OMG Valerie Jarrett: Unemployment Stimulates the Economy

[theDoctorisIn]

Probably you think you have provided proof. Right?

I didn't provide "proof". There's no such thing as "proof" when it comes to this.

I provided the opinion of noted economists who agree with it.

Feel free to provide some other economist's refutations.

Please name three economists who support this.

I don't know how many their are, but I've already provided the writers of Moody's Analytical.

Feel free to provide an opposing view.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unemployment Insurance comes from the companies that lay the workers off, and the taxes those workers paid while they were employed.

So money that a company has must go to unemployed idle workers who are not productive, and money the gov't must tax or borrow (because they dont keep a stash of money marked "insurance") also goes to unemployed idle workers. And this is supposed to stimulate the economy how?
Wouldn't it be better if companies could keep that money and invest it in new products or processes, hiring more workers?

Geezus Aitch, people here have the economic literacy of a melon.

Yes, it would be better if companies would invest in new products, processes and hiring more people - but they don't. That's the problem.

There has never been a shortage of investment capital. Neither taxes nor the governement deficit have caused such a shortage.

The real problem is that investors expectations for security and profit have become so high that they've clamped down on investment - they will take no risk.

Our problem is with the millionaires and as long as they refuse to be economic leaders, which means accepting risk and losses, we we need a government that provides for the needy. The millionaires can eliminate the need for government social safety system any time they want.

So companies don't invest money? They don't buy other companies, buy plant and equipment, or invest in R&D?
Do you have a ******* clue what you are babbling about? You make no sense. You are simply repeating crap that's been recycled who knows where. And when you attempt to put it together you sound like a dolt. Frank is right.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didn't provide "proof". There's no such thing as "proof" when it comes to this.

I provided the opinion of noted economists who agree with it.

Feel free to provide some other economist's refutations.

Please name three economists who support this.

I don't know how many their are, but I've already provided the writers of Moody's Analytical.

Feel free to provide an opposing view.

You don't know jack shit is what it comes down to. There aren't any. The article was an opinion piece by Mark Zandi, who is a progressive. The article is not from "Moody's" but from Moody's Analytics. Not the same thing.
On Zandi
RealClearMarkets - Mark Zandi: Always Quoted, Often Wrong, Never In Doubt

Blog: Mark Zandi: Never Right, Yet Still Trusted

Zandi is the most wrong person on the economy out there.
But the brain-dead progressives here cannot distinguish between fact and opinion. They cannot read and analyze. And when someone like Frank points out the obvious--that decreasing unemployment cannot increase unemployment--they are lost. No response other than to call names and deflect.

 

[bripat9643]

It does "stimulate" the economy more than giving more money to already rich people.

Neither one really stimulates the economy though.

If that's true, then counterfeiting should be an absolute boon for the economy, so why does the government prosecute people for that?

 

[paulitician]

Warped Obama-Bot programming: High Unemployment under BOOOOOSH = BAAAAD! High Unemployment under Dear Leader = GOOOOD! Nutter Bots are pretty funny.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Unemployment stimulates the economy

Unemployment stimulates the economy

Unemployment stimulates the economy

Unemployment stimulates the economy

 

[Full-Auto]

I didn't provide "proof". There's no such thing as "proof" when it comes to this.

I provided the opinion of noted economists who agree with it.

Feel free to provide some other economist's refutations.

Please name three economists who support this.

I don't know how many their are, but I've already provided the writers of Moody's Analytical.

Feel free to provide an opposing view.

I trashed your 2010 report with reality.

Your response.

 

[Trajan]

It does "stimulate" the economy more than giving more money to already rich people.

Neither one really stimulates the economy though.

really? I'd say, if you looked you'd discover that just paying a standing bill on par say, rent,( as compared to buying beyond sustenance) is not the plus to the economy, letting folks keep more of their money who spend it on extraneous goods is extra consumption that is a plus. Unemployment is a transfer payment, plain and simple.

 

[ladyliberal]

You understand you are not quoting "Moody's", right?

