PDA

View Full Version : Economics Wonder why we're so F'd up? Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Fastest Way to Create Jobs


mlyonsd
07-01-2010, 05:38 PM
Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Fastest Way to Create Jobs

Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.

Talking to reporters, the House speaker was defending a jobless benefits extension against those who say it gives recipients little incentive to work. By her reasoning, those checks are helping give somebody a job.

"It injects demand into the economy," Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."

Pelosi said the aid has the "double benefit" of helping those who lost their jobs and acting as a "job creator" on the side.

"It's impossible to think of a situation where we would have a country that would say we're not going to have unemployment benefits," Pelosi said.

Democrats have been trying for more than a month to pass a bill extending jobless benefits to more than 1 million people. Currently, jobless benefits last nearly two years -- up to 26 weeks paid by state treasuries with federal help for up to an additional 73 weeks.

Of course, those workers could be sending a lot more money into the economy if they had jobs since unemployment benefits generally do not cover the entire cost of lost wages.

The counterintuitive statement drew jeers from Republicans, who claim Democrats can't figure out any way to tackle the economic slump that doesn't involve spending massive amounts of taxpayer money.

"No plan to create jobs -- just more stimulus spending," House Republican Leader John Boehner said at a dueling press conference.

Despite the wave of unemployment aid and stimulus spending dating back to the end of the Bush administration, the jobless rate is still hovering close to 10 percent. New figures out Thursday showed new jobless benefits claims rising for the second time in three weeks.

Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., on Thursday called the newest extension plan "fiscal insanity" because it is not paid for and will only create future problems.

"I support, and Republicans have supported, extending unemployment benefits, but we must not do so at a cost to the deficit, to the economy and to future generations. Our inability to get our fiscal house in order isn't just damaging future generations; it is wreaking havoc on jobs today," he said in a statement.

Pelosi criticized Republicans Thursday, saying she's still optimistic the bill will pass though it failed again in the Senate Wednesday night.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/pelosi-unemployment-checks-best-way-create-jobs/

mlyonsd
07-01-2010, 05:41 PM
"It injects demand into the economy," Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."


If this is so simple Nancy maybe next time we shouldn't borrow a trillion dollars for a stimulus bill. Duh.

BillSelfsTrophycase
07-01-2010, 05:41 PM
:spock:

That woman is bat shit crazy. Unfortunately the equally nutty people of San Francisco will never vote her out.

FD
07-01-2010, 05:58 PM
Shes right. Construction type projects can take a very long time to get started, whereas unemployment benefits are just direct cash injections into the economy. They don't take any time and because the recipient is unemployed its more likely to be spent then something like a tax cut.

notorious
07-01-2010, 06:03 PM
So how does it "Create" Jobs?

orange
07-01-2010, 06:09 PM
"Multiplier effect" and interest rates
Main article: Spending multiplier
Two aspects of Keynes' model had implications for policy:

First, there is the "Keynesian multiplier", first developed by Richard F. Kahn in 1931. Exogenous increases in spending, such as an increase in government outlays, increases total spending by a multiple of that increase. A government could stimulate a great deal of new production with a modest outlay if:

The people who receive this money then spend most on consumption goods and save the rest.
This extra spending allows businesses to hire more people and pay them, which in turn allows a further increase consumer spending.
This process continues. At each step, the increase in spending is smaller than in the previous step, so that the multiplier process tapers off and allows the attainment of an equilibrium. This story is modified and moderated if we move beyond a "closed economy" and bring in the role of taxation: the rise in imports and tax payments at each step reduces the amount of induced consumer spending and the size of the multiplier effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics#.22Multiplier_effect.22_and_interest_rates


ECON 1


I guess Nancy took the class.

FD
07-01-2010, 06:10 PM
So how does it "Create" Jobs?


By increasing aggregate demand.

notorious
07-01-2010, 06:14 PM
I understand it will deflate the demand for jobs since there will be a smaller pool of people applying, but how does giving out money CREATE jobs?

Do businesses hire more employees to handle the influx of unemployment money coming into their businesses?


.

notorious
07-01-2010, 06:17 PM
Sorry Orange, I just caught your response.


I know you are the master of links, is there hard evidence to this theory?


I have to be honest, it sounds like they are trying to polish a turd, but I am uneducated as when it comes to the subject of government promoting the growth of business.

petegz28
07-01-2010, 06:26 PM
Take it from someone who is currently on unemployment. It doesn't create jobs.

petegz28
07-01-2010, 06:27 PM
And for those of you who seem to think she is right, let me drop a little reality on you...

My unemployement checks aren't even 1/2 of what I made. I spend less, I save more.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

If unemployment benefits created jobs we wouldn't have had 13,000 people filing for unemployment this weak and be looking and an increase in jobless numbers tomorrow.

FD
07-01-2010, 06:32 PM
And for those of you who seem to think she is right, let me drop a little reality on you...

My unemployement checks aren't even 1/2 of what I made. I spend less, I save more.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

If unemployment benefits created jobs we wouldn't have had 13,000 people filing for unemployment this weak and be looking and an increase in jobless numbers tomorrow.

