The Stimulus Worked

[Damocles]

You are incorrect. Yurt is correct. To suggest we need further stimulus prior to spending about 75% of the last stimulus bill is quite absurd. They are simply using the lack of progress on unemployment as an excuse to create another package. Spend the rest of the $797b THIS year... then they can show us that they need more.

And spend it actually creating private sector jobs through contracts, that's the kind of thing that will actually create jobs that will rebuild a faltering economy, not just teachers and firefighters.

 

[Topspin]

I have plenty doubt that we'd have been screwed witout it. We rewarded the tools for thier bad behavior. Would the recession have been worse, Yes. Was it worth a trillion, I doubt it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And spend it actually creating private sector jobs through contracts, that's the kind of thing that will actually create jobs that will rebuild a faltering economy, not just teachers and firefighters.

Agreed. It is funny how they keep harping on the 'first defenders and teachers' jobs. Why not just come out and say... 'yeah, we saved our union friends first'

 

[Bonestorm]

The CBO range is 800k to 2.4 million jobs 'saved'. They ARE the outlier on both the HIGH and the LOW end from what I have seen.

Trying to count jobs 'saved' is as String put it... nearly impossible. THAT is why we look at the unemployment numbers.

First, the CBO doesn't use the "saved" or "created" terminology. Rather, the CBO talks about "change in employment" and as of November 2009 projected a positive change in employment of 600k to 1.6 million jobs due to the stimulus bill. They are outliers on the low end only.

Second, looking at unemployment numbers is OK but not in the abstract because you have to identify what the appropriate baseline is. In terms of unemployment, the CBO projected a decrease in the unemployment rate of 0.3% to 0.6%.

Third, while I agree that unemployment is extremely important, looking solely at the unemployment figure as the measure of the impact of the stimulus bill is dishonest. You have to look at the economy as a whole, including for example GDP.

Would things have been worse without the stimulus? Yes, we likely would have seen several states fold under their debt. But to state this stimulus created lots and lots of jobs is simply absurd. If lots and lots were created, the unemployment rate would not be at 9.7%.

Again, looking solely at unemployment is dishonest and maybe we disagree as to whether 600k to over 2 million jobs qualifies as "lots and lots." Looking solely at the unemployment figure in the abstract doesn't tell you much of anything. What is the baseline? If 12% is the baseline, 9.7% doesn't look too bad.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I have plenty doubt that we'd have been screwed witout it. We rewarded the tools for thier bad behavior. Would the recession have been worse, Yes. Was it worth a trillion, I doubt it.

as for the bank bailout, I think it was necessary at the time. We were looking at a meltdown otherwise.

That said, most of the banks have paid back their bailout money with interest... yet I wonder... WHERE the fuck did that money GO? It doesn't seem to be reflected in reducing the deficit this year. It doesn't appear our debt went back down by that amount. Just where exactly IS this money? If anyone knows, please enlighten me.

 

[Bonestorm]

You are incorrect. Yurt is correct. To suggest we need further stimulus prior to spending about 75% of the last stimulus bill is quite absurd. They are simply using the lack of progress on unemployment as an excuse to create another package. Spend the rest of the $797b THIS year... then they can show us that they need more.

That isn't what Yurt is arguing. That's what you are arguing. Yurt is arguing that the stimulus didn't work because the economy isn't gang-busters. Yurt's argument is stupid. At least yours makes a little sense.

 

[Bonestorm]

No. I think that everybody using these numbers as if they are some sort of "Truth" is silliness, then suggesting that they are somehow perfect in stating something now is just more silliness.

They are an imperfect tool and should be treated as such, not as the end-all you are trying to make them into. The reality is their numbers are best taken with a grain of salt, like any other group who "predicts" poorly consistently. Their "assumptions" were, wrong. Saying that they are somehow uber-accurate in reporting THIS but were terribly wrong on THAT is what you seem to be trying to do. They aren't uber-accurate at ANYTHING... I don't trust them any more than any other predictor...

Collectively, the numbers from the right and left wing sources I have listed are the best available information we have regarding the impact of the stimulus. You can argue that everyone is wrong, but you have no evidence to support your argument.

 

[Chapdog]

still waiting for him to do something with the SEC in regards to Hedge funds and naked short selling. waiting.. and waiting..

