stimulus

[dmarc117]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-05/s...e-stimulus.html

 

The Obama administration took “a big gamble and it doesn’t look like it’s paying off,” Stiglitz told Bloomberg TV in an interview in Sydney yesterday. “The recovery is so weak that it is not strong enough to generate new jobs for the new entrants in the labor force, let alone to find jobs for the 15 million Americans who would like a job and can’t get one.”

 

Edited August 6, 2010 by dmarc117

[Azazello1313]

this guy is one of the biggest heavy hitter fiscal stimulus advocates out there, if he's saying it's failed....

 

of course, his "solution" is basically more of the same. it's paradoxical in a pure keynesian way, but I'm really thinking we need policies that are a little more mindful of debt for the animal spirits to get going again. otherwise, people are just looking at the future saying "oh crap".

[Savage Beatings]

“It’s absolutely clear that you need a second round of stimulus,” Stiglitz said. “It needs to be better designed. It needs to be focused more on returns on investment, education, infrastructure, technology. And if you do those kinds of high- powered investments, the long-term national debt will be actually lower and the growth in the future will be higher.”

 

Does anyone (and I mean anyone) really trust that this or any future Administration would have the discipline to actually spend another round of stimulus money in any way other than that which provides a political benefit more so than an economic benefit? It can't be done. They failed in figuring out how to spend this last $800+ Billion. Why would we ever trust them to do it right if tried again?

[bushwacked]

A different view.

 

 

Not surprising, many blame government’s response to the financial panic and recession for our current problems.........Given where the economy is today, were these massive expenses worthwhile?

 

It’s a reasonable question, but the answer is a clear yes.

[bushwacked]

if he's saying it's failed....

 

...you and dmarc are going to believe him

[Savage Beatings]

...you and dmarc are going to believe him

 

He's not the only one saying it.

[bushwacked]

He's not the only one saying it.

 

And there are also many saying it averted a Great Depression. Of course I'm not smart enough to know. But the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. I don't know if anyone has a feel in what the overall econ-nerd-head opinion is.

Edited August 6, 2010 by bushwacked

[Azazello1313]

...you and dmarc are going to believe him

 

 

did you see this morning's jobs report yet?

[dmarc117]

A different view.

 

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/print/184499

[TimC]

And there are also many saying it averted a Great Depression. Of course I'm not smart enough to know. But the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. I don't know if anyone has a feel in what the overall econ-nerd-head opinion is.

 

God forbid we let it hurt as much as it should right now. Instead, we'll just pass it off to our children and grandchildren so we don't have to feel any pain like the spoiled little sissy whiny Americans we all are. If we should have soup lines, so be it. Old people need to look in their grandchildren's innocent eyes and apologize for never allowing them to have a better life because of their own selfishness.

 

This screwed-up world...b-b-b-b-b-but we may have had a really hard time of it. I gots cell phone and SUV bills. I can't be giving up my necessities. Screw that!!

 

Your Great Grandfather ate one cracker a day so you wouldn't have to pay thousands of dollars to the Chinaman. We could've at least done the same. I hate people so much.

[dmarc117]

like this awesomeness from unions........

 

With the district in a financial crisis and hundreds of its members facing layoffs, the Milwaukee teachers union is taking a peculiar stand: fighting to get its taxpayer-funded Viagra back.

 

The union has asked a judge to order the school board to again include Pfizer Inc.'s erectile dysfunction drug and similar pills in its health insurance plans.

The filing is the latest in a two-year legal campaign in which the union has argued, so far unsuccessfully, that the board's policy of excluding erectile dysfunction drugs discriminates against male employees. The union says Viagra, Cialis, Levitra and others are necessary treatment for "an exclusively gender-related condition."

[yo mama]

this guy is one of the biggest heavy hitter fiscal stimulus advocates out there, if he's saying it's failed....

 

of course, his "solution" is basically more of the same. it's paradoxical in a pure keynesian way, but I'm really thinking we need policies that are a little more mindful of debt for the animal spirits to get going again. otherwise, people are just looking at the future saying "oh crap".

