|
|
|
|
On August 25 2012 01:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney just went Birther.... I mean really?
Check out #futuremittjokes on twitter. Hilarious!
|
G.O.P. Offers Delegates Tips on Pretending to Like Romney
1. In previous regional practice sessions, there has been a ten to fifteen second lag time between a speaker saying the name “Mitt Romney” and any audible applause or cheering on the part of session participants. To tighten up this “silence hole,” try to get in the habit of clapping/hooting/stomping whenever anyone says anything.
2. Here’s a simple exercise you can do in your hotel room, car, or anywhere. Say the name “Mitt Romney,” then try to visualize something that you love: a family member, for example, or your favorite Fox host.
3. Starting Monday morning at the Tampa Marriott there will be intensive thirty-minute coaching seminars on fake smiling and squealing led by Flo, of Progressive insurance fame! There will be light refreshments and amphetamines.
4. Some of you have expressed concern that no matter how hard you try, even after listening to the Kid Rock “Romney Rocks” CD we provided, every time you hear the name Mitt Romney you can’t help but frown and find yourselves on the edge of tears. To you, we say: “Go for it!” TV viewers are sure to misinterpret a delegate’s full-on sobbing as a sign of being overwhelmed by love for Mitt (LOL). To hone your weeping skills, we’ve included in your Convention Welcome Bag a DVD of Michael Phelps’s mom, Debbie, at the London Olympics and footage of Kim Jong-il’s funeral.
5. Close your eyes and think of Santorum.
Source
|
On August 25 2012 02:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 25 2012 01:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 24 2012 23:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 24 2012 13:15 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 24 2012 03:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 23 2012 19:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 23 2012 01:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 22 2012 17:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 22 2012 02:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Rogoff argued for a stimulus going into and during the recession. But Rogoff also argued that after the recession (where we are now) more prudence was in order. [quote] source (requires subscription) As to the Krugman article - yes, buying a home on credit will result in a large net increase in spending. But in following years spending will be lessened due to repaying the mortgage. In policy terms, yes, deficit spending can boost overall spending but the after affect is sluggish growth. Just as the mortgage results in a crimp in household spending, the government debt acts as a drag on growth. If the response to the sluggish growth is more debt then the consequence will repeat itself - more debt, less growth, leading to more debt and continued sluggish growth. That's the story of Japan over the past 30 years as government debt climbed from 60% of GDP to 230%. Moreover, what if we consider bad debt? If a bank lends out money to finance a home purchase and sees that the homeowner is having difficulty paying it back then the bank will increase its loan loss reserves and curtail new lending. Similarly if people see government spending as inefficient or unsustainable it will result in them curtailing their own lending, spending and investment. It may not be $1 for $1, but it will be more than nothing. Did the Bush tax cuts and resulting deficits result in a prosperous decade? Certainly not. The tax cuts may have helped stabilize the economy following the recession but it didn't make the economy very robust afterwards. Why? Were the tax cuts just not big enough? Yeah, that's the ticket... Now you've changed the subject from whether fiscal stimulus is effective when government has high debt to the cost of fiscal stimulus. The idea that people would withhold a small portion of spending due to anticipated future tax increases that is needed to pay off the debt incurred with fiscal stimulus is highly unrealistic. But even if we stick to the model, and assume this is true, you're assertion that people will spend less in the future because of this doesn't mean that fiscal stimulus is a bad idea. You're comparing 2 scenarios: (a) reduced future spending due to stimulus with (b) no reduction in future spending due to not doing stimulus. Then you conclude that (b) is better than (a), therefore stimulus is bad. But this only shows that fiscal stimulus is useless in normal times (which it is), it completely misses the point. The alternative to (a) isn't (b). In the absence of stimulus, in a recession, (b) will not happen, future spending will decrease due to the collapse of aggregate demand as part of the recession. Here, (b) does not describe a recession absent stimulus, it describes an economy in normal times absent stimulus. Therefore, your analysis does not apply in the current economic environment. The two choices are more like: (a) reduced future spending due to stimulus and (b) even more reduced future spending and prolonged recession due to not doing stimulus. There is also a costless version of fiscal stimulus that gets little mention. It's called balanced budget fiscal expansion, which is basically a euphemism for tax and spend: http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/balanced-budget-expansion-debate-begins.html We are neither in normal times nor recessionary times. We're in between. I don't deny that a stimulus can help during a recession - though the one we had wasn't particularly effective - but we are not in a recession anymore. That's not to say that if we look at the economy as a whole things are fine and dandy - they certainly are not. But economic misery is not evenly spread out. Sure, California with a 10.7% unemployment rate could use a