What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[cebalrai]

When are you going to find just one single significant independent economic source to back something you say? Just.... one thing? Are you really so lost that you honestly believe that the NRO is a good source of objective analysis?

It appears that you are. You get your news from extremist, partisan sources and you're unwilling to budge. It's here that we have nothing more to discuss I'm afraid. If you ever want to join in with rational points we'd be glad to sit down and talk. Until then enjoy your quest for objectivity in the American Thinker's descending colon.

Give it up. He thinks the NRO is a good source of info. He's not going to change his mind either. He decided long ago what he wants to hear and it only comes from right wing spinsters. (and he will attack left wing sources as being no good because they're "partisan")

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The sources you quote are those of rabid ideologues and are wholly dismiss-able (if not laughable).

Your attempts to discredit Moody's have failed. You can find no flaws in their methods and you have no evidence that their firm is biased. Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true.

And you refuse to even address virtually identical conclusions by Macroeconomic Advisors and IHS/Global Insight.

So, they are not Keynesians. That does not make the wrong and reality is showing them to be right.

It could be that all the Keynesians, including Bernake reached the same, albeit, worng conclusions as to what effects they were having on the market, and the ALL seem to ignore Praxeology something Mises would never do...

People with money see uncertainty and a Democrat Party that is more willing to go to civil war than to cut ANY spending for votes and they know, for a fact, that even as they call for them now, if the economy rebounds, new taxes will be demanded, so they've simply gone on a soft strike. Push them even harder, and it could be an "Atlas Shrug."

One wonders who the actual rabid ideologues actually are...

Welcome to the world of jobless stagflation
We're living with slowing growth, high unemployment, and accelerating inflation. Oh, and a Federal Reserve that consistently makes inaccurate projections.
By Daryl G. Jones, Hedgeye
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011...eed:+rss/magazines_fortune+(Fortune+Magazine)

The Federal Reserve provided further support this week to our dovish thesis, which postulates that interest rate policy will stay at, or below, current levels well into 2012. In addition, the door for a third round of quantitative easing was opened ever so slightly based on our read.
The interesting change in the Fed's statement versus its last one is an acknowledgement of slower than expected economic growth and a jobs recovery. The outcome of these two changes is that the Fed has, tacitly, taken down its expectations for inflation:
"Inflation has moved up recently, but the Committee anticipates that inflation will subside to levels at or below those consistent with the Committee's dual mandate as the effects of past energy other commodity price increases dissipate."
Fed chief Ben Bernanke reiterated this in his press conference on Wednesday, in which he said, "inflation remains well anchored." Our read through on this is that these statements are a shift and in contrast to his statement at the International Monetary Conference in early June when he said:
"That said, the stability of inflation expectations is ensured only as long as the commitment of the central bank to low and stable inflation remains credible. Thus, the Federal Reserve will continue to closely monitor the evolution of inflation and inflation expectations and will take whatever actions are necessary to keep inflation well controlled."
Reading too much into snippets of "Fed speak" is dangerous at best, but it does provide some insight into what could happen next. Bernanke is now admitting both that the economy is getting worse and that he believes the outlook for inflation is now likely to be at lower than normal levels going forward. So, the door has now been cracked open for QE3.
We continue to believe the Fed will need sustained negative monthly payrolls in order to actually implement QE3. Prior to QE1, this was 9 negative months, while prior to QE2 this was 3 negative months. In May, non-farm payrolls came in at +54K, which was an eight-month low. The June non-farm payrolls will be released on July 8th and will be the key measure as to the direction of monetary easing from here. If we get a negative print, QE3 will be solidly on the table.
That said, the Fed will likely not implement additional easing while inflation, as measured by CPI, is accelerating. While we have been of the view that reported inflation will continue to accelerate or be heightened during the summer and into the early fall, by early 2012 this should reverse. Thus, heading into 2012 tougher comparables on commodity inflation will potentially lead to deflationary type concerns, or at least give the Fed complete cover for incremental easing, especially as the labor market is likely to remain challenged.
The Fed also released its updated economic projections based on the "models" of the board members. For 2012, they are taking down growth expectations, taking up unemployment expectations, and increasing inflation expectations. Here at Hedgeye, we actually call slowing growth, increasing unemployment, and increases inflation, Jobless Stagflation.
Bernanke also indicated that keeping the federal funds rate at 0% to 0.25% for an extended period means for at least two to three FOMC meetings. This would extend Bernanke's tenure as the most accommodative chairman in, well, the history of the Federal Reserve. This is outlined in the table below.
If there is anything we can take away from the Fed's projections, it is that they are based on lagging indicators and are seemingly inaccurate as it relates to actual economic outcomes. Collectively, this is a little disconcerting since monetary policy is set and based on these "projections."

