Stimulus Package Working Better than Expected.

[MannyIsGod]

And pay special attention to the source:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100525-714092.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

The $800 billion economic stimulus package signed into law early last year "has had a slightly bigger effect on the U.S. economy than was projected when it was passed more than a year ago," the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100525-714092.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines) reports.

"Through the first quarter of 2010, the stimulus boosted employment by an estimated 1.3 million to 2.8 million jobs, about a quarter or half million more than projected. Gross domestic product was 1.7 to 4.1 percentage points higher than it would have been without the stimulus."http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/PoliticalWire/%7E4/bQuNk4g4xxc

[Wild Cobra]

I would be curious how they differentiate between how much the stimulus helped, and what it would have been without the stimulus.



DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

The $800 billion U.S. stimulus package has had a slightly bigger effect on the U.S. economy than was ...

To continue reading, Subscribe now.

Please don't spam us.

Worse yet, the title tells us it's from the CBO. Do you trust the CBO?

CBO: Economic Effect Of Stimulus Bigger Than Projected

Why are you being a tool for the demonrats?

[Blake]

Worse yet, the title tells us it's from the CBO. Do you trust the CBO?


What would the reason(s) be to not trust the CBO?

[Wild Cobra]

What would the reason(s) be to not trust the CBO?
Are you serious? They have one of the worse track records of analysis and predictions ever.

They may be bipartisan, but they are elitist stateists.

[DarrinS]

Is this one of those "it would have been much worse if we did nothing" reports? Kind of difficult to prove.


Sincerely,

15 million unemployed Americans

[George Gervin's Afro]

Is this one of those "it would have been much worse if we did nothing" reports? Kind of difficult to prove.


Sincerely,

15 million unemployed Americans

There is nothing you can show me that it helped.

Sincerely,

Darrins

[Blake]

Are you serious? They have one of the worse track records of analysis and predictions ever.

They may be bipartisan, but they are elitist stateists.

here is the link:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf

which part of this is an example of bad analysis in your opinion

[jack sommerset]

LOL@ better than expected. Barry said if we pass the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent.

Stimulus didn't work.

[George Gervin's Afro]

LOL@ better than expected. Barry said if we pass the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent.

Stimulus didn't work.

:donkey



The $800 billion economic stimulus package signed into law early last year "has had a slightly bigger effect on the U.S. economy than was projected when it was passed more than a year ago," the Wall Street Journal reports.

"Through the first quarter of 2010, the stimulus boosted employment by an estimated 1.3 million to 2.8 million jobs, about a quarter or half million more than projected. Gross domestic product was 1.7 to 4.1 percentage points higher than it would have been without the stimulus."

[RandomGuy]

LOL@ better than expected. Barry said if we pass the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent.

Stimulus didn't work.

Even I thought that was optimistic bullshit.

Stimulus did work, it isn't as bad as it would have been otherwise.

[Wild Cobra]

Gross domestic product was 1.7 to 4.1 percentage points higher than it would have been without the stimulus."
Do you really believe their crystal ball?

Please tell me you aren't that naive.

[Wild Cobra]

Even I thought that was optimistic bullshit.

Stimulus did work, it isn't as bad as it would have been otherwise.
How do you know it wouldn't be better if the stimulus didn't pass? can you see into alternate dimensions?

[MannyIsGod]

WC, If you want to stop talking in bullshit anecdotes and actually provide data on why the stimulus didn't help or how things would not be any worse or even better without it then by all means I'm ready to listen.

[RandomGuy]

Do you really believe their crystal ball?

Please tell me you aren't that naive.

GDP is, in part, calculated by factoring in government spending as part of the equation, if you may remember from some previous discussions.

Make the "G" term bigger, especially by borrowing, and you get larger GDP, QED.

One thing that I think a lot of people lose sight of is that spending on infrastructure projects has some rather solid synergies.

[Blake]

LOL@ better than expected. Barry said if we pass the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent.

Stimulus didn't work.

you don't like to read, do you.

much easier to ass talk.

[Wild Cobra]

here is the link:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf

which part of this is an example of bad analysis in your opinion
That's a recent document. Past predictions have a 50% chance either way if done correctly. If the past prediction was purposely low-balled, it has a higher than 50% chance of saying the bailout worked.

Again, what would have happened if there was no bailout? Can you trust a CBO report on that? Wasn't unemployment not suppose to get as high as it did?

Please wake-up, and stop trusting these elitists. They only have their future as a concern. Not yours.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's a recent document. Past predictions have a 50% chance either way if done correctly. If the past prediction was purposely low-balled, it has a higher than 50% chance of saying the bailout worked.

Again, what would have happened if there was no bailout? Can you trust a CBO report on that? Wasn't unemployment not suppose to get as high as it did?

Please wake-up, and stop trusting these elitists. They only have their future as a concern. Not yours.

So you don't trust the CBO at all. Is that what you are saying?

[MannyIsGod]

You act as if the CBO is the only one saying it worked. In the past I have linked several private economic firms who have said the exact same thing: Without the stimulus - the recession is far worse.

