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

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Some rebuttal...




On the level of "Neener neener neener."

You keep skipping a lot in order to get to the neener...

Now, Econ 101, what happens to the purchasing power of the poor when you take 360,000 used cars off the road (at $24,000) a pop...

Assuming of course, the rich don't buy used cars.

Who knows, in your Blue Book, maybe they do just to avoid paying their "Fair" share of taxes and trust me, after seeing $24,000 of it go to buy a $2400 car just to destroy it, it kinda makes me want to stop paying taxes...

__________________
The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?
Madison, Federalist 62.

 

[mercury14]

Damn... I still can't get over Rightfield desperately trying to discredit the Brown study on the cost of the wars by saying "but... my cousin told me it was liberal!". Too bad we can't sticky these things.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Your team voted for them...




But Econ 101 awaits its PERfessor...

 

[mercury14]

Some rebuttal...




On the level of "Neener neener neener."

You keep skipping a lot in order to get to the neener...

Now, Econ 101, what happens to the purchasing power of the poor when you take 360,000 used cars off the road (at $24,000) a pop...

Assuming of course, the rich don't buy used cars.

Who knows, in your Blue Book, maybe they do just to avoid paying their "Fair" share of taxes and trust me, after seeing $24,000 of it go to buy a $2400 car just to destroy it, it kinda makes me want to stop paying taxes...

__________________
The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?
Madison, Federalist 62.

Your argument is absurd. A quick Yahoo says there are about 130 million cars in America. So the figure you're bemoaning as a big deal is .002% of US automobiles. Are you really saying that the poor were significantly hurt by this?

Compared to rising utility bills? Or medical costs? What you're suggesting is laughable.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

No, it's not insignificant, as you point out, it's just another layer of tax that they are burdened with.

Now, you are using an antithetical argument to your "the Stimulus Worked" argument, because the numbers, there too, especially in the long run, are insignificant compared to the cost as pointed out by the study that you agree is valid.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

A scenario is a guess, either gut or model and I already outlined the failures of non-chaotic models and let us add the errors of the Historical Wing of the Economic family which tries to find fixes, in theory, to past events and then apply them to current events while ignoring the different circumstances.

We're not putting any stock into anyone's scenario; it's the stuff of "What if?"



What we take stock in is this:

From Washington DC came the definition of the problem, "We have a Depression Scenario (nothing to offer you but fear itself)."

What followed from Washington DC was the solution to the scenario, "Massive spending in 'shovel ready' projects is always the answer. We will stop this Depression dead in its tracks, we will hold unemployment to 8% and by Summer 2010, we will be adding half-a-million jobs a month and a ear later unemployment will be under 7%."

What happened in reality was that most of the money (as per the studies we linked which you decided in your infinite wisdom, sufficiently valid to impeach us with, good luck with that, by the way...) went to protecting Democrat constituencies and little to stimulus, for as I continually observe whether it be Science, Economics, or Charity, government make political decisions, not efficient decisions. We went over 9% unemployment, where we remain and the only dip under it was "fixing the books (Master of the White House, cunning little brain, thinks he's a regular Voltaire) and we have yet to have a single month of significant job creation.

Furthermore, by willful disregard of the rule of law and angry hate-filled class rhetoric, the Great Uniter has filled the business community with fear and trepidation, save for the ultra-rich business class which is in a protective symbiotic relationship with our Fascist-leaning President, and unwilling to invest in transformative change knowing that a positive outcome for the Fascist Party will most certainly be a negative outcome for them by way of legalized, and blatantly ignored illegal, theft. This is a change that it seems like they believe in.

The latest example is Barry and the Jets, he gave the tax credits to stimulate the producers and then he uses the tax credits to stimulate and enrage his flash mobs and then again hits us with a heavy dose of fear, and back to step one:

If you don't give me more tax money, we're going to go into a Depression.

So the obvious question is: If the fucking stimulus worked why the hell are we on the brink of a Depression?

Vast right-wing Conspiracy?

Republican Sabotage?
__________________
"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim - when he defends himself - as a criminal.”
Frederic Bastiat

"We know that the moment of greatest danger to a society is when it comes near realizing its most cherished dreams."
Eric Hoffer

Yeah, I know, an inconvenient post...

Let's focus on the cherries; Cash for Clunkers was part of this tax hike on America's future...

 

[RightField]

Another stupid straw man argument? Really?

No, the stimulus along with the other instruments of intervention saved us from another Great Depression. The great recession was still extraordinarily bad and recovery is slow.

From the nonpartisan Moodys - a scenario in which there was little or no government intervention:

In the scenario that excludes all the
extraordinary policies, the downturn con-
tinues into 2011. Real GDP falls a stunning
7.4% in 2009 and another 3.7% in 2010
(see Table 3). The peak-to-trough decline in
GDP is therefore close to 12%, compared to
an actual decline of about 4%. By the time
employment hits bottom, some 16.6 million
jobs are lost in this scenario—about twice as
many as actually were lost. The unemploy-
ment rate peaks at 16.5%, and although
not determined in this analysis, it would not
be surprising if the underemployment rate
approached one-fourth of the labor force.
The federal budget deficit surges to over $2
trillion in fiscal year 2010, $2.6 trillion in fis-
cal year 2011, and $2.25 trillion in FY 2012.
Remember, this is with no policy response.

With outright deflation in prices and wages
in 2009-2011, this dark scenario constitutes
a 1930s-like depression.

You know, we would have won the World Series if (fill in the blank) didn't get injured....(based on his statistics before he was injured of course). Our football season would have gone a lot better too if Joe McDonald didn't stub his toe in the pre-season. I have proof, can I share the stats with you on how well he would have passed?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

If wishes were horses,
Then beggars would ride.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Hey as Merc said one page back, it was only $3B, what's the big deal about $3B?

So we paid $24,000 for some $2400 cars.

Look at the payoff; unemployment never reached 12%...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Speaking of revisions, most Americans are probably unaware of what has happened to initial government data since Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. In revisions over the following months and years, already “unexpectedly” bad results have almost invariably gotten worse — often much worse. This situation began to go code red (or really “code blue”) once the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy and the recession as normal people define it kicked in three years ago.

Take economic growth. As seen below (full details here), in the 17 quarters starting in 2007, the decline between the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s advance estimates of annualized growth in the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) and the revised figures currently at the BEA’s web site has averaged 0.58 points:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/revisionomics/?singlepage=true

That may not seem like much, but the average growth currently reported during those 17 quarters (0.73%) is 44% lower than the average of the initial reports (1.31%). In the third and fourth quarters of 2008, the first two quarters of the real recession, opening GDP contraction estimates of -0.3% and -3.8%, respectively, cratered to -4.0% and -6.8% after revisions. Sure, the economy was much worse than Pelosi, Obama, Reid, and the Democrats thought, but as I have previously shown, they’re the ones who caused it to turn out that way. By comparison, currently recorded average annualized quarterly GDP growth during the Bush 43 years of 2003 through 2006 is only 9% lower (3.02%) than what was originally reported (3.31%).

How about jobs? Brace yourself (details: 2007-2010; 2003-2006):

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/revisionomics/?singlepage=true

From 2007 to 2010, initial reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) told us that the economy lost 4.201 million jobs. BLS revisions have thus far ramped up the number of jobs lost by 2.43 million. The four-year total is now 6.631 million — a stunning 58% increase. As seen above, the bureau’s revisions to the 12 months of the real recession (July 2008 through June 2009) have shot reported job losses up by almost 1.9 million, a jaw-dropping average of 158,000 per month.

They’re not done yet. Every February, BLS performs a comprehensive “benchmark revision.” The next one will affect the period from March 2010 through December 2011. Considering the results of the past four years showing average additional job losses of 415,000, the next benchmark revision seems destined to push the figures even higher.

By contrast, from 2003 to 2006, initial BLS reports told us that the economy added 5.103 million jobs. After all revisions, the four-year total rose by 1.605 million to 6.708 million — a 31% increase. The sum of all benchmark revisions during that time was a positive 675,000.

Why did the revised data largely improve (or at least decline very little) from 2003 through 2006, while decaying horribly since 2007? Frequent BizzyBlog commenter “JoeC” formulated the foundation of the negative side of what I call “revisionomics” almost four years ago, and worked up the positive side earlier this year. Paraphrased a bit, they are as follows:

First, there’s “The Democrat Effect,” which is “the rational response by entrepreneurs, businesspeople, and investors to imminent or already present excessive government intervention, overbearing regulation, crippling litigation, and taxation, all of which seriously curtail economic activity to a greater extent than initially estimated.” When Democrats took full control of Congress in January 2007, initially reported economic news started to come in “unexpectedly” bad, and took serious turns for the worse when revised. Then, in the five months or so leading up to the 2008 presidential election, Pelosi, Obama and Reid deliberately frightened the economy’s key players with promises of steep tax increases, wealth redistribution, government control of medicine, punitive regulation, and energy starvation. This led to the almost unimaginable recessionary data declines described above. Perhaps Bush 43 could have done something to stop the madness; sadly, he really didn’t even try.
For what should be obvious reasons, the flip side of The Democrat Effect is not called

“The Republican Effect.” Its proper name is “The Conservative Effect,” which is “the rational response by entrepreneurs, businesspeople, and investors when The Democrat Effect has either ended or is sufficiently reined in, enabling a reasonable level of free-market activity to occur, and causing the economy to perform better than initially estimated.” From 2003 until 2006, the Bush administration’s across-the-board income and investment-related tax cuts enabled The Conservative Effect to take hold in the job market, where initial results routinely and “unexpectedly” beat predictions, and subsequent revisions moved the numbers further upward. Unfortunately, the millions of hours of busywork caused by Sarbanes Oxley, as well as the onerous costs the law added to going public — which caused and continues to cause growing firms which might have gone public in the U.S. before the law’s passage to either decide against it overseas – kept GDP growth, which could have been at least as strong as the late 1990s, at a mostly mediocre level.

Though they should, economic forecasters don’t take the Democrat or Conservative Effect, whichever happens to be in force, into account when formulating their predictions. As long as this remains the case, and as long as the Obama administration stays on its current course of reckless spending, regulatory tyranny, and childish insistence on tax increases that will self-evidently make things worse, one does not need to possess psychic powers to know that we can count on “unexpectedly” bad economic news followed by additional, steep downward revisions.

Tom Blumer
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2009/04/25/going-galt-got-going-last-summer/

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Luk]

Nice to see Lit's anti-America faction out in full force this Independence Day.

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

Here's an example of Merc's beloved economics:

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job
The stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.
12:07 PM, Jul 3, 2011 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON


When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

 

[busybody..]

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Someone tell CURRY POON to call MOODY's at

Americas
+1-212-553-1653 Japan
+81-3-5408-4100

Asia Pacific
+852-3551-3077 EMEA
+ 44-20-7772-5454


and AXE for teh author of the so called report written MORE than a YEAR AGO

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Nice to see Lit's anti-America faction out in full force this Independence Day.

"My cousin told me it's LIBERAL!!!"

 

[busybody..]

While CURRY POON is at it

Might as well contact all of Moody's


Here, CURRY POON

Rating OfficesMoody's Analytics OfficesCareers
Americas EMEA Asia


Boston, Massachusetts
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
175 Federal Street, Suite 501
Boston, MA 02110
USA


Buenos Aires, Argentina
Moody's Latin America
Cerrito 1186,11th Floor
Buenos Aires, C1010AAX
Argentina


Chicago, Illinois
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
100 N Riverside Plaza, Suite 2220
Chicago, IL 60606
USA


Dallas, Texas
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
600 North Pearl Street, Suite 2165
Dallas, TX 75201
USA


Mexico City, Mexico
Moody's de México S.A. de C.V.
Ave. Paseo de las Palmas No. 405 - 502
Col. Lomas de Chapultepec
México, DF 11000


New York, New York
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
7 World Trade Center
at 250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
USA



São Paulo, Brazil
Moody's América Latina Ltda.
Av. Nações Unidas, 12.551, 16º andar - cj 1.601
CEP 04578-903
São Paulo, SP
Brasil


San Francisco, California
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
Public Finance Regional Office
One Front Street, Suite 1900
San Francisco, CA 94111
USA


Toronto, Canada
Moody's Canada Inc.
70 York Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario M5J 1S9
Canada







Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Moody’s Investors Service Limited, DIFC Branch
Dubai International Financial Centre
Gate Precinct Bldg 3, Level 3
PO Box 506845
Dubai, UAE


Frankfurt, Germany
Moody's Deutschland GmbH
An der Welle 5
60322 Frankfurt am Main
Germany


Giza, Egypt
Middle East Rating & Investor Services (MERIS)
8 El Sad El Aali,
Dokki, Giza, Egypt


Johannesburg, South Africa
Moody's Investors Service South Africa (Pty) Ltd
The Forum, 2 Maude Street, 2196 Sandton
Johannesburg
South Africa



Limassol, Cyprus
Moody's Investors Service Cyprus Limited
Kanika Business Centre
319, 28th October Avenue
P.O. Box 53205
CY-3301 Limassol, Cyprus


London, United Kingdom
Moody's Investors Service Ltd.
Registered Office:
One Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London, United Kingdom E14 5FA
Registered No: 1950192
VAT Number: GB 73 9917 090
Registered in England and Wales



Madrid, Spain
Moody's Investors Service Espana, S.A.
Calle Principe de Vergara, 131, 6 Planta
28002 Madrid, Spain


Milan, Italy
Moody's Italia S.r.l.
Corso di Porta Romana, 68
20122 Milan, Italy



Moscow, Russia
Moody’s Investors Service Limited, Russian Branch
7th Floor, Four Winds Plaza
21, 1st Tverskaya-Yamskaya Street
Moscow 125 047
Russia

Moody's Interfax Rating Agency
7th Floor, Four Winds Plaza
21, 1st Tverskaya-Yamskaya Street
Moscow 125 047
Russia


