mmm... pancake: Not only that but unemployment has surpassed what unemployment would have been without the stimulus.

Oh sorry, I just noticed this. Do you have a source for this one, too?

Thanks again!

The Homer Tax: Source?



MugzyBrown can point you to the source PDF that was produced by Obama's economic advisors.

This is what you're looking for, Homer:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Would be nice if fark didn't filter out pdf links; sorry for the inconvenience.

Here it is...

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Larofeticus: This is what you're looking for, Homer:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Would be nice if fark didn't filter out pdf links; sorry for the inconvenience.

Don't worry, they won't read it anyway.

The words "standards of success" were actually used no where in that document, FWIW.

Also, significant space was allotted to the "uncertainty" of projections. What I read was (like most projections) "This is our best guess as to what will happen."

It didn't. I mean, I know you have a political axe to grind here, but it seems silly some of the statements that you are making in light of what was actually written.

Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate
unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Don't worry, they won't read it anyway.

I read it, concluded their projections were wrong, and noted that they noted that their projections could be wrong.

Comments?

Yes, because the McCain/Palin Plan would have really delivered by now.

The Homer Tax You've said this three times now, do you have a link I can read? I'd love to take a look at it. this is the first I've ever heard of "8.5%"

It's common knowledge (to anyone that pays attention) the Obama administration predicted without a stimulus bill unemployment would hit 9% early next year. (That's not even worth wasting the time to look up.) We are now approaching 10% unemployment with that stimulus bill being passed.

The only conclusions we can come to is the stimulus is...

A. Not working at all.

B. Working but the economy was worse than expected.

Nobody really knows for sure, but with the urgency and sloppiness in which it was passed, it looks like on the surface we should have at least had a better bill.

Cool, so if I set a fire in an apartment complex, and firemen attempting to put out the blaze say "we believe if we do blah, blah, blah we can save 8 of the 10 buildings" but then only manage to save 6 of the 10 buildings... I get to have the firemen prosecuted instead of me.

The fire is now THEIR fault because their projections weren't 100% accurate... That's awesome.

That or mmm... pancake has gone full retard. You were always a zealot, but now you're just a complete idiot. That's really some of the most moronic "logic" I've ever heard.

You should sit in front of a mirror and say it out loud to yourself... When you see how stupid you look and sound, you might learn a valuable lesson for next time.

The Homer Tax: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Don't worry, they won't read it anyway.

I read it, concluded their projections were wrong, and noted that they noted that their projections could be wrong.

Comments?

It's a dry read, I'm almost sorry I looked at it. That's the problem with projections though, too many people who support the candidate who makes them take it as fact.

MFL: It's common knowledge (to anyone that pays attention) the Obama administration predicted without a stimulus bill unemployment would hit 9% early next year. (That's not even worth wasting the time to look up.) We are now approaching 10% unemployment with that stimulus bill being passed.

Right, and they spent a significant portion of their projections commenting on how their projections could be wrong, and how difficult it was to project such things. They even went as far as to offer projections that far outpaced their projections.

They didn't say "This is what will happen." They said "This is our best guess as to what will happen, but we acknowledge that it could be much worse based on the complexity of the situation."

Again, I know you have a political axe to grind, but in reading the document that you linked, it appears that you're being at the very least, intellectually dishonest in your characterization of what was actually said.

3_Butt_Cheeks: That's the problem with projections though, too many people who support the candidate who makes them take it as fact.

From what I'm reading here, the issue is that the people who don't support the President are upset that the projections his administration provided *weren't* fact.

The Homer Tax: 3_Butt_Cheeks: That's the problem with projections though, too many people who support the candidate who makes them take it as fact.

From what I'm reading here, the issue is that the people who don't support the President are upset that the projections his administration provided *weren't* fact.

Yea, well it goes both ways. When a politician gets up and speaks matter-of-factly with projections about the economy, he better err on the side of caution. When those predictions don't pan out, you really should expect to be called on it. Nothing new here.

