Economists: The Stimulus Didn't Help

[newnameman]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The recovery is picking up steam as employers boost payrolls, but economists think the government's stimulus package and jobs bill had little to do with the rebound, according to a survey released Monday.

In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years -- but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact.

NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House's Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.

That sentiment is shared for the recently passed $17.7 billion jobs bill that calls for tax breaks for businesses that hire and additional infrastructure spending. More than two-thirds of those polled believe the measure won't affect payrolls, while 30% expect it to boost hiring "moderately."

But the economists see conditions improving. More than half of respondents -- 57% -- say industrial demand is rising, while just 6% see it declining. A growing number also said their firms are increasing spending and profit margins are widening.

Nearly a quarter of those surveyed forecast that gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, will grow more than 3% in 2010, and 70% of NABE's respondents expect it to grow more than 2%.

Still, the survey suggested that tight lending conditions remain a concern. Almost half of those polled said the credit crunch hurts their business.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

What a shock...I'll let someone else have the fun of posting the famous stimulus vs. unemployment graph.

 

[dullard]

So, ~73% of businesses were unaffected and ~27% were helped (on a very small sample of potentially biased people in large firms). Thus, we are to conclude it didn't help?

 

[Genx87]

Gee, color me surprised.

 

[Vette73]

So, ~73% of businesses were unaffected and ~27% were helped (on a very small sample of potentially biased people in large firms). Thus, we are to conclude it didn't help?

That and...

"NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members"

Yea thats a really good non-biased poll.

 

[Blackjack200]

I don't know, I read this as almost 30% of businesses that hired people as a direct result of the stimulus package. I'm sure others hired or retained people based on the ecnomic impact of that.

Sounds like a smashing success to me.

 

[theeedude]

It's completely idiotic to say stimulus didn't help based on results of that study. CNN Money FTL.

 

[Patranus]

No shit

 

[theeedude]

No shit

All it shows is that projections aren't set in stone.
It's 2% higher than projected, which without recovery plan would put us at 11-12% unemployment now.

 

[sandorski]

That and...

"NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members"

Yea thats a really good non-biased poll.

Indeed.

 

[Patranus]

All it shows is that projections aren't set in stone.
It's 2% higher than projected, which without recovery plan would put us at 11-12% unemployment now.

How do you rationalize that?

For all you know it could be 2% lower.

 

[theeedude]

How do you rationalize that?

For all you know it could be 2% lower.

Or it could be 5% higher. Sounds like you are agreeing with me that these projections are not set in stone.

 

[dullard]

No shit

If I were you, I'd be embarassed if I kept posting that picture. The prediction (made years ago, far before the extent of the problem was known) was to have unemployment peak just below 8%, but the stimulus package wasn't passed until unemployment was at 8.2%. Thus, by definition, anyone using that graph to prove a point is wrong since the graph was clearly wrong BEFORE the bill was passed (with or without stimulus).

In other words, that graph proves nothing other than the fact that people posting it don't know how to read graphs. An incorrect estimate that is demonstrably false BEFORE THE STIMULUS WAS EVEN PASSED does not prove or disprove that a stimulus helped.

 

[Specop 007]

Thats only because they didnt do enough. See this proves we need another, even larger, stimulus!

Thats how the Dems will spin it.

 

[theeedude]

Conservatives are never embarrassed to demonstrate their stupidity.

 

[theeedude]

Thats only because they didnt do enough. See this proves we need another, even larger, stimulus!

Thats how the Dems will spin it.

And most serious economists would agree.

 

[woolfe9999]

These economists were not asked whether the stimulus helped the macro-economy. They were asked the narrow question whether it helped with hiring at their company. The CNN headline is very misleading, of course, because media headlines are constructed to sound controversial because they are reader "hooks." In any event, this is utterly meaningless.

- wolf

 

[theeedude]

These economists were not asked whether the stimulus helped the macro-economy. They were asked the narrow question whether it helped with hiring at their company. The CNN headline is very misleading, of course, because media headlines are constructed to sound controversial because they are reader "hooks." In any event, this is utterly meaningless.

- wolf

Yep, so called "librul media" in action.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yep, so called "librul media" in action.

