or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Best economic growth in six years - Is the recovery finally here?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best economic growth in six years - Is the recovery finally here? - Page 2

post #41 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Really? What did he say a year ago?
Edit, oh I see your post about having attended a lecture. Presumably he said that unemployment would be a problem. Well that is not news, everyone knows that employment lags recovery, and the current models suggest we won't return to full employment till 2015.

True, the Obama administration badly misforcast the economic downturn's depth in January (as did some others), but no one is claiming that full employment is just round the corner.

Indeed, it was not Krugman but Nick Bloom of Standford that nailed it. In January, before the stimulus, his models showed a GDP bottom in mid-year followed by a V-shaped recovery. While the V-recovery is not as a strong as Reagan's, it is not the "U" predicted by many. It is modestly robust.

Actually what he said involved a lot more. He said we would recover but jobs would remain a stubborn issue. Abnormaly so. To just do nothing would make matters worse. He also said Obama would have to find a way to stimulate the economy in a similar fashion to the way WWII did at the end of the depression. But he did make it clear that tyo do nothing would make matters much worse.

However yes, yes I know everyone had his favorite economist. I favor this guy because I have an aquintance ( Husband of a friend ) at work that's an econ professor ( who was just awarded the Peter C. and Bonnie S. Kremer Chair of Economics so he must know something ) and he favors Krugman's views.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #42 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This will be determined not to be real economic growth but simply the early boost from the huge amount of dollars tossed out there by the federal reserve and the federal government. Each time the initial numbers have come out, they have been revised down. It will happen with this number as well. Second, there is massive inflation coiled and already beginnning to unleash. It will eat all these early "gains."

People will initially be fooled but if you have 6% "growth" and 6% inflation, then it isn't real growth. You stand still while the numbers change.

Would it be ok with you if this did have a positive spin? No long answers just yes or no will do.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #43 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Would it be ok with you if this did have a positive spin? No long answers just yes or no will do.


Its been noted that when positive news comes out that certain peoples are initially absent (when usually they're quite active normally) - It must be the case that some people can only run with what the right-wing blogs can conjure up for them.

Perhaps it really is true that some people, and why is it always those kind of wingers can only have their thoughts and critisisms 'implanted' for them by their overlords....

I suspect that a certain someone is still rejoicing over the loss of the Olympic games, and some good news caught them by suprise.
[CENTER]Recedite, plebes. Obesa cantavit![/CENTER]
Reply
[CENTER]Recedite, plebes. Obesa cantavit![/CENTER]
Reply
post #44 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Is it? The broken window fallacy (a parable):


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable..._broken_window

"It's all about jobs" means "The good shopkeeper" was in a position to afford a pane of glass.

I think consumer confidence is more important an indicator in determining economic stability than I think you do, but I'm not really sure 'cause I don't think your post touched on it. Your story addresses an argument I haven't made - I didn't claim cash for clunkers provided any real monetary stimulus, I said it increased consumer confidence by an artificial "feel good" increase in GDP. That provides some confidence that will translate into acceptance of greater risk for investors when, logically, there isn't any reason for that confidence.

Whether there's enough confidence in the run up of the exchange to inspire the creation of REAL manufacturing jobs and construction jobs again remains to be seen. The president should be leading the cheer for jobs just because of the confidence THAT would provide.

Impressions are critical and can make or break the economic recovery. We won't be fully recovered until unemployment is in the 4%-5% range, and they're projecting that for sometime in 2016 or so, last I saw.
post #45 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Would it be ok with you if this did have a positive spin? No long answers just yes or no will do.

Why would anyone want to deal with spin instead of reality?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #46 of 123
The reality is that conservatives celebrated the loss of the Olympic games.
[CENTER]Recedite, plebes. Obesa cantavit![/CENTER]
Reply
[CENTER]Recedite, plebes. Obesa cantavit![/CENTER]
Reply
post #47 of 123


The reality is that we had two scenarios presented. One was what the economy would do without the stimulus. The other was what the economy would do with the stimulus. No scenario involved the economy being on it's ass forever with unemployment growing to 100% and all of us dying while screaming at the stars.

