OMG Valerie Jarrett: Unemployment Stimulates the Economy

[The Rabbi]

High Unemployment is 'Good' now. lol! Deranged Obama-Bots. Waddayagonnado?

High unemployment is not good.

Aid to the unemployed, however, is the policy lever with the highest potential upside for boosting employment.

Oh, wow. An important looking graph with no idea who produced it or what its based on. Yeah. Thanks for clearing that right up!

You realize that the graph shows that increasing unemployment benefits increases employment. Which seems counter intuitive. Mainly because it's wrong. We've had the longest payout of UE benefits in history. And we have the highest unemployment in a recovery. So both theory and fact refute that absurd graphic.

 

[Toro]

"Unemployment stimulates the economy" is doublespeak

That's not what she said.

Pelosi said it, Val "Candidate #1 Jarrett said it; it's the new economic Doublespeak

I thought you'd hold out longer before being assimilated. I'm gonna miss you

That's not what she said. It's clear what she said if you're not wallowing in partisan nonsense.

What she said was that unemployment checks are stimulative, not that unemployment is stimulative. Nor did she say that unemployment checks are more stimulative than a job. You can argue whether or not she is correct but we've got to have an honest discussion. Implying that she thinks unemployment itself is stimulative is not honest and indicative of so much that is wrong in today's political discourse. (And yes, liberals do the same thing.)

 

[tinydancer]

With all due respect, I have proved otherwise.

Check my quotes on Carney.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's not what she said.

Pelosi said it, Val "Candidate #1 Jarrett said it; it's the new economic Doublespeak

I thought you'd hold out longer before being assimilated. I'm gonna miss you

That's not what she said. It's clear what she said if you're not wallowing in partisan nonsense.

What she said was that unemployment checks are stimulative, not that unemployment is stimulative. Nor did she say that unemployment checks are more stimulative than a job. You can argue whether or not she is correct but we've got to have an honest discussion. Implying that she thinks unemployment itself is stimulative is not honest and indicative of so much that is wrong in today's political discourse. (And yes, liberals do the same thing.)

This is consistent with the administration's Keynesian approach. Which has been a predictable failure.
If UE checks are stimulative why dont we really goose the economy and lay everyone off and just send UE checks?

 

[Trajan]

High Unemployment is 'Good' now. lol! Deranged Obama-Bots. Waddayagonnado?

High unemployment is not good.

Aid to the unemployed, however, is the policy lever with the highest potential upside for boosting employment.

explain this please

Aid to the unemployed, however, is the policy lever with the highest potential upside for boosting employment.

how so?

 

[The Rabbi]

Aid to the unemployed, however, is the policy lever with the highest potential upside for boosting employment.

how so?[/QUOTE]

The idea is that people spend their unemployment checks, boosting the economy.
What was pointed out by Hazlett decades ago is that the money sent has to come from somewhere, namely from someone productive, either through taxes or borrowing. So the money is merely circulated.
I think he gives the example of the stranger in a town. He goes to the local hotel, plunks down a hundred dollar bill and asks to see the room first. WHile he's gone, the hotel owner runs to pay the grocer, the grocer takes the money runs to pay butcher, the butcher takes the 100 bill and runs to pay banker. The banker runs to the hotel to pay his hotel bill. By then the stranger decides he doesn't like his room and takes his 100 bill back.
No wealth has been created here. That is the administration's strategy though.

 

[Toro]

Pelosi said it, Val "Candidate #1 Jarrett said it; it's the new economic Doublespeak

I thought you'd hold out longer before being assimilated. I'm gonna miss you

That's not what she said. It's clear what she said if you're not wallowing in partisan nonsense.

What she said was that unemployment checks are stimulative, not that unemployment is stimulative. Nor did she say that unemployment checks are more stimulative than a job. You can argue whether or not she is correct but we've got to have an honest discussion. Implying that she thinks unemployment itself is stimulative is not honest and indicative of so much that is wrong in today's political discourse. (And yes, liberals do the same thing.)

This is consistent with the administration's Keynesian approach. Which has been a predictable failure.
If UE checks are stimulative why dont we really goose the economy and lay everyone off and just send UE checks?

Because a job is more stimulative to the economy than UE checks. UE checks are more stimulative than zero income. (Or so it goes.)

 

[Foxfyre]

The idea is that people spend their unemployment checks, boosting the economy.
What was pointed out by Hazlett decades ago is that the money sent has to come from somewhere, namely from someone productive, either through taxes or borrowing. So the money is merely circulated.
I think he gives the example of the stranger in a town. He goes to the local hotel, plunks down a hundred dollar bill and asks to see the room first. WHile he's gone, the hotel owner runs to pay the grocer, the grocer takes the money runs to pay butcher, the butcher takes the 100 bill and runs to pay banker. The banker runs to the hotel to pay his hotel bill. By then the stranger decides he doesn't like his room and takes his 100 bill back.
No wealth has been created here. That is the administration's strategy though.

Yep, because everybody feels better off than they did before. However, the hotel owner would be out $100 or be faced with a lawsuit if the process had broken down at any point along the way. And because we now have 49+% of Americans, as of this morning, contributing little or nothing for the government services they receive, the probability that the hotel owner or the stranger would never see that $100 again is very strong. Unless the money is invested to generate more income through bonafide products and services, simply redistributing the money creates an illusion of prosperity for a little while. But eventually everybody is broke except the one person left holding the $100.

The fallacy of unemployment checks stimulating the economy is that for every $100 paid in unemployment insurance, $100 is taken out of the economy somewhere else. No wealth is created. It is simply redistributed.

