A no BS, non partisan examination of the success of Obama's stimulus package

[Avorysuds]

If you knew how the stimulus worked you would know the money generated demand. A ripple effect. It wasn't zero sum.

Another idiot whoi believes in the multiplier effect.

You apparently don't understand how our economy works. Consumer spending creates economic stimulus.

So what yer saying is you believe in Government "trickle down" effect... Even when the Government takes 1 trillion dollars and spends less than a few billion on the middle class/ poor.

 

[Stephanie]

so when does the DEAR LEADER give back that 800 Billion TO US TAXPAYERS he stole from us that supposedly stopped all this free falling?

And another lie from him how this theft of almost a trillion dollars would bring UNEMPLOYMENT below 7%

OVER 7% now for five frikken years

sheeesh, another joke he played on us

Funny how the unemployment rate was over 7% during Reagan's first five frikken years and he was a god to Conservatives.

Excuse me, we are talking TODAY...not 20 something years ago

 

[itfitzme]

so when does the DEAR LEADER give back that 800 Billion TO US TAXPAYERS he stole from us that supposedly stopped all this free falling?

And another lie from him how this theft of almost a trillion dollars would bring UNEMPLOYMENT below 7%

OVER 7% now for five frikken years

sheeesh, another joke he played on us

Funny how the unemployment rate was over 7% during Reagan's first five frikken years and he was a god to Conservatives.

Excuse me, we are talking TODAY...not 20 something years ago

A seven percent rate of unemployment is understood to be on the high side of natural rate of unemployment. 5% is standard, 7% on the high side.

During the Carter admin, the gov attempted to drive the 7% rate down to five. It was a big mistake and caused inflation. The trade of is always the unemployment rate vs inflation.

At this point, complaints about the unemployment rate specifically are ill advised.

_____________

"Natural rate of employment is the rate of unemployment at which the economy is said to be in practically full employment situation with regard "

"The natural rate and the Phillips curve"

Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many estimates suggest that the long-run normal level of the unemployment rate--the level that the unemployment rate would be expected to converge to in the next 5 to 6 years in the absence of shocks to the economy--is in a range between 5 and 6 percent. Policymakers' judgments about the long-run normal rate of unemployment in the Summary of Economic Projections are generally in this range as well. For example, in the most recent projections, FOMC participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.2 percent to 5.8 percent."

FRB: What is the lowest level of unemployment that the U.S. economy can sustain?

 

[itfitzme]

Oh, boo hoo.....

Mr. T is all upset because he doesn't know shit.

 

[Avatar4321]

So a non-partisan examination just coincidentally adopts the left's talking points. That is awfully convenient isn't it?

Besides, success is in the eye of the beholder. Did the stimulus do what it was supposed to? The answer is yes. It was meant pay back Obama donors who get him elected using tax payer money. That's what happened. It was an amazing success in that regard.

Fixing the economy? Not so much.

 

[itfitzme]

Another idiot whoi believes in the multiplier effect.

You apparently don't understand how our economy works. Consumer spending creates economic stimulus.

Uh no it doesnt. The most disproven theory of all time. We suffered a Great Depression precisely because the recession was diagnosed incorrectly as lack of consumer demand,

Dude, you are ignorant.

The economy is precisely the sale and purchase of goods and services. The end of all ends is consumer spending. What do you think it is? Business spending? Stock market? Banks? Have you bothered to even think about it? In the end, raw materials are obtained from nature at the top of the supply chain. At each production step, labor adds value. Finally, at the end, households purchase and consume those goods.

It's not a "theory" any more than gravity is a "theory".

You are absolutly clueless at the most fundamental level. Maybe you should stop posting bullshit.

 

[itfitzme]

I don't/didn't have an issue with the stimulus, even though the waste factor was appalling and the actual benefit conveyed in lasting stuff like infrastructure a bad joke. It did as the OP states. Most importantly its direct aid to state govt kept not just govt workers but also doc and nurses working.

But that does not support more spending now. The real estate bubble was caused by too much demand for debt, and the result was too much debt. Some was written off, and the value of trading houses took a tumble. But instead of the taxpayer getting the the depressed asset that underlay the debt, we just propped up the traders, and they kept the assets. Spending more now on stimulus just creates more TBills, which was what got us in the mess to begin with.

