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: combjelly who wrote (655731)	5/20/2012 9:34:23 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579144

>> Granted, it didn't keep unemployment below 8%. It was too small for that, a point I made at the time. Roemer said it would, even though she wanted twice the stimulus. And the reason is obvious: Stimulus doesn't work. Never has, never will. The WH economists predicted that the stimulus would create 3.3 million NET jobs by 2010. But what happened? We lost another 3.5 Million MORE net jobs. And the same thing happened during the Depression, the same thing happened in Japan in the 90s, and every time it has been tried this nonsense approach has failed. Keynes' ideas have, simply put, been disproved, time and again. It just doesn't work. Principally because the dollars that are committed to deficit spending are sucked out of the private economy. You just cannot get around this fact -- what government spends (less productively) will be more than offset by the loss of more productive spending from the private economy which is robbed of those funds. That's why this particular stimulus was such a failure: not only is it counterproductive from the outset, these funds were wasted in the most unproductive means imaginable. >> The job loss started in Jan. 2008. By the end of 2008, things were dire. Yes, the recession began earlier; however, it worsened as it became evident we were going to get a left wing nutjob as our next president. And it peaked as he took office. But going into it, most economists expected us to accelerate out of it quickly. After the wasted trillion dollar stimulus, it was evident that would not happen. >> The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed into law on Feb. 17, 2009. So the April/May recovery is just about what you would expect if it worked. No, 12-18 months is considered typical. >> "Economists have long known that anything government does takes MONTHS to be reflected in unemployment figures." And it took months. Your point? It didn't take months. We're looking at YEARS. You're trying to suggest that the situation has improved. In case you haven't noticed, LFPR is lower than it has been since the early 60s (when it was common for households to be single-earner). >> Nonsense. Smirk had stopped looking for him. Can't find him if you don't look. We know, with 100% certainty, that the process by which Osama was found had been underway for years. Comments from NPR's national security correspondent back in May, 2011: "MARTIN: Well, senior administration officials say that critical information came down from U.S. detainees held by U.S. forces. That key information came in about four years ago. It was a tip about a courier in bin Laden's inner circle. ... And intelligence officials worked this lead for years. It is a painstaking process - requires much patience - and that intelligence just kept mounting, accelerated over the past few months." So, you are lying or wrong. At least as far back as 2007, according to this individual who is knowledgeable and liberal (if that's possible). Which would clearly put it out of Obama's reach. >> GM is more profitable than they have been in years. What makes you think they will be in Chapter 11? More wishful thinking? Not wishful thinking. The unions, as I've explained to you before, drove GM into Chapter 11. And the unions are more powerful than ever at GM. You think they're suddenly going to just say, "Oh, we aren't going to demand more benefits because we don't want to kill the company?" >> The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing", separating the causes into four major categories along with their share: Yes, nutjobs have bandied this "analysis" around for months, but the reality is that it isn't "analysis", it is arithmetic. Totally static in nature, which as anyone remotely familiar with the subject, simply cannot be applied -- it is necessary to take into account, for example, the fact that tax cuts may (in this case, DID) increase government revenues as well as productivity over what would otherwise have been.