like groundhog day every time I see this headline

[dmarc117]

So you would rather discuss a position that can never be proved or disproved and offer no support to this position because there is none on either side - well done well done.

 

 

so facts work for his arguments and not others. good stuff.

[TimC]

no one, no matter how powerful, can "promise" that the economy will behave in a certain way.

 

however, an administration that asks for a trillion dollars in taxpayer money to create jobs and stimulate the economy can and should demonstrate the wisdom and necessity of that request by projecting what will happen with, and without their proposal. and it is appropriate that their policy, if implemented, should be judged based on how those predictions correspond to reality. take out the semantics over the word "promise" and cantor's claim is completely true.

 

Or they could just go to Italy for a 5-star vacation with 40 of their closest friends on the taxpayer's back....that's some wisdom right there.

[Azazello1313]

Meh. The fact of the matter is the economy was in worse shape than almost everyone thought and the stimulus may very well have been key in avoiding another Great Depression. The primary key of the legislation was to stop the boulder from rolling down hill and avert a disaster.

 

that is one contention, far from a "fact of the matter". another contention is that the stimulus policy may have created a certain number of jobs (because it is impossible to throw that kind of money around and not create some jobs), but it is actually hindering robust economic growth. as one nobel prize winning economist said before the stimulus was passed, "Now, there's also a chance that the perceived increase in the role of government of this sort will have some unanticipated effects on the animal spirits of entrepreneurs. These projects may stand as a sort of symbol of the weakening of the private sector."

 

also, I like this summation:

To understand the challenge government economists have faced over the past year and a half, it is useful to imagine the case of a physician trying to treat an ill patient. The patient presents herself in terrible shape; the physician has never treated a condition with symptoms quite like hers before; and the causes of the ailments are unclear. The doctor remembers reading about a similar case in medical school — and, trying to recall as much of his training as possible, he endeavors to come up with a theory as to why the patient is sick and to determine what will make her better.

 

In an ideal world, the doctor would run a controlled experiment: He would assemble 100 patients with similar symptoms, give 50 of them the medicine that seems most likely to work and the other 50 a placebo, and then see whether the patients on the medicine in fact improved. But the doctor does not have 100 patients — he has only one. So, based on his assessment of what is causing the patient's troubles, and the most likely remedy, he takes a risk and administers the medicine.

 

The patient, however, returns a few weeks later; this time, her symptoms are worse. What, then, should the doctor conclude? He might decide that he gave the patient the wrong medicine. Or he might determine that the patient was even sicker than he originally thought, and thus that the medicine should be administered at an even higher dosage. Either conclusion is plausible, but there is no way the doctor can be sure. What he does know is that he must act before the situation gets even worse.

 

granted, when the patient gets sicker after the medicine is given, both colclusions are indeed "plausible" -- but the range of plausibility is constrained the longer the patient goes without healing. at some point you have to start wondering which diagnosis is MORE plausible, and if maybe we should start paying more attention to the doctors who said beforehand that the patient would get sicker.

[Azazello1313]

one of the economists in swami's quotes was ken rogoff.

 

The US Great Depression of the 1930’s is another case in point. Again, a great deal of attention has been lavished on the ebbs and flow of fiscal and monetary policy. But New Deal economic policies, by expanding the role of the state in an often chaotic and unpredictable fashion, probably also played a role in at least temporarily impeding productivity growth.

 

The US today seems to be moving towards a gentler and more European-style state, with higher taxes and possibly greater regulation. Supporters of the US administration might fairly argue that it is undertaking long-deferred maintenance on issues such as income inequality. But if the US does experience slow growth over the next decade, can it all be blamed on the financial crisis?

[bushwacked]

So you would rather discuss a position that can never be proved or disproved and offer no support to this position because there is none on either side - well done well done.

 

 

No, what I'm saying is you guys are going to focus on "GMOZ! Obama lied about unemployment rate!" because the more informative, bigger picture issue isn't politically expedient for you guys.

 

In this paper, we use the Moody’s Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government’s total policy response. We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.

 

When we divide these effects into two components—one attributable to the fiscal stimulus and the other attributable to financial-market policies such as the TARP, the bank stress tests and the Fed’s quantitative easing—we estimate that the latter was substantially more powerful than the former. Nonetheless, the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls. These estimates of the fiscal impact are broadly consistent with those made by the CBO and the Obama administration.2 To our knowledge, however, our comprehensive estimates of the effects of the financial-market policies are the first of their kind.3 We welcome other efforts to estimate these effects.

 

 

A very informative and detailed study:

Edited August 5, 2010 by bushwacked

[yo mama]

Just so I'm clear, this thread all started because of Az' problem with an article's use of the word "unexpectedly?" Yeah, I read that article.

 

The economists polled ALL expected initial jobless claims. It was merely that the actual initial claims exceeded the consensus projected claims by a *whopping* 4,000 claims. The additional 4,000 claims was all that was "unexpected," which exceeded projections by less than 1%.

 

Mountain, meet mole hill.

Edited August 5, 2010 by yo mama

[Azazello1313]

A very informative and detailed study, not blogs or talking points:

In this paper, we use the Moody’s Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government’s total policy response

 

 

back to this again. these are same exact macroeconomic models that simulated that with the stimulus, unemployment wouldn't go past 8%. yes, the same models still say the same thing as they said before the stimulus was passed. because the equations are the same. this is not news, and it does not constitute evidence that the stimulus is working -- much as you may wish it so.

[bushwacked]

back to this again. these are same exact macroeconomic models that simulated that with the stimulus, unemployment wouldn't go past 8%. yes, the same models still say the same thing as they said before the stimulus was passed. because the equations are the same. this is not news, and it does not constitute evidence that the stimulus is working -- much as you may wish it so.

 

 

You're willingness to ignore or minimize every piece of evidence that doesn't support your notion is predictable and unconvincing.

 

I'm sure you have another blog you can counter with.

Edited August 5, 2010 by bushwacked

[The Irish Doggy]

Just so I'm clear, this thread all started because of Az' problem with an article's use of the word "unexpectedly?" Yeah, I read that article.

 

The economists polled ALL expected initial jobless claims. It was merely that the actual initial claims exceeded the consensus projected claims by a *whopping* 4,000 claims. The additional 4,000 claims was all that was "unexpected," which exceeded projections by less than 1%.

 

Mountain, meet mole hill.

 

 

Never let the facts get in the way of a good tailgate pissing match.

[bushwacked]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good tailgate pissing match.

[Azazello1313]

Just so I'm clear, this thread all started because of Az' problem with an article's use of the word "unexpectedly?" Yeah, I read that article.

 

The economists polled ALL expected initial jobless claims. It was merely that the actual initial claims exceeded the consensus projected claims by a *whopping* 4,000 claims. The additional 4,000 claims was all that was "unexpected," which exceeded projections by less than 1%.

 

Mountain, meet mole hill.

 

this thread started with my amused observation several months ago that, seemingly, every single time the number of new jobless claims rise, the headlines say it was "unexpected". that observation was based on past reports, and since then, I've bumped it with several new headlines of "unexpected" jobless claim increases, confirming the observation. additional discussion on various tangential points proceeded. never was much of a mountain.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Azazello1313

[Azazello1313]

 

You're willingness to ignore or minimize every piece of evidence that doesn't support your notion is predictable and unconvincing.

 

I'm sure you have another blog you can counter with.

 

I already did counter, by pointing out that re-running the same predictions that said unemployment would stay below 8% does not constitute "evidence".

 

what exactly am I supposed to "counter" now, your bad grammar?

[bushwacked]

I already did counter, by pointing out that re-running the same predictions that said unemployment would stay below 8% does not constitute "evidence".

 

Insinuating that any model is completely worthless, because it isn't 100% accurate, 100% of the time, is a weak ass argument, for nothing more than argument sake.

 

You clamor and froth to modeled results that say what you want to hear and then repeat something you've read in a blog on how to ignore and downplay the ones that don't. It's what you do.

