Stimulus Worked!

[bloodyminded]

We were talking about Obama and his popularity being similar to Reagan's the first half of his first term. Reagan ended up quite popular - Obama won't.

No, I was responding to your specific and explicit remark about Reagan's massive popularity at the end of his presidency. That was your claim. I corrected it, informing you (since you obviously didn't know it, perhaps having read some right-wing screeds on Reagan and taking them for objective fact) that Reagan's end-of-office popularity was perfectly average. Not high. And that, using your own standards, Clinton's popularity was higher.

That's a different issue than Obama's future popularity...which is unadulterated speculation, and nothing else.

The MSM isn't left wing? Oh - I get it. You and I have different yardsticks. You think the media is quite centrist and perhaps even a bit right wing. The real left wing to you are people like Karl Marx, Mao tse tung, and the like. The centre to you is composed of what I would call moderate liberals.

Reagan was a centrist, in my view. Sarah Palin is only marginally right wing. The Republican party is marginally left wing and isn't sure it wants to go where Sarah Palin is. The Democrats are liberal.

Of course we have different yardsticks; that's not even debatable.

But yours isn't based on any actual information, but rather is an impressionistic view based on bland, evidence-free opinions by right-wingers. I, on the other hand, have spent some time seriously considering the matter.

In my opinion, the gold standard remains Herman and Chomsky's "Propaganda Model." And yes, these men are left-wingers, and I certainly believe that needs to be taken into account. However, the model, which is buttressed by overwhelming evidence using the most influential print media sources (NYTimes, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc) is extremely effective.

First of all, they denounce the right/left dichotomy of perception of the media as relatively unimportant. That is, they don't make a claim that the msm is right wing. Rather, they discuss an institutionalized system of filters which tends news media into support and defense of power and wealth. Between ownership, advertising, flak, journalists' access to power and PR fronts, and ideology, it is predictable that the media will largely tend towards support of establishment Power--whether the powerful interests are in the right or in the wrong, logically or morally, is mostly irrelevant.

Note that ideology DOES play a part; but those who concentrate on it whie ignoring the others simply can't see the forest. News media are huge, institutional structures, and therefore demand an institutional analysis. To call it "left wing" is not only incorrect...it is a vapid dismissal of monumentally large factors.

Edited March 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

It is that economic ethos that has us in the mess we are in right now.

Not at all. In fact, it's the complete opposite of Friedman's economic ethos which has led to many of the economic messes we see popping up in various countries around the world.

[Pliny]

No, I was responding to your specific and explicit remark about Reagan's massive popularity at the end of his presidency. That was your claim. I corrected it, informing you (since you obviously didn't know it, perhaps having read some right-wing screeds on Reagan and taking them for objective fact) that Reagan's end-of-office popularity was perfectly average. Not high. And that, using your own standards, Clinton's popularity was higher.

Ok, Reagan's popularity was average.

That's a different issue than Obama's future popularity...which is unadulterated speculation, and nothing else.

Yep, My unadulterated speculative guess.

Of course we have different yardsticks; that's not even debatable.

But yours isn't based on any actual information, but rather is an impressionistic view based on bland, evidence-free opinions by right-wingers. I, on the other hand, have spent some time seriously considering the matter.

Chuckle. Chuckle. You have seriously considered the matter and spent time studying it and concluded somehow that bland evidence free opinions are all that exists on the right wing. Others have come to that conclusion as well. It amounts to opinion.

I don't cleave to the right/left political spectrum concept. I use it in discussion because it is a reference others are familiar with. Obviously your centre is located somewhat to the left.

An understandable and comprehensive political spectrum is one that goes from anarchy; no government, to total government, totalitarianism, total socialism.

I would be for smaller government. The left and the right extremes of the left/right concept are about totalitarianism.

In my opinion, the gold standard remains Herman and Chomsky's "Propaganda Model." And yes, these men are left-wingers, and I certainly believe that needs to be taken into account. However, the model, which is buttressed by overwhelming evidence using the most influential print media sources (NYTimes, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc) is extremely effective.

First of all, they denounce the right/left dichotomy of perception of the media as relatively unimportant. That is, they don't make a claim that the msm is right wing. Rather, they discuss an institutionalized system of filters which tends news media into support and defense of power and wealth. Between ownership, advertising, flak, journalists' access to power and PR fronts, and ideology, it is predictable that the media will largely tend towards support of establishment Power--whether the powerful interests are in the right or in the wrong, logically or morally, is mostly irrelevant.

Note that ideology DOES play a part; but those who concentrate on it whie ignoring the others simply can't see the forest. News media are huge, institutional structures, and therefore demand an institutional analysis. To call it "left wing" is not only incorrect...it is a vapid dismissal of monumentally large factors.