But you spend more then you would without unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits directly inject cash into the economy and stimulate aggregate demand, creating jobs.

orange
07-01-2010, 06:32 PM
I know you are the master of links, is there hard evidence to this theory?


Only 80 years of economics all over the world.

Even Republicans (Reagan, Bush) used spending to stimulate the economy - and they weren't at all shy about deficits, either; both of them BLOWING AWAY the previous records.

The difference between them and Democrats is that the Republicans will then go out on stage and tell you shamelessly that they're against deficits.

petegz28
07-01-2010, 06:34 PM
But you spend more then you would without unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits directly inject cash into the economy and stimulate aggregate demand, creating jobs.

Dude, if it created so many jobs we wouldn't have so many unemployed people. You're spitting out non-sense. Am I spending more than if I had no benefits? Yes. But let's look at it collectively, was I spending more when I had a job than I am now? Yes. So you can do the math. Someone who used to spend say $3k a month now spending $1k a month does not benefit the economy.

petegz28
07-01-2010, 06:36 PM
And let's look who is talking.. anytime Pelosi wants something pass she claims it will create jobs. We hear it on everything. She is a clown and a kook.

orange
07-01-2010, 06:38 PM
Take it from someone who is currently on unemployment. It doesn't create jobs.

So let me get this straight - the only reason you don't have a job now is that you're so happy on unemployment?

You lazy leech. :cuss:

petegz28
07-01-2010, 06:40 PM
So let me get this straight - the only reason you don't have a job now is that you're so happy on unemployment?

You lazy leech. :cuss:

I seriously hope that is a bad joke.

FD
07-01-2010, 06:44 PM
Dude, if it created so many jobs we wouldn't have so many unemployed people. You're spitting out non-sense. Am I spending more than if I had no benefits? Yes. But let's look at it collectively, was I spending more when I had a job than I am now? Yes. So you can do the math. Someone who used to spend say $3k a month now spending $1k a month does not benefit the economy.

You seem to be arguing against the view that more unemployment increases jobs, which is a contradiction. Nobody is saying that. What we're saying is that given the fact that there are a lot of unemployed people, providing them with benefits so that they still spend a little, even if its less then when they were employed, increases aggregate demand from what it would be if there were no benefits. By increasing demand jobs are created. This isn't controversial, its econ 101.

Bill Parcells
07-01-2010, 06:45 PM
Governor Christie in New Jersey is doing things the right way. he's just cutting spending and is refusing to raise taxes.

He's not whining and crying about how awful Corzine was..and that it was all his fault. hes just fixing it. these dumbasses have to start running the govt like a business. if you dont have the money you just cant spend it.

petegz28
07-01-2010, 06:48 PM
You seem to be arguing against the view that more unemployment increases jobs, which is a contradiction. Nobody is saying that. What we're saying is that given the fact that there are a lot of unemployed people, providing them with benefits so that they still spend a little, even if its less then when they were employed, increases aggregate demand from what it would be if there were no benefits. By increasing demand jobs are created. This isn't controversial, its econ 101.

First off let me state I have no problem with unemployment benefits. Obviously. Secondly though, it is ignorant to say it creates jobs. At best it helps keep more people from becoming unemployed.

So you have basically proven my point. Unemployment makes things "less bad". It does not create jobs because you have as a whole, less spending in total. Demand is not increased when people are spending less. How you get that I have no fucking idea at all??

Try math 101. People spending 1/3 of what they did when they had jobs does not increase demand. It merely helps cushion the blow.

orange
07-01-2010, 06:51 PM
I seriously hope that is a bad joke.


You tell me.


Talking to reporters, the House speaker was defending a jobless benefits extension against those who say it gives recipients little incentive to work.

I understand it will deflate the demand for jobs since there will be a smaller pool of people applying,

Are you looking for work or not?

FD
07-01-2010, 06:51 PM
First off let me state I have no problem with unemployment benefits. Obviously. Secondly though, it is ignorant to say it creates jobs. At best it helps keep more people from becoming unemployed.

So you have basically proven my point. Unemployment makes things "less bad". It does not create jobs because you have as a whole, less spending in total. Demand is not increased when people are spending less. How you get that I have no ****ing idea at all??

Try math 101. People spending 1/3 of what they did when they had jobs does not increase demand. It merely helps cushion the blow.

I'm describing a counterfactual. If without a policy (like unemployment benefits) demand is lower and there are fewer jobs than there are with the policy, I would say that policy has created jobs. The number of jobs may still be lower than at some point in the past, but its higher than it would be without the policy.

You say "it helps keep more people from becoming unemployed." Thats what people mean when they say it creates jobs. There are more jobs than there would be without it.

petegz28
07-01-2010, 06:52 PM
You tell me.

If you think I would choose unemployment making less in 1 month than I did on 1 paycheck you are out of your fucking mind.

petegz28
07-01-2010, 06:54 PM
I'm describing a counterfactual. If without a policy (like unemployment benefits) demand is lower and there are fewer jobs than there are with the policy, I would say that policy has created jobs. The number of jobs may still be lower than at some point in the past, but its higher than it would be without the policy.

You say "it helps keep more people from becoming unemployed." Thats what people mean when they say it creates jobs. There are more jobs than there would be without it.


No, Son, that is NOT what people mean when they say "it creates jobs". Do we need to define the word create for some here? When people say "create jobs" it means new jobs are created, not existing jobs are maintained. This is not Obamanomics no matter how much you try to spin it.
Again though, you proved my point. It doesn't create jobs, it keep more people from losing their jobs. So to say "she is right", as you did, is wrong.

Creating a job means just that. Keeping a job means just that. They are 2 different things. Unemployment helps some people with the latter.

FD
07-01-2010, 06:58 PM
No, that is NOT what people mean when they say "it creates jobs". Do we need to define the word create for some here? When people say "create jobs" it means new jobs are created, not existing jobs are maintained. This is not Obamanomics no matter how much you try to spin it.
Again though, you proved my point. It doesn't create jobs, it keep more people from losing their jobs. So to say "she is right", as you did, is wrong.

Creating a job means just that. Keeping a job means just that. They are 2 different things. Unemployment helps some people with the latter.

Well there is no point arguing semantics, but I will point out that when economists use the term "create jobs" they typically do so in the counterfactual sense I'm describing. This is true across the political spectrum.

petegz28
07-01-2010, 07:03 PM
Well there is no point arguing semantics, but I will point out that when economists use the term "create jobs" they typically do so in the counterfactual sense I'm describing. This is true across the political spectrum.

It's not semantics. JFC! Did you got to school? Do you know what the difference is between bad and worse? Do you know the difference between create and maintain? I don't give a rat's fucking ass about the political spectrums. Most politicians are idiots and say shit that makes no sense, Pelosi being a prime example.

Bottom line,

"create jobs" means a job that didn't exist before is now available.

"maintain jobs" means a job that currently exists is not eliminated.

One does not = the other no matter how much Obama and Pelosi want us to think so.

petegz28
07-01-2010, 07:10 PM
"Multiplier effect" and interest rates
Main article: Spending multiplier
Two aspects of Keynes' model had implications for policy:

First, there is the "Keynesian multiplier", first developed by Richard F. Kahn in 1931. Exogenous increases in spending, such as an increase in government outlays, increases total spending by a multiple of that increase. A government could stimulate a great deal of new production with a modest outlay if:

The people who receive this money then spend most on consumption goods and save the rest.
This extra spending allows businesses to hire more people and pay them, which in turn allows a further increase consumer spending.
This process continues. At each step, the increase in spending is smaller than in the previous step, so that the multiplier process tapers off and allows the attainment of an equilibrium. This story is modified and moderated if we move beyond a "closed economy" and bring in the role of taxation: the rise in imports and tax payments at each step reduces the amount of induced consumer spending and the size of the multiplier effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics#.22Multiplier_effect.22_and_interest_rates


ECON 1


I guess Nancy took the class.

The problem with this theory is people on unemployment are not "spending extra". They are spending less than they were before and probably saving as much as they can with what little is left.

If I have a job and spend say $1500 a month on essentials such as food and biils, how am I spending "extra" if my unemployment of say $1000 month doesn't even equate to what I was spending on food and bills in the first place? Particularly since that would be all I would be spending my money on? So now I am probably spending $700-$800 on food and bills. The math don't add up.

Donger
07-01-2010, 07:11 PM
I don't see how it can create jobs. I suppose it can help sustain existing jobs.

petegz28
07-01-2010, 07:13 PM
I don't see how it can create jobs. I suppose it can help sustain existing jobs.

Donger, you just don't get it, do you? People who were making $2k-$5k a month are now creating jobs off of their $1k a month unemployment check. Sheesh, can't you do simple math???

MadMax
07-01-2010, 07:21 PM
Governor Christie in New Jersey is doing things the right way. he's just cutting spending and is refusing to raise taxes.

He's not whining and crying about how awful Corzine was..and that it was all his fault. hes just fixing it. these dumbasses have to start running the govt like a business. if you dont have the money you just cant spend it.




SHHHH!! That is common sense and requires logical thinking, these people are not capable of that.

WV
07-01-2010, 07:26 PM
I think I know how it works....more jobs are created because they need to print more checks now! Job creation through Unemployment Benefits is just bureaucratic double speak. And even the most liberal of liberals has to have trouble trying to take up for or make any sense out of anything coming from Pelosi's mouth.

dirk digler
07-01-2010, 07:34 PM
At best it helps keep more people from becoming unemployed.


I agree with this.

I don't see how it can create jobs. I suppose it can help sustain existing jobs.

and this

2bikemike
07-01-2010, 07:42 PM
I could be wrong since but I would think if your getting unemployment it would probably only be enough to barely keep a roof over your head and food in your belly. Hardly economy stimulating.