Edited August 5, 2010 by bushwacked

[FWmaker]

Az unexpectedly responded over 8 times to this thread today already!

[i_am_the_swammi]

Az unexpectedly responded over 8 times to this thread today already!

 

its becoming like groundhog d.....wait....we've come full circle!

[Azazello1313]

Insinuating that any model is worthless, because it isn't 100% accurate, 100% of the time, is a weak argument, for argument sake, but you probably know that. You've failed.

 

you know what's a REALLY weak argument, "for argument sake"? completely misrepresenting what I said.

 

what I actually said is that a predictive model does not constitute post hoc evidence. if we are arguing about how hot it was yesterday (and I wouldn't put such tediousness beyond us), pointing to a weather forecast from tuesday would prove absolutely nothing. yet that is exactly what you and other stimulus apologists do every time you trot out one of these stories that basically indicate that the same models still predcit that the stimulus should have had whatever kind of impact. the only "news" there is that moody's or whoever is still using the same model.

 

now that does not mean that all models are worthless. to the extent they accurately represent the best accumulated knowlegde we have available, they do have predictive value. weathermen aren't always right, but their best guesses are still useful to us.

[i_am_the_swammi]

what I actually said is that a predictive model does not constitute post hoc evidence. if we are arguing about how hot it was yesterday (and I wouldn't put such tediousness beyond us), pointing to a weather forecast from tuesday would prove absolutely nothing. yet that is exactly what you and other stimulus apologists do every time you trot out one of these stories that basically indicate that the same models still predcit that the stimulus should have had whatever kind of impact. the only "news" there is that moody's or whoever is still using the same model.

 

now that does not mean that all models are worthless. to the extent they accurately represent the best accumulated knowlegde we have available, they do have predictive value. weathermen aren't always right, but their best guesses are still useful to us.

 

the problem with your theory here is that, in definitve terms, we can accurately state how hot yesterday was. In contrast, we don't have the luxury of being able to define in certain terms how the stimulus helped (or hurt) our current position.

 

Stimulus apologists beleive the funds used to ebb the downward spiral were vitally important in bottoming our economy, where Obama-haters are quick to point out that early projections on our unemployment rate have fallen short and thus the stimulus was a failure. I don't beleive we'll ever have a true definitive answer, only because we'll never kow how bad it would have been without the stimulus monies.

[TimC]

Even weathermen are embarrassed by the inaccuracies of economists. I remember taking the classes and wondering why anyone believed this stuff and what the guys were smoking when they made it up. It's no wonder they are always shocked by the real data after the fact.

[Azazello1313]

the problem with your theory here is that, in definitve terms, we can accurately state how hot yesterday was. In contrast, we don't have the luxury of being able to define in certain terms how the stimulus helped (or hurt) our current position.

 

Stimulus apologists beleive the funds used to ebb the downward spiral were vitally important in bottoming our economy, where Obama-haters are quick to point out that early projections on our unemployment rate have fallen short and thus the stimulus was a failure. I don't beleive we'll ever have a true definitive answer, only because we'll never kow how bad it would have been without the stimulus monies.

 

oh I agree, we really can't measure accurately. but that lack of conclusive evidence doesn't change the fact that the prediction isn't evidence at all. the only evidence we have is that the economy still isn't very good, and the actual unemployment rate is much higher than the predictions said it would be. like the thing I quoted above said, that could mean one of two things -- either the patient was sicker than everybody thought and he needs even more of the same medicine; or we gave the patient ineffective medicine.

[Azazello1313]

obligatory "unexpectedly" bump

[dmarc117]

New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly climbed to a nine-month high last week, government data showed on Thursday, yet another setback to the frail economic recovery.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38768328

 

[TimC]

Here's a 5-second audio clip of Timothy Geithner responding to the news.

[Perchoutofwater]

When you expect the unexpected is it still unexpected?

[bpwallace49]

Az unexpectedly responded over 8 times to this thread today already!

 

Ok that was pretty funny . . .

[yo mama]

When you expect the unexpected is it still unexpected?

I'd expect so.