Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (532211)	11/24/2009 11:35:55 AM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576297

It's also absurd to say "GDP grew at X.XX% in the third quarter" Expressing GDP growth in hundredths would be absurd (if not as absurd as "We have measured how many jobs the stimulus has saved or created, and the number is X", but the X.XX% is normally just a decimal expression of a figure in quarters, or at most tenths. Still overly precise (esp. if its the initial figures not the later revisions), but not absurd. Frankly the likelihood is to err on the low side since data on the downstream, indirect jobs created (or saved) by stimulus is impossible to measure. Since you can't measure it to refute the claims the likelihood is to err on the high side. How many people who work at the diner or dry cleaners next to a school where people weren't laid off would have lost their jobs? And how many where because of stimulus measures, or more likely didn't get hired because the political uncertainty about Obama's and the Democrat's in congress, efforts to control the economy more, political favoritism to junior creditors, talk of tax increases, large increases in spending suggesting tax increases and/or massive deficits in the future etc. Your seem to be assuming the number of net jobs created by the new policies is positive but that's not a safe assumption.