Paris, France
Moody's France SAS
96, boulevard Haussmann
75008 Paris


Prague, Czech Republic
Moody's Investors Service Limited Czech Branch
Washingtonova 17
110 00 Prague 1
Czech Republic


Tel Aviv, Israel
Midroog Ltd.
17 Ha'arbaa Street
Tel Aviv 64739
Israel
www.midroog.co.il




Beijing, People's Republic of China
Moody's Investors Service (Beijing) Ltd.
10th Floor, International Financial Centre C,
No. 156, Fuxingmen Nei Street,
China 100031

China Cheng Xin Int. Credit Rating Co. Ltd. (CCXI)
Beijing Merchants International Financial Center
No. 156 Fuxingmennei Avenue
Beijing, 100031
P.R. China


Hong Kong
Moody's Asia-Pacific Ltd.
24/F One Pacific Place
88 Queensway
Admiralty, Hong Kong


India
Moody's India
Electric Mansion, 3rd Floor
Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi,
Mumbai 400 025
India

ICRA. Ltd.
2nd Floor, Tower A
DLF Cyber City, Phase II
Gurgaon 122002
INDIA


Seoul, Korea
Moody's Investors Service (Korea) Inc.
55th Floor, 63BD, Youido-dong
Youngdeungpo-gu
Seoul, Korea

Korea Investors Service
48, 55th Floor, 62 DB, 60 Yeouido-dong
Yeoungdeungpo-Gu
Seoul, Korea


Singapore
Moody's Singapore Pte Ltd.
50 Raffles Place #23-06
Singapore Land Tower
Singapore 048623


Sydney, Australia
Moody's Investors Service Pty. Ltd.
Level 10
1 O’Connell St.
Sydney, NSW 2000 Australia



Tokyo, Japan
Moody's Japan K.K.
Atago Green Hills Mori Tower 20th Floor
2-5-1 Atago, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-6220
Japan
www.moodys.co.jp

 

[mercury14]

No, it's not insignificant, as you point out, it's just another layer of tax that they are burdened with.

Yes, it is insignificant. Sorry but .002% of automobiles is not going to alter anything. Also it's not significant because you haven't given any evidence that it is. You've got no data and no facts, just your guess. And your guess doesn't even have a value attached to it.

Now, you are using an antithetical argument to your "the Stimulus Worked" argument, because the numbers, there too, especially in the long run, are insignificant compared to the cost as pointed out by the study that you agree is valid.

No you're wrong. And I've already demonstrated this. Also, YOU have already demonstrated this in the study you posted recently. Now you're acting like you never posted that link. Just for review:

In the scenario that excludes all the
extraordinary policies, the downturn con-
tinues into 2011. Real GDP falls a stunning
7.4% in 2009 and another 3.7% in 2010
(see Table 3). The peak-to-trough decline in
GDP is therefore close to 12%, compared to
an actual decline of about 4%. By the time
employment hits bottom, some 16.6 million
jobs are lost in this scenario—about twice as
many as actually were lost. The unemploy-
ment rate peaks at 16.5%, and although
not determined in this analysis, it would not
be surprising if the underemployment rate
approached one-fourth of the labor force.
The federal budget deficit surges to over $2
trillion in fiscal year 2010, $2.6 trillion in fis-
cal year 2011, and $2.25 trillion in FY 2012.
Remember, this is with no policy response.

With outright deflation in prices and wages
in 2009-2011, this dark scenario constitutes
a 1930s-like depression.

 

[busybody..]

STFU, Fool!

 

[mercury14]

You know, we would have won the World Series if (fill in the blank) didn't get injured....(based on his statistics before he was injured of course). Our football season would have gone a lot better too if Joe McDonald didn't stub his toe in the pre-season. I have proof, can I share the stats with you on how well he would have passed?

Incredibly stupid. Manipulating the fact that there's an inherent certainty of less than 100% in the field of economics in order to dismiss the entire field is pure disingenuous crap.

 

[koalabear]

Incredibly stupid. Manipulating the fact that there's an inherent certainty of less than 100% in the field of economics in order to dismiss the entire field is pure disingenuous crap.

STFU, Fool!

 

[garbage can]

Incredibly stupid. Manipulating the fact that there's an inherent certainty of less than 100% in the field of economics in order to dismiss the entire field is pure disingenuous crap.

Hmm, I guess you're looking for another one trill shovel ready spending bill.

 

[busybody..]

Incredibly stupid. Manipulating the fact that there's an inherent certainty of less than 100% in the field of economics in order to dismiss the entire field is pure disingenuous crap.

most have long since realized you are a FOOL

that you havent reached that state yet

marks you a BIGGER FOOL!

STFU!