Reply With Quote
In Oregon, 3/4 of these jobs saved or created are government jobs.
I wonder how many more social workers they need to keep up with the growing benifit eating population?
And They Say That Allan Meltzer Used to Be a Real Economist...
Allan Meltzer should be ashamed of himself.
Here is the late Milton Friedman, arguing that supporting the banking system with extra open-market operations in late 1931-early 1932 after the shock of the British abandonment of the gold standard would have saved an awful lot of jobs--probably all the jobs lost between August 1931 and January 1932:
Suppose the [Federal Reserve] System... had accompanied the measure by purchase of government securities [for cash]... as called for by the "classic" remedy for an internal drain.... [L]et $1 billion be the amount.... What would have been the consequence?... Reserve purchases of $1 billion... would have meant an increase of $1,330 million in high-powered money... would have permitted a multiple expansion of deposits.... Even if... the deposit ratios would have fallen as much as they did--and for the deposit-currency ratio, the fall in so short a time was the largest on record--the result would have been to cut in half the decline in the stock of money.... Only a moderate improvement in the deposit-currency ratio--a decline from 8.95 to 7.10 instead of 6.47--would... have enabled the stock of money to be stable...Here is Allan Meltzer, arging that the kind of counterfactual analysis Milton Friedman undertakes in The Great Contraction is nonsense:
http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/1...ltzer_memo.pdf: There is no greater recognition of the failure of the stimulus program to create jobs than the efforts to mislead the public into believing the program had saved thousands, or millions, of jobs. One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called “jobs saved.” It doesn’t exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved? The Administration can make up any number it pleases. The number has no meaning...If the concept of "jobs saved" does not exist, how come Milton Friedman says that an extra $1 billion of open market operations in late 1931 would have stopped the Great Depression in its tracks.
You can critique models. You can critique parameters. You can critique parameters. You can critique how the calculations are done, but you cannot deny their existence, for the kind of counterfactualcalculations that Milton Friedman does are, of course, the steady diet of what economists and other policy analysts do every day.
So why is Allan Meltzer doing this--saying that Milton Friedman talked nonsense in The Great Contraction? Because it is to the temporary tactical advantage of the Republican Party for him to do so.
Exercise some moral responsibility, Allan.
Shameless partisan hack.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/1...economist.html
In Oregon, 3/4 of these jobs saved or created are government jobs.
I wonder how many more social workers they need to keep up with the growing benifit eating population?
did you get an increase on your lonestar card?
What's a loanstar card?
I think it's foodstamps in a CC.
Correct.
Milton Friedman did it doesn't cut any mus with me. I wouldn't say the impact of the stimulus is insignificant, but suggesting as Ms. Romer has, that "jobs saved or created" is measurable in any strict sense seems like a fib. It's a guesstimate, not a statistic IMO.
That's a semantics game that serves nothing more than to remove credibility from the argument being made with the statistic. You can argue the statistic is less than exact but I don't know of how that would disqualify it as a statistic at all.
The fact of the matter is that economics is mostly less than exact because there is no way to get precise measurements. That is why these statements from economists don't make much sense until you take them as what they actually are: Ideological arguments and not based on economics.
As true of Ms Romer's statistic as its detractors IMO.
That is simply not the case, WH. The detractors aren't giving any credit to the statistic in an effort to completely discredit the stimulus package and the effect its having. The critique wasn't on the accuracy of the measurement but that the measurement had not merit.
Oh.
I guess he's an expert on the subject. Must use it allot.
You mean you didn't hear?
Do you only listen to the liberal media?
Here is a link. Finally have the time to waste for you:
Oregon Uses Stimulus Funds to Create Government Jobs, Provide Social Services
Just took the first I found. Hard to link phone conversations with what family is telling me. I am two timezones out of state at the moment.
And the proponents are using it to take credit for effects they are none too sure of.
A distinction without a difference. "Jobs created and saved" is a non-measurable metric.
What data gives this information, anyway?
Just yesterday I posted links to an analysis with the methodology behind how they got their jobs figure yesterday. The point is if there is a critique to be made, shoudl it not be on specifics on that methodology and why it is incorrect as opposed to simple blanket statements that you can't possibly deduce this information when economists have been doing this very thing since the birth of economics?
This is a black box; can you unpack it? Without knowing how this figure is arrived at, or whether the built-in assumptions apply to the given situation, what gives you confidence in the result?Table 1 combines that data with the economic multipliers (i.e., the amount that a given dollar of increased spending or reduced taxes spurs in additional economic output) used in standard forecasting models.
What gives you so much confidence in a calculation that is so imprecise?All in all, the combined evidence—the timing of ARRA in relation to subsequent economic performance; the strong influence of taxes and transfers since ARRA; and direct data from Recovery.gov on the timing and composition of ARRA expenditures and tax-cuts—suggests that the recovery package has substantially boosted economic growth and created or saved 1.1 to 1.5 million jobs since its passage.
That the range of values varies up to 25% suggests to me that the metric can't be measured very well.
And thats fine - the point isn't to say that the stimulus package added 1.4 or 1.2 or .8 million jobs - the point is to show that the stimulus package is having a significant effect on the job market.
With almost 10% unemployment, there doesn't seem to be any significant effect.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
