Comments on: The stimulus is a joke http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/the-stimulus-is-a-joke.html where orders emerge Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: john http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/the-stimulus-is-a-joke.html/comment-page-1#comment-188318 john Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:09:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7061#comment-188318 I would hold that it is not the case that jobs have been directly eliminated by the stimulus, but I do believe that the false incentive for labor jobs that have been created and supported by Government-injected capital would bring about about a certain state of affairs --that when obtained, would influence a shift to that job market. This shift would undermine second order industries and jobs thus causing a type of slippery slope. This could, speculatively, bring more and longer lasting job losses. I would hold that it is not the case that jobs have been directly eliminated by the stimulus, but I do believe that the false incentive for labor jobs that have been created and supported by Government-injected capital would bring about about a certain state of affairs –that when obtained, would influence a shift to that job market. This shift would undermine second order industries and jobs thus causing a type of slippery slope. This could, speculatively, bring more and longer lasting job losses.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/the-stimulus-is-a-joke.html/comment-page-1#comment-188228 Anonymous Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:20:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7061#comment-188228 Did I miss something? I couldn't find in the reports I have read whether that 30,000 jobs number had been appropriately discounted by the Keynesian multiplier. If not, isn't the actual number of jobs directly "saved or created" by the stimulus something less than 20,000 jobs, with the Keynesian multiplier accounting for the rest? Did I miss something?
I couldn’t find in the reports I have read whether that 30,000 jobs number had been appropriately discounted by the Keynesian multiplier. If not, isn’t the actual number of jobs directly “saved or created” by the stimulus something less than 20,000 jobs, with the Keynesian multiplier accounting for the rest?

]]> By: Justin P http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/the-stimulus-is-a-joke.html/comment-page-1#comment-188113 Justin P Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:34:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7061#comment-188113 I'm just wondering now, how you square that with the fact that politicians fool the masses all the time? Because from what I'm hearing out of you, it seems like you think that everything a politician says is "vigorously debated", hence the implication that politicians are incapable of fooling the masses. I’m just wondering now, how you square that with the fact that politicians fool the masses all the time?
Because from what I’m hearing out of you, it seems like you think that everything a politician says is “vigorously debated”, hence the implication that politicians are incapable of fooling the masses.

]]> By: Justin P http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/the-stimulus-is-a-joke.html/comment-page-1#comment-188114 Justin P Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:34:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7061#comment-188114 I'm just wondering now, how you square that with the fact that politicians fool the masses all the time? Because from what I'm hearing out of you, it seems like you think that everything a politician says is "vigorously debated", hence the implication that politicians are incapable of fooling the masses. I’m just wondering now, how you square that with the fact that politicians fool the masses all the time?
Because from what I’m hearing out of you, it seems like you think that everything a politician says is “vigorously debated”, hence the implication that politicians are incapable of fooling the masses.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/the-stimulus-is-a-joke.html/comment-page-1#comment-188096 Anonymous Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:54:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7061#comment-188096 I agree that the correlation causation anthem gets a little old when it's not backed up, but your position isn't as solid as you'd like to believe. During the bubble the stock market went up, GDP went up and jobs were created. I could therefor use your three indicators to suggest that the government stimulus is merely being used to fuel another bubble. The reason everyone here keeps reminding you that correlation doesn't imply causation is because positive economic indicators (and I don't particularly think the ones you've cited are all that informative) correlate with real recovery and with bubble formation. Even if government spending is responsible for the positive signs you've noted, you have no way of proving that we are proceeding in a worthwhile and sustainable manner. This stimulus could have the same effect that Greenspan's policies had in the early 2000's. You need to first show that the stimulus is responsible for the improvements (or at least their magnitude since they might have improved on their own) and then go on to show that they are productive and sustainable and not just the beginning of another bubble. Until you've done that, saying that "the market went up after the government dumped a bunch of money into the economy therefor it was a good thing for them to do" is just asinine. I agree that the correlation causation anthem gets a little old when it’s not backed up, but your position isn’t as solid as you’d like to believe. During the bubble the stock market went up, GDP went up and jobs were created. I could therefor use your three indicators to suggest that the government stimulus is merely being used to fuel another bubble.

The reason everyone here keeps reminding you that correlation doesn’t imply causation is because positive economic indicators (and I don’t particularly think the ones you’ve cited are all that informative) correlate with real recovery and with bubble formation. Even if government spending is responsible for the positive signs you’ve noted, you have no way of proving that we are proceeding in a worthwhile and sustainable manner. This stimulus could have the same effect that Greenspan’s policies had in the early 2000′s.

You need to first show that the stimulus is responsible for the improvements (or at least their magnitude since they might have improved on their own) and then go on to show that they are productive and sustainable and not just the beginning of another bubble. Until you’ve done that, saying that “the market went up after the government dumped a bunch of money into the economy therefor it was a good thing for them to do” is just asinine.

]]>