Here comes the other economic shoe dropping...

[Gerald McGrew]

Basically the point is this...

The best available data and modeling indicates that the stimulus created or saved around 2.7 million jobs. Multiple surveys show that the majority of leading economists agree.

If the only rebuttal to that is, "But that's a model, not data", then the point stands. I'm not going to go down another "but you used this word, not that one" endless rabbit hole.

[Tyrannical]

If you consider a model as an algorithm and data it's input, you can skew the results any old way based on your model.

Of course you can. That doesn't therefore mean that all modeling is biased or useless.

It's intellectually lazy to reject a model output simply because you don't like the result.

No, but all modeling is only as good as the accuracy of the data and model, and the model is most likely to have bias.

[Coito ergo sum]

Basically the point is this...

The best available data and modeling indicates that the stimulus created or saved around 2.7 million jobs. Multiple surveys show that the majority of leading economists agree.

It doesn't indicate that, as the chairman of the CBO, Elmendorf, said flat out. See above.

If the only rebuttal to that is, "But that's a model, not data", then the point stands. I'm not going to go down another "but you used this word, not that one" endless rabbit hole.

Blah blah blah. You just want to believe it, and refuse to brook any doubt on the subject.

The analysis used by the White House in coming up with that figure was economic modeling to estimate the number of jobs created or saved. The model they used assumed that government spending will have a positive multiplier effect on the economy. Voilà — the stimulus created jobs! Assumed! They didn't SHOW it. They didn't collect data. They ran a program based on assumptions of what the stimulus dollars should have done if the government spending's multiplier effect really came to reality. But, they never analyzed whether it actually came to reality.

Translation: It's fucking bullshit. But, since they just declare the assumptions and model to be correct, and run the numbers based on whatever they want to type into the computer -- not based on actual data compiled from looking at the real world -- it can only be rebutted by the statement: you pulled those numbers out of thin air.

[Coito ergo sum]

Gas prices more than double under Obama: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gasolin ... ma-184-385

[Gerald McGrew]

It doesn't indicate that, as the chairman of the CBO, Elmendorf, said flat out. See above.

First, you're still doing the creationist "But one guy disagrees, therefore I can reject all of it" thing. Second, you're mixing up studies. The CBO report and the Zandi-Blinder report are not the same thing. Other economists have also confirmed their results (e.g. Feyrer and Sacerdote). And as the article I linked to pointed out, Zandi and Blinder are not partisan (Zandi was a McCain supporter).

Blah blah blah. You just want to believe it, and refuse to brook any doubt on the subject.

No, I have the data to support my position. You're trying to find ways to wave it away because you don't like the results.

The analysis used by the White House in coming up with that figure

Um, I haven't cited the President's Council of Economic Advisers report (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... report.pdf). Again, the study I cited was conducted by independent economists.

Translation: It's fucking bullshit. But, since they just declare the assumptions and model to be correct, and run the numbers based on whatever they want to type into the computer -- not based on actual data compiled from looking at the real world -- it can only be rebutted by the statement: you pulled those numbers out of thin air.

Of course it is. It has to be, because stimulus spending never works. QED.

[Coito ergo sum]

It doesn't indicate that, as the chairman of the CBO, Elmendorf, said flat out. See above.

First, you're still doing the creationist "But one guy disagrees, therefore I can reject all of it" thing. Second, you're mixing up studies. The CBO report and the Zandi-Blinder report are not the same thing. Other economists have also confirmed their results (e.g. Feyrer and Sacerdote). And as the article I linked to pointed out, Zandi and Blinder are not partisan (Zandi was a McCain supporter).

Those reports that confirmed the CBO report are based on the same assumptions, and NOT BASED ON data pulled from the real world.

And, it's not "one" economist. It's a difference in entire schools of thought. Hundreds. James Buchanan is another one -- he one the Nobel Price in Economics in 1986.

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/up ... _wpost.pdf

Blah blah blah. You just want to believe it, and refuse to brook any doubt on the subject.

No, I have the data to support my position. You're trying to find ways to wave it away because you don't like the results.

The analysis used by the White House in coming up with that figure

Um, I haven't cited the President's Council of Economic Advisers report (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... report.pdf). Again, the study I cited was conducted by independent economists.

Translation: It's fucking bullshit. But, since they just declare the assumptions and model to be correct, and run the numbers based on whatever they want to type into the computer -- not based on actual data compiled from looking at the real world -- it can only be rebutted by the statement: you pulled those numbers out of thin air.

Of course it is. It has to be, because stimulus spending never works. QED.

Analysis I described is what the Council of Economic Advisers did! They "assume" it works. They didn't provide or examine any data -- none -- showing that it worked, much less 2.7 million jobs "saved or created." That is an ASSUMPTION asserted as fact.

[Gerald McGrew]

Those reports that confirmed the CBO report are based on the same assumptions,

No, they're not, and they didn't even measure the effect the same way. For example, the Zandi-Blinder study modeled four different scenarios and measured the results based on aggregate demand and changes in aggregate supply. The CBO study was based on assumed economic multipliers for federal spending (e.g. federal money to states for infrastructure was assumed to have a multiplier of 1-2.5). The multipliers were based on previous post-policy analyses. The President's Council used multipliers for one estimate, and a comparison of forecast (without stimulus) conditions to actual for another. The Feyrer-Sacerdote study used three other methods.

and NOT BASED ON data pulled from the real world.

I have a feeling you haven't bothered to actually read the studies. The ones I cite above are indeed based real-world data (demand-supply, federal spending, actual employment numbers). Further, the Zandi-Blinder study was a confirmation of a predictive model Zandi developed prior to the stimulus. After the stimulus was enacted and had time to take effect, they checked their predictions against what actually occurred and the results were extremely similar.

And, it's not "one" economist. It's a difference in entire schools of thought. Hundreds. James Buchanan is another one -- he one the Nobel Price in Economics in 1986.

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/up ... _wpost.pdf

Really? You're going to go full-on creationist, aren't you?

This is just like when I post data and studies to creationists, and they respond with the "Dissent from Darwin" list, which like the above, is an ideological declaration rather than a direct rebuttal to the data presented.

I would say, "Nice try", but this doesn't even warrant that. Pretty pathetic, actually.

Analysis I described is what the Council of Economic Advisers did! They "assume" it works. They didn't provide or examine any data -- none -- showing that it worked, much less 2.7 million jobs "saved or created." That is an ASSUMPTION asserted as fact.

You're totally wrong. As I pointed out, the study by the President's CEA used two different methods. The first was based on multipliers, the second was a comparison between actual GDP and employment after the stimulus was passed, and what economists had predicted previously. Notice that "actual GDP and employment" part? That's what we call "data".

It's time for you to stop digging dude.

[laklak]

7.7% in January 2009, 8.1% August 2012. After the stimulus. After the money printing orgy.

Explain to me again (I'm really, really stupid), how this can be considered successful.

[Coito ergo sum]

7.7% in January 2009, 8.1% August 2012. After the stimulus. After the money printing orgy.

Explain to me again (I'm really, really stupid), how this can be considered successful.

Because Bush destroyed the economy so bad that if we didn't do the Stimulus then the Great Depression would have been renamed the Meh Bout of Melancholy in comparison to what would most certainly have happened....

[Ian]

Not a bad assessment.

[laklak]

[Ian]

Economy's been in positive territory for over three years. Employment rising. Wars ending. Inflation and interest rates low. Housing market heading back up. Record corporate profits. Stock market nearly doubled since early 2009.

Conservatives still manage to see a mess, and no more than five minutes in front of their face. I see long-term trend lines looking pretty good.

[Coito ergo sum]

Economy's been in positive territory for over three years. Employment rising.

And, of course, your assessment of the first 6 years of the Bush Administration is just as glowing....

Wars ending.

Err.... Afghanistan was expanded, and we've gone into Libya and smaller incursions into other countries... other than Iraq -- what the heck is "ending?" And, Iraq ended on the same damn timeline as it would have under McCain.

Inflation and interest rates low.

Bullshit. The stuff people buy every day is going through the roof. Do you go to the grocery store? Real inflation rate is 8% -- http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/p ... jxAs0bkVnO

Housing market heading back up.

In some parts of the country, but not in general, yet. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/20 ... e-decline/ Housing prices and sales continue to decline.

Record corporate profits. Stock market nearly doubled since early 2009.

That's from quantitative easing -- the stock market is doubling on smoke and mirrors. That isn't a good thing. It's a bubble.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/20 ... e-decline/

Conservatives still manage to see a mess, and no more than five minutes in front of their face. I see long-term trend lines looking pretty good.

You're selling yourself snake oil. Nothing about the present economy is good. This is the weakest recovery on record -- ever. We've had anemic growth for 3 years, just barely keeping out of recession territory. Employment growth has sucked, bad, and mostly the unemployment rate goes down because people drop out of the job market. We only have like 63% labor participation rate now. That is abysmally low. Unemployment for college graduates is the worst it has been in living memory. Gas prices have doubled.

The fact that Bernanke just announced an unlimited renewal of Quantitative Easing means they were very concerned that we were about to dip back into a recession. If the economy was looking up, why would they announce printing another few hundred billion dollars of new money?

Median household income continues to drop precipitously.

[Gerald McGrew]

Let's face it. Those corporations and billionaires who are sitting on record piles of cash would hire more workers if only they had just a little more money and the gov't would let them pollute more!

[Gerald McGrew]

7.7% in January 2009, 8.1% August 2012. After the stimulus. After the money printing orgy.

Explain to me again (I'm really, really stupid), how this can be considered successful.

Let's see...

Obama was sworn in on Jan. 21, 2009, so we can't really blame him for that month. Also, the data shows the economy was in a free-fall by that point, so I'm not sure what folks expected an incoming president and Congress to do to reverse that trend within a 2 months (federal economic policies don't work that fast). However, we can look at the jobs picture and see what's been going on since the Bush Recession...



So by April of 2009, a mere 3 months after Obama was sworn in, the free fall was subsiding and a year later the economy was back to adding private jobs. where it has stayed ever since. Now, I will absolutely agree that this isn't exactly a strong recovery...in fact it's rather weak and tenuous. But given the absolute obstructionism of Congress, and the GOP's willingness to tank the economy in order to win the White House, I'd say it's about what should be expected.