The Homer Tax
Again, I know you have a political axe to grind, but in reading the document that you linked, it appears that you're being at the very least, intellectually dishonest in your characterization of what was actually said.

huh?

You're calling me a liar about a link I didn't post or know anything about.

Nice.

Ahem.

"A key goal enunciated by the President-Elect concerning the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is that it should save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010."

That is literally the first sentence in the body of the document.

On the issue of uncertainty, which it is very true that they allow room for error in their modeling and discuss this.

"In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least 5 million."

They set an upper bound to their error at 5 million, though qualifying with "at least" makes it conveniently impossible to falsify. We've already blown past that, which puts alot of their methodology, and especially their conclusions, into doubt.

I suspect the primary reason they lowballed so many of their estimates is that accurate numbers are bad, and if they use accurate numbers then it would spook everyone. Back in January only the most independent thinkers were claiming 10% unemployment was possible, but that suggestion was verboten to most pundits, officials, and media sources. Hell not even the "worst case scenario" of the fabled stress test managed to come close to what we're actually seeing.

3_Butt_Cheeks: When those predictions don't pan out, you really should expect to be called on it.

I think we can all agree that the President's projections were wrong. The questions is: does that mean that the stimulus a failure. pancakes is arguing that the President said that if his projections were wrong, by his own omission, then the stimulus was a failure. I didn't read that anywhere.

MFL: You're calling me a liar about a link I didn't post or know anything about.

My mistake, I confused you for someone who bothered to actually post the projections.

The Homer Tax: The questions is: does that mean that the stimulus a failure. pancakes is arguing that the President said that if his projections were wrong, by his own omission, then the stimulus was a failure. I didn't read that anywhere.

Many believe the stimulus was a failure to begin with because it was unnecessary and filled with social agendas. Others didn't think it was big enough, thus a failure of sorts.

The true judge will be time. That being said, it certainly cannot be said it is off to a good start.

The Homer Tax From what I'm reading here, the issue is that the people who don't support the President are upset that the projections his administration provided *weren't* fact.

lol

A projection is not a "fact". It's just an educated guess.

The only "fact" was that the Obama adminstration made economic "projections" that were "wrong".

I'm not gonna complain about projections having error.

But when compared to what actually happened, there was a lot of error, far beyond what their qualifications of uncertainly would lead someone to believe.

Then they used those poor projections to justify very very expensive public policy. That's the part I have the complaint with.

MFL: A projection is not a "fact". It's just an educated guess.

Correct.

The only "fact" was that the Obama adminstration made economic "projections" that were "wrong".

Correct. They also acknowledged that they could be wrong and offered alternate projections as a point of reference. I'm taking issue with a statement about "standards of success" regarding the stimulus that, FWIW, I can't find were ever made.

Larofeticus
I'm not gonna complain about projections having error.

But when compared to what actually happened, there was a lot of error, far beyond what their qualifications of uncertainly would lead someone to believe.

Then they used those poor projections to justify very very expensive public policy. That's the part I have the complaint with.

You must be a political hack (and probably racist) to even consider something like that. Get those thoughts out of your head.

Larofeticus: But when compared to what actually happened, there was a lot of error, far beyond what their qualifications of uncertainly would lead someone to believe.

Actually, if you read the linked document, it's nowhere near "far beyond what their qualifications of uncertainty would lead someone to believe." It's right there in the linked document.

Larofeticus


Then they used those poor projections to justify very very expensive public policy. That's the part I have the complaint with.

They should have spent twice as much.

The Homer Tax Correct. They also acknowledged that they could be wrong and offered alternate projections as a point of reference. I'm taking issue with a statement about "standards of success" regarding the stimulus that, FWIW, I can't find were ever made.

I'm not necessarily arguing with you. Nobody really knows what effect the stimulus is having because we really have nothing to compare it to or base it on.

But on the surface it looks like the Obama administration took our money and allowed Pelosi to blow it on shoes.