 

[Bonestorm]

And spend it actually creating private sector jobs through contracts, that's the kind of thing that will actually create jobs that will rebuild a faltering economy, not just teachers and firefighters.

Shorter Damo: Why don't we get some real Socialism cooking?

 

[Timshel]

I could understand discounting the CBO if it were a wildly off the mark outlier on this issue, but it isn't.

They are as wildly off the mark as all the other prognosticators are. If they were throwing darts I am not sure any of them would hit the board.

It is often the case that predictions and these other assumptions all fall near each other. This is a face saving mechanism by the analysts. They don't look as bad if they are wrong in the same general way that everyone else is. It does not mean any of them are right.

 

[Damocles]

Collectively, the numbers from the right and left wing sources I have listed are the best available information we have regarding the impact of the stimulus. You can argue that everyone is wrong, but you have no evidence to support your argument.

And collectively the "best" information we had in the 1400s was that the world was flat and you'd fall off if you sailed too far, collectively wrong doesn't mean they are somehow right.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

First, the CBO doesn't use the "saved" or "created" terminology. Rather, the CBO talks about "change in employment" and as of November 2009 projected a positive change in employment of 600k to 1.6 million jobs due to the stimulus bill. They are outliers on the low end only.

That is quite simply absurd. There was not a positive change in employment. Only a fucking idiot would think that there was.

Second, looking at unemployment numbers is OK but not in the abstract because you have to identify what the appropriate baseline is. In terms of unemployment, the CBO projected a decrease in the unemployment rate of 0.3% to 0.6%.

They projected a decrease of that amount compared to what baseline?

Third, while I agree that unemployment is extremely important, looking solely at the unemployment figure as the measure of the impact of the stimulus bill is dishonest. You have to look at the economy as a whole, including for example GDP.

I did not look at it solely based on unemployment. I stated quite clearly things would have been worse without it. But from an employment standpoint, it could have been far better had they put the money to work, rather than sit on 75% of it for a year and counting.

Again, looking solely at unemployment is dishonest and maybe we disagree as to whether 600k to over 2 million jobs qualifies as "lots and lots." Looking solely at the unemployment figure in the abstract doesn't tell you much of anything. What is the baseline? If 12% is the baseline, 9.7% doesn't look too bad.

My point there was that net jobs were NOT 'CREATED'. It is absolutely absurd to suggest they were when the unemployment rate kept going up. NET JOBS were LOST. The argument of how many were 'saved' is certainly up for dispute because it is damn near impossible to track as the administration has shown.

Also, I am not looking at unemployment in the 'abstract'. I am looking at it in the absolute. Full employment is considered to be 5% unemployment. But to be fair to the stimulus, the better comparison would be to look at the rate at the time the package was passed and compare it to now. Also, you could compare the projections at the time as to where unemployment would go to where it actually went.

Why in the hell would anyone use 12% as a baseline? Why not just say 100%, cause that way you could always look good?

 

[Jarod]

The Republicans were for it before they were against it!

 

[Damocles]

That is quite simply absurd. There was not a positive change in employment. Only a fucking idiot would think that there was.



They projected a decrease of that amount compared to what baseline?



I did not look at it solely based on unemployment. I stated quite clearly things would have been worse without it. But from an employment standpoint, it could have been far better had they put the money to work, rather than sit on 75% of it for a year and counting.




My point there was that net jobs were NOT 'CREATED'. It is absolutely absurd to suggest they were when the unemployment rate kept going up. NET JOBS were LOST. The argument of how many were 'saved' is certainly up for dispute because it is damn near impossible to track as the administration has shown.

Also, I am not looking at unemployment in the 'abstract'. I am looking at it in the absolute. Full employment is considered to be 5% unemployment. But to be fair to the stimulus, the better comparison would be to look at the rate at the time the package was passed and compare it to now. Also, you could compare the projections at the time as to where unemployment would go to where it actually went.

Why in the hell would anyone use 12% as a baseline? Why not just say 100%, cause that way you could always look good?

I've always love the "or saved" portion. If you can just say you "saved" jobs at the very least people in your party will believe you because they want to so badly. It's a magical sentence that means almost nothing.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

still waiting for him to do something with the SEC in regards to Hedge funds and naked short selling. waiting.. and waiting..

Could not agree more.