Oh and the last one to be left standing with that $100 in Rabbi's example? In my opinion, that is exactly how we have such a wide disparity between rich and poor. The more the government meddles to remedy that, the worse it will get.

 

[Lakhota]

I believe in the stimulus/multiplier effect of unemployment benefits, but I place a higher value on keeping families afloat and intact during hard times. Sure, some people will milk it, but some people will milk everything. Wall Street comes to mind. Even if one ignores the multiplier effect, it still seems like a "family values" bargain to me. If jobs were plentiful, I would view this differently.

Eight Reasons Why Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Boost the Economy » New Deal 2.0

CBO: Unemployment Benefits Extension an Economic Booster - US News and World Report

Labor market will lose over half a million jobs if UI extensions expire in 2012 | Economic Policy Institute

Unemployment Insurance Dollars Create Millions of Jobs

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

 

[Full-Auto]

I believe in the stimulus/multiplier effect of unemployment benefits, but I place a higher value on keeping families afloat and intact during hard times. Sure, some people will milk it, but some people will milk everything. Wall Street comes to mind. Even if one ignores the multiplier effect, it still seems like a "family values" bargain to me. If jobs were plentiful, I would view this differently.

Eight Reasons Why Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Boost the Economy » New Deal 2.0

CBO: Unemployment Benefits Extension an Economic Booster - US News and World Report

Labor market will lose over half a million jobs if UI extensions expire in 2012 | Economic Policy Institute

Unemployment Insurance Dollars Create Millions of Jobs

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

Such a booster you only had to drop 5 million from the roles to get unemployment where it is.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's not what she said. It's clear what she said if you're not wallowing in partisan nonsense.

What she said was that unemployment checks are stimulative, not that unemployment is stimulative. Nor did she say that unemployment checks are more stimulative than a job. You can argue whether or not she is correct but we've got to have an honest discussion. Implying that she thinks unemployment itself is stimulative is not honest and indicative of so much that is wrong in today's political discourse. (And yes, liberals do the same thing.)

This is consistent with the administration's Keynesian approach. Which has been a predictable failure.
If UE checks are stimulative why dont we really goose the economy and lay everyone off and just send UE checks?

Because a job is more stimulative to the economy than UE checks. UE checks are more stimulative than zero income. (Or so it goes.)

But it is zero sum income. The unemployed get income because working people get less. There is no free lunch. There is no stimulus going on.
Idiots like Lakhota can believe in "multipliers" all they want. But that doesnt make it true. The actual multiplier of gov't spending is less than one. Meaning every dollar spent by the gov't results in less than a dollar of new GDP.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's not what she said.

Pelosi said it, Val "Candidate #1 Jarrett said it; it's the new economic Doublespeak

I thought you'd hold out longer before being assimilated. I'm gonna miss you

That's not what she said. It's clear what she said if you're not wallowing in partisan nonsense.

What she said was that unemployment checks are stimulative, not that unemployment is stimulative. Nor did she say that unemployment checks are more stimulative than a job. You can argue whether or not she is correct but we've got to have an honest discussion. Implying that she thinks unemployment itself is stimulative is not honest and indicative of so much that is wrong in today's political discourse. (And yes, liberals do the same thing.)

I've said it before that the need to qualify this imagery stimulus as unemployment insurance checks is a distinction without a difference.

I'm not talking about the spread between the people collecting unemployment insurance checks and those who are no longer considered unemployed because they do not collect unemployment insurance checks. I'm mocking the very notion that unemployment insurance checks stimulate the economy.

The very idea that you buy into the notion that unemployment insurance checks stimulate the economy means you have been absorbed by the collective.

The idea that unemployment insurance checks stimulate the economy is at least as stupid as the idea that bank ATMs are hurting the economy.

I never heard either concept in my life until we get the Neo-Marxists in the White House

 

[tinydancer]

Bank ATMs hurt the economy

Airport kiosks hurt the economy

unemployment stimulates the economy

unemployment stimulates the economy

unemployment stimulates the economy

unemployment stimulates the economy

omg I just flashed thriller thru my head....

that's a funny picture CF and what makes it funnier is that they really do look like auto workers out of Pontiac.

 

[Lakhota]

Lecture Notes -- The Output Multiplier

 

[editec]

My GOD what a titantic battle of strawmen this thread is.

The strawman in this case is based on the LIE that a person said one thing, while they in fact said something quite different.

The fact that the words are still there for your perusal makes no difference to some.

They will continue wrassling against the strawmen of their own device and calling anybody who points out the REAL WORDS PRINTED ON THE PAGE names.

Trying to discuss anything with the willfully obtuse is a waste of time.

 

[Bfgrn]

It does "stimulate" the economy more than giving more money to already rich people.

What is your evidence of this?

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Stimulus-Impact-2008.pdf

 

[The Rabbi]

Lecture Notes -- The Output Multiplier

Robert J. Barro: Government Spending Is No Free Lunch - WSJ.com

My link trumps your link.

 

[Bfgrn]

Lecture Notes -- The Output Multiplier

Robert J. Barro: Government Spending Is No Free Lunch - WSJ.com

My link trumps your link.

Only if you can prove medieval bloodletting saves lives.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It does "stimulate" the economy more than giving more money to already rich people.

What is your evidence of this?

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Stimulus-Impact-2008.pdf

So the best way to stimulate an economy is to have the highest unemployment

Reagan accellerated depreciation and cut taxes and his economy > Obama's and Moody "Analytics"

 

[Article 15]

CrusaderFrank continues to fuck that chicken.