Well there is one footnote that says some private forecasters think it might go as high as 11%. I'm sure if you do a full survey of predicting people then you could find someone that says much higher than that, and probably some people that would have said lower too. 11% is not the number they picked to do their calculations to make policy recomendations though; they picked 8.8%.

We're at 6.5m jobs lost now and still going, which is at least 5m.

Nucleus: They should have spent twice as much.

I've always loved that argument. If it works then the government can take the credit, and if it doesn't work it's because they didn't spend enough. Can't lose.

Now tell me my horoscope; i'm an Aries.

Car_Ramrod: portscanner: Came here for the but, but, but, but Bush!!!

Left satisfied.

Seriously. Bush isn't in office anymore, guys. He has no relevency to what's happening. It's all Barry. Sorry you got duped.

This is confusing to me, because when the US Economy was in the shiatter in 1982 I was told that Reagan was still trying to clean up Jimmy Carter's mess.

If Saint Ronny Divined Upon The American People by God couldn't fix a bad economy in 2 years, what chance does a mere mortal like Obama have to fix it in 6 months?

Larofeticus: I've always loved that argument. If it works then the government can take the credit, and if it doesn't work it's because they didn't spend enough. Can't lose.


Conceivably they could do nothing and the whole country would lose. Once again, the purpose of the stimulus is to get some of the unemployed receiving a paycheck while accomplishing some important public works. They didn't spend this money on wasteful foreign wars, they spent it on science and roads among other things, and yes these projects employ people.

Presumably you would like to see the unemployment number slow its rate of increase and perhaps even go down rather than up. Prepare yourself to watch congress spend some more money in order to do this. Be grateful its being spent on something useful.

Nucleus:

It's also quite conceivable that they could do nothing and the recovery would begin sooner. Sadly, I am no more able to prove my assertion than you are yours. We do not get parallel universes to set in motion and compare our respective ideologies.

Yes I agree domestic expenditure is better than foreign, but better doesn't go all the way to good. Besides, what we'll be getting now is both sorts of spending. A fancy pullout from Iraq, although a good start, is only a good start and does nothing to remove the expense of all those other hundreds of unnessecary military bases spread across the globe.

Larofeticus: Nucleus:

It's also quite conceivable that they could do nothing and the recovery would begin sooner. .


You can't grow an economy on hamburger stands and lawn services. I believe the market is also saturated with dog walkers last I checked. There is no logical sequence of events that would imply doing nothing is productive. Try it for yourself, plant your ass on the couch next week and see how much gets done.

The stimulus was 800 billion. For all of the goodies in this bill, answer me this....

1. How are we going to pay for it?

2. No seriously, how are we going to pay for it?

MFL

How are we going to pay for it?

How did we pay for the wars and all those tax cuts? We aren't saddling the next generation with debt, we're purchasing the opportunities of tomorrow.

MFL: The stimulus was 800 billion. For all of the goodies in this bill, answer me this....

1. How are we going to pay for it?

2. No seriously, how are we going to pay for it?

Sweet Jesus, you STILL don't get the strategy behind the stimulus bill?

Nucleus How did we pay for the wars and all those tax cuts?

we're purchasing the opportunities of tomorrow.

You seriously don't believe that shiat? Do you?

brainiac-dumdum Sweet Jesus, you STILL don't get the strategy behind the stimulus bill?

Please enlighten me.

Nucleus: You can't grow an economy on hamburger stands and lawn services. I believe the market is also saturated with dog walkers last I checked. There is no logical sequence of events that would imply doing nothing is productive. Try it for yourself, plant your ass on the couch next week and see how much gets done.

I'm not advocating individuals do nothing; I'm advocating the government do nothing.

Stimulus money is all about keeping people employed. If they stay employed in their less productive hamburger stands, lawn services, dog walking and other overbuilt activities then nothing gets fixed. Stimulus is about preserving the economy as it currently exists, not changing it to more suitibly or efficiently meet the needs of consumers.