Forecasts for Growth Drop, Some Sharply
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/business/25econ.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

A drumbeat of disappointing data about consumer behavior, factory sales and weak hiring in recent weeks has prompted economists to ratchet down their 2011 economic forecasts to as little as half what they expected at the beginning of the year.

Two months ago, Goldman Sachs projected that the economy would grow at a 4 percent annual rate in the quarter ending in June. The company now expects the government to report no more than 2 percent growth when data for the second quarter is released in a few weeks. Macroeconomic Advisers, a research firm, projected 3.5 percent growth back in April and is now down to just 2.1 percent for this quarter.

Both these firms, well respected in their analysis, have cut their forecasts for the second half of the year as well. Then this week, the Federal Reserve downgraded its projections for the full year, to under 3 percent growth. It started the year with guidance as high as 3.9 percent.

Two years into the official recovery, the economy is still behaving like a plane taxiing indefinitely on the runway. Few economists are predicting an out-and-out return to recession, but the risk has increased, with the health of the American economy depending in part on what is really “transitory.”

During the first press conference in the central bank’s history two months ago, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke used the word to describe factors — including supply chain disruptions after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and rising oil prices — that were restraining economic growth in the first half of the year. Earlier this week, Mr. Bernanke confessed that “some of these headwinds may be stronger and more persistent than we thought,” adding, “we don’t have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting.”

Economists say the unexpected shocks from Japan and the Middle East in the first half of the year go only partway toward explaining the deceleration. Many worries remain: housing prices have continued to fall, hiring is weak, wages are flat, growth in emerging economies like China and India is slowing and the debt crisis in Europe could have ripple effects.

What’s more, government stimulants like the payroll tax cut and the extension of unemployment benefits are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. With the underlying economy undeniably tepid, economists are concerned that further shocks to the system could knock the country off its slow upward trajectory.

“The likelihood of a negative surprise is bigger than the likelihood of a positive surprise,” said Jerry A. Webman, chief economist at OppenheimerFunds.

Arab Spring
__________________
A_J's corollary #8, “In times of crises, the New Age Liberal calls for more government and higher taxes. In times of plenty, the New Age Liberal calls for more government and higher taxes. The primary motivation is always Crusader-like Altruism and the illusion of ‘fairness.’”

A_J's corollary #11, “The New Age Liberal defines a fair share of taxes as, ‘When you pay your taxes, you have no more money left than anyone else has.’”

There will be no medieval magic when one turns to government to be their champion. Government is not a shining knight on a strong horse; it is a night mare.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Give it up. He thinks the NRO is a good source of info. He's not going to change his mind either. He decided long ago what he wants to hear and it only comes from right wing spinsters. (and he will attack left wing sources as being no good because they're "partisan")

Stick to one alt Merc. This is getting boring and you have never actually looked at and refuted anything from any source other than the ones you post, which, as we can easily observe, are so often so wrong, all you've done is ad hominem them.

PS - quit defining "independent" as "agrees with me," because we've posted independent Austrians from Mises.org...
__________________
“There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian.”
Murray Rothbard

 

[Beco]

Arab Spring
__________________

Whatever happened to that???

 

[shoulderblade]

Whatever happened to that???

It is now summer, I guess.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Whatever happened to that???

It was simply overshadowed by the beginning of the "Summer of Recovery II."

Then, when the Brotherhood took over, we started whistling "Dixie..."

*spit*

 

[Beco]

It is now summer, I guess.

