CBO: extending unemployment benefits creates 19,000 jobs per billion dollar stimulus

[Cecilie1200]

Um, links to WHAT sources, exactly? I didn't cite any articles, dimwit. He asked for names, and I provided them. Every single one of those economists can be Googled, if you feel the urge to read their work. Have at it.

I have, however, provided a link to an article by Mark Skousen on EXACTLY this topic in one of my other posts. Feel free to go read them and find it. I don't really care for repeating myself.

See I'm sure they are accurately describing the importance of investment, but I'm sure they also stress that stimulating the demand side of our economy is just as critical. Yes, let's invest but we also need to spend. The products the unemployed buy -- basic essentials -- are what stimulate the economy as well. Poor people cannot afford to in invest. Rich people in reality invest very little money. They hoard most of their money.

Another myth.

What, you didn't know Bill Gates has a giant mattress in his attic that he shoves all his money into?

 

[Toro]

See I'm sure they are accurately describing the importance of investment, but I'm sure they also stress that stimulating the demand side of our economy is just as critical. Yes, let's invest but we also need to spend. The products the unemployed buy -- basic essentials -- are what stimulate the economy as well. Poor people cannot afford to in invest. Rich people in reality invest very little money. They hoard most of their money.

What, like stuffing their money into coffee cans or burying it into the ground?

What exactly do you mean?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If that were the case we would see UE about 5%. We have seen the biggest "stimulus" ever over the last 5 years and it resulted in the worst performance out of a recession in post war history.

Consumer spending does not stimulate the economy. I have written this over and over and provided links and proof. Government does not stimulate the economy. This has also been proven over and over.
The broken window fallacy is just that: a fallacy. You do not stimulate anything by taking from productive people and giving to unproductive people.

The truth is that consumer spending does not account for 70 percent of economic activity and is not the mainstay of the U. S. economy. Investment is! Business spending on capital goods, new technology, entrepreneurship, and productivity are more significant than consumer spending in sustaining the economy and a higher standard of living.

Granted, personal consumption expenditures represent 70 percent of gross domestic product, but journalists should know from Econ 101 that GDP only measures the value of final output. It deliberately leaves out a big chunk of the economy — intermediate production or goods-in-process at the commodity, manufacturing, and wholesale stages — to avoid double counting. I calculated total spending (sales or receipts) in the economy at all stages to be more than double GDP (using gross business receipts compiled annually by the IRS). By this measure — which I have dubbed gross domestic expenditures, or GDE — consumption represents only about 30 percent of the economy, while business investment (including intermediate output) represents over 50 percent.

Thus the truth is just the opposite: Consumer spending is the effect, not the cause, of a productive healthy economy.

Consumer Spending Doesn?t Drive the Economy, Investment Does by Mark Skousen

LMAO. What a crock of shit you are selling. I did the same search you evidently did. You and I both found this Cravitas guy out of NC writing a blog piece.

Dunno who Cravitas is, son. I cited an article by Mark Skousen, on his website. See the link right there in bold?

I liked the economic gobbledygook shit you tried to spew.

The "gobbledygook" that you can't even remotely address or dispute, and therefore can only insult? THAT "gobbledygook"?

Wonder why you didn't mention the dozen or so other links (on the first page) to reputable sources saying consumer spending accounts from as little as 2/3 or 66% (Fox) to 71% (Washington Post).

First page of what, exactly?

What I wonder is why you have yet to say ANYTHING disputing Dr. Skousen's statement. All I hear is "Why didn't you talk about THIS instead?"

Wait, I know why. You didn't want to be proven wrong. Again.

Go back to your no name source. He'd believe your bullshit.

Hmm, perhaps you're right. Perhaps my intense desire to not be proven wrong is the reason I'm talking to you. Because, asshole, you sure as SHIT didn't prove me wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

If that were the case we would see UE about 5%. We have seen the biggest "stimulus" ever over the last 5 years and it resulted in the worst performance out of a recession in post war history.

Consumer spending does not stimulate the economy. I have written this over and over and provided links and proof. Government does not stimulate the economy. This has also been proven over and over.
The broken window fallacy is just that: a fallacy. You do not stimulate anything by taking from productive people and giving to unproductive people.

