• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

New book shows that the stimulus worked - really, really well

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
the people pimping this shit are stupid. seriously if ANY of the previous economic plans had worked, why are we moving on to QE3? is QE3 supposed to help even more? why help at all? just let it all fall at this point because we're just trampling over some people to help others. it's fucking stupid.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Read my original post. Your so-called "argument" is like claiming "the treatment failed" if someone diagnosed with pancreatic cancer still has cancer six years later (but is still alive).
And conversely one could use the fact that Iraq still exists as evidence that the Iraq war succeeded. Really, really well.

I mean, after all, it didn't become a barren wasteland. Clearly we saved it from that obvious fate.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Well here's some good questions that can be asked, and I'll even answer them.

Did the stimulus work in a yes or no context only? Yes.
-snip-
This ^ is an example of what I'm talking about. Did the stimulus "work"?

WTF knows.

The question cannot be answered until we have specified exactly what it was supposed to achieve.

Fern
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
This ^ is an example of what I'm talking about. Did the stimulus "work"?

WTF knows.

The question cannot be answered until we have specified exactly what it was supposed to achieve.

Fern
And the parameters for success and failure.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
2
0
A stimulus that takes 10 years to pay out is like attacking a forest fire with a garden hose.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
And conversely one could use the fact that Iraq still exists as evidence that the Iraq war succeeded. Really, really well.
I don't agree. Because Iraq wasn't broken and wasn't a threat to the U.S. before we invaded. And there was no credible evidence that something dire was about to occur in Iraq. Nevertheless, we spent a ton of money and and caused the deaths of tens of thousands (including over 4,000 U.S. lives). And we made things worse.

In no way is Iraq comparable to a patient with pancreatic cancer or to the state of the U.S. economy on the day Obama took office.

I mean, after all, it didn't become a barren wasteland. Clearly we saved it from that obvious fate.
No, what we did in Iraq is analagous to subjecting a healthy person to the treatment for pancreatic cancer. Yet this is what you're comparing the stimulus to.

This dishonest argument is beneath you. Shame.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Stimulus spending doesn't work, when will people understand this
At this point, you literally have to knowingly ignore academia (a favorite tactic of those without a leg to stand on) not to see the stimulus was a success. The preponderance of evidence shows quite convincingly and conclusively the stimulus had a substantially positive effect with a much higher than 1.0 multiplier. See the previously linked dozen+ studies if you're still confused.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
At this point, you literally have to knowingly ignore academia (a favorite tactic of those without a leg to stand on) not to see the stimulus was a success. The preponderance of evidence shows quite convincingly and conclusively the stimulus had a substantially positive effect with a much higher than 1.0 multiplier. See the previously linked dozen+ studies if you're still confused.
Oh really? Damn you're smart!
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
At this point, you literally have to knowingly ignore academia (a favorite tactic of those without a leg to stand on) not to see the stimulus was a success. The preponderance of evidence shows quite convincingly and conclusively the stimulus had a substantially positive effect with a much higher than 1.0 multiplier. See the previously linked dozen+ studies if you're still confused.
Your the same guy that prefers obama to Ron Paul, I really cant take anything you say seriously :D
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
All I see in this so-called book is credentialist spewing of references to some outside sources which claim the stimulus worked. That reeks of logical fallacy to me.

If the stimulus had worked, then the government should be able to stop artificially boosting the GDP with deficit spending and let the market forces (a.k.a. middle class consumers) pick up from there, just as the so-called experts had promised. But that is not happening.

What the stimulus did is akin to applying pressure to a severe gunshot wound, and claiming that everything worked because you got the bleeding under control, without a clue as to what kind of problems are really happening under the surface, and how to address them.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Yes I know, see post #28 in this thread for further clarification.
Did you read post #64? Please tell me...why isn't Ramey on the list?

Is it possible, in your opinion, that the person who constructed this list is biased? The more I dig into that list, the more apparent it becomes.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Serious and Ron Paul in the same sentence? You're a regular court jester!
This is the same Ron Paul who predicted the recession would happen and no one listened to him. He warned us about the wars and spending and he was right
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,703
49
91
“Bernanke is playing with the most-sensitive price signal there is, the interest rate, and that distorts the capital structure and prevents the necessary adjustment that would lead to sustainable investment. So long as that persists, and especially with the high costs of hiring, there will be no opportunities for young people.

“My advice to the young when they do call,” says Jeffrey, “lower your reservation wage, take any job you can find, commodify yourself and get on the market, work for free if you have to, just get your foot in the door somewhere. It won’t pay the bills, but it does provide some light that prevents the onset of that great enemy despair…
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Did you read post #64? Please tell me...why isn't Ramey on the list?

Is it possible, in your opinion, that the person who constructed this list is biased? The more I dig into that list, the more apparent it becomes.
That has already been addressed in this thread, but he'll, include him in the list if you like; the preponderance of studies on the stimulus come to generally the same conclusion. Deny it all you like.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
That has already been addressed in this thread, but he'll, include him in the list if you like; the preponderance of studies on the stimulus come to generally the same conclusion. Deny it all you like.
Ramey is a "her" not a "him". Why do you think she was left off the list? Her study discredited Auerbach and Gorodnichenko's study saying "it worked". Is it possible that the author of this blog is biased? Please answer these two questions.

I think the general consensus is that the stimulus moderately helped our economy for a relatively short period of time. Questions remain whether it actually prolonged the recovery or not. Also, questions remain regarding the long-term economic impact of adding $787B to our debt.
 
Last edited:
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
Why does Ramey necessarily discredit Auerbach and Gorodnichenko and not the other way around?

I think the general consensus is that the stimulus moderately helped our economy for a relatively short period of time.
Well there you go. You seem to be conflating stimulus spending during a recession and deficit spending as matter of course. Those are two distinct things and even Auerbach and Gorodnichenko agreed that the latter has a negative multiplier.

Edit: You also have to bear in mind the multiplier isn't the be all, end all to the stimulus (or any government spending). That really only reflects the effect on the economy as a whole and doesn't address any effects or distribution within.
 
Last edited:

DLeRium

Lifer
Feb 19, 2001
20,158
20
81
You're being a troll. This is MY thread, and the subject is: "The stimulus was very effective." And the book cited in the OP demonstrates that.

As much as you'd like the sidetrack and evade, the subject of this thread is NOT "Obama didn't accurately estimate the trajectory of the economy with and without the stimulus." Making that point says NOTHING about the effectiveness of the stimulus.

Now, either leave or stay on topic, you moron.
You're assuming the projection and estimations were totally wrong. His image clearly shows the stimulus wasn't as effective as it should've been. If you always have a moving target, then your definition of success is messed up.

It's like project management. If your team came up with a timeline and then your timeline slips and you start impacting other teams, you've essentially fallen into the red if you look at an RYG chart.

Obviously at this point you need to re-assess and push deadlines out, but it doesn't mean you're ok now that you're on track to your new deadline. People will be pissed, and management will be breathing down your back. Just because you're making progress isn't good enough.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
lol @ "stimulus was a success" if it was a success why is there still Governmental and Federal Reserve meddling into the economy? Because it wasn't a success and they need to keep moving forward with their idiot plans because you idiots gobble up everything they say. The people who brought it down are the ones telling you everything is OK and you believe them. That makes you gullible.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY