Consenus of top economic research firms: Stimulus added 1.6-1.8 million jobs

[Lief 🗽]

...and Republicans continue to stick their fingers in their ears and lie

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lunar]

700 billion could pay for 14 million people to each receive $50k last year, funny enough, heh.


Not that that means anything

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I was in favor and would have voted for the stimulus, but I thought it was too light and the wrong mix.

We need to be doing things like mandating new cars move to natural gas, building a natural gas refueling infrastructure.  Building 50 new nuke power plants by 2020 so that we can move to electric cars when battery technology becomes cheaper....in other words, if you're going to spend money, spend money on things that will keep a good portion of $700B we spend every year on foreign oil....spend money in the short term to help the private sector over the long run, don't spend it to increase the size of government over the long run.

[Meeker]

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the most valuable thing Obama has done is staying the course on attempting to save the financial system.  "bailouts" are never popular, and you don't get credit for helping to divert a disaster most people can not imagine, but they were necessary else we would have lost the banks just like we did during the Great Depression.   Even as far back as Sept/Oct 2008, the Democrats have been the adults willing to do what is necessary (though the Republicans did manage enough votes after the Dow lost 777 points in a single day in reaction to the House initially rejecting TARP on the first round of voting).

[Lief 🗽]

the most valuable thing Obama has done is staying the course on attempting to save the financial system.  "bailouts" are never popular, and you don't get credit for helping to divert a disaster most people can not imagine, but they were necessary else we would have lost the banks just like we did during the Great Depression.   Even as far back as Sept/Oct 2008, the Democrats have been the adults willing to do what is necessary (though the Republicans did manage enough votes after the Dow lost 777 points in a single day in reaction to the House initially rejecting TARP on the first round of voting).

Too bad the adults are going to be punished in November and the children rewarded.

[CultureKing]

the most valuable thing Obama has done is staying the course on attempting to save the financial system.  "bailouts" are never popular, and you don't get credit for helping to divert a disaster most people can not imagine, but they were necessary else we would have lost the banks just like we did during the Great Depression.   Even as far back as Sept/Oct 2008, the Democrats have been the adults willing to do what is necessary (though the Republicans did manage enough votes after the Dow lost 777 points in a single day in reaction to the House initially rejecting TARP on the first round of voting).

Too bad the adults are going to be punished in November and the children rewarded.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the most valuable thing Obama has done is staying the course on attempting to save the financial system.  "bailouts" are never popular, and you don't get credit for helping to divert a disaster most people can not imagine, but they were necessary else we would have lost the banks just like we did during the Great Depression.   Even as far back as Sept/Oct 2008, the Democrats have been the adults willing to do what is necessary (though the Republicans did manage enough votes after the Dow lost 777 points in a single day in reaction to the House initially rejecting TARP on the first round of voting).

Too bad the adults are going to be punished in November and the children rewarded.

actually, that's going to work out well since now that we have maxed out the credit cards fighting a five alarm fire, in 2011 we'll need to tighten our belts and stop spending money. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Oh well.. must be wrong then. Back to the drawing board anyone?

[opebo]

actually, that's going to work out well since now that we have maxed out the credit cards fighting a five alarm fire, in 2011 we'll need to tighten our belts and stop spending money.  

Aside from the extremely dubiousness of the notion that the 'children' spend less than the 'adults', it is also wrong to suggest that we should 'tighten our belts and stop spending money'.  If the Keynesian theory works then we should continue spending until we have reached something fairly close to 'full employment'.  We're still rather a long way from that, even leaving aside the many other demand-sapping policies congruent with that 'belt-tightening', such as inequality, lack of security, etc.

No, I'm afraid that the rationale for belt tightening is still about 2 trillion away in terms of increased spending and about 1.5 trillion away in terms of taxation.

