• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economists: The stimulus didn't help

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
29,954
Reaction score
13,735
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The recovery is picking up steam as employers boost payrolls, but economists think the government's stimulus package and jobs bill had little to do with the rebound, according to a survey released Monday.

In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years -- but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact.
Economists say the stimulus didn't help - Apr. 26, 2010

Surely to be followed by a "it wasn't big enough" response from the far left. A majority of economists believe that this debt monster failed to provide the boost that was promised.
 
NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act,

This does not mean the stimulus did not help. In fact, it suggests that the stimulus did something, since 27 % reported an effect.
 
FWIW, the NABE survey covered an issue far narrower than the headline might suggest. It dealt with employment. The survey did not solicit opinions on the overall macroeconomic impact of the stimulus, for which the IMF stated that it added 1 percentage point to GDP in its recently-released April 2010 World Economic Outlook.

From the summary:

The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately.

It should also be noted that even if one could not find a direct impact on hiring, there would be an indirect boost related to the overall macroeconomic impact (1 percentage point of GDP) of shoring up/strengthening aggregate demand, e.g., the increased aggregate demand would have reduced the rate of employment losses below what might otherwise have occurred.
 
73% "felt" the stimulus had no impact.

Opinion polls should be banned. From life.
 
Economists say the stimulus didn't help - Apr. 26, 2010

Surely to be followed by a "it wasn't big enough" response from the far left. A majority of economists believe that this debt monster failed to provide the boost that was promised.

FWIW, the NABE survey covered an issue far narrower than the headline might suggest. It dealt with employment. The survey did not solicit opinions on the overall macroeconomic impact of the stimulus, for which the IMF stated that it added 1 percentage point to GDP in its recently-released April 2010 World Economic Outlook.

From the summary:



It should also be noted that even if one could not find a direct impact on hiring, there would be an indirect boost related to the overall macroeconomic impact (1 percentage point of GDP) of shoring up/strengthening aggregate demand, e.g., the increased aggregate demand would have reduced the rate of employment losses below what might otherwise have occurred.

Well, by golly, you're right, Taylor, this leftie will be saying exactly that:

It wasn't big enough
 
obama promised unemployment would cap at 8%

there ya go

politics, at gut level, is so very simple

you can argue (LOL!) the economics of it all

but few will listen

and most all of them have already made up their minds

politically, there's no doubt---the stimulus was a failure

heck, the administration can't even use the word anymore

they universally refer to it as the recovery act

stimulus two was renamed, jobs bill

y'know, that's the one harrassed harry hemmed down to 16 baby billions

obama is the most incompetent politician at the national level america has ever produced
 
73% "felt" the stimulus had no impact.

Opinion polls should be banned. From life.

Except when they promote your cause of course.

After all, aren't you one of those folks that champion the "Consensus Science"? That's just an opinion poll...
 
Actually, this is a case of both sides being right. I was an economist, but I'm not anymore, so they didn't ask me. But no, it didn't have a very big impact. A few roads got paved and few people no doubt kept or got jobs, but the overall impact was not much. And yes, if they made it 5 trillion dollars it would have made an impact. But the larger issue is that the stimulus was just a terrible bang for the buck. It was a silly thing to do. And spending more would have been a bigger mistake.
 
obama promised unemployment would cap at 8%

You need to learn the difference between "projection", and "promise". Sorry to disrupt your mindless crying.
 
Actually, this is a case of both sides being right. I was an economist, but I'm not anymore, so they didn't ask me. But no, it didn't have a very big impact. A few roads got paved and few people no doubt kept or got jobs, but the overall impact was not much. And yes, if they made it 5 trillion dollars it would have made an impact. But the larger issue is that the stimulus was just a terrible bang for the buck. It was a silly thing to do. And spending more would have been a bigger mistake.

Well, now we've heard from a non-Keynseyan supposed ex-economist. Woohoo.
 
The stimulus obviously helped, but it helped government employees and unions mostly - as this poll indicates, the private sector had little use for it; the multiplier effect served to increase aggregate demand, as Don pointed out, but there is no way to accurately or precisely quantify that effect without making some assumptions and inferences.

To me, it was a poorly constructed spending project; it was nothing more than a slush fund for the private sector, really. A more targeted and temporary stimulus with a larger emphasis on tax breaks and private sector incentives would have worked better.
 
Well, now we've heard from a non-Keynseyan supposed ex-economist. Woohoo.

You call it whatever you want. I never bought into any econ camp. I was more interested in being right than having some silly label. And no matter how you label it, the stimulus was a dumb idea.
 
Well, now we've heard from a non-Keynseyan supposed ex-economist. Woohoo.

If only more economists were able to recognize the idiocy of Keynesian economics, we might not be in this mindless, consumptive cycle of asset bubbles and debt.

Keynesian economics certainly has its utility, but the liberals are simply in love with it, mostly without understanding its shortcomings; I see you're of that school.
 