I don't even think any serious person takes this as a debatable issue. I just post these threads to get people like you and Jack to squirm with BS.

[Wild Cobra]

One thing that I think a lot of people lose sight of is that spending on infrastructure projects has some rather solid synergies.
I will agree to the "infrastructure."

How much of the bailout had anything to do with infrastructure?

Did we build a border fence?

Did we improve the transit systems?

Are the Pennsylvania Interstates still filled with potholes?

Have we built any large power systems?

As far as I know, we didn't do any new construction at large scale. We only did "Trickle-Down-Bailouts" at large scale. My God. To say they are "too large to fail" is giving in to Fascism.

[Wild Cobra]

So you don't trust the CBO at all. Is that what you are saying?
Yes, I resemble that remark.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, If you want to stop talking in bullshit anecdotes and actually provide data on why the stimulus didn't help or how things would not be any worse or even better without it then by all means I'm ready to listen.
And the data you provided is proof?

Please don't make me laugh.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes, I resemble that remark.

So is there any non partisan organization that you would trust when reviewing their economic data?

[George Gervin's Afro]

And the data you provided is proof?

Please don't make me laugh.

Where's your proof to refute the article?

[TeyshaBlue]

here is the link:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf

which part of this is an example of bad analysis in your opinion

I'm a pretty big fan of the CBO, personally. They seem to couch their estimates fairly. Of course, the OP doesn't mention that this is only an estimate. The CBO admits that the underlying employment data isn't exactly pristine and has to use models based upon "previous similar policies" in addition to other corrective methodology. That's why it's an estimate. I guess Manny likes estimates.

[TeyshaBlue]

One thing that I think a lot of people lose sight of is that spending on infrastructure projects has some rather solid synergies.

I think that's one of the factors that keeps the employment figures from being as solid as the CBO would like.

[Wild Cobra]

You act as if the CBO is the only one saying it worked. In the past I have linked several private economic firms who have said the exact same thing: Without the stimulus - the recession is far worse.

I don't even think any serious person takes this as a debatable issue. I just post these threads to get people like you and Jack to squirm with BS.
Replying to me? I'm not in threaded mode, so I don;t know if you are, but am assuming so.

There lies one of the problems with the Internet. You can find arguments to support or deny just about any position. For that reason, I don't agree that your findings have any relevance. In fact, I would say that by going by the (biased) opinion of other makes your position weaker than mine. I can support my positions without links of other peoples words. Can you?

[admiralsnackbar]

Replying to me? I'm not in threaded mode, so I don;t know if you are, but am assuming so.

There lies one of the problems with the Internet. You can find arguments to support or deny just about any position. For that reason, I don't agree that your findings have any relevance. In fact, I would say that by going by the (biased) opinion of other makes your position weaker than mine. I can support my positions without links of other peoples words. Can you?

Why are you so proud of yourself for arguing out your ass?

[Wild Cobra]

So is there any non partisan organization that you would trust when reviewing their economic data?
Trust? No. I look at the findings and decide for myself, I don't rely on others to tell me what to think. The CBO has an absolutely laughable record. They should be ignored until proven right.

[Blake]

Trust? No. I look at the findings and decide for myself, I don't rely on others to tell me what to think. The CBO has an absolutely laughable record. They should be ignored until proven right.

what is the source of the findings you have found?

[Wild Cobra]

Why are you so proud of yourself for arguing out your ass?
What can I say. I'm an arrogant asshole.

But at lest I earned it.

[Blake]

I'm a pretty big fan of the CBO, personally. They seem to couch their estimates fairly.

From what I've read, I would agree.


I guess Manny likes estimates.

the WSJ

[RandomGuy]

Replying to me? I'm not in threaded mode, so I don;t know if you are, but am assuming so.

There lies one of the problems with the Internet. You can find arguments to support or deny just about any position. For that reason, I don't agree that your findings have any relevance. In fact, I would say that by going by the (biased) opinion of other makes your position weaker than mine. I can support my positions without links of other peoples words. Can you?

You say that as if all sources are created equal. They aren't.

It takes some solid critical thinking to evaluate sources, and decide how much emphasis to place on them.

You try the "I can support my position without anyone else" schtick in a real, formal debate by attempting to support your positions "because I said so", and you will be laughed off stage.

Simply because some sources can be easily dismissed does not mean ALL sources should be, as you seem to suggest here.

That is a failure of logical thinking, don't you agree?

[RandomGuy]

What can I say. I'm an arrogant asshole.

But at lest I earned it.

Being overly convinced that your opinions are *the* correct ones is pretty much admitting confirmation bias.

There is a fine line between arrogance and narcissism.

I personally tend to be much more skeptical of your positions, simply because you fail to acknowlege the real possibility that you can be wrong about something.

[Blake]

What can I say. I'm an arrogant asshole.

