so your math assumes that they have spent all the stimulus money?
It also assumes the high end of the "saved or created". Numbers would probably be rather similar if he used the low end and the amount already spent.
so your math assumes that they have spent all the stimulus money?
Tell me where I'm going wrong.
The point of the stimulus was job creation.
No jobs were created, instead more jobs were lost.
Seeing this, the administration refused to admit defeat and instead moved the goal posts. Their message was no longer that the stimulus will create jobs, rather it just saved some.
And LOL at your 'plan' to sit on $100k because you're 'skeered'.
Now, what I really want to know: What kind of small business are you going to invest in/own where you fear government meddling? Paranoid, much?
--
Yes, practically all stimulus(stimuli?)are funded by Debt. Economic stagnation and/or shrinkage is far worse than Debt.
Another person who seems to be of the mindset, "Whatever money is spent on anything, it's good, because it's stimulus."
Businesses aren't spending (hiring, expanding), because they feel there is too much risk and uncertainty due to continuous government intervention, fear of rising tax rates, uncontrolled government debt, inflation, etc. This is not my opinion, it is fact, supported in just about every study and poll of business owners across America. You can argue if you want, but you'll be "typing a whole lotta nuthin".
Throwing money at a problem isn't a solution unless it is done smartly, and is backed up by appropriate policy. What the government has done is thrown *massive* amounts of money at a problem in a semi-blind fashion, while ramming through legislation that was never even read before it was signed into law. Then they turn around and argue for months about whether or not to let tax cuts expire, they keep housing prices artificially inflated, and run up massive debt with seemingly no regard for paying it off... all the while they tour the country telling everyone how great things are.
Uncertainty is the enemy of growth, and the government is in the business of uncertainty right now. If we had a leader who had any understanding how business works, we might be a little better off.
So the government pumps money into the economy through increased spending. At the cost of an increased deficit. This deficit spending still has to be financed somehow. This is done by importing money from abroad. This automatically reduces demand in other areas... basically nullifying the "stimulus" we experience. This stimulus deficit spending does not create real purchasing power so it does not increase aggregate demand that makes the economy grow. What we are left with is debt... which will burden future economies.
Here is a good read...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...t-Spending-Does-Not-Stimulate-Economic-Growth
Tell me where I'm going wrong.
The point of the stimulus was job creation.
No jobs were created, instead more jobs were lost.
Seeing this, the administration refused to admit defeat and instead moved the goal posts. Their message was no longer that the stimulus will create jobs, rather it just saved some.
What led you to believe That Grossly Oversimplifying Keynesian Economics was an appropriate response to my comment about the real cost of stimulus funds? "Bananas" would have been an equally topical reply and a lot more concise.You just typed a whole lotta nuthin. When the Economy is depressed, Consumers are not spending, Businesses are not spending, you Stimulate. First you lower Interest Rates, but if that doesn't work, which it didn't, then you Spend borrowed Money.
Tell me where I'm going wrong.
The point of the stimulus was job creation.
No jobs were created, instead more jobs were lost.
Seeing this, the administration refused to admit defeat and instead moved the goal posts. Their message was no longer that the stimulus will create jobs, rather it just saved some.
Dude. I simplified it for you a few weeks ago, and you still don't understand that just because unemployment went up doesn't mean the stimulus didn't create jobs? Are you just stupid or what?
While you would clearly expect any significant increase in government spending to have a positive short term effect, part of what I find interesting about macro is the inability to do controlled experiments. 1.4 to 3.3 is a large spread, but far narrower than I think reflects reality because the first thing we do is get rid of things that are difficult to quantify. -1 to 6 is probably a much better estimate when you consider stuff like consumer confidence and reinvestment shares.Dude. I simplified it for you a few weeks ago, and you still don't understand that just because unemployment went up doesn't mean the stimulus didn't create jobs? Are you just stupid or what?
I forgot, it "saved" jobs. What a fucking cop-out. At best, the stimulus temporarily saved some jobs. What happens when stimulus money runs out? You really think the stimulus permanantly created or saved jobs?
Are you this much of a shit-eating waste of skin to understand this?
What led you to believe That Grossly Oversimplifying Keynesian Economics was an appropriate response to my comment about the real cost of stimulus funds? "Bananas" would have been an equally topical reply and a lot more concise.
What I explained to you before is that you can create (or save) jobs while more jobs are being lost elsewhere in the economy.
If a wildfire is expanding would you say that the firefighters aren't fighting fires?
If a wildfire is expanding would you say that the firefighters aren't fighting fires?
-snip-
Business and Consumers are not borrowing, so Public borrowing is not taking anything away from them.
And you didnt answer my question about what happens to these "saved" jobs when stimulus funds run out
That's questionable.
Government borrowing is sucking up all the money, and as many predicted the result is business loans are hard to come by. That's why I have suggested elsewhere we need to mobilize the SBA to get more loans out there.
Fern
Incorrect. It increases the flow of Money through the Economy.
"Through" is the correct term, from them to us and then from us back to them and then we still owe them the original loan plus interest.
I forgot, it "saved" jobs. What a fucking cop-out. At best, the stimulus temporarily saved some jobs. What happens when stimulus money runs out? You really think the stimulus permanantly created or saved jobs?
Are you this much of a shit-eating waste of skin to understand this?
The pupose of any kind of stimulus isn't to create permanent jobs but to keep the economy from total free fall. Where did anyone supporting the stimulus say this would create permanent jobs.
You clowns just don't get it.
It looks like your guys are going to get in. Let's see how fucked up things are really going to get when we attack the deficit during a recession/depression.
Bunch of dumb F's. I give up.
