Um, no, you started with an insult, and then you unfurled post #34, where you said: Sam can't feed himself, he's a troll, and something weird about his dad's contraceptive incompetence (I think?) Anyway, you had no argument on topic in either post. If you've made any argument at all, please direct everyone to it. And no, I'm not taking sides, except against stupidity. (I don't like SamFisher for a host of historical reasons.)
I didn't say that GDP didn't matter. I said that it wasn't the best indicator of whether or not the stimulus is working as intended because government spending will obviously increase with stimulus, and net exports can be effected by monetary policy. All you've done is tell me the argument is ridiculous without actually rebutting it. And I studied economics in college. That was my major. I'm sure I know a bit more than the average Joe.
You may have missed that whole page of posts back on page 1 explaining that being a denialist and jumping around trying to point to monetary policy is barking up the wrong tree, given what we actually know about monetary policy in the time frame. That's why Mr. Clutch is no longer with us. It's also why you would have lost your shirt had you listened Schiffster's dollar calls. The historical record on austerity is pretty clear, not just from this example, but from every example. And it proves the rather unsurprising conclusion that, in most circumstances, you can't get people to magically spend money by intentionally spenidng less money. Why doesn't somebody here actually posit some actual evidence? If you're going to go ahead and preach a magical theory that x-y > x, you'd think there would be some proof of it somewhere.
where are all the people who said FDR's New Deal didn't work. Now we have more than two years after this global recession it will be interesting to see if people are still arguing for austerity in times like this. the states right now are cutting off the recovery laying off public workers, when they could take some more fed stim money and the unemployment rate would actually start falling and there would be more money from the consumers but oh well
They just invent and change stuff around - the current flat-earth depiction of the Great Depression is that Hoover was an activist/interventionist and all sorts of other stuff, that suffers from the handicap of being a complete fabrication.
I got this graphic from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics: y-axis is unemployment rate x-axis is the date Unemployment rate Here is another: y-axis is 1-month net change x-axis is the date Total change in non-farm payroll employment I think there is a coincidence here. Spoiler Dow Jones Industrial Average from 2001 to end of 2010: The markets are recovering but employment is not.
My image links have failed so here are the links to where you can access the information. The information will be to the right of the screen: http://www.bls.gov/home.htm http://www.bls.gov/ces/
Just read on the Beeb, we'd need 80 million new jobs to meet pre crisis employment levels. Also, it appears we're heading to a new recession; with expected social unrest around the world. On the bright side, the same experts predict the US GDP will grow (albeit, very, very slowly (0.1%)) Now that we have 7 billion people, jobs, food, and water are going to be scarce. Anybody up for a massive reset? Just give everyone five bullets and see where that takes us? With this grim of an outlook, I don't see much else.
In 2009 there were 140,000,000 income tax returns filed with the IRS. That was the last year of net job loss. Maybe he said 8 million, which around about the number of jobs lost in 2008 and 2009 according the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As though jobs, food and water had yet to be scarce? Fighting between Israel and its antagonists erupted over disputes of the Golan Heights, a very significant watershed. As well as there have been disputes in the US about reparian (water) rights throughout its entire existence. You see know the biggest issue with hydrofracking of oil and gas shales is not the underground damage but has always been the waste water management on the surface. There have been about 7 major job recessions since 1970, with this past being the largest. I don't see why we would need to kill ourselves to save ourselves from something that will always be there.
and as I said last week, mainstream Republican doctrine indicates otherwise, as John Boehner reiterated for aobut the 1000th time yesterday: i.e. "magic" - reduce spending = jobs magically created.