But at lest I earned it.

what's outstanding is that you are arrogant and ignorant at the same time, which usually leads to spectacular fail that's entertaining to watch. :tu

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

So because you (allegedly - have yet to see the analysis of the stimulus you've done) can back up your opinions while I use the opinions of experts in their fields your stance is stronger.

You may very well be more informed about economics than I am (I doubt it - but w/e - I'm not here to pull out my economic dick and measure it against yours) your argument is automatically correct? The sources I have used are experts with extensive experience and training and who without a doubt know the field better than you.

You can use stupid irrelevant arguments like "you can find anything to support what you say" or you can actually use factual evidence to disprove what I'm saying. Up to you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wild Cobra- I can support my positions without links of other peoples words.


Wild Cobra-The CBO has an absolutely laughable record. They should be ignored until proven right.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm a pretty big fan of the CBO, personally. They seem to couch their estimates fairly. Of course, the OP doesn't mention that this is only an estimate. The CBO admits that the underlying employment data isn't exactly pristine and has to use models based upon "previous similar policies" in addition to other corrective methodology. That's why it's an estimate. I guess Manny likes estimates.

Estimates are as good as it gets when dealing with economics on this scale. Whether I like them or not is fairly irrelevant when its the best accepted method.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Estimates are as good as it gets when dealing with economics on this scale. Whether I like them or not is fairly irrelevant when its the best accepted method.

But WC chooses who to believe when it's convenient for him..

[Wild Cobra]

There is a fine line between arrogance and narcissism.
True. However if you actually knew me, you would know. wouldn't you.

I personally tend to be much more skeptical of your positions, simply because you fail to acknowlege the real possibility that you can be wrong about something.
On the contrary. I do know that I am sometimes wrong. If you recall, I do account for the times my predictions were wrong. I simply believe my wisdom is advanced enough to see the truth. Yes, I am still at times wro0ng. However, I think my accuracy outweighs my inaccuracy.

Can you show me to be otherwise?

[Blake]

That's a recent document. Past predictions have a 50% chance either way if done correctly. If the past prediction was purposely low-balled, it has a higher than 50% chance of saying the bailout worked.

Again, what would have happened if there was no bailout? Can you trust a CBO report on that? Wasn't unemployment not suppose to get as high as it did?

Please wake-up, and stop trusting these elitists. They only have their future as a concern. Not yours.

What do you think would have happened if there was no bailout?

What findings do you personally have to show that the CBO's findings are laughable?

[Blake]

Yes, I am still at times wro0ng. However, I think my accuracy outweighs my inaccuracy.

wro0ng


Can you show me to be otherwise?

based on your past defensive posts, that would be a pointless exercise as you would find a way to convince yourself that you are still more accurate than not.

[Wild Cobra]

What do you think would have happened if there was no bailout?

What findings do you personally have to show that the CBO's findings are laughable?
I'm note even going to try to quantify your stupid question with someone else's link. I have all along, over these last 18+ months, said that the bailout was wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh well then obviously it is so.

[Blake]

I'm note even going to try to quantify your stupid question with someone else's link. I have all along, over these last 18+ months, said that the bailout was wrong.

I didn't ask you directly to answer my question with someone else's link.

I said:


What findings do you personally have to show that the CBO's findings are laughable?

Blaming alcohol for your failure at reading comprehension is a fail.

[jack sommerset]

you don't like to read, do you.

much easier to ass talk.

I read alright. 9.9% unemployment. Do you really think that is working better than expected, ass talker?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I read alright. 9.9% unemployment. Do you really think that is working better than expected, ass talker?


http://useconomy.about.com/od/economicindicators/p/unemploy_rate.htm


Obviously, the unemployment rate is important as a gauge of joblessness. For this reason, it is also a gauge of the economy's growth rate.

However, the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator. This means it measures the effect of a recession and so occurs after one has already started. It also means unemployment will continue to rise even after the economy has started to recover.Employers are reluctant to lay people off when the economy turns bad. For large companies, it can take months to put together a layoff plan. Companies are even more reluctant to hire new workers when the economy improves.


that was the first link after I yahoo's the subject... Many more sources for you

[jack sommerset]

that was the first link after I yahoo's the subject... Many more sources for you

I read those too. So some believe the "stimulus" worked better than expected yet we went WAY over the amount of jobs lost. You people that think the stimulus worked "better than expected" are fucking nuts.

No way of proven it worked period, unless you have a time machine and change history to see what would have happened if Obama did nothing. Obama himself said unemployment would not go over 8 percent yet yahoos ignore that and now are trying to say it worked better than expected. NUTS

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I doubt it was truly better than they expected. Unless someone has full access to the article. This entire GFC, you have governments bending and twisting things they said to paint it in a good light. They could have had like 10 different estimates, it beat a few, and then they say it beat estimates.

Words are the number 1 thing to be skeptical of in this financial crisis.

And alot of the reported jobs gains for the first few months of 2010 had to have been temporary government census jobs.

We caaaan't move forward...until you mail it back.

[Duff McCartney]

And alot of the reported jobs gains for the first few months of 2010 had to have been temporary government census jobs.