That's the funny part, this is CNN, supposed bastion of Democrats and left wing, doing a total hit piece on one of their central pieces of legislation. Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Genx87]

If I were you, I'd be embarassed if I kept posting that picture. The prediction (made years ago, far before the extent of the problem was known) was to have unemployment peak just below 8%, but the stimulus package wasn't passed until unemployment was at 8.2%. Thus, by definition, anyone using that graph to prove a point is wrong since the graph was clearly wrong BEFORE the bill was passed (with or without stimulus).

In other words, that graph proves nothing other than the fact that people posting it don't know how to read graphs. An incorrect estimate that is demonstrably false BEFORE THE STIMULUS WAS EVEN PASSED does not prove or disprove that a stimulus helped.

Years ago? Wasnt that created last Feb by the Obama admin?

 

[Fern]

So, ~73% of businesses were unaffected and ~27% were helped (on a very small sample of potentially biased people in large firms). Thus, we are to conclude it didn't help?

IDK if you're correct in your assertion that 27% were helped. I can't see the poll because because I'm not a member of NABE.

But seems to me that this is an unlikely assumption (assuming everyone who didn't choose 'no effect' then chose 'helped'). I.e., an assumption that there are no alternatives like "Don't know" or "Hurt" etc.

In any case, any fool can take $800 billion and have some measure of economic stimulous or jobs saved/created. The question is whether or not they got anywhere close to maximum 'bang for buck' and/or managed to avoid ancillory negative consequences (e.g., reduced credit available for private sector thereby actually hurting chances for job growth there).

IMO, the 'jobs' portion of the Stim Bill was mostly directed at state/local government jobs, not growing private sector jobs/GDP.

Otherwise claims here that he NABE is somehow partisan need to be proven, AFAIK they are nonpartisan and the numbers they report (little impact on private sector job growth) are in-line with other surveys of the private sector.

Fern

 

[soccerballtux]

Thats only because they didnt do enough. See this proves we need another, even larger, stimulus!

Thats how the Dems will spin it.

And most serious economists would agree.

only the idiots that agree with Keynes lmao.

Stimulus is never the solution when the government has become a cancerous tumor.

 

[BoberFett]

It's impossible to have that much money injected into the economy and not help. Even if it's not directly attributable, there's just that much more money floating around to spur consumer spending which in turn drives corporate revenue and hiring.

The problem was not whether we could stave off this recession, it's that by being a bunch of fucking pussies who can't handle even a slight economic downturn by tightening our belts until everyone readjusts, we've dug ourselves an even larger hole of debt which may cause greater harm in the future. The cure may be worse than the disease.

 

[ShawnD1]

NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms.

lol economist failure.

Government stimulus is usually in the form of government jobs. When Hitler did it, people were put to work building government highways and government military equipment. When FDR did it, literally millions of government workers built random shit, including most of the electricity generation in Tennessee.

Right now my city is expanding the ring road and light rail transit. These are all government jobs that are intended to get people working. They then use money from their government jobs to buy things. Our economy is mostly based on buying things, right? Then the economy recovers, the government contracts end, and then we don't expand or even fix the transit system until the next recession hits *sigh*

Thats only because they didnt do enough. See this proves we need another, even larger, stimulus!

Or just stop spending it on stupid bullshit. In that other thread, several people said the city was replacing roads that were already mint condition just so they had something to do. Meanwhile they don't fix the roads that are totally fucked and destroy your suspension.

 

[heyheybooboo]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

What a shock...I'll let someone else have the fun of posting the famous stimulus vs. unemployment graph.

You'll then have great fun with the NABE ...

Their unemployment forecast was worse than the Council of Economic Advisors. The NABE forecast unemployment to rise to 7.5% by the end of 2009:

I particularly like their forecast of Housing 'bottoming-out' in 3Q07:

It gets even better ... In February, 2007, they forecast a 'sustainable growth rate':

And three months later ... they incredibly missed the probability of The Great Recession:

Check .... and Mate ------ LOL





--

 

[nick1985]

Conservatives are never embarrassed to demonstrate their stupidity.

Are liberals embarrassed to demonstrate theirs?