Arab Summer?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Merc is funny, like a 3 year old child

Stick to one alt Merc. This is getting boring and you have never actually looked at and refuted anything from any source other than the ones you post, which, as we can easily observe, are so often so wrong, all you've done is ad hominem them.

PS - quit defining "independent" as "agrees with me," because we've posted independent Austrians from Mises.org...
__________________
“There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian.”
Murray Rothbard

 

[mercury14]

So, they are not Keynesians. That does not make the wrong and reality is showing them to be right.

It's not that your sources are or are not Keynsians. I don't necessarily put much stock in that - I definitely think Milton Friedman has some fine points. What I'm pointing out to you is that your sources don't perform objective analysis. They rarely even attempt to do so.

How come you can't find any independent non-Keynsian assessments of the stimulus? Not articles about some aspect of the stimulus, but an actual full-on report?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Arab Summer?

I thought all they had was "Summer"

 

[mercury14]

Stick to one alt Merc. This is getting boring and you have never actually looked at and refuted anything from any source other than the ones you post, which, as we can easily observe, are so often so wrong, all you've done is ad hominem them.

PS - quit defining "independent" as "agrees with me," because we've posted independent Austrians from Mises.org...
__________________
“There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian.”
Murray Rothbard

You realize that reverting to accusing people of using alts makes you seem even more desperate than you really are, right?

Your sources from Mises.org aren't assessments of the stimulus, therefore they're pointless in this discussion. You keep going off-topic and demanding that people debate you elsewhere.

I guess I don't see how using non-partisan sources makes someone biased - while you claim objectivity using sources that exist only to advance a right-wing agenda. Please tell me how that works.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

How dare you talk about the economy, when you yourself have never been in the private sector! What experience do you have with a startup? What experience do you have with creating wealth?

Nothing, you are a leach. You suck blood off the tax payer.

Shut up you dumbass

go visit Dr. Phil to get some help

You realize that reverting to accusing people of using alts makes you seem even more desperate than you really are, right?

Your sources from Mises.org aren't assessments of the stimulus, therefore they're pointless in this discussion. You keep going off-topic and demanding that people debate you elsewhere.

I guess I don't see how using non-partisan sources makes someone biased - while you claim objectivity using sources that exist only to advance a right-wing agenda. Please tell me how that works.

 

[Beco]

I thought all they had was "Summer"

Actually, they do get a big of winter....rain mostly

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It's not that your sources are or are not Keynsians. I don't necessarily put much stock in that - I definitely think Milton Friedman has some fine points. What I'm pointing out to you is that your sources don't perform objective analysis. They rarely even attempt to do so.

How come you can't find any independent non-Keynsian assessments of the stimulus? Not articles about some aspect of the stimulus, but an actual full-on report?

Okay, here's a review of what I have said from studies, actual studies and analysis:

New economics research suggests that President Obama's stimulus plan may have destroyed or forestalled employment, including more than 1 million private-sector jobs.

Economists Timothy Conley, University of Western Ontario, and Bill Dupor of Ohio State University found that the stimulus resulted in a net loss of 595,000 jobs from April 2009 to September 2010.

That counters research by the Congressional Budget Office, the Council of Economic Advisors, and many other economists. But Conley and Dupor's research differs in that instead of looking at the stimulus' effects on total employment, it breaks jobs into four different sectors:

Goods-producing industries, including manufacturing.
Health and education, leisure, and business and professional (HELP) services.
Other service industries.
State and local government.

The authors divided employment this way "because of the large differences in trends across the sectors over the past decade."

Their paper shows the stimulus created or saved 443,000 government jobs and 92,000 non-HELP service jobs. But it destroyed or forestalled 772,000 HELP jobs and 362,000 goods-producing positions. That's a net loss of 1.042 million private jobs.

...

Much other research, such as that conducted by the CBO, CEA, Federal Reserve economist Daniel Wilson, and economists Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, assume a "Keynesian" multiplier effect for government spending.

Zandi and Blinder assume that government infrastructure spending has a multiplier of 1.57 — every dollar government spends on infrastructure yields $1.57 in economic growth.