stimulus, but certainly not North Dakota with a 3% unemployment rate. Yet the ARRA continues to pour money into North Dakota and any new stimulus bill will do the same. The disparity isn't just regional either. Some industries, such as natural gas drilling, are doing phenomenally well while other industries, such as new home construction, continue to languish. Yet the reality of any current or planned stimulus is that it will blanket the economy. Stimulus is like a sledgehammer. If during a recession it is the only tool you have then by all means use it. But once the recession ends the sledgehammer should be returned to the tool shed and more precise tools need to be employed. But I thought you were for well-designed stimulus? Now you're just looking for every petty excuse to say no to stimulus. The US is technically not in a recession, but this is just a matter of semantics. Unemployment is high, inflation is low, GDP is far below potential, treasury yields are low, tax revenue is down, the Fed's rate is at the zero lower bound, etc, these are the situations in which stimulus is most effective. Going back to the example, the updated choices of (a) and (b) apply to the current situation, where a lack of action will prolong this period of high unemployment, subpar GDP growth, low inflation, and falling tax revenue, all of which make the debt problem worse. Low employment, at potential GDP growth, higher inflation, increasing tax revenue -- all of these things make the debt problem better. Fiscal stimulus is a sledgehammer? What? Fiscal stimulus can be as precise and well-targeted as you want. North Dakota has low unemployment -- fine, don't give them stimulus. In fact, there's absolutely no reason why a stimulus package can't take money away from North Dakota and shift it to Nevada. 34 states have unemployment greater or equal to 7%. Also, saying that North Dakota has 3% unemployment because ARRA money keeps pouring into it is a (clearly accidental) admission that stimulus works. The highest unemployment got in North Dakota was 4.2% in Mar of '09. South Dakota peaked at 5.3% Nebraska peaked at 4.9% These are not unemployment rates warranting a fiscal stimulus (ARRA or otherwise). There are currently 10 states with an unemployment rate below 6%. Yet we keep pumping huge amounts of stimulus into these states and the President wants even more pumped into them. Yes, theoretically you can target a stimulus quite well. But that's not what the stimulus was or is or ever will be so long as we maintain the mindset that government spending is a virtue in and of itself. So I just had a look at the numbers for North Dakota. http://www.recovery.gov/pages/textview.aspx?data=recipientHomeMapPlease stop making things up. ND has received $913,291,125. Of the 51 main states, a total of $214,906,607,851 was given out. So ND got 0.4% of the money. That's less than half of 1%. In fact, only 4 other states got less money. So this idea that all the ARRA money is pouring into a state with 3% unemployment is bogus. And even if it were true (which as I've shown, it isn't), this isn't even an argument against stimulus, at best, it's an argument to do stimulus better. Here's another graph. ND is hardly even visible on this graph. ![[image loading]](http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/09/cea_arra5.gif) Lol, North Dakota is a small state. Per capital North Dakota has received $1,597 in direct ARRA spending and California has received $922. Stop changing the subject. Your argument was that stimulus is like a sledgehammer that will blanket the economy. The example you gave was that ARRA continues to shove money at North Dakota despite its 3% unemployment rate. Basically, that stimulus is necessarily a blunt instrument, affecting states that don't need that money, so that it is inefficient and wasteful. The first part is completely false, as I've previously said. For the second part, in the case of ND, to judge whether ARRA was inefficient and wasteful, the correct metric to use is the proportion of ARRA money given to ND, not the amount of ARRA money ND received per capita, because the fact that only 0.4% of all of the ARRA money was given to ND means that had there been a more efficient and optimal allocation of money that gave ND less money it would make virtually zero difference to the economic effect of ARRA because 0.4% is a completely trivial amount. Further, you haven't shown that with the information known in 2009 that ND received too much ARRA money. Stimulus is like a sledgehammer because it goes to regions, industries and individuals that do not need it. Just because it is theoretically possible to spend stimulus in a very targeted and well thought out manner doesn't make it a reality. As I've pointed out three states never needed a stimulus (ARRA or otherwise). We can add to that states that are doing fine currently and could stand on their own with substantially less federal stimulus. We can then add to that industries that received stimulus money that were / are doing just fine regardless. There's a reason why we don't completely turn the economic keys over to the government - it is inefficient. That inefficiency doesn't go away when writing stimulus bills. As for the 'trivial' nature of ND stimulus I would reply that stimulus wasted on ND is not the only stimulus wasted. An example of waste need not invalidate an entire spending program to be a valid example of waste. As for judging the decision to give ND a stimulus ex-ante - well that's a very interesting idea! I'll have to get back to you on that one  You have neither showed that the stimulus that went to ND or elsewhere was not needed, nor that the amount of stimulus that was not needed was in any way comparable to the amount of stimulus that was needed. The overall impact of the stimulus was studied extensively and the studies have shown it has helped save/create millions of jobs.
