Plan B Forum

You can see the effects of the U.S. stimulus by comparison with the UK, where the bull-doggy had none:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/1 ... ulus-us-u/



________________________
"...
CHART: ‘Life Without Stimulus’ — The U.S. vs. The U.K. | At Tax.com, Martin Sullivan rebuts those who claim that the 2009 Recovery Act (i.e. the stimulus) did nothing to boost the economy. “Republicans constantly remind us that the Obama stimulus — the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — did not work. They voted against it. In the United Kingdom the government is led by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron. His government did not adopt stimulus,” Sullivan noted. “After three and a half years, U.S. GDP is just about returning to the pre-recession peak. That’s awful. But it’s far better than the U.K. where GDP is still five percent ($750 billion in US terms) below its pre-recession peak.”
..."
________________________

yrs,
rubato

I would have thought it interesting that there is objective evidence that the stimulus, too small as it was, had been effective.

But perhaps this is only so for those accustomed to looking for an empirical foundation for belief.

yrs,
rubato

that chart kinda shows the economy did better under bush?

The chart shows that it was at its lowest when Bush stopped being president and then went upwards. That is hardly what I would classify as 'better under Bush'.

The Hen wrote:The chart shows that it was at its lowest when Bush stopped being president and then went upwards. That is hardly what I would classify as 'better under Bush'.

so after bush was gone it went really low, but was higher under bush (including countries bush was not president) than it is now?

now Im no expert, but it would appear that Rubes chart has no correlation to his point...

sean?

Your intellectual equal is here!

care to join in and argue with quaddy?

quaddriver wrote:

The Hen wrote:The chart shows that it was at its lowest when Bush stopped being president and then went upwards. That is hardly what I would classify as 'better under Bush'.

so after bush was gone it went really low, but was higher under bush (including countries bush was not president) than it is now?

now Im no expert, but it would appear that Rubes chart has no correlation to his point...

Sorry quad, I thought you knew that Bush left office in January 2009.

If you look at the chart, you can see that shortly after he left the upwards climb began.

The Hen wrote:Sorry quad, I thought you knew that Bush left office in January 2009.

If you look at the chart, you can see that shortly after he left the upwards climb began.

Yes maam, but I also knew he was not president of england. which has a similar tracking.

We can only conclude a few things, if indeed we need to conclude them:

1) the chart/graph is meaningless with respect to president. When it covers countries the president is not president of.

therefore

2) something else must influence the climbs after 2009.*

Me thinks that in 2 countries with virtually no remaining manufacturing base, one has a huge technology base, the other does not (what with the demise of Apricot et al) so something else must be afoot.

Rube wont consider that, but pretty much everyone else will.






















* = Ps: Bush gave *2* stimuli, to the people, not the banks. Obama gave one, to the banks not the people. some might insist there is a difference. I might be one of them. And Bush sure as hell did not give a stimulus to england.

quaddriver wrote:

The Hen wrote:Sorry quad, I thought you knew that Bush left office in January 2009.

If you look at the chart, you can see that shortly after he left the upwards climb began.

Yes maam, but I also knew he was not president of england. which has a similar tracking.

And as I hope you can also see, the UK growth was wavering until their was a complete change from the Blair/Brown government, which ceased in May 2010. But even then, the honeymoon period for the Conservatives was short lived before they wobbled.

It's all shown there in the graph Rubato posted.

In anycase, as I have said before, your stimulus packages are missing the boat by a good two years. You can only possibly hope to play catch-up now.

We have at least two gawdammed wars to deal with first.

Yup. Another reason I can seeing huge benefits in altering your current taxation formulas.

The additional taxation could entirely pay for the stimulus needed which would on flow to employment, further taxes and more stimulus.

It isn't rocket science.

it would appear that Rubes chart has no correlation to his point...

I don't know if that's the case here, (I haven't bothered to look at his chart; life is too short to waste my time reading rube's posts) but if it is it would hardly be the first time...

One of the more comical aspects of rube's performances on these forums is the way this self proclaimed "scientist" has demonstrated a chronic inability to properly read or interpret even the simplest charts, tables and graphs. Stuff that any reasonably competent ninth grader could easily handle....

Jeepers, you'd think the ability to do that would be pretty much a prerequisite for a real scientist...

Self-parody = Admitting that you know nothing and never check the facts and then expressing an opinion.

Sean, Quaddy you have another equal here!


yrs,
rubato

The Hen wrote:Yup. Another reason I can seeing huge benefits in altering your current taxation formulas.

The additional taxation could entirely pay for the stimulus needed which would on flow to employment, further taxes and more stimulus.