These studies yield an array of estimates of jobs created or saved, from 800,000 to 4.2 million. [numbers you have touted before, ask RightField - A_J]

"Those papers aren't really an independent test of whether the stimulus was effective," said Sherk. "They show that the models they use are pre-programmed to show job creation. One of the problems with the multiplier effect is that it assumes that government spending is just as good as private sector spending."

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...171800/Stimulus-Cost-1-Mil-Private-Jobs-.aspx
http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf

At e21, we have observed that arguments in favor of fiscal stimulus are often predicated on mechanistic assumptions regarding the role of government spending in increasing employment levels. We have called for a more empirical approach that uses real-world data to assess the impact of the 2009 ARRA fiscal stimulus legislation.

On the tax cut portion of stimulus legislation, we have highlighted research by Claudia Sahm, Matthew Shapiro, and Joel Slemrod that drew on survey data suggesting that only 13% of households reported higher spending levels due to the one-time tax cuts in the fiscal stimulus. This casts doubt on the models used by the CEA and the CBO to assess the impact of ARRA, and on various private forecasting models that relied on the same set of assumptions.

A new study by Daniel Wilson at the San Francisco Fed calls into question the idea that the stimulus legislation as a whole — including the state transfers and direct spending portion — failed to generate the promised improvements in employment.

It is difficult to properly calculate the effects of the 2009 ARRA bill, as it was a nation-wide program. Though employment and growth failed to respond to ARRA as the Administration had suggested, fiscal stimulus advocates have argued that employment levels would have been lower still without the program.

Wilson’s study makes an important contribution to this debate by focusing on state-by-state comparisons. A large portion of stimulus funding at the state level was based on criteria that were entirely independent of the economic situation that states faced. For example, the number of existing highway miles was used to calculate additional transportation spending.

The study uses this resulting variation in state-level stimulus funding to determine what impact ARRA funding had on employment — including both the direct impact of workers hired to complete planned projects, as well as any broader spillover effects resulting from greater government spending. Administration economists have repeatedly emphasized the importance of this indirect employment growth in driving economic recovery.

The results suggest that though the program did result in 2 million jobs “created or saved” by March 2010, net job creation was statistically indistinguishable from zero by August of this year. Taken at face value, this would suggest that the stimulus program (with an overall cost of $814 billion) worked only to generate temporary jobs at a cost of over $400,000 per worker. Even if the stimulus had in fact generated this level of employment as a durable outcome, it would still have been an extremely expensive way to generate employment.

Interestingly, federal assistance to state Medicaid programs appears to have decreased local and state government employment. One possibility is that requirements to maintain full Medicaid benefits in order to receive federal aid proved sufficiently expensive that state governments pushed though additional rounds of layoffs in non-health related areas. This finding may suggest a potential pitfall with the Wyden-Brown proposal to decentralize health reform efforts at the state level: if comprehensive insurance requirements are retained, the net effect of reform may only shift safety-net spending towards healthcare and away from other urgent priorities such as education or welfare assistance.

The results of this one study should not be seen as definitive. As Wilson emphasizes, the results only apply to the variation caused by additional state-level spending. It is possible that the stimulus did generate a certain level of base employment growth to all states — or that the stimulus “crowded out” private investment on a nation-wide basis.

It is also difficult to determine the counterfactual employment growth that would have resulted in the absence of the fiscal stimulus law. To address this issue, Wilson includes other variables predictive of future employment growth. However, it is possible that employment would indeed have been worse in all states without a stimulus. It is also possible that employment would have been better than projected — for instance, if the Fed or Treasury had responded to higher unemployment through their own interventions.

Still, this result should be taken seriously, as it represents one of the few actual analyses of the stimulus program that does not rely on outdated multiplier estimates that assume their result.

Importantly, the results are also consistent with another recent analysis of government spending during Great Depression by economists Price Fishback and Valentina Kachanovskaya. During a period in which unemployment was extremely high and the costs of implementing a public works program were far lower than today, one might expect that fiscal stimulus might have proven more effective. Yet Fishback and Kachanovskaya find that a similar state-by-state analysis suggests that fiscal stimulus during the Great Depression failed to yield durable employment gains.