Arguably, however, I think there's a good faith argument, that even conservatives can accept, that we are reducing govt spending/gnp too rapidly, and modestly boosting revenues to allow us to prop up demand for goods that are consumed by workers who permanently lost jobs and who now will have to take much lower paying jobs as unemployment insurance runs out.

"The real estate bubble was caused by too much demand for debt"

I am assuming you don't mean the Federal Debt.

Yeah, there is an interesting paradox. The money supply is completely dependent upon debt. No borrowing, no debt, no money supply, no economy.

When the real estate bubble collapsed, it sent the economy into a cascade of deleveraging. It was a classical balance sheet recession.

So, what is the right amount?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Bush's tax cuts were more expensive than the Recovery Act. When will see that money back?

That money did not belong to us - it belonged to the tax payer

You do realize that taxes pay the government's expenses right? Tax cuts dont pay for themselves. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay the bills. This is basic economics.

You do realize that keeping more money in the private sector (tax cuts) generally speaking, leads to more prosperity and even more tax revenue? You realize that tax receipts hit record levels under Bush, right?

 

[itfitzme]

Umm no....

GDP is not a measure of the amount of US dollars printed.

I didn't say it was a measure of dollars printed, chowder head.

It's not a measure of monetary asset growth either, Mr.-I-Don't-Read-Books-Unless-I-Have-To genius.

I am not clear as to how he gets to GDP as a measure of asset growth. It has to be either some indirect process or he's completley off. Directly, GDP does not measure asset growth, it measure production and consumption. Only one part of it can be reasonabley considered as asset growth, the investment part.

GDP = C + I + G + NX

Yeah, I is assets. But, there is no part of that which accounts for depreciation. Sure, I believe that C includes say, new home sales. So there is an asset. But to say GDP is a measure of asset growth is a real reach at best.

 

[itfitzme]

So a non-partisan examination just coincidentally adopts the left's talking points. That is awfully convenient isn't it?

Besides, success is in the eye of the beholder. Did the stimulus do what it was supposed to? The answer is yes. It was meant pay back Obama donors who get him elected using tax payer money. That's what happened. It was an amazing success in that regard.

Fixing the economy? Not so much.

"It was meant pay back Obama donors"

Yeah, sure... The right thing to do would have been to make sure the only part of the economy that recovered was Republican donors and voters.

Yeah, that makes sense....

 

[itfitzme]

That money did not belong to us - it belonged to the tax payer

You do realize that taxes pay the government's expenses right? Tax cuts dont pay for themselves. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay the bills. This is basic economics.

You do realize that keeping more money in the private sector (tax cuts) generally speaking, leads to more prosperity and even more tax revenue? You realize that tax receipts hit record levels under Bush, right?

Tax receipts did not hit "record levels" under Bush. Not by a long shot.

Population grows, of course. And inflation increases nominal dollars. And it is only in mistakenly using total nominal dollars that it even begins to look like it. But that is just dumb.

In terms of real dollars per capita, there was no "record levels".

Sure, tax cuts must some times increase output and tax revenues. Not generally. Not usually. It all depends. Sometimes is just means price changes with no change in output. Oh, and output can change regardless of tax rates.

And, so far as the empirical date demonstrates, there is no evidence of tax cuts increasing output, RGDP and real tax revenue per cap.

Clearly the Bush tax cuts show absolutley no evidence of having increased RGDP or real tax revenue per cap in any demonstratable manner.

Theoretically, sure it's got to, sometimes. But really, it aint there.

 

[bendog]

I don't/didn't have an issue with the stimulus, even though the waste factor was appalling and the actual benefit conveyed in lasting stuff like infrastructure a bad joke. It did as the OP states. Most importantly its direct aid to state govt kept not just govt workers but also doc and nurses working.

But that does not support more spending now. The real estate bubble was caused by too much demand for debt, and the result was too much debt. Some was written off, and the value of trading houses took a tumble. But instead of the taxpayer getting the the depressed asset that underlay the debt, we just propped up the traders, and they kept the assets. Spending more now on stimulus just creates more TBills, which was what got us in the mess to begin with.

Arguably, however, I think there's a good faith argument, that even conservatives can accept, that we are reducing govt spending/gnp too rapidly, and modestly boosting revenues to allow us to prop up demand for goods that are consumed by workers who permanently lost jobs and who now will have to take much lower paying jobs as unemployment insurance runs out.

"The real estate bubble was caused by too much demand for debt"

I am assuming you don't mean the Federal Debt.