I'm not sure how you can justify a fiscal stimulus in a state that is / was more or less at full employment.
As for the overall impact of the stimulus - I won't deny that it created / saved jobs but doing some good does not mean that the money was as well spent as it should have been nor does it justify current levels of stimulus or calls for added stimulus.
|
On August 25 2012 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:13 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2012 02:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 25 2012 01:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 24 2012 23:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 24 2012 13:15 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 24 2012 03:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 23 2012 19:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 23 2012 01:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 22 2012 17:11 paralleluniverse wrote:[quote] Now you've changed the subject from whether fiscal stimulus is effective when government has high debt to the cost of fiscal stimulus. The idea that people would withhold a small portion of spending due to anticipated future tax increases that is needed to pay off the debt incurred with fiscal stimulus is highly unrealistic. But even if we stick to the model, and assume this is true, you're assertion that people will spend less in the future because of this doesn't mean that fiscal stimulus is a bad idea. You're comparing 2 scenarios: (a) reduced future spending due to stimulus with (b) no reduction in future spending due to not doing stimulus. Then you conclude that (b) is better than (a), therefore stimulus is bad. But this only shows that fiscal stimulus is useless in normal times (which it is), it completely misses the point. The alternative to (a) isn't (b). In the absence of stimulus, in a recession, (b) will not happen, future spending will decrease due to the collapse of aggregate demand as part of the recession. Here, (b) does not describe a recession absent stimulus, it describes an economy in normal times absent stimulus. Therefore, your analysis does not apply in the current economic environment. The two choices are more like: (a) reduced future spending due to stimulus and (b) even more reduced future spending and prolonged recession due to not doing stimulus. There is also a costless version of fiscal stimulus that gets little mention. It's called balanced budget fiscal expansion, which is basically a euphemism for tax and spend: http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/balanced-budget-expansion-debate-begins.html We are neither in normal times nor recessionary times. We're in between. I don't deny that a stimulus can help during a recession - though the one we had wasn't particularly effective - but we are not in a recession anymore. That's not to say that if we look at the economy as a whole things are fine and dandy - they certainly are not. But economic misery is not evenly spread out. Sure, California with a 10.7% unemployment rate could use a stimulus, but certainly not North Dakota with a 3% unemployment rate. Yet the ARRA continues to pour money into North Dakota and any new stimulus bill will do the same. The disparity isn't just regional either. Some industries, such as natural gas drilling, are doing phenomenally well while other industries, such as new home construction, continue to languish. Yet the reality of any current or planned stimulus is that it will blanket the economy. Stimulus is like a sledgehammer. If during a recession it is the only tool you have then by all means use it. But once the recession ends the sledgehammer should be returned to the tool shed and more precise tools need to be employed. But I thought you were for well-designed stimulus? Now you're just looking for every petty excuse to say no to stimulus. The US is technically not in a recession, but this is just a matter of semantics. Unemployment is high, inflation is low, GDP is far below potential, treasury yields are low, tax revenue is down, the Fed's rate is at the zero lower bound, etc, these are the situations in which stimulus is most effective. Going back to the example, the updated choices of (a) and (b) apply to the current situation, where a lack of action will prolong this period of high unemployment, subpar GDP growth, low inflation, and falling tax revenue, all of which make the debt problem worse. Low employment, at potential GDP growth, higher inflation, increasing tax revenue -- all of these things make the debt problem better. Fiscal stimulus is a sledgehammer? What? Fiscal stimulus can be as precise and well-targeted as you want. North Dakota has low unemployment -- fine, don't give them stimulus. In fact, there's absolutely no reason why a stimulus package can't take money away from North Dakota and shift it to Nevada. 