I also know several young folks who went on unemployment and chose to remain there milking the system.

notorious
07-01-2010, 08:18 PM
Only 80 years of economics all over the world.

Even Republicans (Reagan, Bush) used spending to stimulate the economy - and they weren't at all shy about deficits, either; both of them BLOWING AWAY the previous records.

The difference between them and Democrats is that the Republicans will then go out on stage and tell you shamelessly that they're against deficits.

Thanks Orange.

I am not like other posters here. I actually listen and learn about stuff I don't know much about instead of talking out of my ass.


Anyway, I can see a short term benefit in helping people keep current jobs and even boosting new jobs a little bit. But it definately shouldn't be thought of as a long term solution.

Republicans can eat shit just like the Democrats. A lot of people do not realize that the current House, Senate, and President are going through doors that the Republicans opened years ago.

mlyonsd
07-01-2010, 09:15 PM
Only 80 years of economics all over the world.

Even Republicans (Reagan, Bush) used spending to stimulate the economy - and they weren't at all shy about deficits, either; both of them BLOWING AWAY the previous records.

The difference between them and Democrats is that the Republicans will then go out on stage and tell you shamelessly that they're against deficits.

So you're on board with the current spending plans? Let's get this on record.

orange
07-02-2010, 12:52 AM
So you're on board with the current spending plans? Let's get this on record.

Actually, not really on board per se.

I think they need to spend a lot more. The economy is souring again. This is not the time to practice fiscal morality.

I would also spend DIRECTLY on jobs - but the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional long ago.

KCHawg
07-02-2010, 01:51 AM
This is the same kind of bullshit speak they use when they talk about 'spending cuts'. They didn't get to increase spending as much as they would like (even though it increased), and that is a politician version of a 'spending cut'.

mlyonsd
07-02-2010, 06:56 AM
Actually, not really on board per se.

I think they need to spend a lot more. The economy is souring again. This is not the time to practice fiscal morality.

I would also spend DIRECTLY on jobs - but the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional long ago.

You're crazy. I appreciate your honesty but you're crazy. :)

The Mad Crapper
07-02-2010, 07:02 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you.... Moonbattery:

Actually, not really on board per se.

I think they need to spend a lot more. The economy is souring again. This is not the time to practice fiscal morality.

I would also spend DIRECTLY on jobs - but the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional long ago.

orange
07-02-2010, 11:38 AM
May 14, 2010, 6:20 pm
They Have Made a Desert
And called it successful adjustment.

Estonia is being hailed for its fiscal rectitude, which qualifies it for entry into the euro. Meanwhile we learn that

Latvia is often cited as an example for Greece as it undergoes a brutal internal devaluation while keeping its currency pegged to the euro.

So how are these role models doing? Unemployment in Estonia is 19.8%; in Latvia, 20.4%. And here’s a little comparison of the depths of recession in three cold countries:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/baltics.png
Eurostat

Yes, that’s right: the oh-so-virtuous Baltics have done worse than Iceland.

But their money is sound.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/they-have-made-a-desert/

orange
07-02-2010, 11:39 AM
You're crazy. I appreciate your honesty but you're crazy. :)

20% unemployment. BUT THEIR MONEY'S SOUND.

That's what I call crazy!

orange
07-02-2010, 11:42 AM
But What About Hyper Inflation ?? Yikes!!!

May 21, 2010. A popular topic at tea parties, but really, can you get any sillier? Three trillion dollars ago, when Bush shifted the deficit into overdrive (a good thing he did), inflation was about 2.5%. Now it's about 1%. Hyperinflation? No just hyperventilating.
You don't need to be an economist to figure this out. Say you manage a local restaurant, and read about the deficit. So you think OMG inflation! I better raise the price of a steak and fries. So you "explain" this to the owner, who says, What have you been smokin'. Business is down from the recession; our competition is having more specials, and you think our customers will pay more because the national debt went up?
No, believe me. Any business that raises prices because of the national debt, died a long time ago. A booming economy lets them raise price. A recession—yes that's what's going on—makes it hard to sell things, so prices get cut. That's why inflation is down. But, what I can't figure (can you?) is why people stay so mixed up?

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

orange
07-02-2010, 11:46 AM
Only 80 years of economics all over the world.

Even Republicans (Reagan, Bush) used spending to stimulate the economy - and they weren't at all shy about deficits, either; both of them BLOWING AWAY the previous records.

The difference between them and Democrats is that the Republicans will then go out on stage and tell you shamelessly that they're against deficits.

p.s. to notorious

From that website I just linked above, here's a perfect illustration of what I was talking about:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

The little Carter chunk is an object lesson. Bad Times + Fiscal Restraint = One Term

CoMoChief
07-02-2010, 12:14 PM
Govt and job creation NEVER go hand in hand.

I can't believe people are STILL drinking this Kool-aid.

HonestChieffan
07-02-2010, 12:22 PM
Actually, not really on board per se.

I think they need to spend a lot more. The economy is souring again. This is not the time to practice fiscal morality.