It isn't rocket science.

Clinton cut taxes on the bottom 40% and raised them on the top 20% and we had the largest economic expansion since WWII. The incomes of the top 20% increased as well.

No. it isn't rocket science. But it does amaze me how many people are stupid enough to vote for policies which will never be in their favor individually and which have caused so much harm nationally.




yrs,
rubato

rubato wrote:Self-parody = Admitting that you know nothing and never check the facts and then expressing an opinion.

You really ought to invest in that dictionary Daddy Rubato...

What kind of a moron....

Give this some thought, if you will:

The theory behind "stimulus" is that the government can (in our case) create funny-money and inject it into the economy by (a) hiring or retaining government workers, (b) funding government construction and other projects, (c) extending unemployment benefits, and other things of that nature. It is supposed that, while much (if not most) of this spending is unnecessary, it will have a stimulative effect on the economy. That is, the money paid to the superfluous government workers, construction workers, government contractors, unemployed people, will be SPENT on additional good and services, and those spent dollars will be turned over by the businesses and people, and on and on. This might be called the "Ripple Effect."

But the first level of benefit is a no-brainer. The government workers, government contractors, etc., who directly receive the stimulus money will be hired or keep their jobs (hence, the Administration's talk of jobs being "created or saved"). It is the Ripple Effect that is in question.

To point to a trillion dollar spending spree and show that some jobs were created (see chart above in this thread) is saying something about absolutely nothing. OF COURSE jobs were created initially. Indeed, the number of jobs "created or saved" by the many hundreds of billions of dollars of actual spending was pathetic.

And to say now, as Krugman and his disciples (like rubato) are saying, that it's time for another stimulus - or that the first stimulus was not big enough - is absolutely astounding. The WHOLE POINT of the stimulus was the Ripple Effect. To admit now that additional stimulus is needed is to acknowledge THAT IT DID NOT WORK!

The first stimuli were, to use Al Gore's words, "a risky scheme" to spend ourselves dramatically further into debt, in the HOPE that it would stimulate the private economy (which is the real engine of prosperity). In doing so, the Democrats were able to pay back all of its teat-sucking constituencies - mainly government workers and organized labor - and in the process at least CLAIM to be doing something for the overall economy. But guess what: It didn't work. Those constituencies got and kept their jobs, but NOBODY ELSE DID.

Metaphorically speaking, the Democrats' Great Risky Scheme took us out beyond the point of no return. Between the additional debt service and the Entitlements, we are fast approaching the point where there will be no money left for any discretionary spending. And yet the Dems want, basically, another stimulus.

Unbelievable that anyone could keep thinking along these lines. But then again, this is the party that still thinks throwing more money at education will make it better. Despite 50 years of proof to the contrary.

And in all the "stimulus" talk, where is the mention of the built-in $1 to 1.5 trillion deficits for three straight years? Those deficits are as Keynesian as the come, and are just the basic budget numbers (not the so-called "stimulus" packages). But another $35 billion for teachers/police/etc. is going to make a difference and turn things around.

Well it's the race that stops the nation today, and everyone is banking on an interest rate cut here in the land of the well done stimulus...

THE Reserve Bank will cut its official interest rate on Melbourne Cup Day - reversing the increase of last Cup day.

It would be more than surprising if it didn't. It would be almost literally out of character. The "character", that is, of governor Glenn Stevens.

For it appears he just can't let the day pass merely as only for the race that stops a nation. He has to "stop", and occasionally "start", it as well.

Stevens has had five Cup days so far as governor - next Tuesday will be the sixth. And on all previous five he has led the RBA to change its rate.

Four of them have been increases - most famously when he hiked in 2007 in the middle of the election campaign and (helped) "stop", so to speak, John Howard's prime ministership.

The only Stevens Cup Day cut was in 2008, amid the fear and loathing of the global financial crisis. With the prospect of GFC Mark Two, or maybe just Mark 1b, that's an interesting but hopefully not an ominous portent.

In 2008 he sliced the rate by 75 points. Absent a European meltdown over the next few days, next Tuesday's cut will be only 25 points. And at this stage it will be intended as a one-off. To "normalise" interest rates.

In real analytical terms, it's actually 50-50 line ball between a rate cut and leaving rates unchanged.

I'm not betting on the rate cut, but I do have $5.00 riding on"Jukebox Jury."

"Stops the nation" my arse!

"Stops the nation except for the poor buggers who have to make the impossible possible and set things up so that everyone else in the nation will be able to stop and watch it", is more accurate.

Not as catchy though, I'll give you that.

Fucking queues at the bookies this morning!