34 states have unemployment greater or equal to 7%. Also, saying that North Dakota has 3% unemployment because ARRA money keeps pouring into it is a (clearly accidental) admission that stimulus works. The highest unemployment got in North Dakota was 4.2% in Mar of '09. South Dakota peaked at 5.3% Nebraska peaked at 4.9% These are not unemployment rates warranting a fiscal stimulus (ARRA or otherwise). There are currently 10 states with an unemployment rate below 6%. Yet we keep pumping huge amounts of stimulus into these states and the President wants even more pumped into them. Yes, theoretically you can target a stimulus quite well. But that's not what the stimulus was or is or ever will be so long as we maintain the mindset that government spending is a virtue in and of itself. So I just had a look at the numbers for North Dakota. http://www.recovery.gov/pages/textview.aspx?data=recipientHomeMapPlease stop making things up. ND has received $913,291,125. Of the 51 main states, a total of $214,906,607,851 was given out. So ND got 0.4% of the money. That's less than half of 1%. In fact, only 4 other states got less money. So this idea that all the ARRA money is pouring into a state with 3% unemployment is bogus. And even if it were true (which as I've shown, it isn't), this isn't even an argument against stimulus, at best, it's an argument to do stimulus better. Here's another graph. ND is hardly even visible on this graph. Lol, North Dakota is a small state. Per capital North Dakota has received $1,597 in direct ARRA spending and California has received $922. Stop changing the subject. Your argument was that stimulus is like a sledgehammer that will blanket the economy. The example you gave was that ARRA continues to shove money at North Dakota despite its 3% unemployment rate. Basically, that stimulus is necessarily a blunt instrument, affecting states that don't need that money, so that it is inefficient and wasteful. The first part is completely false, as I've previously said. For the second part, in the case of ND, to judge whether ARRA was inefficient and wasteful, the correct metric to use is the proportion of ARRA money given to ND, not the amount of ARRA money ND received per capita, because the fact that only 0.4% of all of the ARRA money was given to ND means that had there been a more efficient and optimal allocation of money that gave ND less money it would make virtually zero difference to the economic effect of ARRA because 0.4% is a completely trivial amount. Further, you haven't shown that with the information known in 2009 that ND received too much ARRA money. Stimulus is like a sledgehammer because it goes to regions, industries and individuals that do not need it. Just because it is theoretically possible to spend stimulus in a very targeted and well thought out manner doesn't make it a reality. As I've pointed out three states never needed a stimulus (ARRA or otherwise). We can add to that states that are doing fine currently and could stand on their own with substantially less federal stimulus. We can then add to that industries that received stimulus money that were / are doing just fine regardless. There's a reason why we don't completely turn the economic keys over to the government - it is inefficient. That inefficiency doesn't go away when writing stimulus bills. As for the 'trivial' nature of ND stimulus I would reply that stimulus wasted on ND is not the only stimulus wasted. An example of waste need not invalidate an entire spending program to be a valid example of waste. As for judging the decision to give ND a stimulus ex-ante - well that's a very interesting idea! I'll have to get back to you on that one You have neither showed that the stimulus that went to ND or elsewhere was not needed, nor that the amount of stimulus that was not needed was in any way comparable to the amount of stimulus that was needed. The overall impact of the stimulus was studied extensively and the studies have shown it has helped save/create millions of jobs. I'm not sure how you can justify a fiscal stimulus in a state that is / was more or less at full employment. As for the overall impact of the stimulus - I won't deny that it created / saved jobs but doing some good does not mean that the money was as well spent as it should have been nor does it justify current levels of stimulus or calls for added stimulus.
You can justify it by saying it might have helped build infrastructure, keep jobs, maybe create new ones, and everything else a stimulus is supposed to do. You haven't even explained why according to you it's supposed to have been bad in the first place - its small scope in ND and therefore its virtually non-existent impact on the federal debt has already been pointed out. Jesus Christ, read your own posts, you have no ground to stand on whatsoever, it's disgusting. paralleluniverse has addressed every single one of your complaints about stimulus and debunked them, and yet you hide behind vague accusations like "the money could have been spent better", giving no specifics whatsoever, and providing no reasoning to back up your claim that further stimulus would not help (in fact, the only source you provided was again debunked, yet you continue to make the claim). You're also in constant denial regarding current spending, which is NOT active stimulus of the kind we're talking about. Get a grip.
|
|
|
On August 25 2012 03:09 farvacola wrote:G.O.P. Offers Delegates Tips on Pretending to Like RomneyShow nested quote +1. In previous regional practice sessions, there has been a ten to fifteen second lag time between a speaker saying the name “Mitt Romney” and any audible applause or cheering on the part of session participants. To tighten up this “silence hole,” try to get in the habit of clapping/hooting/stomping whenever anyone says anything.
