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

[8537]

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....?

I'm not "trying that crap". Whatever that crap might be...

What are you asking me to "put up"?

 

[8537]

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.

I have no earthly idea what point you are trying to make. The CBO report uses models to measure the effects of the stimulus based on actual jobs inputs and other empirical data.

 

[8537]

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?

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.

We went from losing almost 800,000 jobs per month to the private sector creating jobs for well over a year. And again, creating 1-3M jobs annually when an economy is losing 800,000 a month can not fully arrest a slide.

We have every reputable economic firm in the nation agreeing with the broad outlines of the CBO report. We have John McCain's economic advisor agreeing. We have a wide range of academic economists agreeing. We have hacks at the Heritage foundation disagreeing.

Hint: If it smells of Democrats doing something right or government working, Heritage will oppose it at all costs, what little reputation they have be damned.

 

[8537]

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.

Inefficent use of capital by government? In an economy five points below full employment with almost zero private capital expenditures?

 

[8537]

Why is it so hard for conservatives to answer this question? What are they afraid of? Let's try again:

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?

 

[Jarhead]

Why is it so hard for conservatives to answer this question? What are they afraid of? Let's try again:

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?

yes it does....of course it does.

But if that person from China opts to purchase only goods made of plastic (for example) it will inject capital into the economy, but only really directly help those companies that produce and sell products made of plastic. It will do very little for the glass and steel industries and retailers.

it is not rocxket scinece to know that injecting capital into an economy will create jobs. But in many cases, such as the stimulus, it will create some jobs at the cost of other jobs...with at best no gain...and sometimes a negative gain.

You need to increase GDP overall to have a true positive gain on jobs...

A stimulus either needs to be trillions more to do that (and we cant afford that)...or the idea needs to be something other than a stimulus.

Also...when it is a stimulus...it is temporary....the Chinese guy spends a billion dollars....great....prodcution is up to meet his demand. After that billion is gone...production drops back to the level it was at.

 

[Trajan]

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?

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.

We went from losing almost 800,000 jobs per month to the private sector creating jobs for well over a year. And again, creating 1-3M jobs annually when an economy is losing 800,000 a month can not fully arrest a slide.

We have every reputable economic firm in the nation agreeing with the broad outlines of the CBO report. We have John McCain's economic advisor agreeing. We have a wide range of academic economists agreeing. We have hacks at the Heritage foundation disagreeing.

Hint: If it smells of Democrats doing something right or government working, Heritage will oppose it at all costs, what little reputation they have be damned.

you know, if I thought it would matter I would explode 3/4's of the mischaracterizations, half truths etc. you have posted.....masquerading as posts as answers ot my remarks that is. You have also slipped by half of what I have said and just stated and restated, well, not much and post and frame that as "proof", frankly I don't care. *shrugs*


after spending the money we took in in revenue, PLUS another 4.0 trillion more on top of that in 2.7 years, and a cbo, who commands detailed analysiss' from the bls gao omb, every corner of the gov. to come up with a number that contains very little detail, and incorporates a 200% fudge factor? Yes by all means, "broad outlines" and at 300K or more per job in some cases, this is proof that it works or has worked? The 'multiplier works? No, it means the gov. massively incompetent. .....


Hint: use some common sense, critical thinking and most of all; You're a sheep dude....stop grazing on the Proggy fed media, lift up your head once in a while.......

 

[Trajan]

Why is it so hard for conservatives to answer this question? What are they afraid of? Let's try again:

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?

 

[8537]

Why is it so hard for conservatives to answer this question? What are they afraid of? Let's try again:

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?

yes it does....of course it does.

But if that person from China opts to purchase only goods made of plastic (for example) it will inject capital into the economy, but only really directly help those companies that produce and sell products made of plastic. It will do very little for the glass and steel industries and retailers.

But that's why we have consumption multipliers- because the makers of plastics purchase capital goods from the makers of steel, pay wages to people who will then purchase more consumer goods and pay dividends to investors who will then consume and/or invest more.

it is not rocxket scinece to know that injecting capital into an economy will create jobs. But in many cases, such as the stimulus, it will create some jobs at the cost of other jobs...with at best no gain...and sometimes a negative gain.

Which jobs did an injection of capital for the stimulus cost?