Look, the MSM mainly supports government intervention in society and social engineering. It is for big government. The claim that the right and the left are irrelevent to them is only an indication that there is really not much difference between big government on the left and big government on the right and yes, it is ultimately about power.

The "right" in America is supposed to be about smaller government, the left about progressive liberalism and the ever-increasing size of government. That Republicanism has not held up to it's promises of smaller government tells me there is not really much opposition to progressivism, i.e., the growth of government.

I suppose because I am for limited government and that isn't a left wing tenant I have to be, by elimination, right wing. As the "huge institutional structures" would have us believe the differences between left and right are irrelevant. That appears to correctly be the case since they are both simply concerned about holding power and further centralizing it.

Since the differences are irrelevant it would follow that we hold the same views. "Evidence" suggests otherwise.

[Pliny]

Not at all. In fact, it's the complete opposite of Friedman's economic ethos which has led to many of the economic messes we see popping up in various countries around the world.

Friedman betrayed his economic ethos several times in his career contributing our economic mess. I think he was apologetic in his later years.

[Shady]

Stimulus worked! Unemployment rose from 9.7% to 9.9%!

[punked]

Stimulus worked! Unemployment rose from 9.7% to 9.9%!

Yet Shady you forgot to mention they added 300,000 new jobs the most in the last 5 years last month! Although the Job market is starting to look good again and 805,000 who were previously not looking for work started. That is a good sign not a bad one Shady. Sorry dude.

The big picture

Edited May 7, 2010 by punked

[sharkman]

Stimulus worked! Unemployment rose from 9.7% to 9.9%!

Yeah, I haven't noticed yet but I wonder how Obama is going to play this one. The cheerleaders(MSM) are already on the 'job' reporting defensively that more people re-entered the job market after having given up, skewing the numbers. I'm not sure how you re-enter, if you're unemployed you're unemployed. I've heard over 13 million have lost their jobs since the recession started, and the MSM at least has one thing right, it's gonna be a looonnngg way back to healthy unemployment numbers.

Edited May 7, 2010 by sharkman

[msj]

I'm not sure how you re-enter, if you're unemployed you're unemployed.

In order to comment intelligently on such things one would have to spend some time considering definitions of things like "discouraged workers," "not in labour force," "unemployment," "employment," "displaced workers" etc... oh, and don't forget to consider the birth and death model effects...

[Bonam]

There is quite literally absolutely no way to know whether the stimulus had any impact at all, beneficial or adverse, because we do not know what would have happened had there been no stimulus. It is all speculation.

Perhaps with no stimulus, a lot more people would have lost jobs. Or, perhaps if there were no stimulus, all these state/province/national governments wouldn't have such ridiculous deficits now that are forcing them to cut critical spending on things like education. For example, here in Washington state, the government is making ridiculous cuts to post-secondary education which will have a huge impact over the next few decades.

Stimulus basically takes the short term pain of a recession and stretches it out over the long term by going into massive debt that takes decades to pay off. But, it does hopefully minimize the depth of the recession.

Point is, there is no way to know which way is better since once one course of action is taken, there is no way to determine what would have happened had the other course been taken instead.

[maple_leafs182]

I think the US has to add 1.2 million jobs a year just to keep up with population growth.

I disagree, we would be better off if their was no stimulus, recessions suck but they happen for a reason. There is an imbalance somewhere, the problem in the States was too much loaning and consumption and not enough saving and producing. Throwing trillions into the market won't solve those imbalances.

The world is now running off the stimulus bubble, when it bursts everything will come down.

This will be one fucked up decade, like nothing we've ever seen.

[Pliny]

There is quite literally absolutely no way to know whether the stimulus had any impact at all, beneficial or adverse, because we do not know what would have happened had there been no stimulus. It is all speculation.

Perhaps with no stimulus, a lot more people would have lost jobs. Or, perhaps if there were no stimulus, all these state/province/national governments wouldn't have such ridiculous deficits now that are forcing them to cut critical spending on things like education. For example, here in Washington state, the government is making ridiculous cuts to post-secondary education which will have a huge impact over the next few decades.

Stimulus basically takes the short term pain of a recession and stretches it out over the long term by going into massive debt that takes decades to pay off. But, it does hopefully minimize the depth of the recession.

Point is, there is no way to know which way is better since once one course of action is taken, there is no way to determine what would have happened had the other course been taken instead.

You mean no economic models exist that could extrapolate the scenario under a different set of priorities?

The fact of the matter is that government is unwilling to shrink. An economic collapse means a collapse in government revenues.

This is an intolerable situation. The governemnt must come to the rescue.....of......government. It's policies are not of concern for the economy otherwise it would be able to see more clearly what their interventionist policies do. They introduce further imbalances by trying to maintain and prop up the current imbalances that brought about the crisis. And it will continue until it can no longer be supported and has tobe left to crash.