That's not true at all. He's saying we should have invested stimulus money in infrastructure, education, and other projects that provide a return on investment. (As opposed to bailouts and extending unemployment benefits). He's saying that stimulus - if its going to be spent - should be spent in a manner that solves long-term problems, rather than treating short-term symptoms.

 

I don't see how anyone can credibly argue against what the guy is saying.

Edited August 6, 2010 by yo mama

[SayItAintSoJoe]

That's not true at all. He's saying we should have invested stimulus money in infrastructure, education, and other projects that provide a return on investment. (As opposed to bailouts and extending unemployment benefits). He's saying that stimulus - if its going to be spent - should be spent in a manner that solves long-term problems, rather than treating short-term symptoms.

I don't see how anyone can credibly argue against what the guy is saying.

 

This is true. It's just too bad that politics is all about treating short-term symptoms. The voting public doesn't have the patience to wait on long term soluitions to pan out.

[Ursa Majoris]

That's not true at all. He's saying we should have invested stimulus money in infrastructure, education, and other projects that provide a return on investment. (As opposed to bailouts and extending unemployment benefits). He's saying that stimulus - if its going to be spent - should be spent in a manner that solves long-term problems, rather than treating short-term symptoms.

 

I don't see how anyone can credibly argue against what the guy is saying.

Exactly. The fact that our infrastructure needs to have lots of work put into it anyway combined with the need to kickstart the economy and employment makes this a heaven sent opportunity to kill two birds with one stone if it's properly targeted.

[dmarc117]

all pols care about is the next election. good times.

 

plus, i think they panicked. they were like the choking thread here. they just started screaming and running around instead of doing a proper heimlich.

Edited August 6, 2010 by dmarc117

[Azazello1313]

That's not true at all. He's saying we should have invested stimulus money in infrastructure, education, and other projects that provide a return on investment. (As opposed to bailouts and extending unemployment benefits). He's saying that stimulus - if its going to be spent - should be spent in a manner that solves long-term problems, rather than treating short-term symptoms.

 

spending designed to provide "stimulus" is, by it's nature, designed to provide a jolt that is as immediate as possible. that is the whole point. stuff like education and infrastructure (which, of course, is all the proponents of the FIRST bill could talk about when singing its praises) may make sense as long-term "investments", but most of the payoff comes later. there is an unacknowledged tension in what stiglitz is saying, and in what fiscal stimulus advocates have been arguing all along -- is the purpose here to shock aggregate demand out of its coma, or is it investment in the future? the first "stimulus" tried to contain a balance of both goals, and it's proponets tried to argue how awesomely their spending provided short term stimulus with long-term benetfit. the ARRA spent $105 billion on infrastructure "investment", $44.5 billion in enegery subsidies/credits//"investment", $114 billion on education/training "investment", $8 billion for science "investment", and $155 billion on health care "investment". (most of the rest went to state and local fiscal relief, extending unemployment benefits and other line-items "protecting the vulnerable", housing industry prop-ups, a temporary AMT fix, and the $400 per person cash dump.) so that is more than half the spending that already went toward investment in long-term problems.

 

so yeah, I would say that stiglitz is very much arguing for "more of the same", despite doing his best to pretend he isn't.

 

I would say the real question isn't "which hole (long term or short term) we should be shovelling borrowed money into?", so much as it is, "will shovelling more borrowed money into ANY of these holes really get us going in the right direction again?"

[dmarc117]

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-th...cessions-2010-8

[Ursa Majoris]

all pols care about is the next election. good times.

 

plus, i think they panicked. they were like the choking thread here. they just started screaming and running around instead of doing a proper heimlich.

The politicians we get reflect the people who elect them. I'll use the impersonal "you" in these next few sentences, not aimed at dmarc personally.

 

You can pretend all the disgust in the world with pork but when that pork project comes rolling in to your state, you're cool with it.