Yeah, there is an interesting paradox. The money supply is completely dependent upon debt. No borrowing, no debt, no money supply, no economy.

When the real estate bubble collapsed, it sent the economy into a cascade of deleveraging. It was a classical balance sheet recession.

So, what is the right amount?

What I meant was that we created more Tbills under W than we did at anytime previously, but Greenspan kept rates low, so the Tbills didn't pay squat. The chinese wanted a better paying investment for their trade surplus dollars. And it was assumed that US housing market debt was safe. I left that out because I didn't want to enrage the partisian right.

So, yes, I agree the recession was a classical case of deleveraging as biz and consumers struggled to pay off debt. And, imo, we still are, which is why growth would be non-existent but for the Fed shoving a trillion or so into lending. Those dollars have to go somewhere, and they are going into stocks and those banks offering no interest loans for 18 mos.

What I attempted to say was that the OP is wrong to the extent it argues that another stimulus is a good thing. Along with all other debt, we are deleveraging the amout of deficit spending as a % of gnp. Perhaps to quickly, perhaps not. People can differ, and frankly so long as the Fed is willing to carry the water for growth at the expense of inflation, I'm fine with the sequester, and would have preferred not to increase defense spending too.

But, if we're deleveraging any NEW debt is not a good thing unless an entity's balance sheet looks really good, and the federal deficit balance sheet is very ugly.

 

[itfitzme]

Here is the real dollars per capita for the federal budget.



The blue line is revenue or receipt.

At best, assuming that the bump during the Bush admin was caused by the Bush era tax cuts, then the may have had some effect.

But, at best, it was no better than the level in 2000.

Then there is the problem that spending was also increased starting in 2001 (abouts).

Then there is the issue that it subsequently fell after the max, right into a recession of major proportions. And all of the gains, if they can be called that, were lost to a massive recession that devistated revenues even as spending went to all time highs.

It's just not there.

 

[The T]

Here is the real dollars per capita for the federal budget.



The blue line is revenue or receipt.

At best, assuming that the bump during the Bush admin was caused by the Bush era tax cuts, then the may have had some effect.

But, at best, it was no better than the level in 2000.

Then there is the problem that spending was also increased starting in 2001 (abouts).

Then there is the issue that it subsequently fell after the max, right into a recession of major proportions. And all of the gains, if they can be called that, were lost to a massive recession that devistated revenues even as spending went to all time highs.

It's just not there.

Government needs to STOP spending...stop spending the futures of children yet to be born into slavery.

 

[bendog]

Here is the real dollars per capita for the federal budget.



The blue line is revenue or receipt.

At best, assuming that the bump during the Bush admin was caused by the Bush era tax cuts, then the may have had some effect.

But, at best, it was no better than the level in 2000.

Then there is the problem that spending was also increased starting in 2001 (abouts).

Then there is the issue that it subsequently fell after the max, right into a recession of major proportions. And all of the gains, if they can be called that, were lost to a massive recession that devistated revenues even as spending went to all time highs.

It's just not there.

I'm not sure what we are arguing. If you took my posts to mean that I thought the recession was a result of W's deficits, either I was unclear or you misread. I do think the credit bubble was a direct result of Greenspan not regulating lenders and keeping rates low, while W increased govt spending by about 1.2 trillion. The chinese demand for debt was not satisfied by TBills, and that led, indirectly, to demand for US real estate debt obligations.

While I'm not a fan of Obama, it is true that he increased spending "only" by around 700 billion, despite the recession.

The debt increase is, as I think you say, the result of funding that 1.2 trillion when "the bottom fell out" of revenues. However, I would disagree if you contend any real econ gain was made during the W years.

Regardless, my original pt was intended to argue that, with 17 trillion in debt and a ration of around 75% (or 100%) debt gnp, there's no good arugment for another budget stimulus.

 

[Stephanie]

Funny how the unemployment rate was over 7% during Reagan's first five frikken years and he was a god to Conservatives.

Excuse me, we are talking TODAY...not 20 something years ago

A seven percent rate of unemployment is understood to be on the high side of natural rate of unemployment. 5% is standard, 7% on the high side.

During the Carter admin, the gov attempted to drive the 7% rate down to five. It was a big mistake and caused inflation. The trade of is always the unemployment rate vs inflation.

At this point, complaints about the unemployment rate specifically are ill advised.

