Wall St. Journal reports stimulus is working

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
dphantom

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
You're OP is misleading. There is widespread disagreement among economists over which actions have in fact boosted the economy. It appears from reading the entire article the initial Fed actions and TARP money have done the most while Obama's stimulus is just beginning to enter the economic picture.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,232
55,778
136
Originally posted by: dphantom
You're OP is misleading. There is widespread disagreement among economists over which actions have in fact boosted the economy. It appears from reading the entire article the initial Fed actions and TARP money have done the most while Obama's stimulus is just beginning to enter the economic picture.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There is disagreement over what is having the largest impact, not if the stimulus is having one, and there is nothing in the article that says the stimulus is not working. The closest you get is one person saying 'I don't think it was necessarily as effective'.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,232
55,778
136
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: eskimospy


The DJIA fell another 15% or so after the stimulus was passed. What economic indicators are you referring to that make you think the economy was turning around before the stimulus went into effect on February 17th?
Click to expand...

Housing had stopped its freefail and problem markets started moving forward.
Transportation indexes started moving forward again.
Copper future picked up.

The stockmarket is not a leading indicator.

If you go back and search the stimulus threads I said then as I believe now that no matter what the stimulus does (and what it is credited for), those against it will claim the economy would have done just fine without it. Similarly had things continued to worsen people who were for the stimulus would have said things would have been even worse without it.
Click to expand...
I have not said the stimulus had no effect, but as designed it can only have litle effect as so little of it has been spent when compared to 12T+ economy.

Luckily for all of us however, at least so far it would appear that the pro-stimulus people were in fact correct. Look at it this way, you might be wrong on an internet message board, but the whole country is doing better. I'd take that any day.
Click to expand...

Not enough of it has been spent to have much effect. Most of it is very backloaded as it will be spent later, not now.
Click to expand...

The stock market is most certainly a leading indicator, I'm not sure where you got the idea that it wasn't. Copper futures were at roughly the same level as they had been all year up to that point, and they didn't show a significant increase until the March/April time frame. At this point it looks like you're just making things up so please provide links to the data you are using to make this determination.

It's still impossible to say what the long term effects of it will be (if any significant ones), but this is certainly a good sign.
 
MovingTarget

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
France, Germany and Japan already exited their recessions. The US would have been out already as well without without the Clunkulus bill - of which 22% could be considered "stimulating" (WSJ) and the rest was wealth transfers (Medicaid, unemployment etc) and dumb things like cable boxes, ACORN, Amtrack etc etc. We didn't need the bill and it will be a rock around the neck of economy for years to come.
Click to expand...

Clunkulus bill? Is that the latest scare-tactic term? Medicaid and unemployement insurance (that people pay into) as 'wealth transfers'? What are you smoking? Also, WTF has ACORN done now to piss you off? Is it even tangentially related to the economy? I think not. Oh yeah, you are high on neocon propaganda. :cookie:
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,232
55,778
136
Originally posted by: Skoorb
This is great news. If only the economy could be kept indefinitely growing on government money thrown at it, eh? GDP is only being kept up by the government filling in the gaps left by private contraction. And, unlike private growth, this one comes with the national debt price tag, which continues to sky rocket.

How long can the government keep filling the gaps? When it pulls back, what do you think is going to happen to GDP then?

bamacre is in fact correct, the economy is being propped up by a debt addiction. If you balance the budget and fail to increase the debt at a blinding pace, then you'll see a major contraction. If the debt:GDP ratio was being kept in check, that's one thing but it's not, debt is charging toward 100% and will surpass it soon.
Click to expand...

Well that's Keynesian economics for you, I guess we'll find out eh? If I remember correctly you were one of the more vocal opponents of the bank bailouts and the stimulus?