Forgive my imprecise language. I'm quoting Mark Zandi, who is the chief economist of Moody's Analytics (The Dismal Scientist: Economist Biographies). Moodys Analytics is the subsidiary of Moody's Investors Service (the latter commonly referred to as Moody's). Moody's itself would be an inferior source, since it focuses on bond rating and leaves this type of analysis to Moody's Analytics.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Please name three economists who support this.

I don't know how many their are, but I've already provided the writers of Moody's Analytical.

Feel free to provide an opposing view.

You don't know jack shit is what it comes down to. There aren't any. The article was an opinion piece by Mark Zandi, who is a progressive. The article is not from "Moody's" but from Moody's Analytics. Not the same thing.
On Zandi
RealClearMarkets - Mark Zandi: Always Quoted, Often Wrong, Never In Doubt

Blog: Mark Zandi: Never Right, Yet Still Trusted

Zandi is the most wrong person on the economy out there.
But the brain-dead progressives here cannot distinguish between fact and opinion. They cannot read and analyze. And when someone like Frank points out the obvious--that decreasing unemployment cannot increase unemployment--they are lost. No response other than to call names and deflect.

So, you complain about something being an Op-Ed, then provide a bunch of Op-Eds to attempt to prove your point? I noticed you haven't provided an "Op-Ed" from a respected economist that disagrees with Zandi's point, also.

When someone like Frank points out the "obvious" like "decreasing unemployment cannot increase unemployment", it's irrelevant, because that's not what's being discussed.

No one is claiming that it's better for someone to be on UI than actually be unemployed. We're arguing that it's more stimulating to the economy for someone who's unemployed to receive temporary assistance rather than not. People are going to be unemployed whether or not they're getting money from UI.

 

[Lovebears65]

Why do people not see what this administration wants is everyone dependent on the government!

I have no words except heaven help us.: What a freaking economic policy!!!

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett has adopted a stance on unemployment that is sure to infuriate many, arguing that it stimulates the economy because people who receive unemployment checks are going out and spending them, reports The Weekly Standard.


Here's another gem

“People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that’s healthy as well,”



Valerie Jarrett: 'People Who Receive that Unemployment Check Go Out and Spend It and Help Stimulate the Economy' | The Weekly Standard

 

[Trajan]

It's pretty interesting that everyone seems to just leave out the word "insurance" from this discussion.

Unemployment doesn't stimulate the economy.

Unemployment Insurance does.

Simple fact.

How does "unemployment insurance" stimulate the economy?
This ought to be good.

Links have been provided.

Here's one from that far-left organization Moody's.
U.S. Macro Outlook: Compromise Boosts Stimulus

doc what it says is;

Of the package's provisions, extending unemployment insurance benefits provides the biggest economic bang for the buck.


now, as compared to? what? what is IN the package.......

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How does "unemployment insurance" stimulate the economy?
This ought to be good.

Links have been provided.

Here's one from that far-left organization Moody's.
U.S. Macro Outlook: Compromise Boosts Stimulus

doc what it says is;

Of the package's provisions, extending unemployment insurance benefits provides the biggest economic bang for the buck.


now, as compared to? what? what is IN the package.......

The article is from a year and a half ago, and it's on the specifics of the 2010 tax compromises, which is what the "package" refers to. I'm not arguing that.

The ONLY point that I'm making is that it's not a "ridiculous claim" to think that providing UI for unemployed is more stimulative to the economy than NOT providing it.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

She said that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, which is self-evident. What is interesting is the degree to which it is so (table 5, http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Policy-Prescriptions-20110826.pdf). They have a multiplier of 1.55, nearly the highest. Among the lowest? A pathetic multiplier of .32 (not 1.32) for corporate tax cuts.

It seems those are just wild ass guesses at best. I fail to see how unemployment checks are remotely stimulative. Money just goes into staying afloat, people save for later. People buy cheaper stuff. A higher return on invested capital will create huge demands in labor, equipment and raw materials.

