StrangeSox

What that comes down to is that fiscal or monetary stimulus in the early stages of an economic meltdown should never be used because the available data at the time won't be 100% accurate. Even if later data and further analysis keep coming to the same conclusion--that things will be much, much worse if we do nothing--we should go with a minimalist approach or do nothing at all.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 01:39 PM) As opposed to someone saying we had to spend $2 trillion even though the numbers we were basing it on didn't mean anything? Please. Damn mathematical models predicting things! We need more "common sense" "gut feeling" economists like Moore! Erring on the side of "too much stimulus" means getting close to full employment and actually seeing some crowding out. That's much more preferable than undersizing the package.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 01:26 PM) I understand your beliefs on that. But you, and SS2K5, are missing the point, that you are basically saying "1 + 1 = 2!!!" followed by "No, 2 + 2 = 4!!!". Its hilarious. The problem comes from taking one specific example of fiscal stimulus that was sharply criticized as too small before and during its passage, using its (predicted) failure to provide significant stimulus to abandon the entire idea of fiscal stimulus and accusing anyone who says "but it was too small in the first place!" of simply relying on hindsight.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) If you know your numbers aren't true, There's philosophically a lot in that statement. It's not that you know your numbers aren't true, its that you know that these are the best numbers currently available and you take uncertainties into account, as this study did. Knowing that your numbers aren't 100% accurate (because no measurement ever is) is different from knowing that they are actually false. A complete lack of sophisticated, nuanced policy discussion isn't something I'd fight you on. Our political culture doesn't allow for anything more than soundbites, so it's common for politicians to overstate policy effects or underplay uncertainty in projections to maximize political impact. Still, Obama never promised a maximum of 8% unemployment. Again, as NSS points out, the stimulus didn't "work" in that it didn't break the cycle, but it "worked" in that it kept UE numbers down and prevented a severe collapse. You can't take the failure of the ARRA to break our current cycle and cast off the entire field of macroeconomics with it.

We're going to have a massive jobs program that cuts spending!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) Yes, the party that has tried to take the keys away from the drunk driver is at fault according to the drunk driver. The more appropriate metaphor would be the drunk in the passenger seat, who drove to the bar drunk in the first place, tries to grab the wheel and drive the car into a tree in order to save them all.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 01:03 PM) Here's an idea then, don't make claims based on information you don't know is true. Try being honest with the American people and tell them that their numbers are full of s*** instead of just baldfaced lying to get what you want. Baldfaced lying? No, it's a projection based on present information, the key point of which is the differential between stimulus and non-stimulus futures, not exact numbers. Working with the best information at the time doesn't mean your numbers are full of s***, just that you need to apply to appropriate margins of error to them (as the study did). Baldfaced lying would be claiming that Obama promised unemployment wouldn't go about 8% if the stimulus passed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) How dishonest it is to try to honestly say that the stimulus did what it was supposed to do, and try to revise it into something else? The stimulus did what models said it would do once the models were given the appropriate data. Indictment of the ARRA as a damper (slowing the decline) and not a spring (bouncing the economy upwards) is not indictment of an entire field of macroeconomics. Even in January 2009, Kenysians were saying it wasn't going to be enough to break the cycle, as has been linked multiple times in the filibuster. But what you've said above is substantially different from saying "Obama claimed unemployment wouldn't go above 8%!" both because he never claimed that and because those early estimates were done before the full impact was known. It's dishonest to keep highlighting that 8% number and removing the context in which it was made (early, part of a paper and never a promise).

