Obama's stimulus was a massive failure and it didn't work

[Cannon Shell]

All economic stimulus "work" because it is an artificial effect. To what degree is the question.

For example if Doc ICU hit the lottery and his head and decided he wanted me to train for him. I go to the sale and spend 10 million for him on yearlings. Well that 10 million will certainly stimulate the short term sales economy, the economy of my barn and all those with whom I do business with. But if they all turn out to be bums and the spending turns out to be an unwise investment in the end nothing is really acomplished because he wont spend that money again. In a perfect world the breeders who benefited from the extra 10 million in sales would reinvest in their programs, my barn would expand based on the success on the horses bought and Doc ICU would become a longtime owner/investor in the business. Most likely the breeders would pocket the money, my barn would get a small bump and in a few years the entire "stimulus" effect would be minimal.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All economic stimulus "work" because it is an artificial effect. To what degree is the question.

For example if Doc ICU hit the lottery and his head and decided he wanted me to train for him. I go to the sale and spend 10 million for him on yearlings. Well that 10 million will certainly stimulate the short term sales economy, the economy of my barn and all those with whom I do business with. But if they all turn out to be bums and the spending turns out to be an unwise investment in the end nothing is really acomplished because he wont spend that money again. In a perfect world the breeders who benefited from the extra 10 million in sales would reinvest in their programs, my barn would expand based on the success on the horses bought and Doc ICU would become a longtime owner/investor in the business. Most likely the breeders would pocket the money, my barn would get a small bump and in a few years the entire "stimulus" effect would be minimal.

Theoretical math is even less welcome than ordinary math here as that requires thought, logic and projection when it is more fun to post pie charts...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Theoretical math is even less welcome than ordinary math here as that requires thought, logic and projection when it is more fun to post pie charts...

Yes, who would think that posting actual numbers to support their contention would be ridiculed by those that don't like "pie charts"?

But, when you can't list one economist in 2012 that disputes the success of the stimulus data, I guess trying to ridicule facts is all you have?

[Riot]

Is there anybody out there who can find one economist in 2012 disputing the data in the CBO's report on the stimulus working via creating X jobs and raising GDP X amount?

Anybody?

Clip Clop?

Old Dog?

Here again is the data given by the CBO for reference. Still waiting for one of you to come up with one economist that in 2012 that says CBO data is wrong.

Jay Bookman
CBO reports stimulus package was a major economic success
7:58 am November 23, 2011,

The Congressional Budget Office has released its latest assessment of the 2009 stimulus package and the economic impact of its various components.

According to the CBO analysis of stimulus provisions:

– They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.3 percent and 1.9 percent (see Table 1),
– They lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.2 percentage points and 1.3 percentage points,
– They increased the number of people employed by between 0.4 million and 2.4 million, and
– They increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 0.5 million to 3.3 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)



Two other points:

– The CBO estimates that the impact of the stimulus will continue to be felt over the next year, increasing GDP by up to 0.8 percent next year and creating up to 1.1 million jobs over what it would have been.

– The longterm economic impacts of increased borrowing to fund the stimulus will be minimal or nonexistent. “In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, ARRA will reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates—by between zero and 0.2 percent after 2016,” its economists predict.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All economic stimulus "work" because it is an artificial effect. To what degree is the question.

For example if Doc ICU hit the lottery and his head and decided he wanted me to train for him. I go to the sale and spend 10 million for him on yearlings. Well that 10 million will certainly stimulate the short term sales economy, the economy of my barn and all those with whom I do business with. But if they all turn out to be bums and the spending turns out to be an unwise investment in the end nothing is really acomplished because he wont spend that money again. In a perfect world the breeders who benefited from the extra 10 million in sales would reinvest in their programs, my barn would expand based on the success on the horses bought and Doc ICU would become a longtime owner/investor in the business. Most likely the breeders would pocket the money, my barn would get a small bump and in a few years the entire "stimulus" effect would be minimal.

Exactly. Now imagine your scenario if Doc borrowed that $10 million for you to spend on yearlings.