Last edited:
I'm not surprised it didn't have much of an effect. I think the whole thing was to ensure that those super rich people and big ass companies didn't fail so they took our money and gave it to them. The rest of the crap was just show to try to make it look like government...including the democrats, have some form a responsibility to the people. But it was clear where all their responsibilities lies...with the corporation and the bank; not the people.
 
FWIW, the NABE survey covered an issue far narrower than the headline might suggest. It dealt with employment.
Job creation was a primary selling point of the stimulus.
The survey did not solicit opinions on the overall macroeconomic impact of the stimulus, for which the IMF stated that it added 1 percentage point to GDP in its recently-released April 2010 World Economic Outlook.
As you well know, you don't get something for nothing and gains in GDP now will come at a cost later when either Obama or the next president is forced to raise taxes to pay for this thing.

No jobs and lower GDP in the long run.
 
Job creation was a primary selling point of the stimulus.

As you well know, you don't get something for nothing and gains in GDP now will come at a cost later when either Obama or the next president is forced to raise taxes to pay for this thing.

No jobs and lower GDP in the long run.

This is the main failing of Keynesian economics, i.e., it is overly concerned with short run economic conditions - it fails utterly in the long run.
 

LOL!

How about

LOL!

we look at the

LOL!

actual

source

LOL!

http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

Thus, we are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.1

The words "estimate", and "predict" are used frequently in the report.

LOL!
 
Job creation was a primary selling point of the stimulus.

It was. I don't think there's any doubt that the magnitude of the economic decline and related job destruction were underestimated.

As you well know, you don't get something for nothing and gains in GDP now will come at a cost later when either Obama or the next president is forced to raise taxes to pay for this thing.

No jobs and lower GDP in the long run.

That's why fiscal consolidation will be so important going forward. The bias toward accommodation has contributed to cyclical deficits being transformed into structural ones.

Taken by itself, the contribution to national debt from the fiscal stimulus is relatively small compared to the imbalances associated with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The nation will need to develop and implement a credible fiscal consolidation program once the economic recovery has been sustained. IMO, 2011 is a good time to start the fiscal consolidation effort.

A credible fiscal consolidation effort will require reforming the mandatory spending programs. Social Security will need to be reformed (lower benefits, much of which could be achieved over a gradual period during which benefits would be increased by CPI less 1%, raising the retirement age and then pegging it to life expectancy, and a modest increase in payroll taxes to cover any remaining imbalance). Medicare and Medicaid will also need to be addressed. That will require far-reaching health reform that addresses the nation's excessive health cost problem. Some degree of means-testing, among other measures, will likely be required for a restructuring of Medicare.

Although some tax hikes will very likely be necessary, it will be important for policy makers to avoid excessive tax hikes that could undermine long-term economic growth. Per the IMF, probably somewhere in the vicinity of two-thirds of the fiscal imbalances should probably be addressed via spending-related reforms (and I have little disagreement with the IMF's suggestion that the emphasis be placed on spending reductions, as spending growth in the mandatory spending programs is at the heart of the fiscal imbalances) with the rest coming from revenue-raising measures.
 
Last edited:
Economists say the stimulus didn't help - Apr. 26, 2010

Surely to be followed by a "it wasn't big enough" response from the far left. A majority of economists believe that this debt monster failed to provide the boost that was promised.

Before I even read this piece I want to know what kind of jackass 'economist' would even make that assertion less than five years in *and* before the entire package has been put into effect.

Are they making predictions or committing professional suicide by rendering a final opinion no legitimate economist would make this early?
 
I don't know if the stimulus had an effect, but I don't trust these people. They work for private sector firms. The private sector is happy to receive bail-out money, but unhappy with anything else.
 
Before I even read this piece I want to know what kind of jackass 'economist' would even make that assertion less than five years in *and* before the entire package has been put into effect.

Are they making predictions or committing professional suicide by rendering a final opinion no legitimate economist would make this early?

Well, one turd predicted unemployment would go above 9% if the stimuli wasn't passed.

And a big smelly one emerged from Congress.

Predickshun failt.

.
 
1984 said:
This is the main failing of Keynesian economics, i.e., it is overly concerned with short run economic conditions - it fails utterly in the long run.

In America's defense though, they didn't learn their lesson with the New Deal, so they were bound to keep repeating mistakes of the past. Any classicist could see that you were on the verge of creating a dependent nanny state unless you repealed many of the legislative highlights after they stopped being absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, they couldn't distinguish between short-term recovery and long-term wealth.

Now the problem you have is from these neo-Keynesian liberal blowhards who have absolutely no conceptual vision on scarcity and run massive fiscal recycling programs through big-tent policies.

And if you need further proof that throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily mean it goes away, take a look at the American public school system. Damning evidence as far as the eye can see.
 
Are they making predictions or committing professional suicide by rendering a final opinion no legitimate economist would make this early?

They work for the private sector and understand polls influence public policy.

I can think of lots of things that should influence public policy. Polls are not high on the list.
 
Back
Top Bottom