Both of them predicted unemployment would stop growing and job losses would stop occurring in the second quarter of this year. The problem of course is that the economy has responded exactly the way that everyone said it would without the stimulus and we are out the $850 BILLION dollars that did not stimulate or fix anything.

In otherwords, Obama has managed to waste as much money on bad policy in one year as Bush did on claimed bad policy for his two wars in eight years.

And we still have seven more years to go.

Don't forget to find the positive spin on 10% unemployement or lest you be labeled a negative guy who just wants everyone and everything to fail.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #48 of 123
the bottom will fall out in 2011.
post #49 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

How this "recession" has managed to avoid being called a "depression" is beyond me. Actual unemployment is around 20%! Is tunnel vision now called television?

Oh yea you're right. The number of people working part time that would rather be full time time is rather large. Plus also the ones that have stopped looking for work. Right now my wife is home with the kids but if the right job came by she'd go back to work. It's not going to happen in this economy.
post #50 of 123
Bloombert.com

Quote:
Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) -- New York University Professor Nouriel Roubini, who anticipated the financial crisis, called the fourth quarter surge in U.S. economic growth very dismal and poor because it relied on temporary factors.

Roubini said more than half of the 5.7 percent expansion reported yesterday by the government was related to a replenishing of inventories and that consumption depended on monetary and fiscal stimulus. As these forces ebb, growth will slow to just 1.5 percent in the second half of 2010, he said.

The headline number will look large and big, but actually when you dissect it, its very dismal and poor, Roubini told Bloomberg Television in an interview at the World Economic Forums annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. I think we are in trouble.

Roubini said while the worlds largest economy wont relapse into recession, unemployment will rise from the current 10 percent, posing social and political challenges.

Its going to feel like a recession even if technically were not going to be in a recession, he said.

The point, don't look at a single number in isolation. If you do then your economic conclusions will be wrong.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #51 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The point, don't look at a single number in isolation. If you do then your economic conclusions will be wrong.

There IS a single number that shows the economic outlook in a recovery situation like the one we're experiencing - unemployment.

It's all about jobs.
post #52 of 123
Before anyone starts popping the champagne corks over this number, consider the following:

1. The last quarter was loudly trumpeted to be 3.5% and was then later very quietly revised downward to 2.2%. That a 1.3 percentage point reduction or about 37%. If a similar adjustment is made to this number it would bring it down to any where from 4.2% or, more likely, 3.6%. Still growth, sure, but not as blow out as is being suggested.

2. Far more importantly, where is this so-called "growth" coming from? It isn't the private sector and that's a big problem.

And then there's the employment problem, lagging indicator or not, it is a big problem. The best thing that can be said about it is that it isn't getting worse as fast.

And then there's the deficit and the debt, it is a big problem. The best thing that can be said about it is...well there isn't much good that can be said about it.

And then there's the inflation built into all of this propping up. There ain't much good that can be said about that either.

Quote:
So, is this the light at the end of the tunnel?

It might be. It might also be a train.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #53 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Why would anyone want to deal with spin instead of reality?

In other words you can't answer the question ( which of course is an answer in itself ).

Thanks for letting us know your position on partisan issues!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #54 of 123
I'm not sure the zandi graph is quite right...anyway, here is a clearer graph that shows the failure of the stimulus to be even greater:




As you can see, the original Obama plan has imploded.
post #55 of 123
dup delete
post #56 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


It might be. It might also be a train.

Yes. And it might also be the first licks of flame from an orphanage on fire.

In fact, this positive news might also be the blinking of the timer on a colossal thermonuclear bomb.

Let's try and hold each tight and hope that this good news will pass until the United States of America is in irreversible financial ruin.
post #57 of 123
Well, this is what Obama promised from his "stimulus" program...