2. Here’s a simple exercise you can do in your hotel room, car, or anywhere. Say the name “Mitt Romney,” then try to visualize something that you love: a family member, for example, or your favorite Fox host.
3. Starting Monday morning at the Tampa Marriott there will be intensive thirty-minute coaching seminars on fake smiling and squealing led by Flo, of Progressive insurance fame! There will be light refreshments and amphetamines.
4. Some of you have expressed concern that no matter how hard you try, even after listening to the Kid Rock “Romney Rocks” CD we provided, every time you hear the name Mitt Romney you can’t help but frown and find yourselves on the edge of tears. To you, we say: “Go for it!” TV viewers are sure to misinterpret a delegate’s full-on sobbing as a sign of being overwhelmed by love for Mitt (LOL). To hone your weeping skills, we’ve included in your Convention Welcome Bag a DVD of Michael Phelps’s mom, Debbie, at the London Olympics and footage of Kim Jong-il’s funeral.
5. Close your eyes and think of Santorum. Source
Seriously bud? That's a spoof...
|
Akin to hold Press Conference @ 5:15 EST.
|
On August 25 2012 05:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Akin to hold Press Conference @ 5:15 EST.
I really hope he doesn't announce that he's no longer running, I want him to continue screwing Romney by association.
|
On August 25 2012 03:26 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 25 2012 02:13 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2012 02:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 25 2012 01:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 24 2012 23:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 24 2012 13:15 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 24 2012 03:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 23 2012 19:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 23 2012 01:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
We are neither in normal times nor recessionary times. We're in between. I don't deny that a stimulus can help during a recession - though the one we had wasn't particularly effective - but we are not in a recession anymore.
That's not to say that if we look at the economy as a whole things are fine and dandy - they certainly are not. But economic misery is not evenly spread out. Sure, California with a 10.7% unemployment rate could use a stimulus, but certainly not North Dakota with a 3% unemployment rate. Yet the ARRA continues to pour money into North Dakota and any new stimulus bill will do the same. The disparity isn't just regional either. Some industries, such as natural gas drilling, are doing phenomenally well while other industries, such as new home construction, continue to languish.
Yet the reality of any current or planned stimulus is that it will blanket the economy. Stimulus is like a sledgehammer. If during a recession it is the only tool you have then by all means use it. But once the recession ends the sledgehammer should be returned to the tool shed and more precise tools need to be employed. But I thought you were for well-designed stimulus? Now you're just looking for every petty excuse to say no to stimulus. The US is technically not in a recession, but this is just a matter of semantics. Unemployment is high, inflation is low, GDP is far below potential, treasury yields are low, tax revenue is down, the Fed's rate is at the zero lower bound, etc, these are the situations in which stimulus is most effective. Going back to the example, the updated choices of (a) and (b) apply to the current situation, where a lack of action will prolong this period of high unemployment, subpar GDP growth, low inflation, and falling tax revenue, all of which make the debt problem worse. Low employment, at potential GDP growth, higher inflation, increasing tax revenue -- all of these things make the debt problem better. Fiscal stimulus is a sledgehammer? What? Fiscal stimulus can be as precise and well-targeted as you want. North Dakota has low unemployment -- fine, don't give them stimulus. In fact, there's absolutely no reason why a stimulus package can't take money away from North Dakota and shift it to Nevada. 34 states have unemployment greater or equal to 7%. Also, saying that North Dakota has 3% unemployment because ARRA money keeps pouring into it is a (clearly accidental) admission that stimulus works. The highest unemployment got in North Dakota was 4.2% in Mar of '09. South Dakota peaked at 5.3% Nebraska peaked at 4.9% These are not unemployment rates warranting a fiscal stimulus (ARRA or otherwise). There are currently 10 states with an unemployment rate below 6%. Yet we keep pumping huge amounts of stimulus into these states and the President wants even more pumped into them. Yes, theoretically you can target a stimulus quite well. But that's not what the stimulus was or is or ever will be so long as we maintain the mindset that government spending is a virtue in and of itself. So I just had a look at the numbers for North Dakota. http://www.recovery.gov/pages/textview.aspx?data=recipientHomeMapPlease stop making things up. ND has received $913,291,125. Of the 51 main states, a total of $214,906,607,851 was given out. So ND got 0.4% of the money. That's less than half of 1%. In fact, only 4 other states got less money. So this idea that all the ARRA money is pouring into a state with 3% unemployment is bogus. And even if it were true (which as I've shown, it isn't), this isn't even an argument against stimulus, at best, it's an argument to do stimulus better. Here's another graph. ND is hardly even visible on this graph. Lol, North Dakota is a small state. Per capital North Dakota has received $1,597 in direct ARRA spending and California has received $922. Stop changing the subject. Your argument was that stimulus is like a sledgehammer that will blanket the economy. The example you gave was that ARRA continues to shove money at North Dakota despite its 3% unemployment rate. Basically, that stimulus is necessarily a blunt instrument, affecting states that don't need that money, so that it is inefficient and wasteful. The first part is completely false, as I've previously said. For the second part, in the case of ND, to judge whether ARRA was inefficient and wasteful, the correct metric to use is the proportion of ARRA money given to ND, not the amount of ARRA money ND received per capita, because the fact that only 0.4% of all of the ARRA money was given to ND means that had there been a more efficient and optimal allocation of money that gave ND less money it would make virtually zero difference to the economic effect of ARRA because 0.4% is a completely trivial amount. Further, you haven't shown that with the information known in 2009 that ND received too much ARRA money. Stimulus is like a sledgehammer because it goes to regions, industries and individuals that do not need it. Just because it is theoretically possible to spend stimulus in a very targeted and well thought out manner doesn't make it a reality. As I've pointed out three states never needed a stimulus (ARRA or otherwise). We can add to that states that are doing fine currently and could stand on their own with substantially less federal stimulus. We can then add to that industries that received stimulus money that were / are doing just fine regardless. There's a reason why we don't completely turn the economic keys over to the government - it is inefficient. That inefficiency doesn't go away when writing stimulus bills. As for the 'trivial' nature of ND stimulus I would reply that stimulus wasted on ND is not the only stimulus wasted. An example of waste need not invalidate an entire spending program to be a valid example of waste. As for judging the decision to give ND a stimulus ex-ante - well that's a very interesting idea! I'll have to get back to you on that one You have neither showed that the stimulus that went to ND or elsewhere was not needed, nor that the amount of stimulus that was not needed was in any way comparable to the amount of stimulus that was needed. The overall impact of the stimulus was studied extensively and the studies have shown it has helped save/create millions of jobs. I'm not sure how you can justify a fiscal stimulus in a state that is / was more or less at full employment. As for the overall impact of the stimulus - I won't deny that it created / saved jobs but doing some good does not mean that the money was as well spent as it should have been nor does it justify current levels of stimulus or calls for added stimulus. You can justify it by saying it might have helped build infrastructure, keep jobs, maybe create new ones, and everything else a stimulus is supposed to do. You haven't even explained why according to you it's supposed to have been bad in the first place - its small scope in ND and therefore its virtually non-existent impact on the federal debt has already been pointed out. Jesus Christ, read your own posts, you have no ground to stand on whatsoever, it's disgusting. paralleluniverse has addressed every single one of your complaints about stimulus and debunked them, and yet you hide behind vague accusations like "the money could have been spent better", giving no specifics whatsoever, and providing no reasoning to back up your claim that further stimulus would not help (in fact, the only source you provided was again debunked, yet you continue to make the claim). You're also in constant denial regarding current spending, which is NOT active stimulus of the kind we're talking about. Get a grip.
The kind of active stimulus you want to talk about (needed roads, bridges, education, healthcare, etc.) has nothing to do with stimulus. That's public investment and it is good (when justified) in both good times and bad.
The idea of stimulus is to increase economic activity now at the expense of economic activity later (when the debt is repaid). Now, if you spend the stimulus money on worthwhile investment the day of reckoning will be painless - increased economic activity will repay the debt and still leave you with more than you had before. However, if you blow the stimulus on unnecessary investment by, for example, crowding out private investment or subsidizing inefficient capital goods or simple consumption, the day of reckoning will be painful since you will not have the added economic activity with which to repay the debt.