What are you basing that on? Are you just assuming that it has to be temporary government census jobs? Or are you just guessing it is?

[MannyIsGod]

I doubt it was truly better than they expected. Unless someone has full access to the article. This entire GFC, you have governments bending and twisting things they said to paint it in a good light. They could have had like 10 different estimates, it beat a few, and then they say it beat estimates.

Words are the number 1 thing to be skeptical of in this financial crisis.

And alot of the reported jobs gains for the first few months of 2010 had to have been temporary government census jobs.

We caaaan't move forward...until you mail it back.

Even you too with this?

[MannyIsGod]

Here CBF

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf

[Cant_Be_Faded]

here Duff one article it took three seconds to find:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_524468.html

Census Jobs Boost Employment Numbers


WASHINGTON — As census workers gear up to count us, they are counting themselves lucky to be employed.

This once-a-decade temporary work force is giving a timely boost to the battered job market. Census workers accounted for nearly a third of the jobs added in March, when hiring occurred at the fastest pace in three years.

Over the next two months, another 600,000 to 700,000 census jobs will be added, putting $10 to $25 an hour into the pockets of some desperate job seekers.

Although these jobs will only last through mid-July, economists say they will provide a fortuitous stream of income to families and act as an employment bridge until summer, when more private employers are expected to ramp up hiring.

The census hiring also comes in a year when President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package will peter out. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that stimulus spending added more than 1 million jobs last year.

"It comes at a good time because you're transitioning from an economy that's slowly recovering to sustainable growth," said John Canally, an economist at Boston-based LPL Financial. "This is a good patchwork until then."

Still, the census paychecks won't have a meaningful impact on the overall economy.

The government has set aside $7.8 billion to conduct the census. That pales compared with last year's stimulus package of $862 billion.

Yet the impact of these jobs cannot be overstated for people who were out of work.
Story continues below

"Census to the rescue," said 24-year-old Cierra Edwards of Toledo, Ohio. "I was so far behind. Rent started stacking up, bills, diapers."

She hopes her job as office operations supervisor will last at least through the summer and make it easier to land another job.

Michael Housewright, whose disc jockey business in the Detroit area all but dried up as people spent less on weddings and corporate parties, said the census work came at "exactly the right time." Housewright, 42, is hoping to land another government job, perhaps in homeland security, once his census job ends by early July.

A single mother of three living in Dacula, Ga., Ivonne Chavez, 35, said her temporary census job "basically came and saved me." She was hired last June to promote the 2010 census, a year after losing her accounting job. Her original contract was set to end later this month but has been extended through May. She's hoping it will get extended again.

The nation added 162,000 jobs in March, 48,000 of which were census jobs, the Labor Department reported Friday. The unemployment rate remained stuck at 9.7 percent for the third month in a row, largely because more people entered the work force.

The big boost in census jobs anticipated in April and May could reduce the unemployment rate slightly. But these jobs are mostly part-time, and last six to eight weeks, so the unemployment rate is unlikely to bounce back in June without equivalent hiring from the private sector.

Economists do not expect the jobless rate to drop to something more normal – in the range of 5.5 percent to 6 percent – until the middle of this decade.

With 15 million Americans out of work, census officials say they are receiving an unusually high level of interest from highly qualified individuals.

"We've got people on staff from doctors to lawyers to people who are fresh out of college," said Leslie Benjamin, a census recruiter in Washington, D.C.

"The quality of the people we're hiring this decade is unprecedented," said Robert Groves, the director of the U.S. Census Bureau. "We're actually finishing our operations faster because they're so good. We are ... the beneficiaries of this horrible recession."

[Blake]

heres one article it took three seconds to find:


The big boost in census jobs anticipated in April and May could reduce the unemployment rate slightly.

good find

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Here CBF

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf



So they had one official estimate document. My bad. But beating the CBO's estimates isn't necessarily something to be happy about.

The GDP increase and job increases may have exceeded their estimates, but they still don't mean much to me. I'm very skeptical of any job reports until the last two quarters of '10. Also, we will see how the economy turns now that the car buying has cooled off, and the home buying will cool off with the rebate expiring. I believe we will still see GDP increase through 2010, but GDP increasing means nothing for people looking for work. GDP increasing can very well be a function of the government expanding.

The stimulus is still a huge sick joke. No fundamental take on the economy will lead you to any conclusion other than the stimulus is just pushing the problem down the road, and making us have to pay a higher price when the day of reckoning is at hand.

Plus, the commerce department is lowering estimates for the first quarter 2010 GDP growth
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/first-quarter-growth-revised-down-to-30-2010-05-27

[Cant_Be_Faded]

good find

1) they were predicting the future, hence could

2) unemployment is tricky to predict in any case, because the numbers submitted to the public and read in newspapers actually is only unemployed people who are seeking work. The seeking work part of the equation is difficult to predict.


3) the numbers for march were factual

4) had you read the sentence before the one you quoted, you'd understand without me numbering it out for you

[Blake]

I read alright. 9.9% unemployment. Do you really think that is working better than expected, ass talker?

this thread isnt about Obama's predictions, estimates or quotes.

