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

[bfdd]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A stimulus that takes 10 years to pay out is like attacking a forest fire with a garden hose.

 

[Fern]

And the parameters for success and failure.

Yes.

Fern

 

[shira]

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.

 

[silverpig]

A stimulus that takes 10 years to pay out is like attacking a forest fire with a garden hose.

No stimulus, tax cuts, and spending cuts is like attacking a forest fire with an oil spill.

 

[Incorruptible]

Stimulus spending doesn't work, when will people understand this

 

[First]

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.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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!

 

[First]

Oh really? Damn you're smart!

Not necessarily, just right.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Not necessarily, just right.

Of course you are.

 

[First]

Of course you are.

Yes I know, see post #28 in this thread for further clarification.

 

[Incorruptible]

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

 

[Munky]

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.

 

[First]

Your the same guy that prefers obama to Ron Paul, I really cant take anything you say seriously

Serious and Ron Paul in the same sentence? You're a regular court jester!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

 

[Incorruptible]

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]

“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]

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.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

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.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

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]

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.