Simply saying that jobs were created and economic output increased only justifies the stimulus in so far as the stimulus helped prevent the economy from entering a downward spiral. Beyond that the justification is much more murky since we do not yet know what the economic cost of the stimulus will ultimately be. Without a clear picture on the cost any declaration that the stimulus was a success is either premature or only concerned with short-run economic activity.
|
On August 25 2012 05:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:26 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2012 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 25 2012 02:13 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2012 02:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 25 2012 01:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 24 2012 23:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 24 2012 13:15 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 24 2012 03:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 23 2012 19:02 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
But I thought you were for well-designed stimulus?
Now you're just looking for every petty excuse to say no to stimulus.
The US is technically not in a recession, but this is just a matter of semantics. Unemployment is high, inflation is low, GDP is far below potential, treasury yields are low, tax revenue is down, the Fed's rate is at the zero lower bound, etc, these are the situations in which stimulus is most effective. Going back to the example, the updated choices of (a) and (b) apply to the current situation, where a lack of action will prolong this period of high unemployment, subpar GDP growth, low inflation, and falling tax revenue, all of which make the debt problem worse. Low employment, at potential GDP growth, higher inflation, increasing tax revenue -- all of these things make the debt problem better.
Fiscal stimulus is a sledgehammer? What? Fiscal stimulus can be as precise and well-targeted as you want. North Dakota has low unemployment -- fine, don't give them stimulus. In fact, there's absolutely no reason why a stimulus package can't take money away from North Dakota and shift it to Nevada. 34 states have unemployment greater or equal to 7%. Also, saying that North Dakota has 3% unemployment because ARRA money keeps pouring into it is a (clearly accidental) admission that stimulus works. The highest unemployment got in North Dakota was 4.2% in Mar of '09. South Dakota peaked at 5.3% Nebraska peaked at 4.9% These are not unemployment rates warranting a fiscal stimulus (ARRA or otherwise). There are currently 10 states with an unemployment rate below 6%. Yet we keep pumping huge amounts of stimulus into these states and the President wants even more pumped into them. Yes, theoretically you can target a stimulus quite well. But that's not what the stimulus was or is or ever will be so long as we maintain the mindset that government spending is a virtue in and of itself. So I just had a look at the numbers for North Dakota. http://www.recovery.gov/pages/textview.aspx?data=recipientHomeMapPlease stop making things up. ND has received $913,291,125. Of the 51 main states, a total of $214,906,607,851 was given out. So ND got 0.4% of the money. That's less than half of 1%. In fact, only 4 other states got less money. So this idea that all the ARRA money is pouring into a state with 3% unemployment is bogus. And even if it were true (which as I've shown, it isn't), this isn't even an argument against stimulus, at best, it's an argument to do stimulus better. Here's another graph. ND is hardly even visible on this graph. Lol, North Dakota is a small state. Per capital North Dakota has received $1,597 in direct ARRA spending and California has received $922. Stop changing the subject. Your argument was that stimulus is like a sledgehammer that will blanket the economy. The example you gave was that ARRA continues to shove money at North Dakota despite its 3% unemployment rate. Basically, that stimulus is necessarily a blunt instrument, affecting states that don't need that money, so that it is inefficient and wasteful. The first part is completely false, as I've previously said. For the second part, in the case of ND, to judge whether ARRA was inefficient and wasteful, the correct metric to use is the proportion of ARRA money given to ND, not the amount of ARRA money ND received per capita, because the fact that only 0.4% of all of the ARRA money was given to ND means that had there been a more efficient and optimal allocation of money that gave ND less money it would make virtually zero difference to the economic effect of ARRA because 0.4% is a completely trivial amount. Further, you haven't shown that with the information known in 2009 that ND received too much ARRA money. Stimulus is like a sledgehammer because it goes to regions, industries and individuals that do not need it. Just because it is theoretically possible to spend stimulus in a very targeted and well thought out manner doesn't make it a reality. As I've pointed out three states never needed a stimulus (ARRA or otherwise). We can add to that states that are doing fine currently and could stand on their own with substantially less federal stimulus. We can then add to that industries that received stimulus money that were / are doing just fine regardless. There's a reason why we don't completely turn the economic keys over to the government - it is inefficient. That inefficiency doesn't go away when writing stimulus bills. As for the 'trivial' nature of ND stimulus