Also...when it is a stimulus...it is temporary....the Chinese guy spends a billion dollars....great....prodcution is up to meet his demand. After that billion is gone...production drops back to the level it was at.

I disagree. The new money injected into the economy is still there. It is still circulating. if it's not inflationary, then it's increasing production.

 

[boedicca]

We went from losing almost 800,000 jobs per month to the private sector creating jobs for well over a year. And again, creating 1-3M jobs annually when an economy is losing 800,000 a month can not fully arrest a slide.

We have every reputable economic firm in the nation agreeing with the broad outlines of the CBO report. We have John McCain's economic advisor agreeing. We have a wide range of academic economists agreeing. We have hacks at the Heritage foundation disagreeing.

Hint: If it smells of Democrats doing something right or government working, Heritage will oppose it at all costs, what little reputation they have be damned.

We have over 2M less people employed now than when Obama took office...after three years of $1T+ deficits.

Worst Recovery Ever.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

I have no earthly idea what point you are trying to make. The CBO report uses models to measure the effects of the stimulus based on actual jobs inputs and other empirical data.

this is where you are confused.

Like I said in an earlier post.....it is all tempoorary and targeted.

The CBO offers data to show how the stimulus creates jobs. It does not show how it affects the economy overall.

There is not an economist who does not agree with one thing about the stimulus...if you take a half a trillion dollars and dedicate it to salaries of newly hired people...newly hired people will be hired.

However, there are many economists that agree that any type of long term growth is speculation at best.....for we were in a recession...and when the stimulus is gone, if the recession has not been eliminated, we will likely go back to where we started.

 

[8537]

you know, if I thought it would matter I would explode 3/4's of the mischaracterizations, half truths etc. you have posted.....masquerading as posts as answers ot my remarks that is.

Oh, I'm sure you would. Exactly. mmmk.

after spending the money we took in in revenue, PLUS another 4.0 trillion more on top of that in 2.7 years, and a cbo, who commands detailed analysiss' from the bls gao omb, every corner of the gov. to come up with a number that contains very little detail, and incorporates a 200% fudge factor? Yes by all means, "broad outlines" and at 300K or more per job in some cases, this is proof that it works or has worked? The 'multiplier works? No, it means the gov. massively incompetent. .....

The broad outlines - creation of between 1 and 3.5M jobs - is confirmed by every major US economic analysis firm that has run the numbers. It's confirmed by a wide range of academic economists. IT's confirmed by John McCain's economic advisor. It's denied by a rightwing mouthpiece.

So of course you accept the word of the rightwing mouthpiece.

Hint: use some common sense, critical thinking and most of all; You're a sheep dude....stop grazing on the Proggy fed media, lift up your head once in a while.......

Oh the irony! You're relying on information from one rightwing mouthpiece, being led around like a goat on a rope, and claiming that my use of every major economic analysis firm that has reviewed the data, The CBO etc...is behaving like a sheep.

Damn that's funneh.

 

[Liability]

When we end up with something like 2 million fewer job holders now than when this President took office, the manipulation of language needed to call it a "recovery" at all falls squarely in the category of "lie."

 

[boedicca]

And none of those analyses include the "Cost" side of the equation - how many jobs were not created due to the diversion of capital.

 

[8537]

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

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

I have no earthly idea what point you are trying to make. The CBO report uses models to measure the effects of the stimulus based on actual jobs inputs and other empirical data.

this is where you are confused.

I'm not confused.

Like I said in an earlier post.....it is all tempoorary and targeted.

And as I've pointed out, that doesn't matter. if more money is circulating and it is circulating more quickly and the result isn't inflation, then the economy grows.

 

[8537]

And none of those analyses include the "Cost" side of the equation - how many jobs were not created due to the diversion of capital.

Diversion of capital? What capital was diverted from a productive use?

 

[Jarhead]

Why is it so hard for conservatives to answer this question? What are they afraid of? Let's try again:

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?

yes it does....of course it does.

But if that person from China opts to purchase only goods made of plastic (for example) it will inject capital into the economy, but only really directly help those companies that produce and sell products made of plastic. It will do very little for the glass and steel industries and retailers.