I would also spend DIRECTLY on jobs - but the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional long ago.


U do need to use more drugs

petegz28
07-02-2010, 12:22 PM
p.s. to notorious

From that website I just linked above, here's a perfect illustration of what I was talking about:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

The little Carter chunk is an object lesson. Bad Times + Fiscal Restraint = One Term

So what you're saying is Dem controlled congress spends out the ass? :D

Dayze
07-02-2010, 12:24 PM
Take it from someone who is currently on unemployment. It doesn't create jobs.

yeah; agree there.
i was on unemployment for 7 months;

orange
07-02-2010, 12:26 PM
Govt and job creation NEVER go hand in hand.

I can't believe people are STILL drinking this Kool-aid.

The FACTS are against you.


ECONOMIC TIMELINE

The following timeline shows the order of economic events during the Great Depression. Notice the effect that deficit spending had on economic growth:

Receipts: Tax receipts as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product

Spending: Federal spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product

GNP: Percent change in the Gross National Product

Unemp.: Unemployment rate

Tax Federal GNP Unemp.
Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate
-------------------------------------------------
1929 -- -- -- 3.2% < Hoover era, Great Depression begins
1930 4.2% 3.4% - 9.4% 8.7
1931 3.7 4.3 - 8.5 15.9
1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6
1933 3.5 8.1 - 2.1 24.9 < FDR, New Deal begins; contraction ends March
1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7
1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1
1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9
1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 < recession begins, May
1938 7.7 7.8 - 4.5 19.0 < recession ends, June
1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2
1940 6.9 9.9
1941 7.7 12.1
1942 10.3 24.8
1943 13.7 44.8
1944 21.7 45.3
1945 21.3 43.7
As you can see, Roosevelt began relatively modest deficit spending that arrested the slide of the economy and resulted in some astonishing growth numbers. (Roosevelt's average growth of 5.2 percent during the Great Depression is even higher than Reagan's 3.7 percent growth during his so-called "Seven Fat Years!") When 1936 saw a phenomenal record of 14 percent growth, Roosevelt eased back on the deficit spending, overly worried about balancing the budget. But this only caused the economy to slip back into a recession, as the above chart shows.

I have been unable to find reliable economic growth figures from World War II, but as a generalization it is safe to say the economy exploded, experiencing itís greatest growth in U.S. history. Between 1940 and 1945, the GDP nearly doubled in size, from $832 billion to $1,559 billion in constant 87 dollars. And this occurred as deficit spending soared, to levels Keynes had earlier and unsuccessfully recommended to Roosevelt.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

Readable chart:

vailpass
07-02-2010, 12:42 PM
huppi.com/kangaroo?

orange
07-02-2010, 12:44 PM
huppi.com/kangaroo?

Sources:

T.H. Watkins, The Great Depression: America in the 1930s (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1993)

Kevin Phillips, Boiling Point (New York: HarperCollins, 1993)

Kevin Phillips, The Politics of Rich and Poor (New York: Random House, 1990)

The 1995 Grolier Encyclopedia (Entries: New Deal, Depression of the 30s, Roosevelt, Coolidge.)

The Encyclopedia Brittanica Online (Entries: New Deal, Great Depression.)

Donald Barlett and James Steele, America: What Went Wrong? (Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1992)

Donald Barlett and James Steele, America: Who Really Pays the Taxes? (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994)

James MacGregor Fox, Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox (New York: Konecky and Konecky, 1956)

Elaine Schwartz, Econ 101Ĺ (New York: Avon Books, 1995)

Peter Pugh and Chris Garratt, Introducing Keynes (Cambridge, England: Icon Books, Ltd., 1993)

Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1994)

Online sources:

History lecture notes: http://www.marshall.edu/history/mccarthy/hst331/lecture/greatdep.1

Gary H. Stern (President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis), "Achieving Economic Stability: Lessons From the Crash of 1929," 1987 Annual Report Essay, http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/pubs/ar/ar1987.html

Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1997, Historical Tables 1.2 and 10.1, http://www.doc.gov/BudgetFY97/histtoc.html

vailpass
07-02-2010, 12:48 PM
Sources:

Those aren't nearly as fun to say as huppi.com/kangaroo

2bikemike
07-02-2010, 12:50 PM
Govt and job creation NEVER go hand in hand.

I can't believe people are STILL drinking this Kool-aid.

Sure it does. The Govt. Creates new Govt. Jobs so the size of Govt Payrolls rise. Taxes rise to pay for new Govt. Jobs. :#

Hog Farmer
07-02-2010, 01:29 PM
So how does it "Create" Jobs?

Unemploment money is mostly spent on alcohol,drugs and lottery tickets. Who do you think makes that alcohol, transports those drugs and prints those lottery tickets. People with jobs.

RJ
07-02-2010, 02:43 PM
We'd have more jobs if we made some stuff.

Unfortunately, we don't want to spend more money on stuff we make when we can buy cheaper stuff that Chinese people make.

So I guess we'll have to rely on the unemployment checks to keep the economic engine running.