It's about the CBO, dumb fuck ass talker.

[Blake]

1) they were predicting the future, hence could


1) dont forget "slightly"


2) unemployment is tricky to predict in any case, because the numbers submitted to the public and read in newspapers actually is only unemployed people who are seeking work. The seeking work part of the equation is difficult to predict.

2) The CBO talks about difficulties in the predictions. Good read for the curious.



3) the numbers for march were factual

3) exactly how much of a difference in the unemployment rate do you think the census takers made?

since you have the numbers for march, don't be shy.......please share.


4) had you read the sentence before the one you quoted, you'd understand without me numbering it out for you

I understand you havent read the CBO

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The nation added 162,000 jobs in March, 48,000 of which were census jobs, the Labor Department reported Friday. The unemployment rate remained stuck at 9.7 percent for the third month in a row, largely because more people entered the work force.

What's up Dickens?

I remember now. You're one of the, what are they called, oh yeah, retards on this forum.
My bad for replying again to you.
Never said unemployment affected much said it impacted total jobs added.

Which was one of the two parameters mentioned in the OP.

But, like i said, you're a retard. So I understand that you don't understand this.

[MannyIsGod]

So they had one official estimate document. My bad. But beating the CBO's estimates isn't necessarily something to be happy about.

The GDP increase and job increases may have exceeded their estimates, but they still don't mean much to me. I'm very skeptical of any job reports until the last two quarters of '10. Also, we will see how the economy turns now that the car buying has cooled off, and the home buying will cool off with the rebate expiring. I believe we will still see GDP increase through 2010, but GDP increasing means nothing for people looking for work. GDP increasing can very well be a function of the government expanding.

The stimulus is still a huge sick joke. No fundamental take on the economy will lead you to any conclusion other than the stimulus is just pushing the problem down the road, and making us have to pay a higher price when the day of reckoning is at hand.

Plus, the commerce department is lowering estimates for the first quarter 2010 GDP growth
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/first-quarter-growth-revised-down-to-30-2010-05-27

I have huge problems with that statement but I have a new PS3 so its going to have to wait till tomorrow.

I'll say this first though, any jobs that the stimulus adds help pay for the stimulus themselves and sometimes the cost (to a federal deficit fueled by lost tax dollars) of doing nothing outweighs the cost of actually doing something.

[angrydude]

I have huge problems with that statement but I have a new PS3 so its going to have to wait till tomorrow.

I'll say this first though, any jobs that the stimulus adds help pay for the stimulus themselves and sometimes the cost (to a federal deficit fueled by lost tax dollars) of doing nothing outweighs the cost of actually doing something.

seriously. Statements this stupid should disqualify a person from talking about economics.

[Blake]

What's up Dickens?

not much Pussy


I remember now. You're one of the, what are they called, oh yeah, retards on this forum.


This is, what is it called, oh yeah, pussy humor.


Never said unemployment affected much said it impacted total jobs added.

I never said you said otherwise.

I simply asked you a simple question which you are apparently too scared to answer, pussy.


But, like i said, you're a retard. So I understand that you don't understand this.

I understand now that you are a pussy, so I understand why you don't want to answer a simple, rather harmless, question.

Apparently you are either too lazy or actually too retarded to take a look at the OP and then read the CBO report to figure out what this thread is really about.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

New jobs numbers for May show most new jobs due to census...

[jack sommerset]

New jobs numbers for May show most new jobs due to census...

BP has hired alot of folks lately. Maybe Obama should thank them for the spill.

[Winehole23]

Check out the two red lines at the bottom. The solid one includes Census hiring, while the dotted line doesn't include it.


What's clear is that while we still have a rebound including Census hiring, we're already flattening out on the dotted line. This is a shape not seen on the other lines. suggesting that the fall is extremely deep, and the recovery
(http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-the-scariest-job-chart-ever-just-got-even-scarier-2010-6#) is shallow.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-the-scariest-job-chart-ever-just-got-even-scarier-2010-6#ixzz0pu4CVzjE


http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c090ba67f8b9a75280d0000/chart-of-the-day-scariest-job-chart-ever-060410.gif

[DarrinS]

New private sector jobs - 41,000

New govt jobs - 391,000


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ar_thYFiXUk4

[MannyIsGod]

I've yet to see anyone post anything that says something other than what I'm saying. That includes WH's post, Darrin's post, and CBF's post.

Negative feedback loops are a bitch. I'm not sure how we can even argue that without stimulus we woudln't be in a much more precarious position.

[Winehole23]

You know the drill by now. There’s so much debt at every level -- consumer, corporate, and government -- that each time the bill comes due, we push it to the future or monetize it with more currency and additional credit (http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/todd-harrison-economy-economic-crisis-economic/6/2/2010/id/28555#) creation.

That “worked” for a while, masking our malaise through the lower dollar and skewing our true economic condition with the spending habits of a slimming margin of society.