But that's why we have consumption multipliers- because the makers of plastics purchase capital goods from the makers of steel, pay wages to people who will then purchase more consumer goods and pay dividends to investors who will then consume and/or invest more.

it is not rocxket scinece to know that injecting capital into an economy will create jobs. But in many cases, such as the stimulus, it will create some jobs at the cost of other jobs...with at best no gain...and sometimes a negative gain.

Which jobs did an injection of capital for the stimulus cost?

Also...when it is a stimulus...it is temporary....the Chinese guy spends a billion dollars....great....prodcution is up to meet his demand. After that billion is gone...production drops back to the level it was at.

I disagree. The new money injected into the economy is still there. It is still circulating. if it's not inflationary, then it's increasing production.

you are forgetting something...the most important factor involved in the application of a stimulus...

We were in a recession.

There was a generous surplus of non perishable proiducts available. There was no need to build new equipment..there was already a surplus.....so for the shovel ready jobs, it did wonders for the distributers of tar, but did not help the manufacturers of tar. It was great for the sellers of heavy equipment but did not help the manufacuters of heavuy equipment.

ANd the ones that unloaded that surplus.....they simply offset the losses incurred by being stuck with that surplus the years prior..

As for money still in the economy...yes, of course it is...but it is not beiung spent as business owners are aware that the increase in demand was stimulus prompted and will likely dissipate...so to spend the money to increase production of goods that will likely be shelved again is not a smart business move.

It really is pretty basic economics....

and the funny thing is we heqar the adm9inistration blaming the business owners for not spending the money...but why should they? That is what got them in trouble in the first place. No one wants to be stuck with finished product that needs to be shelved.

 

[Jarhead]

I have no earthly idea what point you are trying to make. The CBO report uses models to measure the effects of the stimulus based on actual jobs inputs and other empirical data.

this is where you are confused.

I'm not confused.

Like I said in an earlier post.....it is all tempoorary and targeted.

And as I've pointed out, that doesn't matter. if more money is circulating and it is circulating more quickly and the result isn't inflation, then the economy grows.

Ahhhhh....but it is not circulating.

IUt is sitting in the pockets of the business owners.

They took massive losses last two to three years.

So now they have levelled out....and refuse to spend the money until they see light at the end of the tunnel.

So please...recognize this...IT IS NOT CIRCULATING.

And to be frank...I said it wouldnt circulate 2 years ago when I voiced my opiniuon of the stimulus.

I speak to business owners daily. They are not spending. Heck...neither am I.

 

[8537]

you are forgetting something...the most important factor involved in the application of a stimulus...

We were in a recession.

There was a generous surplus of non perishable proiducts available. There was no need to build new equipment..there was already a surplus.....so for the shovel ready jobs, it did wonders for the distributers of tar, but did not help the manufacturers of tar. It was great for the sellers of heavy equipment but did not help the manufacuters of heavuy equipment.

of course it helped the manufacturers of heavy equipment! Heavy equipment doesn't last forever. Parts need to be maintained and replaced. Whole units need to be exchanged sooner....

and the reason the stimulus "worked" - i.e. provoked production instead of inflation is precisely because we were in a recession.

As for money still in the economy...yes, of course it is...but it is not beiung spent as business owners are aware that the increase in demand was stimulus prompted and will likely dissipate...so to spend the money to increase production of goods that will likely be shelved again is not a smart business move.

Yes, it's still in the economy. OK, we agree on that. It didn't disappear. It's circulating in the economy, correct? Business owners have more access to capital. Individuals have more access to consumption and investment income. Capital projects have more access to money.

Remind me again how the enlarged size of the pie doesn't benefit the people inside the pie, which is really basic economics.

 

[8537]

this is where you are confused.

I'm not confused.

Like I said in an earlier post.....it is all tempoorary and targeted.

And as I've pointed out, that doesn't matter. if more money is circulating and it is circulating more quickly and the result isn't inflation, then the economy grows.

Ahhhhh....but it is not circulating.

IUt is sitting in the pockets of the business owners.

Judging from economic growth over the past two years, it is not just sitting. You can't get economic growth if money doesn't circulate.

So please...recognize this...IT IS NOT CIRCULATING.

No, seriously, it is circulating. Perhaps not at the velocity we would like, but it's clearly circulating.