Is the media unrealistically negative over the impact of government stimulus?

[Beet]

The Associated Press seems to be going crazy over an Administration report that 30k jobs have been saved by the stimulus so far. They did an aggressive fact check and said the number was really more like 25k. The Administration is coming back tommorrow with a new report (which they would have done anyway, as they were already aware the initial data was incomplete and would have to be updated) but the AP is hammering this story again today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091029/ap_on_bi_ge/us_stimulus_jobs

Ok, the difference between 25k and 30k is not that significant.
Secondly, this stimulus package is projected to save or create over 1 million before it's completed by virtually every group that has done an estimate of this. The number of concrete jobs that can be identified thus far in a very early partial count is therefore beside the point. If the number of jobs saved is either 25k or 30k when all is said and done, the stimulus is definitely a failure, but that's not so. So who cares if this count is 25k or 30k? But it's an excuse for the AP for another negative story.

Then there's this MSN story saying "Cash for Clunkers cost $24,000 per car".
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=1341914&_blg=1,1341914

They got this number by dividing the total cost of Cash for Clunkers with the number of cars sold which they argue otherwise would not have been sold by CoC according to trend. Of course, this goes against the previous negative story about CoC was that it didn't actually generate any new sales, just pushed forward sales. But let's leave that for another day. Clearly, this is a specious calculation because part of the gain from Cash for Clunkers is that everyone who qualified for the program got the rebate! That's true even if they would have traded in their car anyway. You can't just say that the money that they got doesn't count because they would have done it anyway. It's still real money.

------------------------

To be clear, I think the media is often too positive when it comes to the economy in general. But the media is often too negative, IMO, when it comes to the effects of the stimulus.

[Marokai Backbeat]

America often has random and inconsistent hostility towards anything involving the government. This is reflected by the media often times and amplified by the fact that the media is controlled by a handful of powerful corporations.

[k-onmmunist]

America often has random and inconsistent hostility towards anything involving the government. This is reflected by the media often times and amplified by the fact that the media is controlled by a handful of powerful corporations.

Probably because government is inefficient with dealing in the economy, with a few exceptions such as the TVA.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

America often has random and inconsistent hostility towards anything involving the government. This is reflected by the media often times and amplified by the fact that the media is controlled by a handful of powerful corporations.

Probably because government is inefficient with dealing in the economy, with a few exceptions such as the TVA.

Despite what how it may seem when I fight with Einzige,  I actually agree that in many instances the Gov't is very inefficient but there are still some where they do a damn good job.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

No, the government media is not "unrealistically negative over the impact of government stimulus". Talk about biting the hand that feeds you...

[jokerman]

I don't think any Keynesian economist ever said that a weak $700 billion stimulus would be enough to fix the economy, including the ones who work for the President.  It has kept unemployment from reaching >12% however.

[Beet]

The main problem with the stimulus is that there are too many temporary measures. If consumer spending is really retrenching long term due to debt problems, temporary "stimulus" isn't the right way to go about it.

A permanent expansion of government 'intrusion' into the economy, with long term oriented investment projects designed to benefit the US over decades, is what is required.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I don't think any Keynesian economist ever said that a weak $700 billion stimulus would be enough to fix the economy, including the ones who work for the President.  It has kept unemployment from reaching >12% however.

As a rule, Keynesian economists are always wrong.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I don't think any Keynesian economist ever said that a weak $700 billion stimulus would be enough to fix the economy, including the ones who work for the President.  It has kept unemployment from reaching >12% however.

As a rule, Keynesian economists are always wrong.

Well that sorts that out then.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The main problem with the stimulus is that there are too many temporary measures. If consumer spending is really retrenching long term due to debt problems, temporary "stimulus" isn't the right way to go about it.

A permanent expansion of government 'intrusion' into the economy, with long term oriented investment projects designed to benefit the US over decades, is what is required.

Right, more of what got us into this mess will get us out of it...makes perfect sense.

[k-onmmunist]

Even Keynes was less extreme than governments in the 1950s and 60s were... Keynes only supported deficit spending during times of recession, not as a government policy through booms too.

[Beet]

The main problem with the stimulus is that there are too many temporary measures. If consumer spending is really retrenching long term due to debt problems, temporary "stimulus" isn't the right way to go about it.

A permanent expansion of government 'intrusion' into the economy, with long term oriented investment projects designed to benefit the US over decades, is what is required.

Right, more of what got us into this mess will get us out of it...makes perfect sense.

Yes, if we had gotten into this mess precisely 35 years ago, you would be correct. However, in the interim, this has happened:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1466397368167658753&ei=2mXrSuzEIcn5lAfcvti5CA&q=pbs+commanding+heights&hl=en#

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/

Winston: Deficit spending during boom times is not a good idea.

[k-onmmunist]

Winston: Deficit spending during boom times is not a good idea.

I know, but there seem to be several people on here who think it is.

[opebo]

No,

1) Keynesian economists are almost always right,
2) The government is no more or less efficient at dealing with the economy than the 'private' (and anyway the dichotomy is largely false)
3) There was no deficit spending to speak of in the 50s and 60s.
4) and whatever was going on the 50s and 60s was correct policy.

[k-onmmunist]

No,

1) Keynesian economists are almost always right, wrong.
2) The government is no more or less efficient at dealing with the economy than the 'private' (and anyway the dichotomy is largely false)
3) There was no deficit spending to speak of in the 50s and 60s.
4) and whatever was going on the 50s and 60s was correct policy.

Oh dear. You don't appear to be right about much.

[opebo]

Oh dear. You don't appear to be right about much.

The fact that you believe there's a 'right' answer about something like this shows incredible naivety.  How old are you btw?