Let's look at the New York Times' recap at the time:

Quote:
President-elect Barack Obama promised Saturday to create the largest public works construction program since the inception of the interstate highway system a half century ago...Mr. Obamas remarks showcased his ambition to expand the definition of traditional work programs for the middle class, like infrastructure projects to repair roads and bridges, to include new-era jobs in technology and so-called green jobs that reduce energy use and global warming emissions....

Mr. Obamas plan, if enacted, would be in part a government-directed industrial policy, with lawmakers and administration officials picking winners and losers among private projects and raining large amounts of taxpayer money on them.... he said he would invest record amounts of money in the vast infrastructure program, which also includes work on schools, sewer systems, mass transit, electrical grids, dams and other public utilities. The green jobs would include various categories, including jobs dedicated to creating alternative fuels, windmills and solar panels; building energy efficient appliances, or installing fuel-efficient heating or cooling systems....

We will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s, Mr. Obama said. He did not estimate how much he would devote to that purpose, but when he met with the nations governors last week, they said the states had $136 billion worth of road, bridge, water and other projects ready to go as soon as money became available. They estimated that each billion dollars spent would create up to 40,000 jobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us...o.html?_r=1&hp

Does anyone actually think this happened? "Millions of Jobs?" "traditional work programs for the middle class?" etc.?
post #58 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

... To just do nothing would make matters worse. He also said Obama would have to find a way to stimulate the economy in a similar fashion to the way WWII did at the end of the depression. But he did make it clear that tyo do nothing would make matters much worse.

However yes, yes I know everyone had his favorite economist. I favor this guy because I have an aquintance ( Husband of a friend ) at work that's an econ professor ( who was just awarded the Peter C. and Bonnie S. Kremer Chair of Economics so he must know something ) and he favors Krugman's views.

I have my favorite economists too, but I tend to trust the literature behind the person(s) more. Given that someone of Krugman's accomplishments (international trade, Nobel prize) can be stuck in the 1970's old Keynesian orthodoxy suggest that your aquintance may be equally benighted in this area.

Keysenaism took quite a few blows from Lucas and the real business cycle theorists in the late 70s. From that challenge arose the New Keynesians (such as Greg Mankiw) that have sought to embrace, but also answer, those criticisms. Fellows like Krugman are old Keynesians - the attractions of which are that it provides s way to manage policy, even as the New Keynesians show we really don't know what we are doing.

Sadly, only recently has anyone bothered to test any Keyneian theory against reality (something more commonly done by moniterists and microeconomists). And the results have not been encouraging.

A year ago I expressed my skepticism in another forum regarding the Obama/Democratic "plan" - I was skeptical of it's wisdom compared to other alternatives, and of the ability of Congress and Obama to implement it on a timely basis or sensible basis.

I pointed out that "In 1982 we went through a severe recession with 10.4% unemployment, without massive new programs. And it was only a few months ago that 200 economists signed a letter expressing their own skepticism of the lavish spending on the bailouts. So when Obama suddenly claims, in a fatherly and mildly imperious tone that every economist his team surveyed (with one exception) agrees with a huge spending program, it triggers suspicion - since when do all economists agree in macro-economics? (One gets the sense that this is another manifestation of the urbane elite's idea of 'consensus', an claim which intentionally confuses substantial majorities with universal truth)."...in otherwords after looking at some model results I fully expected the 10% unemployment rate, and thought Obama would fail.

Among the nuggets of truth I found at the time:

1) Lucas (Chicago) noted that the strategy of first resort ought to be using more of the monetary tools - they are not depleted. For example, the government could buy (lend against) more private securities, pumping money directly into the system even if the banks are unwilling to lend. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122999959052129273.html.