In order to change the economy for the better, people have to lose those less productive jobs and find new ones. Unproductive buisnesses have to go bankrupt and their assets be purchased by new buisnesses with different buisness models. If stimulus keeps those jobs and assets tied up in uproductive activities, then they can't contribute to a recovery.

That re-arrangment of resources takes time, the recession, and is too detailed and complex to be centrally planned by the government. Instead, wage levels and asset prices adjust, people switch from lost jobs to ones they can find, unproductive buisnesses close, new buisnesses spring up to meet the changing demands of consumers, and people resume saving money which is a nessecary component of the investment needed to end the recession and return to prosperity.

MFL


You seriously don't believe that shiat? Do you?

Purchasing the opportunities of tomorrow by investing in education and science? Of course I do. Without committing to research and development there never would have been a silicon valley, a tech boom, and we wouldn't be on the cusp of a biotechnology revolution.

You can go back further in time and see how the same set of properly aligned priorities enabled drug discovery, superconductors, and better algorithms. All of this technology gets ported to the private sector and creates jobs.

Where did you think this stuff comes from?

Larofeticus: Nucleus: You can't grow an economy on hamburger stands and lawn services. I believe the market is also saturated with dog walkers last I checked. There is no logical sequence of events that would imply doing nothing is productive. Try it for yourself, plant your ass on the couch next week and see how much gets done.

I'm not advocating individuals do nothing; I'm advocating the government do nothing.

Stimulus money is all about keeping people employed. If they stay employed in their less productive hamburger stands, lawn services, dog walking and other overbuilt activities then nothing gets fixed. Stimulus is about preserving the economy as it currently exists, not changing it to more suitibly or efficiently meet the needs of consumers.

In order to change the economy for the better, people have to lose those less productive jobs and find new ones. Unproductive buisnesses have to go bankrupt and their assets be purchased by new buisnesses with different buisness models. If stimulus keeps those jobs and assets tied up in uproductive activities, then they can't contribute to a recovery.

That re-arrangment of resources takes time, the recession, and is too detailed and complex to be centrally planned by the government. Instead, wage levels and asset prices adjust, people switch from lost jobs to ones they can find, unproductive buisnesses close, new buisnesses spring up to meet the changing demands of consumers, and people resume saving money which is a nessecary component of the investment needed to end the recession and return to prosperity.


I disagree with your notion that the stimulus is to preserve the economy as it exists. You are confusing the stimulus with the banking and auto bailout, these are separate issues. Remember a large part of the stimulus money went to the department of energy and national institute of health to fund the grants that will lead to the commercialized technology of tomorrow.

Yes I agree that unsuccessful businesses need to turn over. However you are forgetting that this is no ordinary recession. 6 million jobs have been lost. We have the highest unemployment in 26 years, think about that for just a moment while you're waiting for these people to find new jobs.

Yes, the rearrangement of resources takes time. Too much time for Joe sixpack to wait while his house is about to be foreclosed on dragging those lucky enough to still have jobs down with him. Yes it takes time but in the same breath you aren't giving the stimulus a chance to disseminate. I would go on a limb and say many of these projects havn't yet started, much less finished, further national assets like roads have value, and building them now will cushion the damage of losing 6 million jobs.

You are also making a hack's argument that the government is "centrally planning" the recovery. Understand that acting as a catalyst to promote growth in new sectors and down-regulating the old is not as what is suggested in oft repeated republican talking points.

Not to be a complete buzzkill while everyone is getting into this, but is it possible that we won't really be able to sort out the last couple of years of economic events for another 10-15 years?
Simply put, much of what we've seen is unprecedented, so few of the models and theories we have really apply, and that it may only be in hindsight that we are able to really pick out the important data trends from the avalanche of information we're constantly bombarded with? And that most positions don't therefore have any basis in economic theory or practice, but instead are noting more than blind, meaningless partisan chest pounding?