I'm kidding, of course......sort of.

Mr. Flopnuts
07-02-2010, 02:57 PM
LMAO This isn't logic. It's a rationalization of a stupid thought. Unemployment is turning into welfare.

teedubya
07-02-2010, 03:05 PM
If this is so simple Nancy maybe next time we shouldn't borrow a trillion dollars for a stimulus bill. Duh.

especially when the Worlds GDP is between 5 and 6 Trillion.

banyon
07-02-2010, 03:09 PM
We'd have more jobs if we made some stuff.

Unfortunately, we don't want to spend more money on stuff we make when we can buy cheaper stuff that Chinese people make.

So I guess we'll have to rely on the unemployment checks to keep the economic engine running.

I'm kidding, of course......sort of.

reminds me of this post from SA the other day:

Not a good start is our revised Q1 GDP, which was knocked down 10% from the previous estimate to 2.7%, mainly due to a smaller than expected gain in consumer spending and a larger than expected trade gap as US consumers lose jobs so they go to Wal-Mart and the Dollar Store where they can buy cheaper goods that are made overseas which closes more US factories and Retail Stores so more people end up on unemployment and shopping at Wal-Mart and the Dollar Store, which gives China even more money and hurts our balance of trade which damages our GDP and drives investment dollars out of the country leading to less manufacturing over here and more job losses with more unemployed people heading over to Wal-Mart and the Dollar Store to buy Chinese goods. Boy am we smart!

RJ
07-02-2010, 03:24 PM
reminds me of this post from SA the other day:


But it's really good we have Walmart cause those unemployment checks only go so far and you have to make every dollar count. Believe me, if I was living on a $400 weekly unemployment check I wouldn't shop anywhere else.

And this is where I get confused when I read about why it's okay for our manufacturing to go overseas. Cause me being not so smart, all I know is that when I was a kid most of the fathers worked at places like Bethleham Steel and GM and such, and they all managed to raise families and own homes and their wives didn't have to work. And now we have lots more stuff in our homes and own two cars but it's all made somewhere else and most of our wives have to work so really we're working twice as much per family just so we can have nicer televisions and another bathroom or two.

But in fairness I don't know much of nothing about economics.

googlegoogle
07-02-2010, 03:30 PM
Anyone ever dare ask her why she doesn't hire extras for her OWN businesses?

I have always asked that politicians and voters lead by doing what they preach.

Ask these billionaire Democrat senators why they personally don't pay people out of their own pockets.

They wont. They're too smart to do that.

banyon
07-02-2010, 03:37 PM
But it's really good we have Walmart cause those unemployment checks only go so far and you have to make every dollar count. Believe me, if I was living on a $400 weekly unemployment check I wouldn't shop anywhere else.

And this is where I get confused when I read about why it's okay for our manufacturing to go overseas. Cause me being not so smart, all I know is that when I was a kid most of the fathers worked at places like Bethleham Steel and GM and such, and they all managed to raise families and own homes and their wives didn't have to work. And now we have lots more stuff in our homes and own two cars but it's all made somewhere else and most of our wives have to work so really we're working twice as much per family just so we can have nicer televisions and another bathroom or two.

But in fairness I don't know much of nothing about economics.

That, and we're in debt up to our eyeballs and we didn't used to be.

Perot used to talk about this stuff. The two parties of corporate enablement don't care.

banyon
07-02-2010, 03:43 PM
Anyone ever dare ask her why she doesn't hire extras for her OWN businesses?

I have always asked that politicians and voters lead by doing what they preach.

Ask these billionaire Democrat senators why they personally don't pay people out of their own pockets.

They wont. They're too smart to do that.

What billionaire Democratic senator?

FD
07-02-2010, 03:48 PM
We'd have more jobs if we made some stuff.

Unfortunately, we don't want to spend more money on stuff we make when we can buy cheaper stuff that Chinese people make.

So I guess we'll have to rely on the unemployment checks to keep the economic engine running.

I'm kidding, of course......sort of.

This is something of a myth. The US manufactures more goods now than it ever has. And we still manufacture more goods than any other nation.

KC Dan
07-02-2010, 03:55 PM
This is something of a myth. The US manufactures more goods now than it ever has. And we still manufacture more goods than any other nation.actual goods manufactured - correct. But, manufacturing jobs way lower

FD
07-02-2010, 03:58 PM
actual goods manufactured - correct. But, manufacturing jobs way lower

Yep. Thanks to automation.

FishingRod
07-02-2010, 03:59 PM
If you pay 1 million people to watch TV unemployment has gone down. If you give everyone in the country 10,000 bucks and tax them on it your tax revenues will go up. If you put $30,000 in a slot machine and you get $10,000 back you "won" more money than a guy who put $5 in and got $10 back. You just have to use a little common sense to determine if one is actually gaining anything from these activities. Small business loans, tax incentives grants and so forth "can" help to fuel the engine of our economy. Sensible spending "can" produce some positive results but the idea of just throwing money at the problem and it will magically fix itself is like writing a check to your credit card even though you don't have the money in the account but you do have overdraft protection from that same card. It just doesn't work. Happy 4th everyone. I am out of here.