2) Mankiw (Harvard) pointed out that contrary to untested Keynesian textbook theory, empirical economic studies show that the fiscal stimulus multiplier (massive government spending) runs from zero to (at best) modest. These multiplier estimates run from 1 to 1.40 (which means that a dollar in new government spending causes $1.00 to $1.40 in new growth.) http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/...-skeptics.html

3) However, contrary to textbook theory, empirical studies also showed that the tax cut multiplier is 3 (Christine Romer's own work) to 5 (NBER - National Bureau of Economic Research). Hence, tax cuts (especially payroll tax cuts) provide a lot more bang for the buck.

4) I discovered that unlike the monetarists and monetary theory, there is not a large body of literature that tests fiscal Keynesian theory. And what literature there is often fails to confirm the textbook Keynesian models. Mankiw noted: "For example, ... (note) the conclusion of Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig (a prominent econometrician now at the University of Chicago) in an empirical study called "What are the Effects of Fiscal Policy Shocks?". The conclusions are that while a surprise tax cut strongly stimulates growth, a non-surprise addition to government spending is very weak in stimulating the economy. Furthermore, government spending 'crowds out' private investments and does not stimulate new investments via increased interest rates.

6) Mankiw also noted that "an earlier, related paper by Olivier Blanchard and Roberto Perotti called "An Empirical Characterization Of The Dynamic Effects Of Changes In Government Spending And Taxes On Output" reported similar anomalous results:

"we find that both increases in taxes and increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending. This effect is consistent with a neoclassical model with distortionary taxes, but more difficult to reconcile with Keynesian theory."6)

7) I noted that Bakus (Suny) pointed out that a fiscal stimulus would be based on political criteria (rather than cost-benefit), come to late, have a low multiplier (even Krugman's is a low 1.1), and only compound the CBO dire predictions on a looming budget crisis (which was made BEFORE the recession). http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/...-stimulus.html.

These observations are even more relevant today. The "stimulus" did not deliver the promised benefits. Now suddenly Washington is fretting over the looming deficit.

Conclusion? They should have listened to the critics (and Christine Romer should have paid more attention to her own work).
post #59 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I have my favorite economists too, but I tend to trust the literature behind the person(s) more. Given that someone of Krugman's accomplishments (international trade, Nobel prize) can be stuck in the 1970's old Keynesian orthodoxy suggest that your aquintance may be equally benighted in this area.

Keysenaism took quite a few blows from Lucas and the real business cycle theorists in the late 70s. From that challenge arose the New Keynesians (such as Greg Mankiw) that have sought to embrace, but also answer, those criticisms. Fellows like Krugman are old Keynesians - the attractions of which are that it provides s way to manage policy, even as the New Keynesians show we really don't know what we are doing.

Sadly, only recently has anyone bothered to test any Keyneian theory against reality (something more commonly done by moniterists and microeconomists). And the results have not been encouraging.

A year ago I expressed my skepticism in another forum regarding the Obama/Democratic "plan" - I was skeptical of it's wisdom compared to other alternatives, and of the ability of Congress and Obama to implement it on a timely basis or sensible basis.

I pointed out that "In 1982 we went through a severe recession with 10.4% unemployment, without massive new programs. And it was only a few months ago that 200 economists signed a letter expressing their own skepticism of the lavish spending on the bailouts. So when Obama suddenly claims, in a fatherly and mildly imperious tone that every economist his team surveyed (with one exception) agrees with a huge spending program, it triggers suspicion - since when do all economists agree in macro-economics? (One gets the sense that this is another manifestation of the urbane elite's idea of 'consensus', an claim which intentionally confuses substantial majorities with universal truth)."...in otherwords after looking at some model results I fully expected the 10% unemployment rate, and thought Obama would fail.

Among the nuggets of truth I found at the time:

1) Lucas (Chicago) noted that the strategy of first resort ought to be using more of the monetary tools - they are not depleted. For example, the government could buy (lend against) more private securities, pumping money directly into the system even if the banks are unwilling to lend. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122999959052129273.html.

