2011 revised down to annualised rate of 1.0%
Unemployment benefits
Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject
Here are the nine studies, organized by the conclusion and method used. Click on each one to see my summary of the study, how it reached its conclusions, and potential problems with its approach.
It worked (econometric):
Feyrer and Sacerdote. Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston. Wilson.
It worked (modeling):
Congressional Budget Office. Council of Economic Advisors. Zandi and Blinder.
It worked a little bit (modeling):
Oh and Reis.
It didnt work (econometric):
Conley and Dupor. Taylor.
As the descriptions above make clear, none of the studies are flawless. But while the optimistic studies do, in fact, support the conclusion that the stimulus worked, there is some reason to doubt that the pessimistic studies support the conclusion that it failed. Conley and Dupor found a negative effect on employment and output but, as they concede and critics of the study have emphasized, their results are not statistically significant. Taylor found that the stimulus did not increase government purchases significantly but, as Noah Smith argued, this result could be consistent with the stimulus increasing employment and output. Oh and Reis found a small multiplier for tax transfers of the kind found in the stimulus package, but as they concede, their model produces estimates for key figures that are empirically implausible. Using more plausible figures produces a significantly larger multiplier, meaning the package was more effective than the model initially suggested. Due to these issues, Im inclined to believe that the preponderance of evidence indicates the stimulus worked.
Why are they using models when there are real actual facts available?
There are two measurables that these studies seem to ignor.
1. The growth of the economy in real dollars as compared to historic times of growth.
2. The increase in tax revenue that always accompanies any economic expansion.
Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue
Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue
Since 1965, spending has risen constantly. Federal revenues have dropped recently due to the economic recession, but spending has reached a record high.
U.S. Second-Quarter 2011 GDP Report Disappoints - Forex Analysis, Currency Forecast, FX Trading Signal - Action Forex
I've been reading Ezra Klein for a long time. If you think he is wrong, and have evidence to support your claim, write to him at the Washington Post. He will look at your data and respond.
Prove that first sentence.
And while you are failing to do that, maybe you can compile the total amount of state government workers who have been laid off by wingnut governors, and see if that accounts for the other 1-2% of unemployment.
Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME
Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers leading proponents of a stimulus bill predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn't quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%, the highest level it has reached since 1983
Read more: Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME
So, no quotes from Obama, saying that it would be 8%?
Just as I thought.
And it did boost the economy.
btw - did you bother to watch that video I linked to, from Rachel Maddow, or is your head in the ideological sand, too?
Not so. Germany had two stimulus packages totally 109 billion. Their economy is 1/5 the size of the US economy. When you consider that Germany has unlimited means test unemployment compensation plus it got economic stimulus from the EU, the total of the stimulus packages were larger than in the US, yet the recession as measured by the fall in GDP was twice as bad in the US. GDP fell 9% in the US compared to 4.7% in Germany. The US economic stimulus was a weak response compared to many countries.The bill performed as promised, to stop the job lost. Nowhere did the president promise 8% unemployment. The council of economic advisers estimated it would go below 8% and qualified their estimate pointing out the margin of error and the many assumptions the estimate was based. The stimulus reduced the monthly job loss from 600,000 a month to 114,000 a month job gain. It performed exactly as Obama said and yes it was a success. The only flaw in the stimulus was it was not large enough.
How do you figure? Since the Obama stimulus was passed the US has lost two and a half million jobs. The stimulus was an abject failure. Germany refused to do a huge stimulus like we did, calling it fiscally unsound. So we spent a trillion on stimulus and they didn't. So guess who's economy recovered quicker...theirs or ours? Sorry, Flopper but this Administrations Keynesian "experiment" was a flop.
US GDP in second quarter of 2011 revised down to annualised rate of 1.0%
Unemployment benefits
Prove that first sentence.
And while you are failing to do that, maybe you can compile the total amount of state government workers who have been laid off by wingnut governors, and see if that accounts for the other 1-2% of unemployment.
From Wikipedia:
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Acronym ARRA
Colloquial name(s) The Recovery Act, Stimulus
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009 by President Barack Obama.
To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and green energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 Billion at the time of passage. The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).
Me:
President Obama, speaker Pelosi, Leader Harry Reid, and every other democrat within shouting distance of a microphone told us the stimulus bill would lower unemployment to below 8%. That was the supposed to be the primary objective as stated above. One can argue that many jobs were saved or created, but as you no doubt know the fact is that we have some 2 million fewer people employed now than we did then. Most people would label that as a failure.
Gotta ask, we were supposed to spend money on infrastructure out of this bill, where'd that money go? Why do we need more money on infrastructure?
Can you produce a quote showing where or when Obama, Reid, or Pelosi promised "the stimulus bill would lower unemployment to below 8%"?
Edit: No, because none of them ever said it If your Fox News/AM radio/Drudge Report sources are telling you things that are objectively, verifiably untrue, why do you trust them?