Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[Papageorgio]

Compare the numbers little sheep.

In 81 the unemployment rate was higher, nearly 11% therefore the recession was worse.

In 82 when we came out of the recession unemployment was in the mid 7% range and GDP was 12% over pre-recession numbers.

Currently even with all the so called stimulus we are still over 8% unemployment and GDP is a pathetic .04% over pre-recession numbers.

So to recap 1981 had higher unemployment but we came out of the recession faster and with more momentum than this current recession despite your claims that government spending improved our recovery.

Where'd you get that load of shit....Fox News


United States Unemployment Rate
Here's a look at the U.S. unemployment rate for selected years from 1920 to 2010.

Year Rate
1920 5.2 %
1928 4.2
1930 8.7
1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9
1938 19.0
1940 14.6
1942 4.7%
1944 1.2
1946 3.9
1948 3.8
1950 5.3
1952 3.0
1954 5.5
1956 4.1
1958 6.8%
1960 5.5
1962 5.5
1964 5.2
1966 3.8
1968 3.6
1970 4.9
1972 5.6
1974 5.6%
1976 7.7
1978 6.1
1980 7.1
1982 9.7
1984 7.5
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6%
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0%
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6



Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web: stats.bls.gov .

Whoops, looks like someone got to pick and choose what data they wanted to show. There are a few gaps there, here are some of the missing ones: (Dang how did that happen???)

1981-10-01 7.9
1981-11-01 8.3
1981-12-01 8.5
1982-01-01 8.6
1982-02-01 8.9
1982-03-01 9.0
1982-04-01 9.3
1982-05-01 9.4
1982-06-01 9.6
1982-07-01 9.8
1982-08-01 9.8
1982-09-01 10.1
1982-10-01 10.4
1982-11-01 10.8
1982-12-01 10.8
1983-01-01 10.4
1983-02-01 10.4
1983-03-01 10.3
1983-04-01 10.2
1983-05-01 10.1
1983-06-01 10.1
1983-07-01 9.4
1983-08-01 9.5
1983-09-01 9.2
1983-10-01 8.8
1983-11-01 8.5
1983-12-01 8.3
1984-01-01 8.0
1984-02-01 7.8

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

So yea, we've had deeper recessions that we recovered from a whole lot faster. So who's full of caca now Cammmmmmmmmpbelllllllllllllllllllll??

Funny how he manipulated the numbers to fit his agenda, pretty much puts into suspect all the numbers that he presents.

 

[ilia25]

I can already hear the but...but...but already, so here goes:

Let's look at the most recent and steeper part of the graph.

15,000B - 12,000B/ 2011 4Q - 2004 4Q

3,000B/7 years

428.57B/year

428.57B. x 30 years = 12,857.1B

Add to current = 27,857.1B GDP by 2041.

You are calculating a linear growth, not exponential.

Here is the formula for the nominal GDP at 2% real growth and 2% inflation:
15,000 * (1 + 2% * 2%) ^ 30 years = 48,650

 

[ilia25]

Do you even know what a millennium is? And an extrapolation is still just a guess. You have to assume way to much to state with any certainty what will be.

I expect at least 2% annual GDP growth and at least 2% inflation. You think I assume way too much?



GDP growth may fluctuate short term, but it is exponential over long periods. And nothing prevents it from approaching infinity.

Just so you understand the exponential: nominal GDP grew about 5.3 times in the past 30 years. But since 1901 it expanded 2100 times.

Extrapolation of GDP depends on too many variables including population growth which is slowing in the US and over the next 50 years is expected to grow by the slowest rate in the history of the country.

That's why I used conservative numbers for both GDP and inflation so my numbers show a much slower growth (just over 3 times) than in the last 30 years (5.3 times).

And you didn't factor in a decline in population growth did you? The decline in efficiency improvements as technologies improve?

Yes, that is why my lower bound -- 50 trillion -- assumes a much slower growth than in the past 30 years.

You are assuming way too much.

Assuming a slower growth is not too much. Besides, the nominal GDP would expand even more if we assume only 1.5 real growth but 3% inflation (to 56 trillion).

And assuming that any system will reach infinity is fantastical at best.

I never said it will reach infinity, you moron. So stop putting words in my mouth.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/

That guy is speculating that the productivity growth, that was also exponential since the stone age, would slow down dramatically. And for no good reason -- tying GDP growth to the energy consumption is so 19 century. And of course there is no reason to believe that there would no energy breakthrough. It's like 30 years ago everyone believed that we would have no oil by now.

 

[Staidhup]

Here is a novel approach, how about letting the market function as it was designed. Yes this recession continues, it's rough on everyone, but allowing the government to meddle in the market further will only prolong the misery. As for increasing government spending, just who do you expect to pay for it? Are you going to buy government and municipal bonds when the president contemplates removing the tax exempt status? Oh then we can default on those bonds because anyone that can purchase bonds must be rich and owe it to the country. So when do you take the credit card away from the child?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I expect at least 2% annual GDP growth and at least 2% inflation. You think I assume way too much?



GDP growth may fluctuate short term, but it is exponential over long periods. And nothing prevents it from approaching infinity.

Just so you understand the exponential: nominal GDP grew about 5.3 times in the past 30 years. But since 1901 it expanded 2100 times.



That's why I used conservative numbers for both GDP and inflation so my numbers show a much slower growth (just over 3 times) than in the last 30 years (5.3 times).

And you didn't factor in a decline in population growth did you? The decline in efficiency improvements as technologies improve?

Yes, that is why my lower bound -- 50 trillion -- assumes a much slower growth than in the past 30 years.



Assuming a slower growth is not too much. Besides, the nominal GDP would expand even more if we assume only 1.5 real growth but 3% inflation (to 56 trillion).

And assuming that any system will reach infinity is fantastical at best.

I never said it will reach infinity, you moron. So stop putting words in my mouth.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/

That guy is speculating that the productivity growth, that was also exponential since the stone age, would slow down dramatically. And for no good reason -- tying GDP growth to the energy consumption is so 19 century. And of course there is no reason to believe that there would no energy breakthrough. It's like 30 years ago everyone believed that we would have no oil by now.

I'd like to see the GDP numbers for the stone age. Do you have them handy? And if the only variable you're using in your guess is a slow population growth , you're still leaving out too may variables like decreasing resources, decreasing gains in efficiency, and the fact that exponential growth is not and has never been sustainable in nature and will eventually collapse the system.

 

[saveliberty]

I can already hear the but...but...but already, so here goes:

Let's look at the most recent and steeper part of the graph.

15,000B - 12,000B/ 2011 4Q - 2004 4Q

3,000B/7 years

428.57B/year

428.57B. x 30 years = 12,857.1B

Add to current = 27,857.1B GDP by 2041.

You are calculating a linear growth, not exponential.

Here is the formula for the nominal GDP at 2% real growth and 2% inflation:
15,000 * (1 + 2% * 2%) ^ 30 years = 48,650

The graph isn't exponential, like we've told you many times. Inflation is going to increase the debt's interest too. So at every scenario you lay out, You'll fall short. Its math. What makes you think thiings are all of sudden going to turn exponential? They NEVER have been so far, despite your wild theory.

 

[ilia25]

I can already hear the but...but...but already, so here goes:

Let's look at the most recent and steeper part of the graph.

15,000B - 12,000B/ 2011 4Q - 2004 4Q

3,000B/7 years

428.57B/year

428.57B. x 30 years = 12,857.1B

Add to current = 27,857.1B GDP by 2041.

You are calculating a linear growth, not exponential.

Here is the formula for the nominal GDP at 2% real growth and 2% inflation:
15,000 * (1 + 2% * 2%) ^ 30 years = 48,650

The graph isn't exponential, like we've told you many times.

And every time it was a testament of your stupidity.

Because growing X percent a year is the definition of an exponential growth.

Inflation is going to increase the debt's interest too.

That is why I was using lower inflation numbers than what we have now -- and now the we are paying record low interests.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are calculating a linear growth, not exponential.

Here is the formula for the nominal GDP at 2% real growth and 2% inflation:
15,000 * (1 + 2% * 2%) ^ 30 years = 48,650

The graph isn't exponential, like we've told you many times.

And every time it was a testament of your stupidity.

Because growing X percent a year is the definition of an exponential growth.

Inflation is going to increase the debt's interest too.

That is why I was using lower inflation numbers than what we have now -- and now the we are paying record low interests.

Because growing X percent a year is the definition of an exponential growth.


What about the exponential growth of the debt?

 

[Immanuel]

The graph isn't exponential, like we've told you many times.

And every time it was a testament of your stupidity.

Because growing X percent a year is the definition of an exponential growth.

Inflation is going to increase the debt's interest too.

That is why I was using lower inflation numbers than what we have now -- and now the we are paying record low interests.

Because growing X percent a year is the definition of an exponential growth.


What about the exponential growth of the debt?

Well, don't you know that President Obama is going to curb that in his next four years?

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

Exponential is X to the X power. Your stupidity continues....

Cite a legitimate source that X percent is exponential. In those words exactly. I dare you.

 

[saveliberty]

Exponential function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Skull Pilot has said, it will approach infinity.

 

[ilia25]

The graph isn't exponential, like we've told you many times.

And every time it was a testament of your stupidity.

Because growing X percent a year is the definition of an exponential growth.

Inflation is going to increase the debt's interest too.

That is why I was using lower inflation numbers than what we have now -- and now the we are paying record low interests.

Because growing X percent a year is the definition of an exponential growth.


What about the exponential growth of the debt?

It does not matter if nominal GDP is growing faster than debt over the long run (e.g. if NGDP grows at 4% a year and the debt grows only 3% a year, then GDP to debt ratio will be improving).

 

[ilia25]

Exponential function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Skull Pilot has said, it will approach infinity.

Exponential growth:
Exponential growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[saveliberty]

Exponential function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Skull Pilot has said, it will approach infinity.

Exponential growth:
Exponential growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, please show us the exponential equation that will render the n-shaped curve towards 2009.

 

[ilia25]

Here is a novel approach, how about letting the market function as it was designed. Yes this recession continues, it's rough on everyone, but allowing the government to meddle in the market further will only prolong the misery.

On the contrary, its the hands off approach by the government that would lead to a disaster. It is very simple concept, really:
1) Something bad happens, consumers got scared and are trying to save
2) Companies see the sales and prices falling, start the layoffs
3) Consumers get even more scared, cut on spending even more
4) Companies respond with more layoffs, and so the vicious spiral continues.

In the end nobody works, nobody can sell nothing, nobody consumes anything and everyone starves to death. OK, it won't go that far, but we can end up in the stone age.

 

[saveliberty]

Here is a novel approach, how about letting the market function as it was designed. Yes this recession continues, it's rough on everyone, but allowing the government to meddle in the market further will only prolong the misery.

On the contrary, its the hands off approach by the government that would lead to a disaster. It is very simple concept, really:
1) Something bad happens, consumers got scared and are trying to save
2) Companies see the sales and prices falling, start the layoffs
3) Consumers get even more scared, cut on spending even more
4) Companies respond with more layoffs, and so the vicious spiral continues.

In the end nobody works, nobody can sell nothing, nobody consumes anything and everyone starves to death. OK, it won't go that far, but we can end up in the stone age.

You are describing Austrian Economics, congratulations. Now if you'd just stop prescribing Keynesian solutions....

 

[ilia25]

And you didn't factor in a decline in population growth did you? The decline in efficiency improvements as technologies improve?

Yes, that is why my lower bound -- 50 trillion -- assumes a much slower growth than in the past 30 years.



Assuming a slower growth is not too much. Besides, the nominal GDP would expand even more if we assume only 1.5 real growth but 3% inflation (to 56 trillion).



I never said it will reach infinity, you moron. So stop putting words in my mouth.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/

That guy is speculating that the productivity growth, that was also exponential since the stone age, would slow down dramatically. And for no good reason -- tying GDP growth to the energy consumption is so 19 century. And of course there is no reason to believe that there would no energy breakthrough. It's like 30 years ago everyone believed that we would have no oil by now.

I'd like to see the GDP numbers for the stone age. Do you have them handy? And if the only variable you're using in your guess is a slow population growth , you're still leaving out too may variables like decreasing resources, decreasing gains in efficiency, and the fact that exponential growth is not and has never been sustainable in nature and will eventually collapse the system.

About 200 years ago one Thomas Robert Malthus did a similar math and concluded that if people would keep having sex, they will be killing each other for food by the early XX century. And that was only one a many doomsday prediction.

If we learn anything from history is that the hard work and ingenuity keeps the humanity ahead of the curve.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And every time it was a testament of your stupidity.

Because growing X percent a year is the definition of an exponential growth.



That is why I was using lower inflation numbers than what we have now -- and now the we are paying record low interests.

Because growing X percent a year is the definition of an exponential growth.


What about the exponential growth of the debt?

It does not matter if nominal GDP is growing faster than debt over the long run (e.g. if NGDP grows at 4% a year and the debt grows only 3% a year, then GDP to debt ratio will be improving).

How's that going to happen with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see?
You think we're going to do better once the boomers stop paying taxes and start collecting Social Security?

 

[ilia25]

Here is a novel approach, how about letting the market function as it was designed. Yes this recession continues, it's rough on everyone, but allowing the government to meddle in the market further will only prolong the misery.

On the contrary, its the hands off approach by the government that would lead to a disaster. It is very simple concept, really:
1) Something bad happens, consumers got scared and are trying to save
2) Companies see the sales and prices falling, start the layoffs
3) Consumers get even more scared, cut on spending even more
4) Companies respond with more layoffs, and so the vicious spiral continues.

In the end nobody works, nobody can sell nothing, nobody consumes anything and everyone starves to death. OK, it won't go that far, but we can end up in the stone age.

You are describing Austrian Economics, congratulations. Now if you'd just stop prescribing Keynesian solutions....

Well, the hands off approach Austrians suggest is madness, we can agree on that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed. Why would another one be any better?

Because Obama must be reelected.

We need another stimulus so Obama can bribe his way to re-election.

Shhhhhh, that's supposed to be a secret.