So the United States credit rating was just downgraded....again

[Dusty Bake Activate]

do you like what the fed is doing with this move?

Yeah. Growth is pretty stagnant. The economy needs stimulus and hopefully this can help lift housing prices, which is needed. I would much prefer a massive fiscal stimulus and the government to buy down mortgages be coupled with it, but that isn't going to happen due to political gridlock in Washington.

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

Yeah. Growth is pretty stagnant. The economy needs stimulus and hopefully this can help lift housing prices, which is needed. I would much prefer a massive fiscal stimulus which focused on buying mortgages be coupled with it, but that isn't going to happen due to political gridlock in Washington.

So what is the functional relationship with stimulus and growth? because it doesn't appear to be linear at all.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

So what is the functional relationship with stimulus and growth? because it doesn't appear to be linear at all.

The Recovery Act and the slashing of interest rates to almost 0 didn't spur growth?

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

The Recovery Act and the slashing of interest rates to almost 0 didn't spur growth?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

AND i asked for the functional relationship.

 

[OsO]

Yeah. Growth is pretty stagnant. The economy needs stimulus and hopefully this can help lift housing prices, which is needed. I would much prefer a massive fiscal stimulus and the government to buy down mortgages be coupled with it, but that isn't going to happen due to political gridlock in Washington.

im not even trying to insult you. but you have no idea what youre talking about.

i cant write long paragraphs on these topics anymore but the kind of money being generated by "QE" should not be produced in the fashion it is (by the fed), and it should not be spent in the fashion it is. they are literally doing everything wrong and i just dont understand how people can convince themselves that this will end well.

since we dont produce as much anymore our entire shyt is running on credit right now, and our credit rating is slowly dropping through the floor. it's 1+1=2.

we are doing two things-delaying the inevitable, and making the inevitable outcome infinitely worse.

 

[Hussein Fonzarelli]

Yeah. Growth is pretty stagnant. The economy needs stimulus and hopefully this can help lift housing prices, which is needed. I would much prefer a massive fiscal stimulus and the government to buy down mortgages be coupled with it, but that isn't going to happen due to political gridlock in Washington.

Ayo hit me up shorty I gots some swag snapbacks and we can stunt on them fukkboys make a movie and shut down the mawl

YOLO

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

AND i asked for the functional relationship.

Bullshyt. The economy went from freefall and GDP loss of -1 to -8% for the most of 6 fiscal quarters. Then it started growing from 2-4% for another 6 quarters in 2009-2010 after the stimulus.

That's about as post hoc ergo propter hoc as the correlation between someone eating McDonalds for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for months and gaining several pounds.

 

[Gallo]

Took me quite a while to click this thread. I was under the impression that after their role in the financial collapse people stopped paying attention to rating agencies.

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

Bullshyt. The economy went from freefall and GDP loss of -1 to -8% for the most of 6 fiscal quarters. Then it started growing from 2-4% for another 6 quarters in 2009-2010 after the stimulus.

That's about as post hoc ergo propter hoc as the correlation between someone eating McDonalds for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for months and gaining several pounds.

The economy has bounced back WITHOUT stimulus dozens of times within the last 200 years. The exception is the rule now? Things happen in cycles. A a traditionally cyclical movement in the economy is now directly caused by a unique stimulus?

Who has been growing like teenage boys within the since the stimulus? Not anything connected to the common man. It's the Finance industry. The same guys who bought out this administration.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

im not even trying to insult you. but you have no idea what youre talking about.

i cant write long paragraphs on these topics anymore but the kind of money being generated by "QE" should not be produced in the fashion it is (by the fed), and it should not be spent in the fashion it is. they are literally doing everything wrong and i just dont understand how people can convince themselves that this will end well.

since we dont produce as much anymore our entire shyt is running on credit right now, and our credit rating is slowly dropping through the floor. it's 1+1=2.

we are doing two things-delaying the inevitable, and making the inevitable outcome infinitely worse.

Man shut the fukk up. You don't know anything about economics at all...zero. Your act is tired. Read a book and stop telling people they don't know what they're talking about just because they don't have your silly 15 year old comical, conspiratorial fact-free view of everything.

Obviously the logic of someone who supports stimulus is that it should be done to spur growth in the short-term so the economy doesn't tank, credit doesn't get frozen, and unemployment spikes then worry about austerity later. If there wasn't stimulus done in 08-09 there would've been a Great Depression. And you would've just came up with some other dumb ass facts-devoid "the government and the Fed is evil yo!" faux analysis developed without doing any research.

 

[Broke Wave]

Bullshyt. The economy went from freefall and GDP loss of -1 to -8% for the most of 6 fiscal quarters. Then it started growing from 2-4% for another 6 quarters in 2009-2010 after the stimulus.

That's about as post hoc ergo propter hoc as the correlation between someone eating McDonalds for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for months and gaining several pounds.

What I find hysterical about Gundumb, aside from his psudeo-intellectual use of Latin phrases, is how he harps on a new caveat of Politics/Economics/Foreign Policy/Culture every little while, and proports to be an expert in this field.