While this has been the preferred path of policymakers, the enormity of the condition (http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/todd-harrison-economy-economic-crisis-economic/6/2/2010/id/28555#) is overwhelming the synthetic structure. This could conceivably continue although it comes at a cost that includes moral hazard, social unrest, protectionism, and geopolitical friction, all of which are cumulative.

The other road is less traveled and for good reason; it’s not particularly pleasant and few will benefit, at least initially. It’s a discussion we’ve had a few times through the years and delved a bit deeper into last week. (See: Return of the Phantom of Deflation (http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/deflation-inflation-todd-harrison-china-spx/5/26/2010/id/28406))

This bitter pill is swallowed as follows: we take the free market medicine of debt destruction and asset class deflation and eventually arrive at an outside-in globalization that sets the stage for a sustainable global recovery. http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/todd-harrison-economy-economic-crisis-economic/6/2/2010/id/28555

[MannyIsGod]

Americans aren't ready for that WH. Its so easy to write articles about that but does any society ever willfully accept what comes down to a substantial lowering of their standard of living by choice?

Less government spending means far more Americans out of work. That means our children are fucked either way. We can talk about how future generations will have to deal with this if we don't control our debt, but the fact is they will have to deal with things if we DO somehow decide to control the debt now.

Less government spending means more people out of work now, it means fewer people get access to government benefits such as education and health care. It means our infrastructure gets worse (and its already shit). It means that we have fewer skilled workers and jobs go elsewhere at an even faster pace and it means that we start to fall even farther behind.

The Japanse model doesn't sound so bad to me when you really think about staving off future problems really means future problems happen now and continue into the future.

[Winehole23]

Put another way, if we were allowed to enter recession after the tech bubble burst -- remember, the other side of the business cycle was considered anathema and we were deemed unpatriotic if we weren’t bullish -- we would already be on the road to recovery. Instead, we messed with Mother Nature and now she wants to -- and ultimately will -- exact her revenge. Bad debt needs to unwind and so do other asset classes. The longer we put it off, the more painful it will eventually be. Market forces will not be mocked forever.

Cushioning the blow with stimulus and artificially low interest rates may not only have postponed the day of reckoning, it seems have created a whole new round of malinvestment (asset bubbles).

Bottom line, stimulus and cheap money may have protected us from catastrophe in the short term, only to lay the foundation for a possibly worse one. As bad as a debt-deflation spiral in 2008 would have been, the consolidation, cheap money and deficits/indebtedness that were the solution to it have made any eventual correction vastly more dangerous and expensive to the body politic.

[Winehole23]

As I see it, the (temporary) efficacy of the stimulus is one of the prime reasons against it.

[MannyIsGod]

Bad debt needs to unwind and so do other asset classes. The longer we put it off, the more painful it will eventually be. Market forces will not be mocked forever.

Cushioning the blow with stimulus and artificially low interest rates may not only have postponed the day of reckoning, it seems have created a whole new round of malinvestment (asset bubbles).

Bottom line, stimulus and cheap money may have protected us from catastrophe in the short term, only to lay the foundation for a possibly worse one. As bad as a debt-deflation spiral in 2008 would have been, the consolidation, cheap money and deficits/indebtedness that were the solution to it have made any eventual correction vastly more dangerous and expensive to the body politic.

What you don't understand is that the difference between bad and worse in this case is meaningless when bad is already worse than the societ is willing to accept.

To put it this way, if option A kills you then who really cares how bad option B is?

[MannyIsGod]

As I see it, the (temporary) efficacy of the stimulus is one of the prime reasons against it.

The way I see it we're debating one bullet to the head now vs two bullets to the head later.

[Winehole23]

That's Chicken little reasoning.

The great depression didn't do us in. Why assume something similar would have this time?

[MannyIsGod]

WH, find me a viewpoint that gives us a doable way out of this situation where you can realistically expect a recovery that the American people would find acceptable when considering the current wealth distribution in our nation.

[Winehole23]

The way I see it we're debating one bullet to the head now vs two bullets to the head later.Which is more survivable, in your view?

[MannyIsGod]

That's Chicken little reasoning.

The great depression didn't do us in. Why assume something similar would have this time?

Because this is not like the 30s. Not to mention that World War 2 now involves a world with weapons that are quite different and a world far more populated.

[MannyIsGod]

Which is more survivable, in your view?

I'm pretty sure both leave you with a closed casket but few ever choses to die sooner than later.

[MannyIsGod]

Admittedly I do not know all that much about the geopolitical situation during the depression to make a comparison to the current one but I cannot help to think that the United States benefited to an amazing degree by the destruction of almost all competitors during WW2 and being left in a position that to this day we have benefited from.

I'm not so sure we'd be so lucky a 2nd time around.

[MannyIsGod]

Don't get me wrong, WH. I am for gradual debt reduction and smarter fiscal policy in this country as well as much better private debt management. I put the emphasis on gradual, however.