[Clip-Clop]

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43552

Are you talking about this report? Or some news outlets interpretation of this report?

This is not a raving success based on the numbers provided by the CBO. The value just isnt there.

[Clip-Clop]

It worked (econometric):

Feyrer and Sacerdote.

Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston.

Wilson.

It worked (modeling):

Congressional Budget Office.

Council of Economic Advisors.

Zandi and Blinder.

It worked a little bit (modeling):
Oh and Reis.

It didn’t work (econometric):
Conley and Dupor.

Taylor

This is the complete list from your article and post, not just the ones that support the outcome. It worked a little bit is OK to include in the overwhelming support group?
There are three listed in your defense that are clearly saying it didn't work. 11 say it did, based on this you need 2986 more to prove your metric.

[OldDog]

So now we've gone from "success" to merely "short-term success." I suppose if "creating or saving" 1.3 million to 3.5 million jobs at a cost of between $228,000 and $586,000 per job is "success," then yes, the stimulus was a smashing short-term success. Does the Ezra Klein operative Dylan Matthews get into that? Does the leftist, Soros-funded Center on Budget and Policy Priorities talk about that, or discuss the CBO’s take on the long-run impact of the stimulus:

In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, ARRA will reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates—by between zero and 0.2 percent after 2016. But CBO expects that the legislation will have no long-term effects on employment because the U.S. economy will have a high rate of use of its labor resources in the long run. ARRA’s long-run impact on the economy will stem primarily from the resulting increase in government debt.

To the extent that people hold their wealth in government securities rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt tends to reduce the stock of productive private capital. In the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital, CBO estimates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h_rDrd97sY
"a drag on the level of GDP..." because the stimulus was put, as the President likes to say about the war, "on a credit card."

Per the CBO report:

The rate of unemployment in the United States has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent. Compounding the problem of high unemployment, the share of unemployed people looking for work for more than six months—referred to as the long-term unemployed—topped 40 percent in December 2009 for the first time since 1948, when such data began to be collected; it has remained above that level ever since.

Back to Cannonshell's point,
"Last summer, Dylan Matthews reviewed the research on the stimulus for the Washington Post and dug up six studies that found a positive effect. Three of them were based on models that assume the stimulus worked. Three of them were supposedly empirical confirmations of this effect. These three all found that states (or counties) that got more stimulus money had stronger economic performances than places that received less.

But nobody denies that the federal government can shift the distribution of economic activity. If Congress were to give me $50 billion, I am sure car dealerships and liquor stores in my area would see an uptick in sales. That doesn’t mean the nation as a whole would come out ahead. (I am willing to go along with the experiment if Congress doubts this.)"
Obama’s Stimulus Helped Grow Debt, Not Economy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...h-ponnuru.html

[Danzig]

and as something i linked said, less than half of the economists surveyed said it would turn out to be worth it in the long run.
they don't know for sure. over half didn't even want to guess that it would. i doubt it turns out to have a good ROI long term.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and as something i linked said, less than half of the economists surveyed said it would turn out to be worth it in the long run.
they don't know for sure. over half didn't even want to guess that it would. i doubt it turns out to have a good ROI long term.

The stimulus is over. It's effect on the economy is over, and retroactively measurable and done.

Of course, if you quote stuff from 2 years ago ,- yeah, the end results "wait to be seen."

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

The stimulus is over. It's effect on the economy is over, and retroactively measurable and done.

Of course, if you quote stuff from 2 years ago ,- yeah, the end results "wait to be seen."

Could you please post the official results and the end ROI? I am still seeing projections etc.
Was hoping for a quantifiable result that shows just what a success this was for the money.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Could you please post the official results and the end ROI?

Could you please read what has been posted, rather than deliberately ignoring it and purposely being superficial and shallow?

You know, like that "end report" from the CBO that you pretend you are well awares of already, you have addressed and called false, but now are pretending doesn't exist?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Exactly. Now imagine your scenario if Doc borrowed that $10 million for you to spend on yearlings.

Dont give him any ideas