2) Mankiw (Harvard) pointed out that contrary to untested Keynesian textbook theory, empirical economic studies show that the fiscal stimulus multiplier (massive government spending) runs from zero to (at best) modest. These multiplier estimates run from 1 to 1.40 (which means that a dollar in new government spending causes $1.00 to $1.40 in new growth.) http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/...-skeptics.html

3) However, contrary to textbook theory, empirical studies also showed that the tax cut multiplier is 3 (Christine Romer's own work) to 5 (NBER - National Bureau of Economic Research). Hence, tax cuts (especially payroll tax cuts) provide a lot more bang for the buck.

4) I discovered that unlike the monetarists and monetary theory, there is not a large body of literature that tests fiscal Keynesian theory. And what literature there is often fails to confirm the textbook Keynesian models. Mankiw noted: "For example, ... (note) the conclusion of Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig (a prominent econometrician now at the University of Chicago) in an empirical study called "What are the Effects of Fiscal Policy Shocks?". The conclusions are that while a surprise tax cut strongly stimulates growth, a non-surprise addition to government spending is very weak in stimulating the economy. Furthermore, government spending 'crowds out' private investments and does not stimulate new investments via increased interest rates.

6) Mankiw also noted that "an earlier, related paper by Olivier Blanchard and Roberto Perotti called "An Empirical Characterization Of The Dynamic Effects Of Changes In Government Spending And Taxes On Output" reported similar anomalous results:

"we find that both increases in taxes and increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending. This effect is consistent with a neoclassical model with distortionary taxes, but more difficult to reconcile with Keynesian theory."6)

7) I noted that Bakus (Suny) pointed out that a fiscal stimulus would be based on political criteria (rather than cost-benefit), come to late, have a low multiplier (even Krugman's is a low 1.1), and only compound the CBO dire predictions on a looming budget crisis (which was made BEFORE the recession). http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/...-stimulus.html.

These observations are even more relevant today. The "stimulus" did not deliver the promised benefits. Now suddenly Washington is fretting over the looming deficit.

Conclusion? They should have listened to the critics (and Christine Romer should have paid more attention to her own work).

Thanks for the input. However all we've really proven is that everyone has an opinion. Even Kruman said ( a year ago ) that the stimulus in it's current form wouldn't accomplish what they wanted. That it wouldn't be enough. But to do nothing ( as some have suggested ) would be a reciepe for disaster. This only makes sense since keeping the status quo is what got us into this mess in the first place. So logically some action had to be taken because it's obvious what they were doing ( the status quo ) wasn't working.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #60 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Thanks for the informative posts! I guess the partisan side tracks are to be expected in PO.

@SDW, yes I forgot to mention the 'voodoo' economics. Supply side has it's proponents, but (from what I've read) there are just as many economists who think Reagan's increased deficit spending "primed" the economy and allowed the tax cuts to take effect.

This was one of the points of my original post, you ask 10 economists about a certain event time-line and you'll get 10 differing theories on what worked/failed. Not to mention the political side of the arguments.

That's dubious at best. The money wasn't spent on shovel-ready infrastructure. It was spent on defense and general discretionary programs (aside: many prominent dems opposed Reagan's defense buildup and simultaneously supported increased domestic spending). There's little evidence to suggest that this kind of spending "primes" anything.

People--from rich to working class--had more money to spend. And remember, the deficits were not caused by less revenue. Revenue went up dramatically because the economy expanded.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #61 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Yes. And it might also be the first licks of flame from an orphanage on fire.

In fact, this positive news might also be the blinking of the timer on a colossal thermonuclear bomb.

Let's try and hold each tight and hope that this good news will pass until the United States of America is in irreversible financial ruin.

Ironically, while just trying to be snarky, you actually are being very correct on the matter.

Reuters.com

Quote:
In its budget proposal to be released on Monday, the White House predicts a record $1.6 trillion budget deficit for the fiscal year that ends September 30, the Capitol Hill source said.