The truth is that consumer spending does not account for 70 percent of economic activity and is not the mainstay of the U. S. economy. Investment is! Business spending on capital goods, new technology, entrepreneurship, and productivity are more significant than consumer spending in sustaining the economy and a higher standard of living.

Granted, personal consumption expenditures represent 70 percent of gross domestic product, but journalists should know from Econ 101 that GDP only measures the value of final output. It deliberately leaves out a big chunk of the economy — intermediate production or goods-in-process at the commodity, manufacturing, and wholesale stages — to avoid double counting. I calculated total spending (sales or receipts) in the economy at all stages to be more than double GDP (using gross business receipts compiled annually by the IRS). By this measure — which I have dubbed gross domestic expenditures, or GDE — consumption represents only about 30 percent of the economy, while business investment (including intermediate output) represents over 50 percent.

Thus the truth is just the opposite: Consumer spending is the effect, not the cause, of a productive healthy economy.

Consumer Spending Doesn?t Drive the Economy, Investment Does by Mark Skousen

Supply side economics only apply to people who can afford to save money and invest. To downplay the importance of consumer spending is non sense. For the unemployed/poor, they don't have money to invest or save. Obviously their money is better suited to spending it. If consumer spending accounts for 70% of our economy, then obviously jobs are created through it.


That article obviously has an agenda.

Yes that agenda is truth. You simply cannot grasp that consumer spending does not drive growth. It doesn't matter how many times it is demonstrated. You repeat the mantra that consumer spending is responsible for prosperity. It is simply not true. And as Cecille wrote, consumer spending is not 70% of our economy anyway.

 

[The Rabbi]

Um no it does work. The Recovery Act created or saved 2.5 million jobs through demand side economic policies. I have provided proof for this multiple times on this forum.

That "proof" has been refuted multiple times on this forum.
Some people never learn.

Your continued denial that I am right is frankly childish.

Your continued insistence you are right in the face of facts is astounding.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Brian Balfour is actually the author of the piece linked. Brian quotes an economist that is known to be very right winged. Brian is a right wing activist making his living selling right wing fantasies.

Neither one (that I could find) offered proof of their assertions.

Cluebird, maybe no one's explained how this "Internet link" thing works. See, you don't have to go to Google and search for the article I linked. You can just click your mouse on it, and it'll take you right to the article, bylined Mark Skousen.

Exactly how impressed am I supposed to be by the words of someone who can't even figure out how to find and read the article he purports to talk about?

 

[The Rabbi]

You need links to those sources. I want to read them myself.

Um, links to WHAT sources, exactly? I didn't cite any articles, dimwit. He asked for names, and I provided them. Every single one of those economists can be Googled, if you feel the urge to read their work. Have at it.

I have, however, provided a link to an article by Mark Skousen on EXACTLY this topic in one of my other posts. Feel free to go read them and find it. I don't really care for repeating myself.

See I'm sure they are accurately describing the importance of investment, but I'm sure they also stress that stimulating the demand side of our economy is just as critical. Yes, let's invest but we also need to spend. The products the unemployed buy -- basic essentials -- are what stimulate the economy as well. Poor people cannot afford to in invest. Rich people in reality invest very little money. They hoard most of their money.

What do you mean they horde most of their money? WTF does that even mean? You think rich people stuff cash in their mattresses and leave it there??

 

[The Rabbi]

If that were the case we would see UE about 5%. We have seen the biggest "stimulus" ever over the last 5 years and it resulted in the worst performance out of a recession in post war history.

Consumer spending does not stimulate the economy. I have written this over and over and provided links and proof. Government does not stimulate the economy. This has also been proven over and over.
The broken window fallacy is just that: a fallacy. You do not stimulate anything by taking from productive people and giving to unproductive people.

The truth is that consumer spending does not account for 70 percent of economic activity and is not the mainstay of the U. S. economy. Investment is! Business spending on capital goods, new technology, entrepreneurship, and productivity are more significant than consumer spending in sustaining the economy and a higher standard of living.

Granted, personal consumption expenditures represent 70 percent of gross domestic product, but journalists should know from Econ 101 that GDP only measures the value of final output. It deliberately leaves out a big chunk of the economy — intermediate production or goods-in-process at the commodity, manufacturing, and wholesale stages — to avoid double counting. I calculated total spending (sales or receipts) in the economy at all stages to be more than double GDP (using gross business receipts compiled annually by the IRS). By this measure — which I have dubbed gross domestic expenditures, or GDE — consumption represents only about 30 percent of the economy, while business investment (including intermediate output) represents over 50 percent.