Nucleus: Purchasing the opportunities of tomorrow by investing in education and science

You've never worked in public science, have you?
90% of it is a money pit. Make-work for grad students and professors. I myself am guilty of being on the dole, but I don't intend to make a career out of it. It is by no means an efficient way of producing knowledge but the stimulus will keep it going at the expense of everyone else.

Making statements about the magnitude of a recession do nothing to solve a problem of kind. Emotional appeals don't cancel the fact that Joe-Six-Pack's mortgage is a toxic asset and poisoning the banking sector in it's current unliquidated form. That's just another nessecary adjustment of asset prices that needs to happen to end the recession, but stimulus and bailouts will delay.

Picking the winners and losers counts as central planning in my book. Ethanol got picked as pork for the midwest and now it's failing. The winners with cap and trade will be the people that manage the market for it. Green technology is annointed as a winner so heavily that it will probably be the next bubble to inflate and pop.

Nucleus Purchasing the opportunities of tomorrow by investing in education and science? Of course I do. Without committing to research and development there never would have been a silicon valley, a tech boom, and we wouldn't be on the cusp of a biotechnology revolution.

So...the biotechnology revolution that's going to be created by the stimulus package is going to create an economic boom that is going to pay for the trillions of dollars of debt we are putting ourselves in. What are we going to clone mexicans to work at GM fro 20 cents an hour?

What we are looking at in the upcoming months because of this "investment" is a weaker dollar and inflation...and a government that won't eventually be able to fund these worthy projects you mention in the long term. We could potentially have a generation of wealth lost before we get back on track.

We need to fix the economy we have now, not 15 years from now.

DarnoKonrad: Erebus1954: Sad but true: [9:10 on food stamps]


I know people on food stamps. And in this state, the qualification are pretty damn destitute.

It has a lot to do with the last 10 years being the only economic expansion that saw buying power for consumers lower.

This really is miserable shiat.

So much THIS.

Few people seem to grasp how long this has been going on. The "boom" of the 90s is not what they think. And things were happening before Bush that led to this (I'm not saying Bush didn't help pile the shiat on, just that he wasn't the only one.)

MFL: Please enlighten me.

to "prime the pump" in order to get the economy going again

brainiac-dumdum: to "prime the pump" in order to get the economy going again

I think he might want a little more detail than a metaphor that reduces the size and complexity of the economy to a motor with a handle on it.

Argh2: Not to be a complete buzzkill while everyone is getting into this, but is it possible that we won't really be able to sort out the last couple of years of economic events for another 10-15 years?
Simply put, much of what we've seen is unprecedented, so few of the models and theories we have really apply, and that it may only be in hindsight that we are able to really pick out the important data trends from the avalanche of information we're constantly bombarded with? And that most positions don't therefore have any basis in economic theory or practice, but instead are noting more than blind, meaningless partisan chest pounding?

This is probably more true than we'd like it to be.

Unfortunately, just saying "I don't know" doesn't seem to make too many people happy. So they make something up based on what little they know.

elchip: Rockstone: Maybe not millionaires- but we would be better off.

Have you come from an alternate future where he won? Do tell!

Yes. He went forwards in time, bringing one person with him. But his safety was not insured. He had only done this once before.

cuzsis Unfortunately, just saying "I don't know" doesn't seem to make too many people happy.

It's also boring.

What good is a flame war without any fire?

Nucleus: Larofeticus: Oooo I found one! It's hot, though.



Time to add another reality dot to that fantasy.

If anyone doesn't believe that graph initially came from the Obama campaign, i'll go track down the pdf of it.



Do any of you understand what a projection is?


One of those futures the Echthroi want to make real?

MFL: cuzsis Unfortunately, just saying "I don't know" doesn't seem to make too many people happy.

It's also boring.

What good is a flame war without any fire?

True that.

Larofeticus: brainiac-dumdum: to "prime the pump" in order to get the economy going again

I think he might want a little more detail than a metaphor that reduces the size and complexity of the economy to a motor with a handle on it.

There's the thing called the internet, people are able to look stuff up there