I would reply that stimulus wasted on ND is not the only stimulus wasted. An example of waste need not invalidate an entire spending program to be a valid example of waste. As for judging the decision to give ND a stimulus ex-ante - well that's a very interesting idea! I'll have to get back to you on that one You have neither showed that the stimulus that went to ND or elsewhere was not needed, nor that the amount of stimulus that was not needed was in any way comparable to the amount of stimulus that was needed. The overall impact of the stimulus was studied extensively and the studies have shown it has helped save/create millions of jobs. I'm not sure how you can justify a fiscal stimulus in a state that is / was more or less at full employment. As for the overall impact of the stimulus - I won't deny that it created / saved jobs but doing some good does not mean that the money was as well spent as it should have been nor does it justify current levels of stimulus or calls for added stimulus. You can justify it by saying it might have helped build infrastructure, keep jobs, maybe create new ones, and everything else a stimulus is supposed to do. You haven't even explained why according to you it's supposed to have been bad in the first place - its small scope in ND and therefore its virtually non-existent impact on the federal debt has already been pointed out. Jesus Christ, read your own posts, you have no ground to stand on whatsoever, it's disgusting. paralleluniverse has addressed every single one of your complaints about stimulus and debunked them, and yet you hide behind vague accusations like "the money could have been spent better", giving no specifics whatsoever, and providing no reasoning to back up your claim that further stimulus would not help (in fact, the only source you provided was again debunked, yet you continue to make the claim). You're also in constant denial regarding current spending, which is NOT active stimulus of the kind we're talking about. Get a grip. The kind of active stimulus you want to talk about (needed roads, bridges, education, healthcare, etc.) has nothing to do with stimulus. That's public investment and it is good (when justified) in both good times and bad. The idea of stimulus is to increase economic activity now at the expense of economic activity later (when the debt is repaid). Now, if you spend the stimulus money on worthwhile investment the day of reckoning will be painless - increased economic activity will repay the debt and still leave you with more than you had before. However, if you blow the stimulus on unnecessary investment by, for example, crowding out private investment or subsidizing inefficient capital goods or simple consumption, the day of reckoning will be painful since you will not have the added economic activity with which to repay the debt. Simply saying that jobs were created and economic output increased only justifies the stimulus in so far as the stimulus helped prevent the economy from entering a downward spiral. Beyond that the justification is much more murky since we do not yet know what the economic cost of the stimulus will ultimately be. Without a clear picture on the cost any declaration that the stimulus was a success is either premature or only concerned with short-run economic activity.
The long run effect of the stimulus beyond what we have experienced is negligible unless you're still trying to claim that all debt=stimulus. It is simply not enough of a change in our overall debt to be that significant.
In an economy at full employment additional stimulus will be bled out of the economy through trade (learned it in class, no source, sold textbook) In one state this trade will be (mostly) with other states and other countries providing some stimulus to states it trades with. So while inefficient stimulus money to a state with full employment goes somewhere, what do you think happens to the money?
Also why do you think that the stimulus could have such detrimental long-term effects?
Edit: grammar
|
On August 25 2012 05:45 renaissanceMAN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 05:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Akin to hold Press Conference @ 5:15 EST. I really hope he doesn't announce that he's no longer running, I want him to continue screwing Romney by association.
Isn't it a little late now? Either way he's on the ballot, right? It's not like they can get a new candidate or anything...
|
Where will his press conference be broadcasted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haha, at the end the guy was like "Seriously, five minutes of questions? You're serious."
|
So Ron Paul will not be speaking at the convention but there will a tribute to him. But seriously:
+ Show Spoiler +
This should not be a surprise especially to Ron Paul supporters who seem to enjoy repeating the story of the Scorpion and the Frog.
|
Republicans Eye Return to Gold Standard
Personally I think it's an empty gesture that the party has no intention of fulfilling, or that they know the Democrats will block them from implementing. The economy is so globalized today, gold standard would really complicate international trade.
|
On August 25 2012 13:14 Signet wrote:Republicans Eye Return to Gold StandardPersonally I think it's an empty gesture that the party has no intention of fulfilling, or that they know the Democrats will block them from implementing. The economy is so globalized today, gold standard would really complicate international trade.
I see it more as a threat to the Fed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