Thus the truth is just the opposite: Consumer spending is the effect, not the cause, of a productive healthy economy.

Consumer Spending Doesn?t Drive the Economy, Investment Does by Mark Skousen

LMAO. What a crock of shit you are selling. I did the same search you evidently did. You and I both found this Cravitas guy out of NC writing a blog piece.

I liked the economic gobbledygook shit you tried to spew.

Wonder why you didn't mention the dozen or so other links (on the first page) to reputable sources saying consumer spending accounts from as little as 2/3 or 66% (Fox) to 71% (Washington Post).

Wait, I know why. You didn't want to be proven wrong. Again.

Go back to your no name source. He'd believe your bullshit.

To Zeke, toothless ignorant stumpbroke of USMB, technical precise terms in economics sound like gobbledygook shit.
This is the problem right there.

 

[Toro]

The truth is that consumer spending does not account for 70 percent of economic activity and is not the mainstay of the U. S. economy. Investment is! Business spending on capital goods, new technology, entrepreneurship, and productivity are more significant than consumer spending in sustaining the economy and a higher standard of living.

Granted, personal consumption expenditures represent 70 percent of gross domestic product, but journalists should know from Econ 101 that GDP only measures the value of final output. It deliberately leaves out a big chunk of the economy — intermediate production or goods-in-process at the commodity, manufacturing, and wholesale stages — to avoid double counting. I calculated total spending (sales or receipts) in the economy at all stages to be more than double GDP (using gross business receipts compiled annually by the IRS). By this measure — which I have dubbed gross domestic expenditures, or GDE — consumption represents only about 30 percent of the economy, while business investment (including intermediate output) represents over 50 percent.

Thus the truth is just the opposite: Consumer spending is the effect, not the cause, of a productive healthy economy.

Consumer Spending Doesn?t Drive the Economy, Investment Does by Mark Skousen

[MENTION=41066]Kimura[/MENTION]
[MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION]

I'd like a commentary on this.

 

[ilia25]

Banks don't have the option of simply hiding all their money away somewhere safely out of circulation.

Cecile, you are an idiot. Not only banks do have that option, but this is what they are doing since the crisis of 2008. Look at the fucking chart, for Christ sake! See how blue and red line diverged since the crisis? It means the money on deposits are growing, but banks do not lend them out, instead they store it in reserves. Which means saving are sitting idle, instead of being invested.

You are a typical conservative -- if facts contradict your beliefs, you deny the facts.

 

[Billy000]

The truth is that consumer spending does not account for 70 percent of economic activity and is not the mainstay of the U. S. economy. Investment is! Business spending on capital goods, new technology, entrepreneurship, and productivity are more significant than consumer spending in sustaining the economy and a higher standard of living.

Granted, personal consumption expenditures represent 70 percent of gross domestic product, but journalists should know from Econ 101 that GDP only measures the value of final output. It deliberately leaves out a big chunk of the economy — intermediate production or goods-in-process at the commodity, manufacturing, and wholesale stages — to avoid double counting. I calculated total spending (sales or receipts) in the economy at all stages to be more than double GDP (using gross business receipts compiled annually by the IRS). By this measure — which I have dubbed gross domestic expenditures, or GDE — consumption represents only about 30 percent of the economy, while business investment (including intermediate output) represents over 50 percent.

Thus the truth is just the opposite: Consumer spending is the effect, not the cause, of a productive healthy economy.

Consumer Spending Doesn?t Drive the Economy, Investment Does by Mark Skousen

Supply side economics only apply to people who can afford to save money and invest. To downplay the importance of consumer spending is non sense. For the unemployed/poor, they don't have money to invest or save. Obviously their money is better suited to spending it. If consumer spending accounts for 70% of our economy, then obviously jobs are created through it.


That article obviously has an agenda.

Yes that agenda is truth. You simply cannot grasp that consumer spending does not drive growth. It doesn't matter how many times it is demonstrated. You repeat the mantra that consumer spending is responsible for prosperity. It is simply not true. And as Cecille wrote, consumer spending is not 70% of our economy anyway.

