LuckyOne Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 There was much debate as to whether fiscal stimulus would work. It appears to have failed. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3867030644.html A few extracts from the article : Is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 working? At the time of the act's passage last February, this question was hotly debated. Administration economists cited Keynesian models that predicted that the $787 billion stimulus package would increase GDP by enough to create 3.6 million jobs. Our own research showed that more modern macroeconomic models predicted only one-sixth of that GDP impact. Estimates by economist Robert Barro of Harvard predicted the impact would not be significantly different from zero. This is exactly what one would expect from "permanent income" or "life-cycle" theories of consumption, which argue that temporary changes in income have little effect on consumption. These theories were developed by Milton Friedman and Franco Modigliani 50 years ago, and have been empirically tested many times. They are much more accurate than simple Keynesian theories of consumption, so the lack of an impact should not be surprising Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 How could they use Keynesian models? The US didn't save before the bust so any Keynesian models are flawed from the start. If you are using flawed assumptions to begin with you will get flaw answers, although politically good ones as you can make big claims for what grabbing your crotch will achieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 US and UK were Keynesian pumping for years.....what else is borrowing if not pumping beyond your current capacity to pay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 US and UK were Keynesian pumping for years.....what else is borrowing if not pumping beyond your current capacity to pay? Keynes never advocated that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share Posted September 17, 2009 How could they use Keynesian models? The US didn't save before the bust so any Keynesian models are flawed from the start.If you are using flawed assumptions to begin with you will get flaw answers, although politically good ones as you can make big claims for what grabbing your crotch will achieve. Agreed. The Keynesian model is to save during booms and to spend the savings during a bust. We overspent during the booms and are overspending massively during the bust. Politicians are hiding behind Keynes and completely forgetting that the source of spending during busts is supposed to be sourced from disciplined savings during booms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyMe Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Cuckoo. How the ****** are you supposed to be able to measure the traction of a monetary stimulus when yo have no idea who has stolen the money and where it has gone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Administration economists cited Keynesian models that predicted that the $787 billion stimulus package would increase GDP by enough to create 3.6 million jobs. Our own research showed that more modern macroeconomic models predicted only one-sixth of that GDP impact. Estimates by economist Robert Barro of Harvard predicted the impact would not be significantly different from zero. Do I burst out laughing? Or lie down in a quiet room? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Do I burst out laughing?Or lie down in a quiet room? Interesting question. Can anyone calculate what rate of growth the US would need to create 3.6m jobs. Remember Bernanke has stated that if the US has a growth rate of 2.5% that just stops JOB LOSSES. For a bit of fun can anyone work out what rate of growth would need to be to generate 3.6m jobs. Just to see how ridiculous this job generation really is your aim to create the growth in one year. Would you need say 10% growth or even higher than that. For every 0.1% of US growth above 2.5% how many jobs does that add? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpy-old-man-returns Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Cuckoo.How the ****** are you supposed to be able to measure the traction of a monetary stimulus when yo have no idea who has stolen the money and where it has gone? +1 OnlyMe. but we both know the most simple questions NEVER get asked or answered by TPTB. The reason, then how would the greedy fookers ever make any money & extend their power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!) Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 the stimulus wasnt big enough watch what happens next Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpy-old-man-returns Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 the stimulus wasnt big enoughwatch what happens next deflation ? I mean printing the most money in UK & US history, in the shortest space of time can't do much harm.....right ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babesagainstmachines Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 You can't invest in job creation unless there is something that you plan for these people to do that has demand. I they invested 787 billion in renewables, they would probably have non-fossil fuel electricity generation for the entire country. Much better to give it to bankers though of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilroy Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 deflation ? I mean printing the most money in UK & US history, in the shortest space of time can't do much harm.....right ? It wasn't big enough to fill the gaping maw of losses. Credit destruction > printing. Simple formula. Now, if htey had printed about 3 tln, then we are talking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurker07 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 printing money to stimulate demand is just bonkers. it creates an artificial spike (or so they thought) but unless you keep doing it you are jsut putting off the inevitable. Growth only works by getting poorer countries to believe in the consumption model (and thus feed on the human urge of selfishness and greed) in order for Peter to pay Paul. It's all a load of selfish-capitalistic nonsense if you ask me. Which you didn't . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
getdoon_weebobby Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 in my opinion benanke cant do the printing he thought he could when writing his why they f+cked up in the 30s essays. the chinese will not allow it. deflation still looks on the short to medium term cards for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyMe Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 You can't invest in job creation unless there is something that you plan for these people to do that has demand.I they invested 787 billion in renewables, they would probably have non-fossil fuel electricity generation for the entire country. Much better to give it to bankers though of course. Yep, pissed the money away for no long term benefit. Hoover dam project - now there was a project than employed a lot of people, created something productive and tangible and could be used as a PR exercise to show how the US was moving forward, ticks all the boxes. If you are going to slush public funds, then at least get something back for it. Not this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpy-old-man-returns Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 It wasn't big enough to fill the gaping maw of losses. Credit destruction > printing. Simple formula. Now, if htey had printed about 3 tln, then we are talking. they have only just started. printy printy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 How could they use Keynesian models? The US didn't save before the bust so any Keynesian models are flawed from the start.If you are using flawed assumptions to begin with you will get flaw answers, although politically good ones as you can make big claims for what grabbing your crotch will achieve. Marx famously lived to say "If these people are Marxists, then I most certainly am not". Keynes, like Marx and Christ, must be spinning in his grave! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Agreed. The Keynesian model is to save during booms and to spend the savings during a bust. We overspent during the booms and are overspending massively during the bust.Politicians are hiding behind Keynes and completely forgetting that the source of spending during busts is supposed to be sourced from disciplined savings during booms. It's had some effect. Stock markets and commodities/oil have gone up. Not forgetting - Every country in the world is doing it, 'cause it's the right thing to do. Gordon told me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve99 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 You can't invest in job creation unless there is something that you plan for these people to do that has demand.I they invested 787 billion in renewables, they would probably have non-fossil fuel electricity generation for the entire country. Much better to give it to bankers though of course. Yes the bankers. Who are as was stated in the UK 25 years or so ago 'those most able to be fiscaly prudent and responsible with our money' when the questions of financial deregulation were being knocked down in parliament. Im sure the bankers will do a much better job spending the money on bonuses etc than would engineers (who cant be trusted with money)in building a fossil free energy supply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 the stimulus wasnt big enoughwatch what happens next yeah, but, we are out of recession...maybe....it MUST have worked.....just need to do it bigger next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drrayjo Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 the stimulus wasnt big enoughwatch what happens next Redneck politicos start a new Civil War against Big Spending Black Man's Gubbermint? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Administration economists cited Keynesian models that predicted that the $787 billion stimulus package would increase GDP by enough to create 3.6 million jobs. Even using their own numbers that's $220,000 per job "created", a terrible return on investment. The trouble with these big numbers is they shut down a lot of people's critical faculties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 (edited) Interesting question.Can anyone calculate what rate of growth the US would need to create 3.6m jobs. Remember Bernanke has stated that if the US has a growth rate of 2.5% that just stops JOB LOSSES. For a bit of fun can anyone work out what rate of growth would need to be to generate 3.6m jobs. Just to see how ridiculous this job generation really is your aim to create the growth in one year. Would you need say 10% growth or even higher than that. For every 0.1% of US growth above 2.5% how many jobs does that add? The US has a GDP of $14tn and 142m employed people, so that makes about $99,000 of GDP per job. Edited September 17, 2009 by bearly legal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.