USA Today: "Economists agree stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs"

[Matt Collins]

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Is there a small undefinable print in font .002 that says: "But destroyed 15 million jobs in the process!"? One can hope right!

Shit if all we wanted were jobs per se, I could get us 0% unemployment tomorrow. We can make everyone dig ditches, and fill them back in all day long.

[sofia]

Might those be the same Harvard clowns who were still pitching Real Estate as a good investment in 2006?

or touting the virtues of sub-prime lending instruments from 2000-2007?

or selling the "soft landing" prediction for 2008?

........geniuses

[Kregisen]

The actual multiplier changes depending upon the condition of the economy. Over the course of the business cycle, the average multiplier is less than 1, Zandi acknowledged. If unemployment is low and the government borrows money for stimulus projects — thus crowding out some private companies seeking to borrow money — the net result can be muted. But with unemployment high and the government able to borrow money for 10 years at historically low 2.5% rates, Uncle Sam's borrowing doesn't come at the expense of the private sector and the stimulus is a bigger net positive, he says.

That actually makes sense to me.

I think stimuli (stimuluses?) do create jobs, by interferring with the free market with artificial demand. (it's just borrowed money, the more wealth we use now the less we'll have later)

I'm against them because of all the debt they incur and I don't believe the government should be touching the economy at all....ever, regardless if it can "create" jobs or not.

[free1]

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs

With 20 million people paying for those jobs from their paycheck.

Then the government money stopped flowing, those 3 million jobs were lost again, but 6 million ACTUAL PRODUCING jobs were created because the 20 million had more money to spend on goods, and businesses had to hire more people to make those goods.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Have those 3 million workers payback the $862 Billion in STIMULUS.

Go ahead 3 million newly formed workers... write out a check of $287,333.33 each. Oh, double that for benefits and pension costs down the road.

[awake]

All the economists agree? well that must be right then, who could argue otherwise.

[Original_Intent]

All the economists agree? well that must be right then, who could argue otherwise.


Well I think rather than saying ALL, it might be more appropriate to say BOTH:


But to estimate the answers to such questions, economists rely on models based on historical relationships between various policies and real-world results. Earlier this month, Zandi and co-author Alan Blinder, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, released the most detailed assessment of the government's efforts to combat the so-called Great Recession. Neither economist is regarded as a partisan firebrand. Zandi, for example, backed John McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign and has advised members of both parties.

Their conclusion: The fiscal stimulus created 2.7 million jobs and added $460 billion to gross domestic product. Unemployment would be 11% today if the stimulus hadn't been passed and 16.5% if neither the fiscal stimulus nor the banks' rescue had been enacted, according to Zandi and Blinder. "It's pretty hard to deny that it had a measurable impact," Zandi said.

[HOLLYWOOD]

3 million new jobs at; CornDog On A Stick, McDonald's, Taco Bell, etc etc...

What's the quality of the jobs?

Oh those 500,000 additional Government Jobs hired since the Stimulus and Depression, the liability costs grow exponentially over the years and the people have to continue to pay for those .gov jobs.

[Romulus]

Do they mean the stimulus RESHUFFLED 3 million jobs? Because unemployment remained unchanged! And that reshuffling cost us how much, with interest?

YouTube - John Stossel's Broken Window Fallacy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPmo2e-bAMQ)

[Stary Hickory]

Is that the same 3 million that agreed the stimulus was the best option? OH geez I wonder why they are saying this krap eh?

[specsaregood]

Sure they are "jobs" just like cancer cells are "cells".

[Brian Defferding]

I love it. They pick two economists that say it worked, then make it sound like all economists agree. What about the much longer list of economists that say it didn't?

Government spending jobs typically are jobs that do not meet real market demand. That means when the spending stops and jobs are cut, the economy slows down again, and taxes eventually have to go higher - MUCH higher - to pay the public debt off. Guess what happens next? Back to square one. Stimulus spending misses the point of what makes a sound and strong economy - voluntary supply and demand. And if the government is getting in the way of that, then you eliminate it so that we can exchange, deal and purchase voluntarily and build our industries back up again.

[ClayTrainor]

Keynsians aren't economists. They are social engineers. :)

[Ireland4Liberty]

So... What happens when the stimulus goes?

Is this "gain" in jobs going to evaporate once this money goes? Will they blame the loss of "gained" jobs on the lack of gov spending? Cycle repeated?

This money more than likely was miss allocated to needless, pointless projects in the first place.

[freshjiva]

Don't worry, folks. The Electorate, whose mind is best represented by the free movement of the stock market, isn't being fooled.

[aravoth]

Don't worry, folks. The Electorate, whose mind is best represented by the free movement of the stock market, isn't being fooled.

They elected Goerge W. Bush, and Barack Obama..... they get fooled all the time.

[aravoth]

Keynsians aren't economists. They are social engineers. :)


http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb37/Saint_Even/jokerclapbq7.gif

[DamianTV]

And staticians report that 50% of statistics are 80% bullshit!

...or, that could have been 80% of statistics are 50% bullshit...

[ItsTime]

Keynsians aren't economists. They are social engineers. :)

:D

[jmdrake]

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

But...but...but...they have college degrees. :D (Inside joke).

[free1]

Have those 3 million workers payback the $862 Billion in STIMULUS.

Go ahead 3 million newly formed workers... write out a check of $287,333.33 each. Oh, double that for benefits and pension costs down the road.

For $287K you could have bought them all houses, then they would only have to worry mostly about food costs. And they would all have jobs because they could work part time for companies that can't afford full time workers.

Actually, you could have bought all the cheap foreclosed houses and prevented good people from losing their house and also made their overhead lower so they could just continue their life.

[Anti Federalist]

Awesome!!

So why not spend 1.7 trillion and "create" 6 million jobs?

Or 3.4 and create 12 million?

Why stop there?

It's only paper money anyways? Whoo hooo, upper middle class jobs for all!!!

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk)

[specsaregood]

For $287K you could have bought them all houses, then they would only have to worry mostly about food costs.

Food costs are minor in comparison to all the other costs involved. Hell, my yearly property taxes are more than my yearly food bill, not to mention insurance and electricity and general upkeep. I get your point, just saying......

[Fox McCloud]

private investment was crowded out in this process, so it's really a moot point; they're forcing the creation of 3 million jobs where the government wants those jobs to be created, meaning that it's most likely not where the market wants the money to go, not to mention that the market would have very very likely created more than 3 million jobs with the same amount of money.

I can print up $300,000,0000 dollars and give $1 to everyone in the US; I could say that everyone is "$1 richer" and that "the economy has grown thanks to the increased spending that will result from the $1 extra in everyone's pocket"...and if you just consider that, it would be true; but if you factor in inflation (which you have to) then it's a moot point and society is not richer at all...as a matter of fact, it'll be slightly poorer from the resources wasted giving everyone $1.

[Sola_Fide]

"economists agree"

pffffff


How about "Keyensians agree"

[ClayTrainor]

YouTube - "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk)

Prepared to get schooled in my Austrian perspective!!! :D