Jenson71
07-02-2010, 04:03 PM
But it's really good we have Walmart cause those unemployment checks only go so far and you have to make every dollar count. Believe me, if I was living on a $400 weekly unemployment check I wouldn't shop anywhere else.

And this is where I get confused when I read about why it's okay for our manufacturing to go overseas. Cause me being not so smart, all I know is that when I was a kid most of the fathers worked at places like Bethleham Steel and GM and such, and they all managed to raise families and own homes and their wives didn't have to work. And now we have lots more stuff in our homes and own two cars but it's all made somewhere else and most of our wives have to work so really we're working twice as much per family just so we can have nicer televisions and another bathroom or two.

But in fairness I don't know much of nothing about economics.

Good post, RJ.

RJ
07-02-2010, 09:05 PM
This is something of a myth. The US manufactures more goods now than it ever has. And we still manufacture more goods than any other nation.


Really? Cause it sure doesn't seem that way when I go shopping and it sure doesn't look that way when I'm back east and driving through what were once considered industrial towns. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it doesn't square with my own observation.

Are we manufacturing a different sort of goods, perhaps where the pay isn't as good? Jobs in places like Beth Steel and such were good jobs where many men spent their entire working lives. I don't see those today. We have an Intel plant in my town but the past few years they've laid off a lot more than they've hired.

Saul Good
07-11-2010, 11:27 AM
Here's a bit of good news for Nancy Pelosi. Orange should be excited as well.

Labor Dept. Estimates $7.1 Billion in Overpayments to Unemployed
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/underemployed-overpaid-states-shell-unemployment/story?id=11118137


All of that fraud and incompetence will have the economy running on all cylinders again in no time. As Nancy taught us, the quickest way to get out of a hole is to dig faster.

orange
07-11-2010, 12:06 PM
Here's a bit of good news for Nancy Pelosi. Orange should be excited as well.

There are more than six million car accidents each year in the United States.

http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/resources/statistics.html

We should close all the roads.

Saul Good
07-11-2010, 12:24 PM
There are more than six million car accidents each year in the United States.

http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/resources/statistics.html

We should close all the roads.
Quite the contrary. We should subsidize car accidents in order make people drive more carefully.

The Mad Crapper
07-11-2010, 12:27 PM
Quite the contrary. We should subsidize car accidents in order make people drive more carefully.

We do something even better---

Raise insurance rates on safe drivers to cover the costs of bad drivers, particularly bad drivers who refuse to purchase insurance.

It's kind of like our immigration policy, citizens' taxes rise with the tide of illegals to support them.

banyon
07-11-2010, 04:11 PM
Quite the contrary. We should subsidize car accidents in order make people drive more carefully.

Don't you mean subsidize safe driving?

This is already done, with insurance premium differentials.

Rain Man
07-11-2010, 04:22 PM
We certainly need to have unemployment benefits or programs, but to say that unemployment payments "inject money into the economy" reflects a true lack of knowledge about where that money comes from. If you take money from one citizen via taxes and give it to another, that's not "an injection of money", other than perhaps a very mild argument that Person 2 will spend it instead of saving it.

I really think that statement illustrates the problem with career politicians. Ms. Pelosi thinks only about spending money and government money, and she doesn't understand the supply side of that money.

On another note, I've never figured out why unemployment benefits don't require at least part-time work. Why can't you decide to build a big pyramid or dig a canal or say to road contractors, "Here's a bunch of low-level labor", and get some value out of the money? I'm not talking 40 hours per week, but maybe 10 hours per week. That would add up when you have 20 gazillion people unemployed, and then at least we'd have some cool pyramids.

Rain Man
07-11-2010, 04:23 PM
Here's a bit of good news for Nancy Pelosi. Orange should be excited as well.

Labor Dept. Estimates $7.1 Billion in Overpayments to Unemployed
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/underemployed-overpaid-states-shell-unemployment/story?id=11118137


All of that fraud and incompetence will have the economy running on all cylinders again in no time. As Nancy taught us, the quickest way to get out of a hole is to dig faster.


Maybe they should extend unemployment benefits to people who are working. This nation would soon have streets of gold.

mlyonsd
07-11-2010, 04:27 PM
We certainly need to have unemployment benefits or programs, but to say that unemployment payments "inject money into the economy" reflects a true lack of knowledge about where that money comes from. If you take money from one citizen via taxes and give it to another, that's not "an injection of money", other than perhaps a very mild argument that Person 2 will spend it instead of saving it.

I really think that statement illustrates the problem with career politicians. Ms. Pelosi thinks only about spending money and government money, and she doesn't understand the supply side of that money.

On another note, I've never figured out why unemployment benefits don't require at least part-time work. Why can't you decide to build a big pyramid or dig a canal or say to road contractors, "Here's a bunch of low-level labor", and get some value out of the money? I'm not talking 40 hours per week, but maybe 10 hours per week. That would add up when you have 20 gazillion people unemployed, and then at least we'd have some cool pyramids.

