The stimulus worked (video)

[_Brackite]

Suppose I say "Lady GaGa's latest album is considered by most of the music industry to be great musicianship."

Did someone say Lay GaGa here??

Lady Gaga ft. Beyonce - Telephone - Lyrics on screen

[_Kevin Graham]

If you don't think the guy who started a thread titled "The Stimulus Worked" is the one who should do the cost-benefit analysis, then more power to you.

As Gad said, the cost-benefit question is a separate question which you guys brought up. If you don't want to make an argument then stop whining that I'm not doing it for you. I keep asking you to do so, to make the point that you have no earthly idea what the costs are. You just want to throw out the question as if it presents some kind of dilemma for my original point. Well, it doesn't.

I'm just pointing out that you've only made half an argument (which everyone else seems to have noticed as well)

No I haven't. I made a complete argument that the stimulus worked. It did. Period. Gad admits this.

This cost-benefit business is something you guys brought up because you're obviously uncomfortable with the fact that the stimulus worked, and now you want to toss some cold water on a well established point by pretending you've caught me in a snare. You want it to be taken for granted that the costs far exceed the benefits. But your problem is that you do not understand the question or the answer well enough to formulate your own argument. You want me to do it for you, and now you're projecting as if it is my responsibility to do your homework. Nice job!

So I'm still waiting for you to add some substance to your complaint by providing an argument.

[_cinepro]

This cost-benefit business is something you guys brought up because you're obviously uncomfortable with the fact that the stimulus worked, and now you want to toss some cold water on a well established point by pretending you've caught me in a snare. You want it to be taken for granted that the costs far exceed the benefits. But your problem is that you do not understand the question or the answer well enough to formulate your own argument. You want me to do it for you, and now you're projecting as if it is my responsibility to do your homework.

This appears to be a perfectly reasonable take on the subject:

http://neighborhoodeffects.mercatus.org ... -solution/

In a recent paper Valerie Ramey of UCSD, for example, uses: “a variety of identification methods and samples,” and finds that “in most cases private spending falls significantly in response to an increase in government spending.” She finds that while government spending does bring down the unemployment rate, “virtually all of the effect is through an increase in government employment.” Note that this is entirely consistent with the first IGM statement. In other words, one can believe that stimulus harms the private sector and is costly in the long run, but still think that it might have boosted (government) employment for a time. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of stimulus.

And this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/30 ... ue-de-rugy

No one has a model of the independent impact of these different factors or a way of measuring them accurately and reliably in a way that can be tested and confirmed or rejected. No one. That means everyone, on the left or the right, who claims to have evidence for the impact of one of them or who cherry-picks one of those out of the myriad to choose from and blames that one factor for the lousy pace of the recovery is either fooling himself or fooling you. Don’t be a fool. So when the E.J. Dionnes of the world tell you that government creates jobs, just ask them how they know. Their answer will be that someone with exemplary credentials says so. But there are those with exemplary credentials who say otherwise. Where does that leave us? It should leave us in ignorance and doubt. No certainty. No exclamation points. More humility.

So when I say I'm not sure if the stimulus was worth it, and you say you are sure, one of us is deluding ourselves.

[_Kevin Graham]

So you were bitching because I didn't question something you now say is impossible to answer?!?!

And because National Review waters it all down to a stalemate on the question, now you want to back out?

Come on cinepro, I'm still waiting for you to explain the cons. I could go over the pros all day but you clearly want to go on and on about the cons so let's hear them. You wanted to focus on a cost benefit analysis, so tell us the costs that outweigh increased employment, GDP, etc..

I'm sure there must be some reason why you refuse to answer the question. I mean, aside from the fact that you haven't been able to find some Right Wing news source to answer it for you.

[_cinepro]

So you were bitching because I didn't question something you now say is impossible to answer?!?!

And because National Review waters it all down to a stalemate on the question, now you want to back out?

Come on cinepro, I'm still waiting for you to explain the cons. I could go over the pros all day but you clearly want to go on and on about the cons so let's hear them. You wanted to focus on a cost benefit analysis, so tell us the costs that outweigh increased employment, GDP, etc..

I'm sure there must be some reason why you refuse to answer the question. I mean, aside from the fact that you haven't been able to find some Right Wing news source to answer it for you.

Settle down there, sparky. I agree with you that we got a bunch of shiny new jobs and other immediate benefits for our $1.2 trillion stimulus..

Sorry for being a gloomy Gus and talking about stuff like paying for it in the future, or bringing up the opaque nature of economic judgements about such things.

Yay for stimulus!

[_Kevin Graham]

A large chunk of that "$1.2 trillion" comes in the form of tax cuts (nearly $400 billion), which I thought you folks loved so much?!? Or do you only love tax cuts for those wealthy "job creators"?

So when you can use tax cuts to bolster a number you don't like, such as the stimulus, then you just go for it. In any other context tax cuts would be seen as a beautiful thing. But when you can use them to make Obama's stimulus seem much, much larger than it really is, well, integrity goes out the window, right? Let's just pretend Obama "borrowed" $1.2 trillion and spent it all on wasteful projects and temp jobs that served no purpose. At that point, we conveniently ask the question, "was the stimulus cost justified"? Doesn't that about sum it up for you folks? Doesn't that about complete the picture over there in the bubble?