Unemployment extensions ending...

Nancy Pelosi said last year that expansion of unemployment benefits would inject so much demand into the economy that it would be one of the best "jobs programs" possible.

Economist Mark Zandi said about three years ago that unemployment benefit checks typically produce a "fiscal multiplier" of such value that they increase output by about $1.64 for every dollar spent.

So this seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? How about 5 years of benefits for everyone? Why stop there? Let's do 10!

(Of course, if that actually worked in the real world and not just in econometric models, just imagine how fabulously wealthy the French would be!)

Nancy Pelosi said last year that expansion of unemployment benefits would inject so much demand into the economy that it would be one of the best "jobs programs" possible.

Economist Mark Zandi said about three years ago that unemployment benefit checks typically produce a "fiscal multiplier" of such value that they increase output by about $1.64 for every dollar spent.

So this seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? How about 5 years of benefits for everyone? Why stop there? Let's do 10!

(Of course, if this actually worked in the real world and not just in econometric models, just imagine how fabulously wealthy the French would be!) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

of course these models are static and look at these events in absolute terms. they only stop at simple calculations of the multiplier effect of money injected into the economy. their models never carry through to the longer term aspects.

they see all money as if it was all the same; all good, worthwhile, productive money. all stimulation is not of the same worth. these frozen pictures of the benefits of government spending are mere tricks. much like the projections of the cbo,who only score congressional bills as some great frozen bloc, unaffected by and unaffecting anything else. the wonders of unemployment benefits seen in absolute terms may have a stimulative effect but....


not all money injected into an economy is of the same worth. money taken from the economy in the way of taxes and redistributed as unemployment benefits distort economic decision making and lessens true economic growth (first, in taking money away from the productive cycle and secondly, in supporting and prolonging unemployment itself which is a pathology better cured than fed).

if the benefits come from deficit spending and not taxation, the worth our money and inflationary effects and the ever growing bubble of debt pushed down the road,...well score that will you?

Fiscal "stimulus" never worked as well as its supporters believed, anyway, but now it's even more ineffective. Part of the reason is due to one of several different effects economists sometimes refer to as "leakage." When someone says they want to inject "demand" into the economy, you must ask, "Demand for what? More crap imported from Asia and sold by Walmart?"

Fifty years ago, almost all of the money would have been spent on domestically-produced goods and services.

Aside from that, recent research has thoroughly debunked the claims of those who tout large Keynesian multipliers. The ECB commissioned robustness analysis of a lot of the old models because a couple of European finance ministers finally started noticing that economies generally didn't respond to fiscal initiatives in anything resembling the predicted manner. The studies indicated a typical "multiplier" of about 0.50 for most forms of transfer payments.

Robert Barro of Harvard University has been doing research on this topic since the 1970s, and he believes that in most cases the "multipliers" are "significanly closer to zero."

Since our current debt accumulation rate is several times larger than our actual GDP-increase run rate, it's obvious that something is very wrong.

What is really wrong is that the financial hole we found ourselves in was deeper and wider than we first realized, courtesy of you-know who.

What is wrong is that every program proposed by President Obama has been opposed by the Republicans as a means to weaken him without any regard for the benefit of the country.

In spite of the entrenched opposition, the economy has been recovering since President Obama has been in office. The unemployment rate has dropped. Detroit was brought back from the brink of disaster. Even the notorious Osama Bin Laden was finally found and taken out when no other President could do that.

. . . Do you not see that or just refuse to give him credit because you prefer any Republican in office regardless of how inept a clown he is?

Fg, you are such a stupid narrow minded jack ass. Bush didn't do shit to the economy, it hwas plastic pelosi, rectum reid, dickhead dodd, and faggot frank, and THEIR banking regulalations that fucked this country up. THEY controlled congress, not bush, THEY write the laws not Bush. You stupid sob, you don't know the first thing about how our constitutional republic government works. Take your head out of your ass, or maybe it has swelled up so much you can't.... now obaminable is attempted to circumvent the other two branches of OUR republic, he wants to be emperor, but all he is , is a lowlife piece of trash, that hasn't worked an honest day in his entire life...

Detroit needed a republican governor to force the mayor to do the right thing.

It is wonderful to know that Obama is infallible or at least that is what Fast Gunn just told us. You know that Fast Gunn is right. If only we had wasted 4 times more money on union goons, pensions, state workers, green energy... why the economy would burning so hot right now. I am imspired to go out right now and spend every penny I have so I can be rich.

I'll tell ya'll what I want to see, and I'm pretty certain we will. Is obaminable standing in the fucking unemploymwent line come january 2013.....

[quote=seedman55;2695166]Fg, you are such a stupid narrow minded jack ass. Bush didn't do shit to the economy, it hwas plastic pelosi, rectum reid, dickhead dodd, and faggot frank, and THEIR banking regulalations that fucked this country up. THEY controlled congress, not bush, THEY write the laws not Bush. You stupid sob, you don't know the first thing about how our constitutional republic government works. Take your head out of your ass, or maybe it has swelled up so much you can't.... now obaminable is attempted to circumvent the other two branches of OUR republic, he wants to be emperor, but all he is , is a lowlife piece of trash, that hasn't worked an honest day in his entire life...[/q


aaaah what about the years the republicans controlled both houses?

There are plenty of those fuckers that need to be taken out and buggy whipped also...

aaaah what about the years the republicans controlled both houses? Originally Posted by ekim008

What period are you referring to, the four years under W or the six years under Slick Willie? If you check the record, since 1931 the Dims have controlled both houses of congress more frequently and longer than Republicans.

What period are you referring to, the four years under W or the six years under Slick Willie? If you check the record, since 1931 the Dims have controlled both houses of congress more frequently and longer than Republicans. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Guess you didn't read it before you jumped in why am I not surprised???It was about the 8 years of Bush.not back in history.

Guess you didn't read it before you jumped in why am I not surprised???It was about the 8 years of Bush.not back in history. Originally Posted by ekim008

As pointed out before, the Republicans did not control Congress for the 'eight' years under Bush II and not at all under Bush I.

The GOP had total control of the executive and legislative branches for only four years between 2002 and 2006. The control of the Senate was by only a single vote so it was not absolute.

The democrats had total control of the executive and legislative branches for four years under Carter (1976-1980) and two years under Obama (2008-2010). Control was absolute.

Fast Gunn, as you no doubt remember, we had a pretty detailed discussion of what's wrong just a few months ago:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=375582

That's a very, very long thread, but I think you'll have a pretty good understanding of the problems we face if you review post numbers 59, 61, 71, 79, 84, 89, 96, 108, 116, 119, 122, and 126. Most of that was copied & pasted from draft copies of blogs I've written, but I think I offered a fairly complete rundown of how we got into this mess and the myriad difficulties we face.

In essence, the economy is being medicated with "feelgood drugs" of the type normally intended to get you through the worst part of a crisis. Such policies cannot be maintained indefinitely without creating a high risk of exogenous shocks to our economy. None of the most fundamental problems are being addressed, and that's why I've said that we are a nation adrift with no serious leadership.

As pointed out before, the Republicans did not control Congress for the 'eight' years under Bush II and not at all under Bush I. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

True the original rant was blaming the dims for all that happened under Bush OK?