It's you that can't pay attention for more than 30 seconds, forcing politicians to eschew focused analysis for idiot sound bites

It's you that demands instantaneous results for problems that have been around for decades

It's you that wants your entitlements but doesn't want to pay for them

It's you that has the critical faculties of a duckbilled platypus

It's you that pays way more attention to American Idol than anything of any substance

It's you that can't get your useless fat ass to the polling stations even to elect the most powerful man in the world because it's too much trouble for you, then piss and moan about the guy(s) you completely failed to elect

 

Bah. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

[yo mama]

so yeah, I would say that stiglitz is very much arguing for "more of the same", despite doing his best to pretend he isn't.

I continue to disagree with your assessment.

 

“It’s absolutely clear that you need a second round of stimulus,” Stiglitz said. “It needs to be better designed. It needs to be focused more on returns on investment, education, infrastructure, technology. And if you do those kinds of high- powered investments, the long-term national debt will be actually lower and the growth in the future will be higher.”

 

That's not more of the same, other than sharing the "stimulus" moniker.

[dmarc117]

The politicians we get reflect the people who elect them. I'll use the impersonal "you" in these next few sentences, not aimed at dmarc personally.

 

You can pretend all the disgust in the world with pork but when that pork project comes rolling in to your state, you're cool with it.

It's you that can't pay attention for more than 30 seconds, forcing politicians to eschew focused analysis for idiot sound bites

It's you that demands instantaneous results for problems that have been around for decades

It's you that wants your entitlements but doesn't want to pay for them

It's you that has the critical faculties of a duckbilled platypus

It's you that pays way more attention to American Idol than anything of any substance

It's you that can't get your useless fat ass to the polling stations even to elect the most powerful man in the world because it's too much trouble for you, then piss and moan about the guy(s) you completely failed to elect

 

Bah. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

 

 

agree 100%. thats why i have asked in previous threads what does it take to really get people mad? to really change things?

[Azazello1313]

ok, so we've already shoveled $400+ billion into "returns on investment, education, infrastructure, technology", to apparently very little avail (so says stiglitz). I would really like to know exactly how much more we need to borrow from the future (heaping ever more onto these figures) to "invest" before it begins to work. TIA.

[dmarc117]

ok, so we've already shoveled $400+ billion into "returns on investment, education, infrastructure, technology", to apparently very little avail (so says stiglitz). I would really like to know exactly how much more we need to borrow from the future (heaping ever more onto these figures) to "invest" before it begins to work. TIA.

 

 

this is the whole problem. they want to get things back to norm. well what we were living in the past years wasnt the norm. it was unsustainable. thats why i say we need to prepare for a real norm. higher unemployment, living with less, etc. we have seen the best of days for a long time imo.

Edited August 6, 2010 by dmarc117

[yo mama]

ok, so we've already shoveled $400+ billion into "returns on investment, education, infrastructure, technology", to apparently very little avail (so says stiglitz). I would really like to know exactly how much more we need to borrow from the future (heaping ever more onto these figures) to "invest" before it begins to work. TIA.

Perhaps our disagreement is rooted in simple misunderstanding.

 

Stigliz is saying the first stimulus did NOT do those things, but should have. A second stimulus MUST do those things, if we want actual recovery: otherwise its will fail long-term, like first stimulus did.

[whomper]

agree 100%. thats why i have asked in previous threads what does it take to really get people mad? to really change things?

 

 

Just a few more threads and I think we will get there

[Azazello1313]

Perhaps our disagreement is rooted in simple misunderstanding.

 

Stigliz is saying the first stimulus did NOT do those things, but should have. A second stimulus MUST do those things, if we want actual recovery: otherwise its will fail long-term, like first stimulus did.

 

what he is saying is that the first stimulus did not do ENOUGH of those things. I don't think he would try and argue that the $400 billion, in the stimulus bill alone, that we spent or are spending on infrastructure, education, energy, etc. does not exist. because that would be a pretty silly argument.

 

so again I ask, if $400+ billion isn't nearly enough to spend on those things, how much money we don't have are we talking about spending here? because I am sure we can expect pelosi, reid, obama et al to do it just perfectly, if only we're not so stingy with our kids' money this time.