"Whisper some more sweet nothings into my ear, Ozzie!"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 11:08 AM) This whole situation reminds me of a babysitter I had when I was four years old. She used to always have me go do stuff for her, and it annoyed me. Then she would either guilt or threaten me to get me to do something, which I always did. Finally she asked me to go get a diaper for my then newborn baby brother. I flat out told her no. Then she gave me this speech about if I was so smart, that she could just leave, and I could take care of things. I told her that was fine. Trying to call my bluff, she actually walked out of the house to try to scare me. I locked the door behind her, and refused to let her in. The moral of the story is, one of these days Ozzie is going to threaten to leave and Kenny and/or Jerry is going to lock the door behind him. Maybe Ozzie should have had kids like me that though him these lessons years ago... My wife did the same thing to her little brother when they were kids when he was in a "running around naked" phase. That ended it pretty quickly.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 10:33 AM) That is what it accomplished - keeping the Great Recession from becoming more like a Great Depression. It did not propel growth though, not in any big way, nor did it achieve the desired UE numbers spouted by ObamaCo. So you are both right. The 8% figure will be a great hammer to hit Obama with during the campaign, but as soon as you get past the surface you see that it was made before the full depth and breadth of the economic problems were realized. It came from a report in January 2009 and also included a "no-stimulus" baseline from the CBO of 9% in 2010. Clearly, things were already much, much worse when those projections were made than anyone realized. Polifact has a good breakdown of the issue and points out that it was never even a promise from Obama or anyone in the WH but part of a report put out in January 2009 that included disclaimers of high margins of error.

Basically, you're right in that the 2009 ARRA failed to break the downward cycle we're in now. But that doesn't mean the entire concept of a stimulus package or Keynesian economics in general is somehow indicted. If the reults show that there were strong multipliers in place, then the spending was indeed stimulative and did help the economy. If results match the models, then the models are vindicated; conversely, if some models showed that inflation was going to skyrocket and bonds would be through the roof, those models and their underlying assumptions should be re-examined to find their flaws and correct them (or simply discard all models, as Stephen Moore would have us do).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 09:00 AM) Cowley :wub:

It stimulated the economy pretty much exactly as models with the revised 2008-2009 data indicate that it would have. Given that it wasn't an ideal package (too many tax cuts, not enough immediate spending) and that it wasn't large enough even by the 2009 data, its impact was overstated by politicians. Not by economists. It stabilized the economy and prevented it from falling off a cliff, but no, it was not enough to break the cycle and get us into a true recovery. You can't fault economic models for political overstatements of their effects.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 30, 2011 -> 10:16 PM) Or if the stimulus had actually worked instead of "worked". http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/9436...stimulus-worked Posting again, this review of 9 studies on whether or not it "worked"

Getting a new phone plan soon, switching to a smartphone and potentially switching carriers (currently on AT&T). Any recommendations for phones or carriers? I think I'd like to keep the phone cost to $100 or less since we'll be picking up two phones.

Man, you sure do love Cowley, ss2k5.

It's usually combined with "the markets" or "economists" anticipating a certain number, though I have no idea how they generate those expectations.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 30, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) Haha, nobody ever crowned Cleveland. We said they could compete for the division and that they couldn't be outright written off as you had done. The fact that they are half a game behind us and were ahead of us through the last week of August shows that indeed we were correct. And if the Sox still have a chance, so does Cleveland. I don't think you can call anything currently happening in the AL Central "competing"

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 30, 2011 -> 11:37 AM) LOL, that required digging? That stuff has been on this board numerous times. SUCH a great reporter SoxTalk's lack of a working search function really hampers Cowley's reporting.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 30, 2011 -> 11:12 AM) I truly believe you fart rainbows.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Aug 30, 2011 -> 11:28 AM) Regardless of his viewpoint this is the kind of stuff reporters should be digging up. Dumb garbage statements defending Ozzoroo and attacking KW don't require any digging.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2011 -> 09:37 AM) There have now been 2 events of approximately this size in this region in the last 100 years. That suggests to me that there is a finite probability of a substantially larger event in that area. "Approximately this size" in magnitude or actual ground motion? FWIW the plants I've seen use standards that are at least as conservative as IBC and go by the USGS seismic region ratings. So once again, it's those lying fraud geologists that are to blame. Maybe if you actually figured out some EARTHQUAKE SCIENCE instead of just banking on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX we'd know for sure!!!!1!!1

That's the important takeaway. You don't design for a "6.0 magnitude earthquake," you add a seismic acceleration factor into your calcs. So it's not the specific magnitude but the actual accelerations experienced that form the design criteria. edit: but it still apparently exceeded the design basis so that's no good.

shutterfly worked well for our wedding. You can print photos to local walgreens/cvs/etc. too