[bush_cheney2004]

....They introduce further imbalances by trying to maintain and prop up the current imbalances that brought about the crisis. And it will continue until it can no longer be supported and has tobe left to crash.

But clearly this symbiotc relationship has certain advantages not demonstrated by other approaches. The scale of government intervention cannot be separated from the value proposition of stable governance, legal framework, monetary policy, standards, etc., etc.

The absence of such a political and economic framework is demonstrated so routinely, we have coined derogatory terms for the condition (e.g. "third world", "developing world"). Such a fate always remains an option....after enjoying "first world" largesse.

[Pliny]

But clearly this symbiotc relationship has certain advantages not demonstrated by other approaches. The scale of government intervention cannot be separated from the value proposition of stable governance, legal framework, monetary policy, standards, etc., etc.

The absence of such a political and economic framework is demonstrated so routinely, we have coined derogatory terms for the condition (e.g. "third world", "developing world"). Such a fate always remains an option....after enjoying "first world" largesse.

Political instability breeds econmic instability no doubt. Another reason government should have only a limited mandate. When an economy has to be dependent upon the whim of government it loses the ability to predict a market.

Ultimately the citizenry must support government and threats to government stability but not allow it to exceed a limited defined mandate. First world largesse is the result of a productive economy only, and it is dependent upon a stable and non-intervetionist government, and it cannot be forgtotten that government lives off that largesse as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

Political instability breeds econmic instability no doubt. Another reason government should have only a limited mandate. When an economy has to be dependent upon the whim of government it loses the ability to predict a market.

True, but such an inversion can be quickly corrected, as it was after WWII excesses. The system has built in feedback for stabilization if allowed to work. We are watching this happenin the extreme for Greece.

Ultimately the citizenry must support government and threats to government stability but not allow it to exceed a limited defined mandate. First world largesse is the result of a productive economy only, and it is dependent upon a stable and non-intervetionist government, and it cannot be forgtotten that government lives off that largesse as well.

Government is keenly aware of its dependence on the golden goose. The degree of continued largesse should not be confused with abject poverty and devolving governance. Demonstrated at the personal level, I am left to decide the awful choice of sticking with a 5-year-old 55" plasma or splurge for that new 60" LED HDTV.

[Shady]

Yet Shady you forgot to mention they added 300,000 new jobs

That's because "they" didn't add 300,000 new jobs. You're lying. And the most of the jobs that were added are temporary census workers. Spin, spin, spin punked. Are you gonna tell us how good things are going next month went unemployment goes back up over 10%?

[punked]

That's because "they" didn't add 300,000 new jobs. You're lying. And the most of the jobs that were added are temporary census workers. Spin, spin, spin punked. Are you gonna tell us how good things are going next month went unemployment goes back up over 10%?

It will still be lower then Reagan's first two years in office. However 100,000 full time jobs 230,000 jobs in the private sector and you are angry about that? Yeah ok keep cheering for America to fail.

[Handsome Rob]

It will still be lower then Reagan's first two years in office. However 100,000 full time jobs 230,000 jobs in the private sector and you are angry about that? Yeah ok keep cheering for America to fail.

Why do you keep comparing present day to Reganomics?

Reaching minimal failure compared to complete failure is an accomplishment to be proud of?

[punked]

Why do you keep comparing present day to Reganomics?

Reaching minimal failure compared to complete failure is an accomplishment to be proud of?

I am just saying Shady will tell Reagen was the greatest EVA! Then get mad at Obama for doing the same thing Reagen did.

[Shady]

It will still be lower then Reagan's first two years in office. However 100,000 full time jobs 230,000 jobs in the private sector and you are angry about that? Yeah ok keep cheering for America to fail.

No, I'm not angry about it, I'm please that finally the economy is starting to turn around. Despite the smothering of it by Obama for the last year and a half. But the stimulus has little to do with it. However, Obama can certainly take credit for the 70,000 temporary census jobs.

[sharkman]

I am just saying Shady will tell Reagen was the greatest EVA! Then get mad at Obama for doing the same thing Reagen did.

Shady can't tell Reagan anything since he's dead.

Obama is not doing the same thing(s) that Reagan did.

Shady is not getting mad.

So 70,000 of the 300,000 new jobs are census? That little tidbit didn't show up in the media reports I heard, I wonder why? I heard the the Unemployment rate actually went up even though 300,000 new jobs were created since some of the unemployed resumed their search for work, although I'm not sure how that works.

Obama is no Reagan. He's more like a Carter who is the one Reagan had to clean up after.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Obama is no Reagan. He's more like a Carter who is the one Reagan had to clean up after.

Reagan: "Tear down this wall!"

Obama: "I'm sorry."