_____________

"Natural rate of employment is the rate of unemployment at which the economy is said to be in practically full employment situation with regard "

"The natural rate and the Phillips curve"

Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many estimates suggest that the long-run normal level of the unemployment rate--the level that the unemployment rate would be expected to converge to in the next 5 to 6 years in the absence of shocks to the economy--is in a range between 5 and 6 percent. Policymakers' judgments about the long-run normal rate of unemployment in the Summary of Economic Projections are generally in this range as well. For example, in the most recent projections, FOMC participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.2 percent to 5.8 percent."

FRB: What is the lowest level of unemployment that the U.S. economy can sustain?

I don't care about all that crap...Obama promised with his 800 billion dollars he stole from us taxpayers and called a stimulus it would DROP unemployment to below 7%
get real we heard from Democrats how 6% was devastating under Bush..

wiki is now our sources for unemployment...lovely

 

[The T]

Excuse me, we are talking TODAY...not 20 something years ago

A seven percent rate of unemployment is understood to be on the high side of natural rate of unemployment. 5% is standard, 7% on the high side.

During the Carter admin, the gov attempted to drive the 7% rate down to five. It was a big mistake and caused inflation. The trade of is always the unemployment rate vs inflation.

At this point, complaints about the unemployment rate specifically are ill advised.

_____________

"Natural rate of employment is the rate of unemployment at which the economy is said to be in practically full employment situation with regard "

"The natural rate and the Phillips curve"

Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many estimates suggest that the long-run normal level of the unemployment rate--the level that the unemployment rate would be expected to converge to in the next 5 to 6 years in the absence of shocks to the economy--is in a range between 5 and 6 percent. Policymakers' judgments about the long-run normal rate of unemployment in the Summary of Economic Projections are generally in this range as well. For example, in the most recent projections, FOMC participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.2 percent to 5.8 percent."

FRB: What is the lowest level of unemployment that the U.S. economy can sustain?

I don't care about all that crap...Obama promised with his 800 billion dollars he stole from us taxpayers and called a stimulus it would DROP unemployment to below 7%
get real we heard from Democrats how 6% was devastating under Bush..

wiki is now our sources for unemployment...lovely

A Source that can be edited by ANYONE...

 

[Listening]

I thought this thread title said no B.S.

Can we put this is the "fib forum" ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you suggesting it is liberal because it is an institution of higher learning?

I didn't say that, did I? I asked you to defend your claim that the non study is non partisan. If you could actually do that you wouldn't have to attack me on the basis of what you think I said.

Then again, you think it is currently winter in Antarctica, so I have to cut you a large amount of slack.

Why should I? Why did you single it out? You challenged my assertion. Explain.

You based your entire thread on the premise that this is " A no BS, non partisan examination of the success of Obama's stimulus package." I want to know why you made the claim that the Harvard Business Review is non partisan. Is it because you did a comprehensive review of their articles and found a balanced approach to partisan issues, or is it non partisan because you liked the conclusion? Unytil you answer that, I have no need to deal with anything else you say because I know you didn't vet the source.

 

[Stephanie]

A seven percent rate of unemployment is understood to be on the high side of natural rate of unemployment. 5% is standard, 7% on the high side.

During the Carter admin, the gov attempted to drive the 7% rate down to five. It was a big mistake and caused inflation. The trade of is always the unemployment rate vs inflation.

At this point, complaints about the unemployment rate specifically are ill advised.

_____________

"Natural rate of employment is the rate of unemployment at which the economy is said to be in practically full employment situation with regard "

"The natural rate and the Phillips curve"

Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many estimates suggest that the long-run normal level of the unemployment rate--the level that the unemployment rate would be expected to converge to in the next 5 to 6 years in the absence of shocks to the economy--is in a range between 5 and 6 percent. Policymakers' judgments about the long-run normal rate of unemployment in the Summary of Economic Projections are generally in this range as well. For example, in the most recent projections, FOMC participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.2 percent to 5.8 percent."

FRB: What is the lowest level of unemployment that the U.S. economy can sustain?

I don't care about all that crap...Obama promised with his 800 billion dollars he stole from us taxpayers and called a stimulus it would DROP unemployment to below 7%
get real we heard from Democrats how 6% was devastating under Bush..

wiki is now our sources for unemployment...lovely

A Source that can be edited by ANYONE...

no kidding...and how wonderful with those link provided, since Obama gets elected so we should just expect 7% and higher unemployment