I think there are some misconceptions about the nature of our debt. The US (in terms of GDP) has to live on exactly the productivity that its citizens create, as it always has. If our government borrows money from US citizens and goes into debt, no actual wealth or productivity inside our country is lost. For example, our government went into colossal debt during WW2 (much much higher than we are now), but we were fine. It's not like we had to build extra tanks during the 1950's and transport them back in time to repay the borrowed productivity from the 1940's... because there WAS no borrowed GDP growth. The debt was internal.

Now the money we borrow from China or whoever else DOES in fact need to be paid back, and that is most certainly a drain on our future productivity. Chinese/foreign owed debt is a small fraction of our total debt however, and is very manageable. So this whole idea that we're living on a credit card is simply an inaccurate portrayal of what is going on.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,232
55,778
136
Anyways I'm noticing this thread is transforming into a 'but the economy isn't all better!' thread. No big surprise... even though I never said it was. I thought it was interesting that independent sources believe that all this money we've been pumping into stimulus programs is having significant positive returns, and that's nothing but a good thing for anyone who doesn't take their internet right-ness as more important than the country's economic health.

It could still turn out awfully, but good news is good news, eh?
 
shira

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Hahahah. SO funny watching the righties twist and turn trying to turn every economic report into an anti-Obama screed. Just a week or two ago, there was a thread about "Stimulus fails," and how we had wasted SO much money on a useless plan.

Now, after the WSJ article, we read, "The economy was already turning around - the stimulus is irrelevant," and besides, it was too SMALL.

Finally, although it was predicted at least as far back as January that the unemployment rate would continue to increase at least until mid-2010 even AFTER the recession ended, we read, "Oh, a jobless recovery."

Man, you righties really do need to come up with some less obvious rhetoric. You're SO desperate to discredit this administration, it's heads Obama wins, tails he fails.
 
OrByte

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
France, Germany and Japan already exited their recessions. The US would have been out already as well without without the Clunkulus bill - of which 22% could be considered "stimulating" (WSJ) and the rest was wealth transfers (Medicaid, unemployment etc) and dumb things like cable boxes, ACORN, Amtrack etc etc. We didn't need the bill and it will be a rock around the neck of economy for years to come.
Click to expand...

you forgot to fit Ayers into your rant.
 
B

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Sorry but I am a seller of this debt-fueled and stimulus driven stock market rally, and I'm afraid this is going to end in tears just like last year when this "govt bubble" finally pops or the punch bowl is taken away. It seems this great country is incapable of producing anything but debt and that is unacceptable and unsustainable.

People say economies cannot grow unless credit expands. But at some point we should look in the mirror and say are we totally dependent on credit and finance to grow? Do we actually create anything besides exotic financial instruments? Seriously folks, wake up. This country is flat shit broke.

About 2 wks ago, I moved both my trading account and 401k balances from an already conservative 30% equity weighting down to 10%, and am running the highest % of cash I have ever had. I fear a retest of the stock market lows from March is a near certainty. Hope I'm wrong but I don't think I will be.
 
I

imported_inspire

Senior member
Jun 29, 2006
986
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Article here.

The good news is that this is just the front end of the stimulus spending, and there is still quite a bit more to come. If the economists cited in the article are correct, this could be very good news. Amazing what socialistfascistunamericancommiepork can do!

In all seriousness, growth of the US economy at a 3.3% rate in the 3rd quarter would be pretty fantastic, that's even better than I had hoped. Lets hope it turns out that way, eh?
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait!!! WSJ lies! Always!
/srslywtf?
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,232
55,778
136
Originally posted by: inspire
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Article here.

The good news is that this is just the front end of the stimulus spending, and there is still quite a bit more to come. If the economists cited in the article are correct, this could be very good news. Amazing what socialistfascistunamericancommiepork can do!

In all seriousness, growth of the US economy at a 3.3% rate in the 3rd quarter would be pretty fantastic, that's even better than I had hoped. Lets hope it turns out that way, eh?
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait!!! WSJ lies! Always!
/srslywtf?
Click to expand...