According to the estimate, deficits will narrow to $700 billion by fiscal 2013 before gradually rising back to $1.0 trillion by the end of the decade, the source said.

Trillion dollar a year deficits for a long as the eye can see isn't going to fix anything in our economy. It will cause quite the opposite and will devastate our economy.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #62 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Yes. And it might also be the first licks of flame from an orphanage on fire.

In fact, this positive news might also be the blinking of the timer on a colossal thermonuclear bomb.

Let's try and hold each tight and hope that this good news will pass until the United States of America is in irreversible financial ruin.

Yes some here have made it abundantly clear that they don't hope for good news if it comes in the form of Obama or a Democrat.

Really sad that they would hope for failure ( for all of us ) in exchange for perceived success for their party.

The funny thing is that they would think that attitude would make voters want to support their cause.

Oh well.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #63 of 123
And Dems were hoping for failure in Iraq so they could pin it on Bush. Neither side is better than the other.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #64 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And Dems were hoping for failure in Iraq so they could pin it on Bush. Neither side is better than the other.

No I'm afraid you've got that wrong. Most were wishing ( since there was no real reason for it ) the whole thing hadn't happened.

I don't believe anyone sane would hope for failure and loss of life just so their party would benifit. I'm trying to illustrate only the extreme wingnut variety in both parties would think like that. Disgusting really.

Are you one of them jazzy? Since you've pointed out that you can be a liberal or a conservative without chosing sides you don't need a party for this one.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #65 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Yes. And it might also be the first licks of flame from an orphanage on fire.

In fact, this positive news might also be the blinking of the timer on a colossal thermonuclear bomb.

Let's try and hold each tight and hope that this good news will pass until the United States of America is in irreversible financial ruin.

In your last statement you seem to be implying that I am hoping for things to go badly. Do I understand you correctly?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #66 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

In your last statement you seem to be implying that I am hoping for things to go badly. Do I understand you correctly?

No, dmz, I was making an ironic comment on your hilariously fatalistic spin on the first piece of near-positive economic news to arrive in about two years.
post #67 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

In other words you can't answer the question ( which of course is an answer in itself ).

Thanks for letting us know your position on partisan issues!

Thanks for letting us know your position on this matter. From what you have stated the following is true in your view. Being willing to discuss reality is "partisan" and being willing to discuss "spin" is apparently non-partisan.

I'm not sure too many lucid people out there will buy that but thanks for presenting it none the less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No, dmz, I was making an ironic comment on your hilariously fatalistic spin on the first piece of near-positive economic news to arrive in about two years.

Hey if you are going to call out people and assign them to their formal handles, why don't you do the same for yourself.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #68 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Thanks for the input. However all we've really proven is that everyone has an opinion. Even Kruman said ( a year ago ) that the stimulus in it's current form wouldn't accomplish what they wanted. That it wouldn't be enough. But to do nothing ( as some have suggested ) would be a reciepe for disaster. This only makes sense since keeping the status quo is what got us into this mess in the first place. So logically some action had to be taken because it's obvious what they were doing ( the status quo ) wasn't working.

No doubt everyone has an opinion, but not everyone has an open mind. The reality is that most tests of the the "multiplier" tend to confirm that:

a) It is far less effective than tax cuts - even the work of Obama's CEA chair, Christine Romer, work suggests that.
b) It has little to (at best) modest effects.

Combine the above with the fact that all of this needs to be paid back means that it is rather futile to borrow on the future to fund a government spending program (only to increase long term annual deficits).

If I get a chance I'll try to summarize the links an abstracts to each of the papers, including a one by Cogan, Taylor, et. al. http://www.volkerwieland.com/docs/CCTW%20Mar%202.pdf

The last one is very interesting..."Old Keynesian vs. New Keynesian Multipliers"
post #69 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Hey if you are going to call out people and assign them to their formal handles, why don't you do the same for yourself.

Hey, Trumptman, do you still thank that the term 'teabagging' is an exclusively homosexual term?
post #70 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No, dmz, I was making an ironic comment on your hilariously fatalistic spin on the first piece of near-positive economic news to arrive in about two years.

It is not the "first piece of good news", there have been many. The problem is that if you look at each of these pieces of "good news" in detail, they turn out to be BS.

Even Krugman, the "liberal stooge" as some in this tread call him, thinks that the 5.7% is BS.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...e-blip-cometh/

We are still in recession - each point of positive GDP was purchased via billions of US tax dollars in stimulus. Now that the senators are scared of losing their seats due to the upset election in Mass. no more stimulus will be forthcoming (the $100 billion in the proposed budget is too small, and it probably won't pass anyway).

We will fall back out of the rabit hole that the stimulus created, and back into deflationary depression.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #71 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Hey, Trumptman, do you still thank that the term 'teabagging' is an exclusively homosexual term?



E# hits this correctly. Jimmac and yourself are the ones who want to distract from the reality that the economy is not improving. There are always ways to manipulate numbers and thus the whole picture is the only true picture. Whether distracting via strawmen or the intent game via ad-homs, they are still distractions. The reality is trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see and those are using the optimistic Obama numbers which of course are already proving to be not true.

FoxNews.com

Some of can remember the reasoning just a few months ago that the record deficit then was the fault of Bush. Obama was supposed to fix it and thus the second year deficit, while still massive was supposed to be 'only' $1.3 trillion instead of the $1.4 trillion that was 'inherited.' Now of course instead of a lowering deficit due to the Obama 'fixes' we now have a second year of record setting deficits and that is presuming these numbers aren't any less accurate than the first set of overly optimistic projections.

When your forecasting is off by 300 billion dollars, and the deficit is exploding instead of shrinking, then the claims and the parties making them are no longer credible.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #72 of 123
It's always interesting to see two different headlines reporting the same news:

Consumer Spending in U.S. Increases for Third Month

U.S. consumer spending slows in December

Both headlines are factually correct statements. Both, perhaps, have a bit of bias embedded into them.

The opening paragraphs also betray some of this bias:

Quote:
Americans increased their spending in December at the slowest pace since September, allowing their savings rate to drift to the highest level since June, the Commerce Department estimated Monday.

Quote:
Spending by U.S. consumers increased in December for a third consecutive month, signaling the biggest part of the economy will contribute more to growth in coming months.


If you're paying attention you'll see this a lot. Good reason to read beyond headlines and to filter out editorial content from news articles (because the "editors" don't appear to be doing it.)

Either way given the odds that a significant portion of readers don't read beyond the headline, and of those that do, few read beyond the opening paragraph (let alone reading the quietly published corrections a couple weeks later), what people think about what's going on may be very largely influenced by where they get their news.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #73 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

[IMG]http snip nal.jpg[/IMG]
.

Mmm... I think that might have been a reflexive reach for the strawman.

So... is that a yes, you DO still think that 'teabagging' is something that only gay people do, or no, teabagging is something that straight couples do too?

post #74 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Either way given the odds that a significant portion of readers don't read beyond the headline, and of those that do, few read beyond the opening paragraph (let alone reading the quietly published corrections a couple weeks later), what people think about what's going on may be very largely influenced by where they get their news.

Perhaps, but I'd not be surprised to find that folks that get their news on-line have multiple sources. When people search for information and it's free, it's pretty logical to assume those people who want information aren't satisfied with just one site and use multiple because it doesn't cost anything.

The will focus on the stuff they are interested in, too, and less on other topics.

Some are even so engaged with the info that they post about their impressions in odd places.
post #75 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Perhaps, but I'd not be surprised to find that folks that get their news on-line have multiple sources. When people search for information and it's free, it's pretty logical to assume those people who want information aren't satisfied with just one site and use multiple because it doesn't cost anything.