[Torie]

If you love creating more (or staunching the reduction of) public sector employee jobs, at a very high price per job to boot, well then the Stimulus Bill was a smashing success. If creating private sector jobs (or "saving" them), at a reasonable price is you bag, well then your mileage may vary. In any event, it ain't cheap; it's well, a High Price of Job Creation scheme.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If you love creating more (or staunching the reduction of) public sector employee jobs, at a very high price per job to boot, well then the Stimulus Bill was a smashing success. If creating private sector jobs (or "saving" them), at a reasonable price is you bag, well then your mileage may vary. In any event, it ain't cheap; it's well, a High Price of Job Creation scheme.

agreed, the stimulus could have been much more effective and transformational...the way it was structured was nothing more than a bandaid

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

If you love creating more (or staunching the reduction of) public sector employee jobs, at a very high price per job to boot, well then the Stimulus Bill was a smashing success. If creating private sector jobs (or "saving" them), at a reasonable price is you bag, well then your mileage may vary. In any event, it ain't cheap; it's well, a High Price of Job Creation scheme.

agreed, the stimulus could have been much more effective and transformational...the way it was structured was nothing more than a bandaid

many top economists think that the stimulus should have been 1 trillion to 1.4 trillion. In any event more can be added to the stimulus and not all the money has been spent and thus new programs can be created. Right now the administration wants to direct more stimulus spending towards the building of roads, and infrastructure. This part of the package will have a higher multiplier effect because it has a positive effect on opportunity cost. As of yet most of the spending has gone towards tax credits and other projects, while only 37 billion has gone towards infrastructure.

The stimulus originally target non-infrastructure programs because of policy lag.

[Beet]

Disagree....

there are lot of questionable things about the particulars of the stimulus, but two extremely unfair arguments have been made about Obama and jobs.

The first is that it's the government's duty to be responsible for private sector job creation. This is a physical impossibility. The private sector is responsible for private sector job creation! You can't have it both ways and argue on one hand that the government should stay out of the economy, and on the other hand argue that the government should "create" jobs. At very least it's poor wording, but it's much more than that. The canard about how millions of jobs would be created if the government just kept cutting taxes and spending and committing to Republican do-nothingism (conviently phrased as "removing uncertainty", as if that were possible in anything [hint: it's not.) is complete baloney. The government can cut itself into nothing, and we would still be losing jobs because we're facing a depressionary environment, or at least were in 2009.

The automatic elevation of private sector jobs as 'worthy' and public sector jobs as 'unworthy' is also bull. The Lehman Bros. derivatives gambler is private sector. The New Century loan officer is private sector. The guy at WaMu who snorted speed at his disk was private sector. Meanwhile, the DOD scientists who invented DARPA were in the public sector. The workers who built the Interstate Highway system were public sector. The workers who built the Boulder Dam were public sector.

If you want private sector jobs, don't look at Obama. Look at around your neighborhood or town. Look at the executives in the S&P 500, who control $1 trillion in savings. If your political rhetoric is one of free markets, then have some faith in them. Anything else is sheer hypocrisy.

The other extremely unfair argument, even more mind boggling stupid than the other one, is assigning to the stimulus all aggregate data that has occured since the stimulus passed. That's like saying the Boulder Dam contributes to pushing water downstream because since it's been built, billions of tons of water have flowed downstream. The scientist who tries to tell you it's a dam and actually holds back water has no clue what he's talking about.

[Lief 🗽]

If you love creating more (or staunching the reduction of) public sector employee jobs, at a very high price per job to boot, well then the Stimulus Bill was a smashing success. If creating private sector jobs (or "saving" them), at a reasonable price is you bag, well then your mileage may vary. In any event, it ain't cheap; it's well, a High Price of Job Creation scheme.

Well, considering a third of the stimulus was tax cuts (and the the part of the stimulus that is still being spent is public works investment and the like, NOT tax cuts), I guess this proves that the GOP's TAX CUTS!1!1! = JOBS!!!1 propaganda is full of shit.

[ARescan]

Should we find the long list of University Economic professors who disagree with this? Hell Glenn Beck even has it! I'm sure we can find it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If you love creating more (or staunching the reduction of) public sector employee jobs, at a very high price per job to boot, well then the Stimulus Bill was a smashing success. If creating private sector jobs (or "saving" them), at a reasonable price is you bag, well then your mileage may vary. In any event, it ain't cheap; it's well, a High Price of Job Creation scheme.

agreed, the stimulus could have been much more effective and transformational...the way it was structured was nothing more than a bandaid

many top economists think that the stimulus should have been 1 trillion to 1.4 trillion. In any event more can be added to the stimulus and not all the money has been spent and thus new programs can be created. Right now the administration wants to direct more stimulus spending towards the building of roads, and infrastructure. This part of the package will have a higher multiplier effect because it has a positive effect on opportunity cost. As of yet most of the spending has gone towards tax credits and other projects, while only 37 billion has gone towards infrastructure.

The stimulus originally target non-infrastructure programs because of policy lag.

yeah, they were dumb...many were calling for much higher infrastructure spending at the time.  

[Electric Feel]

We should have used the recession to initiate a radical reinvestment in infrastructure, modernizing America and creating a post-industrial nation that would impress the world. We should have been exploring new technologies and advanced transportation systems and revamping our water distribution networks and building more public universities and fixing our education systems. Missed opportunity, I'd say- but maybe we can advance our nation under better economic times, too.

[Torie]

Disagree....

there are lot of questionable things about the particulars of the stimulus, but two extremely unfair arguments have been made about Obama and jobs.

The first is that it's the government's duty to be responsible for private sector job creation. This is a physical impossibility. The private sector is responsible for private sector job creation! You can't have it both ways and argue on one hand that the government should stay out of the economy, and on the other hand argue that the government should "create" jobs. At very least it's poor wording, but it's much more than that. The canard about how millions of jobs would be created if the government just kept cutting taxes and spending and committing to Republican do-nothingism (conviently phrased as "removing uncertainty", as if that were possible in anything [hint: it's not.) is complete baloney. The government can cut itself into nothing, and we would still be losing jobs because we're facing a depressionary environment, or at least were in 2009.

The automatic elevation of private sector jobs as 'worthy' and public sector jobs as 'unworthy' is also bull. The Lehman Bros. derivatives gambler is private sector. The New Century loan officer is private sector. The guy at WaMu who snorted speed at his disk was private sector. Meanwhile, the DOD scientists who invented DARPA were in the public sector. The workers who built the Interstate Highway system were public sector. The workers who built the Boulder Dam were public sector.

If you want private sector jobs, don't look at Obama. Look at around your neighborhood or town. Look at the executives in the S&P 500, who control $1 trillion in savings. If your political rhetoric is one of free markets, then have some faith in them. Anything else is sheer hypocrisy.

The other extremely unfair argument, even more mind boggling stupid than the other one, is assigning to the stimulus all aggregate data that has occured since the stimulus passed. That's like saying the Boulder Dam contributes to pushing water downstream because since it's been built, billions of tons of water have flowed downstream. The scientist who tries to tell you it's a dam and actually holds back water has no clue what he's talking about.

Well one thing about public versus public employees, is that the public pays for public employees. About a third of the stimulus money I have read went to local governments, largely to keep their own public employees employed (often at above market wages with pension plans that are out of control). Government is responsible for doing things to manage economic growth in the private sector, and while you might think supply side is nonsense Beet, many economists disagree with you. When it is appropriate, and when not, and at what tax rates, is of course open to reasonable discussion. Probably the single best way to create jobs, or stimulate hiring, would have been to slash the employer contribution to FICA for a period, because that reduces the cost of hiring. Many liberal economists have favored that, but it was not done, because of the pressure of Dem constituencies to divert money to keeping public employees on the payroll.

So anyway, I respectfully disagree with your opinion in large part.

[Vepres]

If you love creating more (or staunching the reduction of) public sector employee jobs, at a very high price per job to boot, well then the Stimulus Bill was a smashing success. If creating private sector jobs (or "saving" them), at a reasonable price is you bag, well then your mileage may vary. In any event, it ain't cheap; it's well, a High Price of Job Creation scheme.

Well, considering a third of the stimulus was tax cuts (and the the part of the stimulus that is still being spent is public works investment and the like, NOT tax cuts), I guess this proves that the GOP's TAX CUTS!1!1! = JOBS!!!1 propaganda is full of shit.

He didn't endorse the tax cuts, he just said the Government cannot provide sustained job growth, only temporary growth.

[rdouty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

I understand that everyone has probably seen this video, but it is necessary. Understand the Keynesian and Austrian views because it is very similar to today's debate.

There are two economists who I highly respect that are against the stimulus: Robert Barro and John Cochrane.

Barro, in his paper on the miscalculation of the government spending multiplier, represents the inefficient spending view.
John Cochrane takes a purely long run versus short run approach. Of course government stimulus can help spur economic demand, but in the long run investment and aggregate supply will decrease. I thought this was taught in every introductory economics class?