The burden of proof is now increasingly on the side of fiscal stimulus advocates. It is easy to point out possible flaws in each of the studies mentioned here — though the biases may end up either exaggerating or diminishing the estimates of the effects of the stimulus. But where is the evidence that the 2009 ARRA fiscal stimulus enhanced employment recovery in a cost-effective and sustainable manner?

http://economics21.org/blog/outcome-stimulus-and-burden-proof
http://economics21.org/page/leadership

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You realize that reverting to accusing people of using alts makes you seem even more desperate than you really are, right?

Your sources from Mises.org aren't assessments of the stimulus, therefore they're pointless in this discussion. You keep going off-topic and demanding that people debate you elsewhere.

I guess I don't see how using non-partisan sources makes someone biased - while you claim objectivity using sources that exist only to advance a right-wing agenda. Please tell me how that works.

Tell me how it is that advancing Keynesian studies to bolster A Keynesian stimulus plan isn't a bit one-sided and partisan to the economics of The Socialists of the Chair?

Seems to me your source and your study, rather than being "independent" has somewhat of a dog in the fight...

 

[mercury14]

Tell me how it is that advancing Keynesian studies to bolster A Keynesian stimulus plan isn't a bit one-sided and partisan to the economics of The Socialists of the Chair?

Seems to me your source and your study, rather than being "independent" has somewhat of a dog in the fight...

You're suggesting is that any (objective) study which concludes that government intervention was successful is "Keynsian". That's a false premise from the start since the conclusion does not mean that the analysis itself was Keynsian in the least bit. You're just assuming (or rather hoping) that it was the case. You haven't provided one shred of evidence for your point.

The Moody's report has a methodology section. I suggest you read it. Additionally, are you leveling the same criticism at IHS/Globalinsight and Macroeconomic Advisors?

You're accusing Moody's of bias on a massive scale. Corruption even. Laughable and dismissible.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Tell me how it is that advancing Keynesian studies to bolster A Keynesian stimulus plan isn't a bit one-sided and partisan to the economics of The Socialists of the Chair?

Seems to me your source and your study, rather than being "independent" has somewhat of a dog in the fight...

oh wait for it, Merc is about to pull out the classic "All you have is a straw man"

 

[mercury14]

Okay, here's a review of what I have said from studies, actual studies and analysis:



http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...171800/Stimulus-Cost-1-Mil-Private-Jobs-.aspx
http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf



http://economics21.org/blog/outcome-stimulus-and-burden-proof
http://economics21.org/page/leadership

We've already established that these top links are someone's school project. I already laughed your source out the door and here you are posting it again. Never link this source again please. It's incredibly stupid of you to do so. And let's look at the study discussed in your economics21 link. Did you even read it??? Here are some of its points.

1) It says that 2 million jobs were saved by the stimulus - and that's only counting until March 2010 when about 1/3 of the stimulus was still left to be spent. If we extrapolate that 1/3 at the same factor as the 2 million jobs, we have about 2.7 million - the same conclusion as Moody's.

2) Oh look, your source is only looking at a fraction of the stimulus in that 2 million figure - just the aid to states part. "The results of this one study should not be seen as definitive. As Wilson emphasizes, the results only apply to the variation caused by additional state-level spending."

3) When your study accounts for all aspects of the stimulus, here's it's outcome:

Table 13. Estimated Number of Jobs Created/Saved by ARRA
December (Q4) 2010
This paper (spending only) 3.0 – 4.0 million
Congressional Budget Office 1.3 – 3.5 million
Council of Economic Advisors 2.5 – 3.6 million

Way to get your ass kicked by your own (completely non-Keynsian!) source. You just found me a LOAD of evidence that the stimulus worked. Not only that, but it's estimates were even higher than Moody's. You're really awful at this AJ. Really, I couldn't have asked for better help in our little debate. From now on I'm just going to refer you back to your own link. Thanks man.