Then, when pressed about the facts, his first response is "Well gee bro, I work 12(18?) hours a day, I don't have time for this...

The co-relation between forms of fiscal stimulus and economic activity is actually LITERALLY undeniable. It is part of the CBO nexus for measuring policies. I don't know why I have to explain the multiplier effect to people like it isn't economic fact. The fact is Hayek and all the Austrians never denied the existence of Keynes Multiplier effect... this is the economic equivalent of denying Natural Selection.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

The economy has bounced back WITHOUT stimulus dozens of times within the last 200 years. The exception is the rule now? Things happen in cycles. A a traditionally cyclical movement in the economy is now directly caused by a unique stimulus?

Yeah, and this was just a normal ebb and flow of the economy recession, Gundam? There wasn't this whole thing of the entire financial system being on the verge of collapse and a massive government bailout, the mortgage bubble, massive derivatives trading like a casino, etc.? You sound like Jamie Dimon now.

Who has been growing like teenage boys within the since the stimulus? Not anything connected to the common man. It's the Finance industry. The same guys who bought out this administration.

Yeah, I agree QE seems to have that effect of the growth going to the industry and not the common man. The fiscal stimulus did work though but it should've been bigger, had more infrastructure spending, less pork, and probably less tax cuts. Let's not forget it was 40% tax cuts, btw.

It's basic economics that you spend and cut taxes during recession periods. If you're so devoted to Austrian economics that you would've rather seen frozen credit and 20 something % unemployment for god knows however long, so be it, but most of us don't see it that way.

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

Man shut the fukk up. You don't know anything about economics at all...zero. Your act is tired. Read a book and stop telling people they don't know what they're talking about just because they don't have your silly 15 year old comical, conspiratorial fact-free view of everything.

Obviously the logic of someone who supports stimulus is that it should be done to spur growth in the short-term so the economy doesn't tank, credit doesn't get frozen, and unemployment spikes then worry about austerity later. If there wasn't stimulus done in 08-09 there would've been a Great Depression. And you would've just came up with some other dumb ass facts-devoid "the government and the Fed is evil yo!" faux analysis developed without doing any research.

His theories may be based on a conspiracy/fairytale, but they coincide with the hard evidence. Your theory is based on a fairytale and it is backed-up by nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/economy/13view.html

One piece of evidence comes from Christina D. Romer, the chairwoman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers. In work with her husband, David H. Romer, written at the University of California, Berkeley, just months before she took her current job, Ms. Romer found that tax policy has a powerful influence on economic activity.

According to the Romers, each dollar of tax cuts has historically raised G.D.P. by about $3 — three times the figure used in the administration report. That is also far greater than most estimates of the effects of government spending.

Other recent work supports the Romers’ findings. In a December 2008 working paper, Andrew Mountford of the University of London and Harald Uhlig of the University of Chicago apply state-of-the-art statistical tools to United States data to compare the effects of deficit-financed spending, deficit-financed tax cuts and tax-financed spending. They report that “deficit-financed tax cuts work best among these three scenarios to improve G.D.P.”

My Harvard colleagues Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna have recently conducted a comprehensive analysis of the issue. In an October study, they looked at large changes in fiscal policy in 21 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. They identified 91 episodes since 1970 in which policy moved to stimulate the economy. They then compared the policy interventions that succeeded — that is, those that were actually followed by robust growth — with those that failed.

The results are striking. Successful stimulus relies almost entirely on cuts in business and income taxes. Failed stimulus relies mostly on increases in government spending.

All these findings suggest that conventional models leave something out. A clue as to what that might be can be found in a 2002 study by Olivier Blanchard and Roberto Perotti. (Mr. Perotti is a professor at Boccini University in Milano, Italy; Mr. Blanchard is now chief economist at the International Monetary Fund.) They report that “both increases in taxes and increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending. This effect is difficult to reconcile with Keynesian theory.”

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

His theories may be based on a conspiracy/fairytale, but they coincide with the hard evidence. Your theory is based on a fairytale and it is backed-up by nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/economy/13view.html

Based on nothing? I don't feel like it right now, but I could and have in the past pull up several studies from reputed nonpartisan economic research firms including the Congressional Budget Office that all crunched the numbers and concluded that the stimulus produced or save 2-3 million jobs. I'm sure you could find some fringe Randian douchebag economist somewhere that will dispute that, but don't say my view is backed up by nothing when it's actually backed up mainstream economics.

 

[Broke Wave]

His theories may be based on a conspiracy/fairytale, but they coincide with the hard evidence. Your theory is based on a fairytale and it is backed-up by nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/economy/13view.html

Even if we agree that Romers research is correct, that doesn't dispute any long held belief by rational people. Reagan grew the economy by an astounding rate by cutting taxes massively, but this created MASSIVE budget deficits. So historically speaking, tax cuts have created great growth when done massively, but this has been historically in conjunction with sustained spending increases, which are further exacerbated by the tax cuts.

So you get NOWHERE.

Also, nobody disagrees that tax cuts spur economic growth, the facts are that they are GROSSLY inefficient.

CASE CLOSED, come back next week harping on Halpogroup E1Y1GP or whatever the hell else you talk about.