Good lord dude. Think about what you are saying. If spending doesn't create growth, what the fuck is the point of supply side economics?

 

[The Rabbi]

Supply side economics only apply to people who can afford to save money and invest. To downplay the importance of consumer spending is non sense. For the unemployed/poor, they don't have money to invest or save. Obviously their money is better suited to spending it. If consumer spending accounts for 70% of our economy, then obviously jobs are created through it.


That article obviously has an agenda.

Yes that agenda is truth. You simply cannot grasp that consumer spending does not drive growth. It doesn't matter how many times it is demonstrated. You repeat the mantra that consumer spending is responsible for prosperity. It is simply not true. And as Cecille wrote, consumer spending is not 70% of our economy anyway.

Good lord dude. Think about what you are saying. If spending doesn't create growth, what the fuck is the point of supply side economics?

Spending does not create growth. Investment creates growth. You don't have a clue what supply side economics is.

 

[Billy000]

Yes that agenda is truth. You simply cannot grasp that consumer spending does not drive growth. It doesn't matter how many times it is demonstrated. You repeat the mantra that consumer spending is responsible for prosperity. It is simply not true. And as Cecille wrote, consumer spending is not 70% of our economy anyway.

Good lord dude. Think about what you are saying. If spending doesn't create growth, what the fuck is the point of supply side economics?

Spending does not create growth. Investment creates growth. You don't have a clue what supply side economics is.

Yet you have no concept of demand. Demand is paramount. Tell me if business not getting profit because of a lack of demand, how are they supposed to stay in business or keep all their employees? Or hiring more? You can not be this stupid.

And yeah, obviously investment is important.

 

[Antares]

How do you not understand the basics of supply and demand?

How do YOU not understand that taking money from person A and giving it to person in no way stimulates the economy.....further stupidity from you people......

You try tell us that when you take 1 dollar from person A it magically morphs into 1 Dollar and 60 cents by the time it reaches person B's hands...seriously you people are not very bright.

We aren't talking about one person. This is revenue taken from millions of tax payers. How exactly do you think our economy grows? Economic demand is what makes our economy grow. It astounds me you can't grasp this.

Oh so your point is that if we take BILLIONS from Group A and give it to Group B THEN it will multiply to that 1.60 per dollar taken, brilliant.

Moron.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Banks don't have the option of simply hiding all their money away somewhere safely out of circulation.

Cecile, you are an idiot. Not only banks do have that option, but this is what they are doing since the crisis of 2008. Look at the fucking chart, for Christ sake! See how blue and red line diverged since the crisis? It means the money on deposits are growing, but banks do not lend them out, instead they store it in reserves. Which means saving are sitting idle, instead of being invested.

You are a typical conservative -- if facts contradict your beliefs, you deny the facts.

This is like saying, "You have the option of starving to death". Yes, I suppose I COULD choose to never eat again until I die, but I'm obviously not going to. Likewise, banks COULD choose to take a course of action that would put them out of business, but they're not going to.

*sigh* A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, when there is no wisdom with which to manage it.

Tell you what, Punkin. If I'm such an idiot, why don't you explain that completely unreferenced chart you keep triumphantly waving around to us? You're so convinced that it self-explanatorily trumps all arguments and wins all debates for you; why don't you tell us HOW it does so?

 

[The Rabbi]

Good lord dude. Think about what you are saying. If spending doesn't create growth, what the fuck is the point of supply side economics?

Spending does not create growth. Investment creates growth. You don't have a clue what supply side economics is.

Yet you have no concept of demand. Demand is paramount. Tell me if business not getting profit because of a lack of demand, how are they supposed to stay in business or keep all their employees? Or hiring more? You can not be this stupid.

And yeah, obviously investment is important.

How did the business get there to begin with?

 

[Billy000]

How do YOU not understand that taking money from person A and giving it to person in no way stimulates the economy.....further stupidity from you people......

You try tell us that when you take 1 dollar from person A it magically morphs into 1 Dollar and 60 cents by the time it reaches person B's hands...seriously you people are not very bright.

We aren't talking about one person. This is revenue taken from millions of tax payers. How exactly do you think our economy grows? Economic demand is what makes our economy grow. It astounds me you can't grasp this.