1) Put them under the same regulations as the rest of the investment world

2) Full disclosure on short sales for everyone. This does not have to be at the time of the shorts, but should be reported on a lagging basis so we can see clearly who was shorting what and whether or not they were naked. In addition, the synthetic short positions should also be declared. The argument that it would give away trading strategies is simply a way to avoid any sort of scrutiny. If the public knew what they did in 2008, the lynch mob would likely form and they know it.

3) Uptick rule back in place please

4) Glass Steagal as well please. For the idiots in DC... you DO NOT HAVE TO THINK HARD ABOUT HOW TO RE-REGULATE... THIS BILL DID THE JOB UNTIL YOU IDIOTS REMOVED IT.

 

[Bonestorm]

That is quite simply absurd. There was not a positive change in employment. Only a fucking idiot would think that there was.

A positive change from the baseline. C'mon, SF. You're a bit smarter than that.

They projected a decrease of that amount compared to what baseline?

It's in the report. Perhaps you should read it. I was simply responding to your post, not offering a dissertation on the methods of the CBO. Here's the link:

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/11-30-ARRA.pdf

I did not look at it solely based on unemployment. I stated quite clearly things would have been worse without it. But from an employment standpoint, it could have been far better had they put the money to work, rather than sit on 75% of it for a year and counting.

We've been through this one before and I have no interest in rearguing the point. Suffice it to say (1) where you project an output gap that will span over a period of two years it makes sense to spread out spending over that period and (2) dumping all the money in the first 6 months of a projected 2 year output gap would dramatically increase the risk of a double dip recession.

My point there was that net jobs were NOT 'CREATED'. It is absolutely absurd to suggest they were when the unemployment rate kept going up. NET JOBS were LOST. The argument of how many were 'saved' is certainly up for dispute because it is damn near impossible to track as the administration has shown.

No one is talking about "created or saved" in this thread but you. The issue some of us are discussing is whether the stimulus bill had a positive effect on employment. And everyone agrees that it has except Damo and some others.

Also, I am not looking at unemployment in the 'abstract'. I am looking at it in the absolute. Full employment is considered to be 5% unemployment. But to be fair to the stimulus, the better comparison would be to look at the rate at the time the package was passed and compare it to now. Also, you could compare the projections at the time as to where unemployment would go to where it actually went.

Why in the hell would anyone use 12% as a baseline? Why not just say 100%, cause that way you could always look good?

My point was simply that arguing that the stimulus has not had a positive impact on employment because unemployment is at 9.7% is stupid. What matters is where unemployment would be notwithstanding the stimulus. I used 12% merely for illustrative purposes.

 

[Bonestorm]

They are as wildly off the mark as all the other prognosticators are. If they were throwing darts I am not sure any of them would hit the board.

It is often the case that predictions and these other assumptions all fall near each other. This is a face saving mechanism by the analysts. They don't look as bad if they are wrong in the same general way that everyone else is. It does not mean any of them are right.

I understand the point. What I am waiting for is some analysis by someone somewhere suggesting that everyone else has it completely totally all wrong. I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Bonestorm]

I've always love the "or saved" portion. If you can just say you "saved" jobs at the very least people in your party will believe you because they want to so badly. It's a magical sentence that means almost nothing.

Not that I care all that much, but answer this one for me: what difference is there on the unemployment rate between (1) preventing Jim from being laid off and (2) getting Jim a new job after he gets laid off?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

That isn't what Yurt is arguing. That's what you are arguing. Yurt is arguing that the stimulus didn't work because the economy isn't gang-busters. Yurt's argument is stupid. At least yours makes a little sense.

not true. i never said the stimulus isn't working because the economy isn't gang busters.

i have mentioned that how can you claim jobs were created when unemployment rose. nice try nigel....

the fact remains, if the stimulus worked, there would not be a need for a second stimulus. that there needs to be a second stimulus, necessarily means the first one did not work.

 

[Bonestorm]

not true. i never said the stimulus isn't working because the economy isn't gang busters.

i have mentioned that how can you claim jobs were created when unemployment rose. nice try nigel....

the fact remains, if the stimulus worked, there would not be a need for a second stimulus. that there needs to be a second stimulus, necessarily means the first one did not work.

It doesn't become true by virtue of repeating it ad nauseum.