[Winehole23]

WH, find me a viewpoint that gives us a doable way out of this situation where you can realistically expect a recovery that the American people would find acceptable when considering the current wealth distribution in our nation.Your solution involves a permanent public backstop for a corrupt oligarchy. Is that really more acceptable to Americans than letting the oligarchs default and leaving their investors holding the bag instead?

[MannyIsGod]

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c090ba67f8b9a75280d0000/chart-of-the-day-scariest-job-chart-ever-060410.gif

When you look at this, just remember that a jobless recovery is better for our debt than a job losing depression. Stimulus packages rarely cost as much as they spend because they often bring in tax revenue you'd otherwise not have.

[MannyIsGod]

Your solution involves a permanent public backstop for a corrupt oligarchy. Is that really more acceptable to Americans than letting the oligarchs default and leaving their investors holding the bag instead?

Why is it permanent? You act as if its possible for anyone else to hold the bag though. Its nice to think that if the banks would have gone down that they would have gone down alone but you and I both know thats not the way it would work.

Who suffered in the Great Depression? The rich bankers who lost a lot or everyone?

[Winehole23]

Everyone. That's the way corrections have always worked. What makes us so special that we alone in history deserve never to pay the piper?

[Winehole23]

When you look at this, just remember that a jobless recovery is better for our debt than a job losing depression. Stimulus packages rarely cost as much as they spend because they often bring in tax revenue you'd otherwise not have.What makes you think we have definitively avoided another leg down?

[Winehole23]

In spite of the Keynesian fix, debt-deflation could still happen. Another hit to confidence in the US, and we're just about there.

[Winehole23]

Better we get acquainted with austerity and a lower standard of living right now, before the market enforces it on us against our will, with a virulence that will only be all the worse for the debt/asset bubbles we have created in the meantime.

[Winehole23]

The Japanse model doesn't sound so bad to me when you really think about staving off future problems really means future problems happen now and continue into the future.Japan's economy has been stagnant for 20 years, with no near term prospects of robust growth. That doesn't sound so bad to you?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not sure how we can even argue that without stimulus we woudln't be in a much more precarious position.
Problem is, it cannot be proven either way. At least not with being able to see an alternate timeline with that as the only difference.

I stand by the idea that we would be better off without the stimulus.

[RandomGuy]

Problem is, it cannot be proven either way. At least not with being able to see an alternate timeline with that as the only difference.

I stand by the idea that we would be better off without the stimulus.

I really do wish you could get a chance sometime to really try out your ideas in RL, really I do.

Then we can get a better idea once and for all if they really are as bad as I think they would be.

For now, you get to keep the comfort of self-delusion though.

As you said, we can't really say for certain as it is.

[RandomGuy]

What makes you think we have definitively avoided another leg down?

The infamous "double dip". Still a fair possibility.

Gawd, this wouldn't be quite so drastic w/o the Bush debt. :depressed

It would have been a helluva lot easer to throw a couple of trillion at had we not run up the deficit/debt quite so much over the Bush years.

[MannyIsGod]

Problem is, it cannot be proven either way. At least not with being able to see an alternate timeline with that as the only difference.

I stand by the idea that we would be better off without the stimulus.

By your logic I can't prove that my bank accounts would have had less money in them had I not made a deposit. Just can't be proven.

Of course it can be proven. If you have X number of jobs added because of stimulus then Y - X is not > Y. I fail to see how the hell GDP would have been any higher without the government spending but if you can explain that to me then I'd love to see it.

[MannyIsGod]

Better we get acquainted with austerity and a lower standard of living right now, before the market enforces it on us against our will, with a virulence that will only be all the worse for the debt/asset bubbles we have created in the meantime.

How?

[Wild Cobra]

By your logic I can't prove that my bank accounts would have had less money in them had I not made a deposit. Just can't be proven.

Of course it can be proven. If you have X number of jobs added because of stimulus then Y - X is not > Y. I fail to see how the hell GDP would have been any higher without the government spending but if you can explain that to me then I'd love to see it.
Wow...

What a crock of shit piece of logic.

Doesn't GDP include government spending? That makes the comparison invalid as a test for saying the recovery is better or not.

The downside of the bailouts and government spending is the added debt. I simply do not believe the very minor economic help the bailout did, outweighs the damage of the borrowing.

I might have a different opinion of the spending went to infrastructure. It didn't. It went to bail out rich executive and rich stock holders. A trickle-down bailout...

How much would a complete border fence of cost, employ how many people, and for how long?

[ChumpDumper]

The infamous "double dip". Still a fair possibility.

Gawd, this wouldn't be quite so drastic w/o the Bush debt. :depressed

It would have been a helluva lot easer to throw a couple of trillion at had we not run up the deficit/debt quite so much over the Bush years.This.

Recessions are the time for deficit spending. Not expansions.

[MannyIsGod]

Wow...

What a crock of shit piece of logic.

Doesn't GDP include government spending? That makes the comparison invalid as a test for saying the recovery is better or not.

The downside of the bailouts and government spending is the added debt. I simply do not believe the very minor economic help the bailout did, outweighs the damage of the borrowing.