Oh so your point is that if we take BILLIONS from Group A and give it to Group B THEN it will multiply to that 1.60 per dollar taken, brilliant.

Moron.

Well considering the Recovery ACT was in part paid for by the biggest tax cut for the middle class in history, there is no reason to bitch.

Admit you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[ilia25]

Banks don't have the option of simply hiding all their money away somewhere safely out of circulation.

Cecile, you are an idiot. Not only banks do have that option, but this is what they are doing since the crisis of 2008. Look at the fucking chart, for Christ sake! See how blue and red line diverged since the crisis? It means the money on deposits are growing, but banks do not lend them out, instead they store it in reserves. Which means saving are sitting idle, instead of being invested.

You are a typical conservative -- if facts contradict your beliefs, you deny the facts.

This is like saying, "You have the option of starving to death". Yes, I suppose I COULD choose to never eat again until I die, but I'm obviously not going to. Likewise, banks COULD choose to take a course of action that would put them out of business, but they're not going to.

*sigh* A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, when there is no wisdom with which to manage it.

Tell you what, Punkin. If I'm such an idiot, why don't you explain that completely unreferenced chart you keep triumphantly waving around to us? You're so convinced that it self-explanatorily trumps all arguments and wins all debates for you; why don't you tell us HOW it does so?

Well, i was trying to explain just that.. Two lines, blue and red. Blue line represents how much money clients deposit with banks. Red line shows how much money banks lend out.

Until the crisis of 2008 both lines go together, meaning that banks lend out most of new deposits. But then the lines diverge -- clients deposit more money, but banks do not lend them. Because no one out there can afford taking on more debt.

So the new deposits are sitting idle in bank reserves. And no, banks do not go bust because of this, since the interest they have to pay on saving accounts is very low and banks have other means of making money (transaction fees, etc).

Oh, and the "unreferenced" chart comes courtesy of St. Lois Federal Reserve bank.

 

[The Rabbi]

We aren't talking about one person. This is revenue taken from millions of tax payers. How exactly do you think our economy grows? Economic demand is what makes our economy grow. It astounds me you can't grasp this.

Oh so your point is that if we take BILLIONS from Group A and give it to Group B THEN it will multiply to that 1.60 per dollar taken, brilliant.

Moron.

Well considering the Recovery ACT was in part paid for by the biggest tax cut for the middle class in history, there is no reason to bitch.

Admit you do not know what you are talking about.

What tax cut was that? How do you pay for a spending program by cutting taxes?
Do you understand what you are talking about?
ANd where do rich people put their money?

 

[ilia25]

Cecile, you are an idiot. Not only banks do have that option, but this is what they are doing since the crisis of 2008. Look at the fucking chart, for Christ sake! See how blue and red line diverged since the crisis? It means the money on deposits are growing, but banks do not lend them out, instead they store it in reserves. Which means saving are sitting idle, instead of being invested.

You are a typical conservative -- if facts contradict your beliefs, you deny the facts.

This is like saying, "You have the option of starving to death". Yes, I suppose I COULD choose to never eat again until I die, but I'm obviously not going to. Likewise, banks COULD choose to take a course of action that would put them out of business, but they're not going to.

*sigh* A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, when there is no wisdom with which to manage it.

Tell you what, Punkin. If I'm such an idiot, why don't you explain that completely unreferenced chart you keep triumphantly waving around to us? You're so convinced that it self-explanatorily trumps all arguments and wins all debates for you; why don't you tell us HOW it does so?

Well, i was trying to explain just that.. Two lines, blue and red. Blue line represents how much money clients deposit with banks. Red line shows how much money banks lend out.

Until the crisis of 2008 both lines go together, meaning that banks lend out most of new deposits. But then the lines diverge -- clients deposit more money, but banks do not lend them. Because no one out there can afford taking on more debt.

So the new deposits are sitting idle in bank reserves. And no, banks do not go bust because of this, since the interest they have to pay on saving accounts is very low and banks have other means of making money (transaction fees, etc).

Oh, and the "unreferenced" chart comes courtesy of St. Lois Federal Reserve bank.

I hope that whoever capable of reading this understands how the government can create jobs at will -- by borrowing and spending/investing savings that otherwise are sitting idle.