Here's your basic DUH moment, brought to you by the letters R and M.

mlyonsd
07-11-2010, 04:29 PM
Don't you mean subsidize safe driving?

This is already done, with insurance premium differentials.

I think you're right, and BTW, HBD.

Saul Good
07-11-2010, 04:31 PM
Don't you mean subsidize safe driving?

This is already done, with insurance premium differentials.

No, I meant exactly what I said. According to Pelosi's logic, you get less of what you subsidize (ie. increasing unemployment benefits is a "job creator"). We need to pay people to get into accidents which will act as a "safe-driving creator".

Just to be clear, I'm not against unemployment benefits (although 99 weeks is more than excessive). What I am against is pretending that unemployment benefits create jobs.

The Mad Crapper
07-11-2010, 05:28 PM
Maybe they should extend unemployment benefits to people who are working. This nation would soon have streets of gold.

PBJ

orange
07-11-2010, 06:27 PM
We certainly need to have unemployment benefits or programs, but to say that unemployment payments "inject money into the economy" reflects a true lack of knowledge about where that money comes from. If you take money from one citizen via taxes and give it to another, that's not "an injection of money", other than perhaps a very mild argument that Person 2 will spend it instead of saving it.


THAT'S why you use Deficit Spending. You take the money from the future and spend it NOW. That's why the Democrats are trying to extend unemployment benefits WITHOUT offsets.

Welcome to the Light Side. :D

Saul Good
07-11-2010, 06:33 PM
THAT'S why you use Deficit Spending. You take the money from the future and spend it NOW. That's why the Democrats are trying to extend unemployment benefits WITHOUT offsets.

Welcome to the Light Side. :D

So we're using the payday loan model to run economic policy? Great. Maybe we can take a title loan on Air Force One and get some cash for our gold at Fort Knox.

Garcia Bronco
07-11-2010, 06:50 PM
"Multiplier effect" and interest rates
Main article: Spending multiplier
Two aspects of Keynes' model had implications for policy:

First, there is the "Keynesian multiplier", first developed by Richard F. Kahn in 1931. Exogenous increases in spending, such as an increase in government outlays, increases total spending by a multiple of that increase. A government could stimulate a great deal of new production with a modest outlay if:

The people who receive this money then spend most on consumption goods and save the rest.
This extra spending allows businesses to hire more people and pay them, which in turn allows a further increase consumer spending.
This process continues. At each step, the increase in spending is smaller than in the previous step, so that the multiplier process tapers off and allows the attainment of an equilibrium. This story is modified and moderated if we move beyond a "closed economy" and bring in the role of taxation: the rise in imports and tax payments at each step reduces the amount of induced consumer spending and the size of the multiplier effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics#.22Multiplier_effect.22_and_interest_rates


ECON 1


I guess Nancy took the class.

Execpt the money she is spending is in the red.

orange
07-11-2010, 06:54 PM
Execpt the money she is spending is in the red.

Intentionally so, yes. See #79.

That really is the point.

Rain Man
07-11-2010, 07:52 PM
If it's a job creator to spend future money, why don't we spend all of the future money? There'd be jobs for everyone.

banyon
07-11-2010, 08:03 PM
No, I meant exactly what I said. According to Pelosi's logic, you get less of what you subsidize (ie. increasing unemployment benefits is a "job creator"). We need to pay people to get into accidents which will act as a "safe-driving creator".

Just to be clear, I'm not against unemployment benefits (although 99 weeks is more than excessive). What I am against is pretending that unemployment benefits create jobs.

That's not Pelosi's reasoning at all.

As has already been posted, the theory is that the money will circulate faster and generate consumer demand, which in turn will generate jobs down the road.

Unemployment always lags the recovery, I think we are starting to get there.

banyon
07-11-2010, 08:04 PM
If it's a job creator to spend future money, why don't we spend all of the future money? There'd be jobs for everyone.

Macroeconomics doesn't fare so well with absolutes.

petegz28
07-11-2010, 08:07 PM
That's not Pelosi's reasoning at all.

As has already been posted, the theory is that the money will circulate faster and generate consumer demand, which in turn will generate jobs down the road.

Unemployment always lags the recovery, I think we are starting to get there.

But it doesn't generate demand. It keeps demand from falling off more than it otherwise would.

Saul Good
07-11-2010, 08:16 PM
That's not Pelosi's reasoning at all.

As has already been posted, the theory is that the money will circulate faster and generate consumer demand, which in turn will generate jobs down the road.

Unemployment always lags the recovery, I think we are starting to get there.

So the theory is that unemployed people are going to create so much demand with their Obamadollars that businesses will be forced to hire more employees in order to keep up with demand? That seems pretty far-fetched to me.

If that's really the case, though, why not do another rebate for everyone instead of further subsidizing unemployment? I don't care how bad the economy is. If you can't find a job in less than 99 weeks, that's a personal problem rather than one that taxpayers should be underwriting.