I might have a different opinion of the spending went to infrastructure. It didn't. It went to bail out rich executive and rich stock holders. A trickle-down bailout...

How much would a complete border fence of cost, employ how many people, and for how long?

How does more debt have a negative impact on us now? I could see your line of thinking decades from now, but NOW? No.

I don't know why I bother responding to you. Your about as bad as Jack.

[Winehole23]

How?Letting insolvent megabanks and losers like AIG default, for starters.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

This.

Recessions are the time for deficit spending. Not expansions.

Which is exactly why people in the know scoff the shit out of so-called Keynesian that have been in power in America for the last chunk of decades.

They brainwash people into thinking we need to flood the market with money in crises like this. Because "they know how ecnonomic cycles work." But not one decision making Keynesian has ever fully lived to see full Keynesian economics applied to a full cycle of an economy.

Keynes said you have to tap the breaks and stop your printing presses and shore yourself up when times are booming.

W fucking made it a point to prove that he's such a great president he ravaged us before we had even met the brick wall of late 2008. In fact, all the post WW2 booms did not see us tap the breaks when times were going strong. It further exacerbates the boom and the bust.

Leaving us even more fucked for this. Had we not racked up those prior deficeits and started bull shit wars without end, I'd be alot more warm to this further flagrant spending.

[angrydude]

How does more debt have a negative impact on us now? I could see your line of thinking decades from now, but NOW? No.

I don't know why I bother responding to you. Your about as bad as Jack.

and that ladies and gentlemen is exactly the type of thinking that got us into the situation we are in today.

You can't sell out your future indefinitely. Eventually it catches up with you.

[Nbadan]

and that ladies and gentlemen is exactly the type of thinking that got us into the situation we are in today.

You can't sell out your future indefinitely. Eventually it catches up with you.

You weren't saying that when Bush was running up trillion dollar deficits during a economic expansion...you weren't saying the the new jobs numbers don't reflect private industry jobs when Bush was using deficit spending to keep his unregulated, mis-managed, drown-the-govt.-in-debt economy from going into recession in 2006...

the Bush tax cuts were a failure...they created very few private industry jobs and led to a govt subsidy for the rich and a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, something that should be corrected by ending the Bush tax cuts permanently...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Failure or success is irrelevant....the Bush tax cuts were unnecessary.

That's all you really need to say about them.



The Bush Rebate was an epic fail only because part of the money went to sections of society that would not use it the way it was idealistically intended for. Also it did not go far enough.

If Obama wants a second term, give the tax paying american a REAL bailout, and stop bailing out the banks and the unions and the insurance companies that insure them. Stop bailing out your supporters and making sure they are comfty for the next couple of years. If you're going to spend some money, spend it bailing out the actual people.

Half of it is not his fault but this guy is heading towards the most Epic Fail president of all time.


Thus far, Bush's people stimulus still blows the fuck out of the water anything that Obama has done for the common man.
He lies to your face with his stupid stuttering cadance, tells you he's giving you money, never tells you it's just part of your inevitable refund. Ludicrous.

If Obama were to give every tax-paying american a full refund of one years worth of taxes, the total cost would be far less than his bull shit cronism union and banker bailouts he's been dishing out.
and it would accomplish far more than the current bailouts as far as jolting the economy.

[Winehole23]

In the fairly sharp depression of 1920-1921 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321), Warren G. Harding cut taxes and gov't services massively but also insisted -- successfully -- on wage flexibility.

That would be practically unthinkable now. Non-negotiable. But it established a reliable floor for economic expansion.

[Winehole23]

Bottom line, if you don't let insolvent firms fall on their face but bail them out instead, it ain't capitalism anymore...

[Winehole23]

...it's a goddam oligarchy.

[Winehole23]

You weren't saying that when Bush was running up trillion dollar deficits during a economic expansion...I was. Check me out on SR. My moniker was guerito.


you weren't saying the the new jobs numbers don't reflect private industry jobs when Bush was using deficit spending to keep his unregulated, mis-managed, drown-the-govt.-in-debt economy from going into recession in 2006...And in 2001. I talked about that too.


the Bush tax cuts were a failure...they created very few private industry jobs and led to a govt subsidy for the rich and a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, something that should be corrected by ending the Bush tax cuts permanently...Unaffordable then, unaffordable now. Next....

[Winehole23]

Gawd, this wouldn't be quite so drastic w/o the Bush debt. :depressed

It would have been a helluva lot easer to throw a couple of trillion at had we not run up the deficit/debt quite so much over the Bush years.War spending had something to do with this too. That's at least another two or three trillion right there.

[EmptyMan]

:rollin

[Wild Cobra]

Bottom line, if you don't let insolvent firms fall on their face but bail them out instead, it ain't capitalism anymore...
Agreed.

To say a business is "too big to fail" is awful fucking scary to me.

Those people need to be shot.

[Winehole23]

Agreed.

To say a business is "too big to fail" is awful fucking scary to me.

Those people need to be shot.Just let them fail. That'd be enough, really.