So I think that table has as much a foundation as LaPuta.

 

[Lovebears65]

Links have been provided.

Here's one from that far-left organization Moody's.
U.S. Macro Outlook: Compromise Boosts Stimulus

doc what it says is;

Of the package's provisions, extending unemployment insurance benefits provides the biggest economic bang for the buck.


now, as compared to? what? what is IN the package.......

The article is from a year and a half ago, and it's on the specifics of the 2010 tax compromises, which is what the "package" refers to. I'm not arguing that.

The ONLY point that I'm making is that it's not a "ridiculous claim" to think that providing UI for unemployed is more stimulative to the economy than NOT providing it.

When is it too long to be on unemployment checks. I think giving people 99 weeks makes them lazy. Why go out and look for a job when you can sit on your ass for 99 weeks. In some cases making just as much on unemployment. That is almost 2 years getting paid to do nothing.

 

[Full-Auto]

doc what it says is;

Of the package's provisions, extending unemployment insurance benefits provides the biggest economic bang for the buck.


now, as compared to? what? what is IN the package.......

The article is from a year and a half ago, and it's on the specifics of the 2010 tax compromises, which is what the "package" refers to. I'm not arguing that.

The ONLY point that I'm making is that it's not a "ridiculous claim" to think that providing UI for unemployed is more stimulative to the economy than NOT providing it.

When is it too long to be on unemployment checks. I think giving people 99 weeks makes them lazy. Why go out and look for a job when you can sit on your ass for 99 weeks. In some cases making just as much on unemployment. That is almost 2 years getting paid to do nothing.

If they keep it up I may have to start paying unemployment insurance to lay myself off.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

She said that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, which is self-evident. What is interesting is the degree to which it is so (table 5, http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Policy-Prescriptions-20110826.pdf). They have a multiplier of 1.55, nearly the highest. Among the lowest? A pathetic multiplier of .32 (not 1.32) for corporate tax cuts.

It seems those are just wild ass guesses at best. I fail to see how unemployment checks are remotely stimulative. Money just goes into staying afloat, people save for later. People buy cheaper stuff. A higher return on invested capital will create huge demands in labor, equipment and raw materials.

So I think that table has as much a foundation as LaPuta.

Here's my take on it. "Economics" is the most divided field of study out there - it's the only field where two people with the same level of understanding can have completely opposed views. So, as to one who personally can't stand the subject (like myself), it seems like the least "sure thing" out there.

I'm not attempting to claim that UI is the best thing to stimulate the economy - I don't know what the best thing is. Neither does anyone else, as far as I can see.

But I think it's silly to claim that it's not more stimulating than people being unemployed without UI.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The article is from a year and a half ago, and it's on the specifics of the 2010 tax compromises, which is what the "package" refers to. I'm not arguing that.

The ONLY point that I'm making is that it's not a "ridiculous claim" to think that providing UI for unemployed is more stimulative to the economy than NOT providing it.

When is it too long to be on unemployment checks. I think giving people 99 weeks makes them lazy. Why go out and look for a job when you can sit on your ass for 99 weeks. In some cases making just as much on unemployment. That is almost 2 years getting paid to do nothing.

If they keep it up I may have to start paying unemployment insurance to lay myself off.

Unemployment pays less than half of your former salary, up to $400 bucks a week.

 

[Lovebears65]

The article is from a year and a half ago, and it's on the specifics of the 2010 tax compromises, which is what the "package" refers to. I'm not arguing that.

The ONLY point that I'm making is that it's not a "ridiculous claim" to think that providing UI for unemployed is more stimulative to the economy than NOT providing it.

When is it too long to be on unemployment checks. I think giving people 99 weeks makes them lazy. Why go out and look for a job when you can sit on your ass for 99 weeks. In some cases making just as much on unemployment. That is almost 2 years getting paid to do nothing.

If they keep it up I may have to start paying unemployment insurance to lay myself off.

 

[francoHFW]

When you get UE you gave to prove you apply to 10 places a week, idjits...