The WSJ's editorial page is extremely conservative, but the actual reporting in their newspaper is among the best in the world. Similarly the NYT's editorial page is very left wing, but the NYT's actual news reporting is constantly rated as some of the best on the planet.
 
StageLeft

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Skoorb
This is great news. If only the economy could be kept indefinitely growing on government money thrown at it, eh? GDP is only being kept up by the government filling in the gaps left by private contraction. And, unlike private growth, this one comes with the national debt price tag, which continues to sky rocket.

How long can the government keep filling the gaps? When it pulls back, what do you think is going to happen to GDP then?

bamacre is in fact correct, the economy is being propped up by a debt addiction. If you balance the budget and fail to increase the debt at a blinding pace, then you'll see a major contraction. If the debt:GDP ratio was being kept in check, that's one thing but it's not, debt is charging toward 100% and will surpass it soon.
Click to expand...

Well that's Keynesian economics for you, I guess we'll find out eh? If I remember correctly you were one of the more vocal opponents of the bank bailouts and the stimulus?

I think there are some misconceptions about the nature of our debt. The US (in terms of GDP) has to live on exactly the productivity that its citizens create, as it always has. If our government borrows money from US citizens and goes into debt, no actual wealth or productivity inside our country is lost. For example, our government went into colossal debt during WW2 (much much higher than we are now), but we were fine. It's not like we had to build extra tanks during the 1950's and transport them back in time to repay the borrowed productivity from the 1940's... because there WAS no borrowed GDP growth. The debt was internal.

Now the money we borrow from China or whoever else DOES in fact need to be paid back, and that is most certainly a drain on our future productivity. Chinese/foreign owed debt is a small fraction of our total debt however, and is very manageable. So this whole idea that we're living on a credit card is simply an inaccurate portrayal of what is going on.
Click to expand...
I think I was more against the stimulus than the bank bailout, though overall I was more pessimistic than (so far) things have gone, in great part. The eternal bears keep saying something is around the corner. I don't know at what point it's still worth listening to them vs calling them lunatics, but I don't think we can call most of them lunatics quite yet.

I don't know about the differences between internal/external debt and what they mean, but neither one can be good grown at the rate it's been growing. In the end excesses in either could be inflationary.
 
T

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
I think this comes down to the oft-recurring question of government intervention in our economy. I think often, people try to quote great economists from centuries past when it comes to "gov should strictly regulate the economy"/"government interference hurts the economy," and conveniently neglect to remember that our economy isn't really like any other of the past. It takes some trial and error to know what amount of regulation and stimulus is needed, and for that, I forgive Obama. As the economy is already rebounding, and we can obviously see that isn't necessarily related to most of the money the government has allotted to boosting the economy, though the money spent surely can't have hurt, I think we can safely assume that the stimulus package, by and large, was simply too much.

I would hope that the government would have enough sense to cancel the remaining stimulus money, and not spend it, but I think I'd be hoping for a pig to fly. The stimulus will end up being a huge failure, not because it didn't help the economy, but because most of it will be spent after the economy is already shaping up on its own. It will end up being a huge waste of money.
 
bamacre

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
C

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
The stock market is most certainly a leading indicator, I'm not sure where you got the idea that it wasn't.
Click to expand...
Your right it is, but it is not typically one of the first things to turn positive. Stock market usually turns positive on other news.


Copper futures were at roughly the same level as they had been all year up to that point, and they didn't show a significant increase until the March/April time frame. At this point it looks like you're just making things up so please provide links to the data you are using to make this determination.
Click to expand...

Um no. Copper futures tanked in oct 2008 and hit bottom dec 2008 And started a slow steady climb from there. Stimulus did not pass to late feb 2009.
linkage

It's still impossible to say what the long term effects of it will be (if any significant ones), but this is certainly a good sign.
Click to expand...

Yes there have been plenty of good signs for a while now. The long term effects will be lots of debt and if there is not enough economic growth, there will be plenty of inflation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom