CBO: Obama Stimulus Package Added 3.3 Million Jobs
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:26:01 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  CBO: Obama Stimulus Package Added 3.3 Million Jobs
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: CBO: Obama Stimulus Package Added 3.3 Million Jobs  (Read 6455 times)
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2011, 11:25:12 AM »
« edited: November 23, 2011, 11:29:03 AM by Link »

Even taking the CBO numbers as gospel, that's over $240,000 per job!  Not exactly a number to be crowing about.

After the stimulus the appetite for US government debt increased and our borrowing costs dropped to an all time low.  How would you like the CBO to adjust its numbers?



Of course there is high appetite for treasuries they are seen as not having a default risk. That has no bearing on the criticism I just made.

People that buy treasuries would have bought some other asset if the supply wasn't increased so much. The CBO doesn't acknowledge that this most basic fact is true.

I just don't understand how the current activities in the bond market post stimulus invalidate the CBOs numbers.

What he is saying is that if the money used to buy $800 billion of treasuries had been used for other purposes, it would have created jobs as well.  And considering that the CBO numbers have each of those stimulus provided jobs costing so much I find it hard to believe it couldn't have done as good a job at creating jobs elsewhere.

Nailed it. But I'm more than willing to go through this from a capital flow perspective and show indisputably that this has to be the case.

Interest rates aka the price of money has absolutely zero to do with understanding this issue. All the interest rate shows is the risk free rate + duration + default risk. The price of money doesn't change the available capital for particular capital expenditures. It just shows the demand for one fixed income asset class vs. another.

Mighty big "if," True Federalist.  Let's see what the stimulatory investments the private sector has been making with the capital it does have...





Maybe they are building up cash positions because they are afraid they may not have access to the capital markets...



nope.  Looks like the quality corporates have access to all the capital any of them would reasonably need.  I am baffled by all the crowing I've been hearing for months about how we need tax breaks for "job creators" and corporates are being "crowded out."  I would say the same thing to corporates and 1%ers that I would say to a three year old with a big slice of cake.  Finish what you have first and then we will see if you need more.  Colgate and P&G have had no problems funding themselves with 3 year bond deals priced at 0.6%.  I keep reading about corporates doing record breaking bond deals and at the same time people are saying they are getting crowded out of the bond market?!    If your business can't turn a profit with financing costs of 0.6%, blame yourself.



Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 23, 2011, 11:33:18 AM »

I've generally taken CBO estimates with a grain of salt.  Each side trots them out when it suits them and the numbers don't always hold up.  Not that the calculations are wrong or malicious or biased...just that $hit happens and modeling that stuff is inherently tricky.

That said...Sun Myung Moon's single ply is a reliable source but Politico is not...I guess reliable now means...agrees with ALLCAPSNAME, eh?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 23, 2011, 11:40:14 AM »

How many of them were not associated with state and local governments retaining employees with federal checks, which when they stopped, resulted in layoffs, as is the case now?  Is this a truly net number, not offset by losses elsewhere due to government activity?  What assumptions were made?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2011, 11:43:54 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh really?  Interesting. Tongue
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 23, 2011, 12:13:13 PM »

Even taking the CBO numbers as gospel, that's over $240,000 per job!  Not exactly a number to be crowing about.

After the stimulus the appetite for US government debt increased and our borrowing costs dropped to an all time low.  How would you like the CBO to adjust its numbers?



Of course there is high appetite for treasuries they are seen as not having a default risk. That has no bearing on the criticism I just made.

People that buy treasuries would have bought some other asset if the supply wasn't increased so much. The CBO doesn't acknowledge that this most basic fact is true.

I just don't understand how the current activities in the bond market post stimulus invalidate the CBOs numbers.

What he is saying is that if the money used to buy $800 billion of treasuries had been used for other purposes, it would have created jobs as well.  And considering that the CBO numbers have each of those stimulus provided jobs costing so much I find it hard to believe it couldn't have done as good a job at creating jobs elsewhere.

Nailed it. But I'm more than willing to go through this from a capital flow perspective and show indisputably that this has to be the case.

Interest rates aka the price of money has absolutely zero to do with understanding this issue. All the interest rate shows is the risk free rate + duration + default risk. The price of money doesn't change the available capital for particular capital expenditures. It just shows the demand for one fixed income asset class vs. another.

Mighty big "if," True Federalist.  Let's see what the stimulatory investments the private sector has been making with the capital it does have...





Maybe they are building up cash positions because they are afraid they may not have access to the capital markets...



nope.  Looks like the quality corporates have access to all the capital any of them would reasonably need.  I am baffled by all the crowing I've been hearing for months about how we need tax breaks for "job creators" and corporates are being "crowded out."  I would say the same thing to corporates and 1%ers that I would say to a three year old with a big slice of cake.  Finish what you have first and then we will see if you need more.  Colgate and P&G have had no problems funding themselves with 3 year bond deals priced at 0.6%.  I keep reading about corporates doing record breaking bond deals and at the same time people are saying they are getting crowded out of the bond market?!    If your business can't turn a profit with financing costs of 0.6%, blame yourself.





Again you don't understand the concept of the marginal dollar or marginal investor. And when I offered to explain it you clearly are passing so what do you expect.

Or do you just prefer to post ignorant posts and hope that I don't actually show why everything you just posted is meaningless.
Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 23, 2011, 03:56:06 PM »

I've generally taken CBO estimates with a grain of salt.  Each side trots them out when it suits them and the numbers don't always hold up.  Not that the calculations are wrong or malicious or biased...just that $hit happens and modeling that stuff is inherently tricky.

That said...Sun Myung Moon's single ply is a reliable source but Politico is not...I guess reliable now means...agrees with ALLCAPSNAME, eh?

This I agree with.  Economic forcasts are notoriously unreliable.  And even calculating what the economic effect of a particular action in the past is pretty tricky.  Having said that I think the CBO numbers are some of the best we have.  I trust them a lot more than numbers generated by the RNC, DNC, or the Heritage Foundation.

I was actually quite surprised when the Obama White House made a prediction about where unemployment was going to level out.  No one has accurately predicted the unemployment numbers under any president in my lifetime.  Anyone attempting to put out a firm number is silly.  Anyone taking that number seriously is insane.
Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 23, 2011, 04:10:52 PM »

Again you don't understand the concept of the marginal dollar or marginal investor. And when I offered to explain it you clearly are passing so what do you expect.

Or do you just prefer to post ignorant posts and hope that I don't actually show why everything you just posted is meaningless.

Often on these threads I find that the point in contention is not clearly defined and that all the facts are not presented up front... if at all.  If you think the facts that I have presented are meaningless you are perfectly free to post your facts and attempt to prove your point.  It is a two way street.  Everyone is allowed to argue their point of view.  You may think your point of view is "indisputable" but you certainly haven't proved that to us.  What I posted is my point of view.  I, unlike you, do not think it is "indisputable."  I arrived at my conclusion based on the best evidence I have at the moment.  If some other new information comes along that sheds new light on the situation I am perfectly open to changing my view.  To me it just seems strange that people that are stockpiling record amounts of cash and bidding gold (an almost completely useless asset) into the stratosphere would ask for even more cash before they will invest the cash they already have.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 23, 2011, 04:13:49 PM »

It has nothing to do with it. Just let him be.

It has everything to do with it. Again I work in Finance I get this stuff much better than other folks on here. So this is quite easy for me to explain. The problem is that most people on here will just have there eyes glaze over and just go on preferring to be ignorant to something like this.

Your point was completely irrelevant, Wonk, because had there not been the extra 800 billion of treasuries (an incredibly insignificant amount btw), the same amount of money would still have gone into treasuries (or quite possibly even more), but the price of treasuries would have simply been minutely higher.  Thus, no jobs created.  Only direct government spending can create jobs in a deflation/depression.
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 23, 2011, 09:23:59 PM »

Again you don't understand the concept of the marginal dollar or marginal investor. And when I offered to explain it you clearly are passing so what do you expect.

Or do you just prefer to post ignorant posts and hope that I don't actually show why everything you just posted is meaningless.

Often on these threads I find that the point in contention is not clearly defined and that all the facts are not presented up front... if at all.  If you think the facts that I have presented are meaningless you are perfectly free to post your facts and attempt to prove your point.  It is a two way street.  Everyone is allowed to argue their point of view.  You may think your point of view is "indisputable" but you certainly haven't proved that to us.  What I posted is my point of view.  I, unlike you, do not think it is "indisputable."  I arrived at my conclusion based on the best evidence I have at the moment.  If some other new information comes along that sheds new light on the situation I am perfectly open to changing my view.  To me it just seems strange that people that are stockpiling record amounts of cash and bidding gold (an almost completely useless asset) into the stratosphere would ask for even more cash before they will invest the cash they already have.

Are you even reading what I said? I asked if you are even remotely curious to actually sit through and read this type of topic in detail. Am I taking this as a yes? But if you are unwilling to participate in a meaningful way and are just going to ignore what ever I post and throw up something that has no impact so that you can try to look like your scoring points than I'm not going to waste my time.

Essentially are you naturally an inquisitive person on something like this or are you just interested in posting cheap drivel for elusive political points?
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 24, 2011, 05:22:38 AM »

I've generally taken CBO estimates with a grain of salt.  Each side trots them out when it suits them and the numbers don't always hold up.  Not that the calculations are wrong or malicious or biased...just that $hit happens and modeling that stuff is inherently tricky.

That said...Sun Myung Moon's single ply is a reliable source but Politico is not...I guess reliable now means...agrees with ALLCAPSNAME, eh?

Well, let's take you assertions one at a time:

First, CBO estimates should be taken with a large bag, not a grain of salt.

Second, CBO numbers usually don't hold up.

Third, yes there is a bias in the CBO calculations.  If they were just random errors then their estimates would roughly fall equally high or low, which is NOT the case.

Fourth, yes I understand, you believe anything that Politico posts, but nothing published by a conservative publication (which you feel a compulsion to attack),

Fifth, the 'logic' of your attack on my posting is absolutely hillarious.  Is it a allergy on your part to CSPS?

Finally, another source for you to attack:
 
IBD Editorials

The CBO Quietly Downgrades Obama's $825 Bil Stimulus

Posted 11/23/2011

Recovery: After nearly all the stimulus money has been spent, the Congressional Budget Office now admits it cost more than advertised, did less to boost growth and will hurt the economy in the long run.

http://news.investors.com/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=592709&p=1

Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 24, 2011, 11:49:36 AM »

I've generally taken CBO estimates with a grain of salt.  Each side trots them out when it suits them and the numbers don't always hold up.  Not that the calculations are wrong or malicious or biased...just that $hit happens and modeling that stuff is inherently tricky.

That said...Sun Myung Moon's single ply is a reliable source but Politico is not...I guess reliable now means...agrees with ALLCAPSNAME, eh?

Finally, another source for you to attack:
 
IBD Editorials

The CBO Quietly Downgrades Obama's $825 Bil Stimulus

Posted 11/23/2011

Recovery: After nearly all the stimulus money has been spent, the Congressional Budget Office now admits it cost more than advertised, did less to boost growth and will hurt the economy in the long run.

http://news.investors.com/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=592709&p=1



No problem.  The editorial pages of the Investors Business Daily are a known haunt of mindless lying partisan hacks.  Observe...



How exactly does the CBO "quietly downgrade" an economic assessment?  From my experience government agencies routinely put out economic reports and do multiple revisions of their numbers as more data becomes available.  They have released their information in the same manner throughout my lifetime regardless of who is in the White House.  Basically the CBO released a revised estimate in the usual manner and IBD just threw in the words "quietly," "downgrade," "hurt," and "admit" to make it spicy for the conservative palate.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 24, 2011, 12:00:30 PM »

I've generally taken CBO estimates with a grain of salt.  Each side trots them out when it suits them and the numbers don't always hold up.  Not that the calculations are wrong or malicious or biased...just that $hit happens and modeling that stuff is inherently tricky.

That said...Sun Myung Moon's single ply is a reliable source but Politico is not...I guess reliable now means...agrees with ALLCAPSNAME, eh?

Well, let's take you assertions one at a time:

First, CBO estimates should be taken with a large bag, not a grain of salt.

Second, CBO numbers usually don't hold up.

Third, yes there is a bias in the CBO calculations.  If they were just random errors then their estimates would roughly fall equally high or low, which is NOT the case.

Fourth, yes I understand, you believe anything that Politico posts, but nothing published by a conservative publication (which you feel a compulsion to attack),

Fifth, the 'logic' of your attack on my posting is absolutely hillarious.  Is it a allergy on your part to CSPS?

Finally, another source for you to attack:
 
IBD Editorials

The CBO Quietly Downgrades Obama's $825 Bil Stimulus

Posted 11/23/2011

Recovery: After nearly all the stimulus money has been spent, the Congressional Budget Office now admits it cost more than advertised, did less to boost growth and will hurt the economy in the long run.

http://news.investors.com/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=592709&p=1



Hold up there for a minute hombre.

Aside from you taking some exception to a commonly accepted figure of speech simply for understating its magnitude, I shudder to say this...we're sort of on the same page...until we get to the bias part...which aside from your assertion attacking them for...hanky panky, you really haven't proffered evidence for it.  You might spotlight a few choice cherrypicked articles and say...there...look.  But I'm guessing none of those articles contains anything actually accusatory.

Moving on....


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now see, I don't think the aforementioned post of mine said anything about believing the Politico post.  You think Politico liberal or left leaning...ok...challenging such an opinion is a waste of time, even if i felt it worth challenging.  What you missed was that I didn't endorse Politico or the CBO.  In fact, I think the first half of my post indicated that I was skeptical towards the article's report that 3.3M jobs were created (or saved I guess) because the CBO said so.

The issue I was pointing out was you entirely dismissing Politico out of hand for its orientation and substituting in its place not just a conservative based paper...but one created by Sun Myung Moon and the UC.  The fact its a conservative or right of center broadsheet isn't why I called it into question.  The fact that you dismissed an opposing article on ideological grounds but then submitted Moon's paper was the "through the looking glass" type thing I was jabbing at.  If you went with say, foxnews, financial times, something not founded by a cult as it were...you probably don't get my response.  

Like your investors link.  CBO quietly downgrades Obamas $825M stimulus.  I have no issue with its posting/linking.  But if you had actually read what I posted in the first part of that post, you'd understand why I'm not surprised that's happening anyway.

Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 25, 2011, 02:00:15 AM »
« Edited: November 25, 2011, 04:05:54 AM by CARLHAYDEN »

Bullmoose,

Let's look at the record.

CBO almost always projects a cost for a program of less than what ends up being the actual cost (check the record).

Now, there are a number of explanations for this phenomena:

First, that that CBO is frequently ordered to make assumptions which are incorrect and invalid.  

Second, frequently CBO's estimates are more accurate than those of the White House, so they look less absurd by comparison.

Third, the methodology used in cost estimates is fundamentally flawed in that if fails to adequately address long term factors for programs with a lifespan of more than a couple of years.

Finally, here is a url to just some of the underestimates:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0309-17.pdf
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 25, 2011, 03:59:42 AM »

It has nothing to do with it. Just let him be.

It has everything to do with it. Again I work in Finance I get this stuff much better than other folks on here. So this is quite easy for me to explain. The problem is that most people on here will just have there eyes glaze over and just go on preferring to be ignorant to something like this.

Your point was completely irrelevant, Wonk, because had there not been the extra 800 billion of treasuries (an incredibly insignificant amount btw), the same amount of money would still have gone into treasuries (or quite possibly even more), but the price of treasuries would have simply been minutely higher.  Thus, no jobs created.  Only direct government spending can create jobs in a deflation/depression.

This is just factually incorrect.
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 25, 2011, 04:06:16 AM »

Bullmoose,

Let's look at the record.

CBO almost always projects a cost for a program of less than what ends up being the actual cost (check the record).

Now, there are a number of explanations for this phenomena:

First, that that CBO is frequently ordered to make assumptions which are incorrect and invalid.  

Second, frequently CBO's estimates are more accurate than those of the White House, so they look less absurd by comparison.

Third, the methodology used in cost estimates is fundamentally flawed in that if fails to adequately address long term factors for programs with a lifespan of more than a couple of years.

As a good example the CBO absolutely refuses to make any adjustments in that people change behavior to avoid the tax when a tax increase goes through and people change behavior to try to get the benefit when the government creates a program. The CBO instead assumes that everybody will just continue what they have been doing when any of these changes occur.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 25, 2011, 04:11:21 AM »

Wonkish,

You put it very well.

The "static" nature of CBO "analysis" has been under attack by economists for several years.

CBO counters that it is impossible to accurately project such changes.

The bottom line is the CBO is consistently wrong!
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 25, 2011, 04:28:48 AM »

Wonkish,

You put it very well.

The "static" nature of CBO "analysis" has been under attack by economists for several years.

CBO counters that it is impossible to accurately project such changes.

The bottom line is the CBO is consistently wrong!

And honestly, I'm not really disputing that the CBO is...well...wrong...frequently...even consistently if you like...and you spelled out pretty decent reasons why it often errs.  If asked why the CBO isn't accurate, I'd rattle off many, but perhaps not all, the aforementioned reasons.  That said, I wouldn't make the leap that what the CBO does (forecasting, whatever) is malicious, or fraudlent.  Just on many occasions wrong, and there is a difference.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 25, 2011, 04:56:04 AM »

Wonkish,

You put it very well.

The "static" nature of CBO "analysis" has been under attack by economists for several years.

CBO counters that it is impossible to accurately project such changes.

The bottom line is the CBO is consistently wrong!

And honestly, I'm not really disputing that the CBO is...well...wrong...frequently...even consistently if you like...and you spelled out pretty decent reasons why it often errs.  If asked why the CBO isn't accurate, I'd rattle off many, but perhaps not all, the aforementioned reasons.  That said, I wouldn't make the leap that what the CBO does (forecasting, whatever) is malicious, or fraudlent.  Just on many occasions wrong, and there is a difference.

Bullmoose,

I did not state that the CBO estimates/forecasting were "malicious," but rather that they consistently err in a direction that underestimated costs of programs and overestimated benefits.  Now, after many years of such wrong estimates/forecasting, a responsible agency would seek to correct its errors.  CBO refuses because it is used by politicians to sneak through their programs.

Now, if CBO were to overestimate the cost of projects roughly as often as it underestimates them, then the error would not be directional.

So, under the circumstances, yes, the estimates are fraudulent.
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 25, 2011, 05:08:15 AM »

Wonkish,

You put it very well.

The "static" nature of CBO "analysis" has been under attack by economists for several years.

CBO counters that it is impossible to accurately project such changes.

The bottom line is the CBO is consistently wrong!

Fine its impossible to project such changes, but since its always the *exact* same direction then the least they could do is make some historical adjustment based on some average they've been off in the past.

My problem isn't in that they are consistently wrong(that's expected). Its that they are always way wrong in the same direction every time. And their excuse for that is that they just can't project how much of a behavior change will result so they're more content just being extremely off in the same direction every time. Its just dumb!
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 25, 2011, 05:10:42 AM »

Wonkish,

You put it very well.

The "static" nature of CBO "analysis" has been under attack by economists for several years.

CBO counters that it is impossible to accurately project such changes.

The bottom line is the CBO is consistently wrong!

And honestly, I'm not really disputing that the CBO is...well...wrong...frequently...even consistently if you like...and you spelled out pretty decent reasons why it often errs.  If asked why the CBO isn't accurate, I'd rattle off many, but perhaps not all, the aforementioned reasons.  That said, I wouldn't make the leap that what the CBO does (forecasting, whatever) is malicious, or fraudlent.  Just on many occasions wrong, and there is a difference.

I wouldn't say its malicious. But they know their going to be off in the same direction every single time and they don't care. So call what you will, but its not accidental.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 25, 2011, 05:34:24 AM »

Wonkish,

You put it very well.

The "static" nature of CBO "analysis" has been under attack by economists for several years.

CBO counters that it is impossible to accurately project such changes.

The bottom line is the CBO is consistently wrong!

Fine its impossible to project such changes, but since its always the *exact* same direction then the least they could do is make some historical adjustment based on some average they've been off in the past.

My problem isn't in that they are consistently wrong(that's expected). Its that they are always way wrong in the same direction every time. And their excuse for that is that they just can't project how much of a behavior change will result so they're more content just being extremely off in the same direction every time. Its just dumb!

What CBO is doing with this argument of it being impossible to accurately predict changes in behavior, is engage in dissimulation.

What they don't argue is that methodologies in existence now to modify CBO's projections would be MORE accurate than their existing methodology.

To use an analogy:

Take a polling firm which insists only on using only "adult" samples in their surveys.  After many general elections, their results consistently predict a larger percentage of the vote for Democrat party candidates than is actually the case.

Now, other survey research firms which use Registered Voter or Likely Voter samples over the same period, and get more accurate results, and results which aren't consistently favorable to one party.

Are the Likely Voter polls always perfectly accurate?  Of course no!.  But they are almost always more accurate than the "adult" polls.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 25, 2011, 01:35:33 PM »

It has nothing to do with it. Just let him be.

It has everything to do with it. Again I work in Finance I get this stuff much better than other folks on here. So this is quite easy for me to explain. The problem is that most people on here will just have there eyes glaze over and just go on preferring to be ignorant to something like this.

Your point was completely irrelevant, Wonk, because had there not been the extra 800 billion of treasuries (an incredibly insignificant amount btw), the same amount of money would still have gone into treasuries (or quite possibly even more), but the price of treasuries would have simply been minutely higher.  Thus, no jobs created.  Only direct government spending can create jobs in a deflation/depression.

This is just factually incorrect.

Dude, if you have X amount of something and you increase its supply by, say 0.1%, that should decrease its price (per each unit) by a very tiny amount, no?  That is all the stimulous package did - increased the supply of treasuries by an infinitismal amount.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 25, 2011, 03:09:36 PM »

Just curious wonkish and CARL!: Since over a third of the stimulus involved tax cuts, are you both conceding that tax cuts aren't effective at spurring economic growth? Conversely, doesn't that mean that tax increases to the same degree won't inhibit economic growth?

Please advise <grabs popcorn>.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: November 25, 2011, 11:42:49 PM »

Wonkish,

You put it very well.

The "static" nature of CBO "analysis" has been under attack by economists for several years.

CBO counters that it is impossible to accurately project such changes.

The bottom line is the CBO is consistently wrong!

And honestly, I'm not really disputing that the CBO is...well...wrong...frequently...even consistently if you like...and you spelled out pretty decent reasons why it often errs.  If asked why the CBO isn't accurate, I'd rattle off many, but perhaps not all, the aforementioned reasons.  That said, I wouldn't make the leap that what the CBO does (forecasting, whatever) is malicious, or fraudulent.  Just on many occasions wrong, and there is a difference.

I wouldn't say its malicious. But they know their going to be off in the same direction every single time and they don't care. So call what you will, but its not accidental.

If they are consistently wrong in the same direction, then that makes their errors predictable and thus something that can be adjusted for because they are reproducible.  Conversely, if they keep adjusting their methodology in search of being more accurate, their estimates become less useful.

Which would you rather have, a clock that is consistently 15 minutes slow, or a clock that is always within 5 minutes of the correct time, but you can't be sure if it is fast or slow?
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: November 26, 2011, 01:36:47 AM »

It has nothing to do with it. Just let him be.

It has everything to do with it. Again I work in Finance I get this stuff much better than other folks on here. So this is quite easy for me to explain. The problem is that most people on here will just have there eyes glaze over and just go on preferring to be ignorant to something like this.

Your point was completely irrelevant, Wonk, because had there not been the extra 800 billion of treasuries (an incredibly insignificant amount btw), the same amount of money would still have gone into treasuries (or quite possibly even more), but the price of treasuries would have simply been minutely higher.  Thus, no jobs created.  Only direct government spending can create jobs in a deflation/depression.

This is just factually incorrect.

Dude, if you have X amount of something and you increase its supply by, say 0.1%, that should decrease its price (per each unit) by a very tiny amount, no?  That is all the stimulous package did - increased the supply of treasuries by an infinitismal amount.

I'll give you credit for attempting a serious argument. But any reduction in price doesn't make $800 billion new treasuries cost 0 through price reductions which is essentially the argument your making(although you may not realize you are). The price might drop causing total amount of capital directed to them to be less than if you modeled them statically. But there is still serious capital going into them.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 12 queries.