I don't think this situation applies only to online sources and I don't know if your conclusion is valid entirely valid. While it's true that as the monetary price goes to zero people will attempt to consume more. However the total cost is still not zero. For example, you must still spend your time and people will tend to economize this spend as well. In doing so people may well get trapped into the headline or opening paragraph. So you are likely to have a conversation at a cocktail party (or on an Internet forum) wherein person A says "hey the economy is doing" and person B says "I don't think so" because they've economically absorbed their information. Case in point, the opening post points to this incredible 5.7% annualized growth rate (presumed from a single quarter) while possibly being ignorant that this number is only a first estimate and is quite likely to be quietly revised downward.

But maybe that's all fodder for a separate discussion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Some are even so engaged with the info that they post about their impressions in odd places.

Is that some kind of a swipe at me or my post? If so I think it was relevant to the discussion. These are articles that are specifically trying to portray information about the state of the economy. The topic of the thread is the state of the economy and, to a certain extent, how people perceive and interpret the news about it or how the news is presented about it. I think it's important and relevant because to a large extent we are trying to separate reality from spin much like separating editorial from fact. But I'm sorry if you disagree as to its relevance.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #76 of 123
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Well, this is what Obama promised from his "stimulus" program...

Let's look at the New York Times' recap at the time:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us...o.html?_r=1&hp

Does anyone actually think this happened? "Millions of Jobs?" "traditional work programs for the middle class?" etc.?

Well FWIW, a major road reroute/reconstruction project in my area was funded by the stimulus, at least according to the local paper. Whether it created any new jobs, I don't know...

Quote:
In March, Yates Construction received a $13.6-million, 27-month contract from the state to complete the widening by Aug. 15, 2011.

The $13.6 million came from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a federal economic stimulus plan. The project - already slowing in momentum and being pushed behind schedule due to questions over state funding - would have stalled without the federal boost.

Construction had tentatively been planned to begin last November. The funding shortfall would have pushed the project back another two years, Mills said in March.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #77 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Well FWIW, a major road reroute/reconstruction project in my area was funded by the stimulus, at least according to the local paper. Whether it created any new jobs, I don't know...

This is one of the "benefits" of so-called stimulus spending. The signs of its "success" are often immediately visible. People see the road or bridge being built. What they don't see however is the things that are denied to those from which the money was taken or the long term debt which must eventually be repaid.

It is sorta like if I go out and buy a big fancy new flat screen TV. The benefit is immediately visible as I sit on my couch and watch the football game. However the cost is more abstract and distant until I receive my credit card bill. Even more so if I simply pay the minimum payment on that bill.

Takes these concepts and dial the abstractions to 11 and you have the "stimulus". The visuals are even more concrete (a couple dozen people working on the side of the road) plus billions of dollars in debt (which most of us cannot possibly relate to anyway) to be paid by someone, somewhere at sometime.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #78 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Is that some kind of a swipe at me or my post?

It was a tongue in cheek description of everyone (myself included) that posts here, as well as the other nooks on the net.
post #79 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

It was a tongue in cheek description of everyone (myself included) that posts here, as well as the other nooks on the net.

Fair enough. I don't know you so I was just checking.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #80 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Thanks for letting us know your position on this matter. From what you have stated the following is true in your view. Being willing to discuss reality is "partisan" and being willing to discuss "spin" is apparently non-partisan.

I'm not sure too many lucid people out there will buy that but thanks for presenting it none the less.



Hey if you are going to call out people and assign them to their formal handles, why don't you do the same for yourself.

Listen I asked you a simple hypothetical question which you couldn't ( wouldn't ) answer.

A " What if ".

You made your partisan position clear that even if Obama had the right answers you still wish failure. Nice.

This isn't a football game. It involves all americans. But you won't even entertain the idea of working together unless it's a Republican idea.

This attitude is what's wrong with the Republican party these days. Until they change and move away from this us vs them ideology I don't think they'll get very far with voters. Yes, yes, I know you won in a few states. Let's see how far that goes on a national level.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Best economic growth in six years - Is the recovery finally here?