 

[cebalrai]

Frisco's evidence that the stimulus didn't save jobs is a study showing it saved 3-4 million jobs? And it uses a "non-keynsian" research method he approves of?

Epic self-ownage.

 

[mercury14]

Frisco's evidence that the stimulus didn't save jobs is a study showing it saved 3-4 million jobs? And it uses a "non-keynsian" research method he approves of?

Epic self-ownage.

Can't wait for his response. Will he turn around and discredit his own source? Change the subject? Personal attacks? Or just flee the thread in hopes it falls back a few pages?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Can't wait for his response. Will he turn around and discredit his own source? Change the subject? Personal attacks? Or just flee the thread in hopes it falls back a few pages?

the two of you should go out some time, on a real date

 

[busybody..]

Forecasts for Growth Drop, Some Sharply

Published: Saturday, 25 Jun 2011 | 9:33 AM ET Text Size By: Motokoa Rich
The New York Times

Twitter LinkedInMore Share
A drumbeat of disappointing data about consumer behavior, factory sales and weak hiring in recent weeks has prompted economists to ratchet down their 2011 economic forecasts to as little as half what they expected at the beginning of the year.

Two months ago, Goldman Sachs projected that the economy would grow at a 4 percent annual rate in the quarter ending in June. The company now expects the government to report no more than 2 percent growth when data for the second quarter is released in a few weeks.

Macroeconomic Advisers, a research firm, projected 3.5 percent growth back in April and is now down to just 2.1 percent for this quarter.

Both these firms, well respected in their analysis, have cut their forecasts for the second half of the year as well. Then this week, the Federal Reserve downgraded its projections for the full year, to under 3 percent growth. It started the year with guidance as high as 3.9 percent.

Two years into the official recovery, the economy is still behaving like a plane taxiing indefinitely on the runway. Few economists are predicting an out-and-out return to recession, but the risk has increased, with the health of the American economy depending in part on what is really “transitory.”

 

[NeverEndingMe]

how can you say that about obama? you must head off to re-education camp ASAP!

Forecasts for Growth Drop, Some Sharply

Published: Saturday, 25 Jun 2011 | 9:33 AM ET Text Size By: Motokoa Rich
The New York Times

Twitter LinkedInMore Share
A drumbeat of disappointing data about consumer behavior, factory sales and weak hiring in recent weeks has prompted economists to ratchet down their 2011 economic forecasts to as little as half what they expected at the beginning of the year.

Two months ago, Goldman Sachs projected that the economy would grow at a 4 percent annual rate in the quarter ending in June. The company now expects the government to report no more than 2 percent growth when data for the second quarter is released in a few weeks.

Macroeconomic Advisers, a research firm, projected 3.5 percent growth back in April and is now down to just 2.1 percent for this quarter.

Both these firms, well respected in their analysis, have cut their forecasts for the second half of the year as well. Then this week, the Federal Reserve downgraded its projections for the full year, to under 3 percent growth. It started the year with guidance as high as 3.9 percent.

Two years into the official recovery, the economy is still behaving like a plane taxiing indefinitely on the runway. Few economists are predicting an out-and-out return to recession, but the risk has increased, with the health of the American economy depending in part on what is really “transitory.”

 

[busybody..]

This paper (spending only) 3.0 – 4.0 million[/B]
Congressional Budget Office 1.3 – 3.5 million
Council of Economic Advisors 2.5 – 3.6 million

Way to get your ass kicked by your own (completely non-Keynsian!) source. You just found me a LOAD of evidence that the stimulus worked. Not only that, but it's estimates were even higher than Moody's. You're really awful at this AJ. Really, I couldn't have asked for better help in our little debate. From now on I'm just going to refer you back to your own link. Thanks man.

Estimated?

CBO? A biased source

Council of Economic Advisors? NIGGERS own "people""



Best you can DO, NIGGER POON?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/37/3797/WUYIF00Z/posters/clark-ed-the-grand-dragon-of-the-ku-klux-klan-samuel-green-with-other-klansmen-in-hoods.jpg

BusyShit and his buddies pose for a quick fan snapshot with The Grand Dragon at the last local chapter keg party. Busy's the one that's smiling.