By the way, the stimulus bill is working
Dave Leonhardt, the New York Times' economics reporter/columnist, states calmly and convincingly this a.m. that the $787 billion 2009 stimulus bill passed in the first month of the Obama Administration, is working.
Unlike many who curse or hail the bill's impact, Leonhardt is NOT making a statement quasi-religious faith. He relies on the assessments of neutral (certainly not liberal) economic research groups (Moody's) and the Congressional Budget office:
"Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative."
Leonhardt goes over the mini-scandals that were found in the bill and arguments that the economy would have done better on its own. He doesn't dismiss them, but deems the former to be overrated and the latter to be unknowable. His tone of open-minded inquiry is most welcome.
Me, I'm not economics-smart enough to be a confident Keynesian. And I'm a debt/deficit hawk, so I would say we can't judge the long-term value of all that spending until we get a handle on all that borrowing. But since we've already borrowed and spent the money, I hope the Leonhardt/Moody/CBO assessment is correct.
Today, by the way, is the one year anniversary of the big bill's passage. It got zero Republican votes in the House. In the Senate, it got three (Snow and Collins of Maine, Specter of Pennsylvania). It took all three of those turncoat Repubs to break the filibuster, since that was before Al Franken had been sworn in and before Specter had really turned coat and become a Democrat.
The following graphic from the totally-pro-Obama "Organizing for America" (it's sort of the permanent Obama campaign organization.) But the data comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Click on chart to enlarge
More like this
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
40 comments
-
24 comments
-
22 comments
-
19 comments
-
18 comments
Comments (22)
Well that's wonderful news for readers of Moody's, Eric.
The millions of people applying for extended unemployment benefits, working through short sales of their homes and redefining their lifestyles to meet their permanently reduced wages are thrilled to know how successful all that stimulus has actually been; I'm sure.
Yay, Obama!
Yes, Thomas. President Bush's policies have certainly created an unemployment black hole that the Obama administration is determined to dig out of. And now we are finally seeing some statistical research on the subject, rather than anecdotal evidence. To those who do choose to bring up anecdotes to determine the effectiveness of the stimulus, I paraphrase a Mr. Paul Douglas when contested on climate change: Try to resist the urge to look out your window and make global assumptions.
"Don't be so sad, Mr. Jones. It's not really a foreclosure, it's an anecdote, you see...."
"Read Moody's and by tomorrow you'll have forgotten all about it."
Yeah, that does have a certain eloquence, doesn't it?
Eric, you wrote: "But since we've already borrowed and spent the money, ..."
Except, ALL of the money has NOT been spent. According to WSJ, only 1/3 has been spent so far.
***
The approach this week of the stimulus program's one-year anniversary sparked a fresh round of dueling partisan statements, as Democrats sought to credit the effort with averting a deeper recession and Republicans said the program deserved a failing grade. But in terms of spending, the stimulus is largely incomplete.
Most of the money allocated to specific projects hasn't been paid out yet, and there are still an additional $195 billion in tax cuts on the way.
***
Amazing, isn't it? Alleged "conservatives" railing and wailing and gnashing teeth about $195 BILLION in "tax cuts on the way."
Jacob:
Timely reference to global warming, as today the Daily Mail (UK) reported that renowned East Anglia climate scientist Phil Jones admits that since 1995, there has been no statistically significant warming.
Furthermore, the medieval warm period (800-1300 AD) may have been warmer than present. Seems to let the evil SUV off the hook, or maybe they were driving big station wagons with real wood sides (and tops and bottoms). And the data for the famous hockey stick graph is missing.
Conserving energy is smart to do; lying to people and manipulating governments to force people to do so is stupid. Al Gore and his ilk have done more harm than good to the green movement.
We don't see it out the window, and it ain't in the data. I've drawn my conclusion.
Read the mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Aston...
Why is there a different economics-smart standard for being a confident Keynesian than for being a deficit hawk?
As usual Mr. Swift can't bring himself to admit something that is contrary to his "BELIEF". How many more people would be "applying for extended unemployment benefits, working through short sales of their homes and redefining their lifestyles to meet their permanently reduced wages" if not for the Stimulus Package? Answer that one Mr. Swift.
First you say it doesn't work, now when the evidence is presented that it IS working you claim it isn't working well enough. Another case of Mr. Swift wanting his cake and eating it too. So typical.
Not quite what Dr. Jones said....
see:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002160014
for more details.
The only way out of this is for the economy to return to a long term 3%-4% growth rate. That’s obviously what Obama is hoping for with his programs. He’s taking big risks, but he doesn’t have much choice. He really did inherit a bad hand. If he did nothing, we’d be in a depression by now, with 25% unemployment. He understands what he’s doing and understands the risks. He has great economic advisors.
The stock market is up 50% since Obama took office. Credit markets have recovered tremendously. There’s greater willingness to lend, though only at high interest rates. But it’s a big improvement over last year.
Another albatross around the economy's neck are states and municipalities that are sucking money out of the economy faster than the federal government can pump it in.
It is obvious now that while big business has stopped large scale layoffs, they are just plain not hiring. Perhaps they see the same thing as me, a slowdown in government spending. They have also probably figured out that starving, bankrupt consumers don't buy much. Perversely, this means that productivity will keep soaring as will corporate profits.
Since we are not creating the new industries essential for real job growth, I believe the unemployment rate will stay stubbornly high at around 10%. With tens of millions wiped out, and most of the rest recovering from a halving of their net worth, don't hold your breath for a consumer spending boom.
"Not quite what Dr. Jones said....see: mediamatters.org"
Oh. OK.
Do not believe what you see out your windows, or direct quotes from the source in the largest newspapers on the planet....turn to George Soros for the truth.
Really?
Paul:
The link you provided is for a mediamatters analysis of Fox News. I did not link to Fox, nor have I seen their programming regarding the Jones interview. However, I did take a look at the mediamatters analysis. The first sentence includes, "Fox & Friends have distorted Jones' comments to suggest that they undermine the consensus that human activities are contributing to warming global temperatures."
I think mediamatters might be getting ahead of themselves. The issue at hand is whether or not the earth's mean temperature is warming. Jones admits that there has not been statistically significant warming in the past fifteen years. In the first sentence, they have moved beyond the warming question to the cause of something that may or may not be occurring. Words like "consensus" (we all agree), and terms like "conventional wisdom" (if you don't agree, you are stupid), are used to limit rather than promote needed dialogue and open debate.
Jones admits that there was a warm period from 800-1300 AD. Whether it was warmer than today, we won't ever know for certain. But, we will have no problem blaming it on human activity.
You will be pounded senseless by competing sets of data arguing that global warming is accelerating, not changing, or like Santa Claus, doesn't exist at all. You will be offered truckloads of contradictory, apple and orange comparisons which sound relevant to non-scientists, but with which it is impossible to reach any meaningful conclusions.
RE: Dr. Jones
There are three independent data sets used in the climate science community to access the climate trends in the climate system. All three of those show warming. Now they do show a decline in the rate of warming in recent years. Quite frankly they still show warming relative to the historical record. So the pace of change has not been constant. there has been variability in the pace of change. But in terms of the pace of change even with its embedded variability should that remain on course, we are still looking at climate change situations that are very, very problematic.
Re: IPCC
I don't think that it undermines the general conclusions and many of the substantial comments made by IPCC scientists. I think that it dissects the record and in the dissection of the record be it for geographic purposes or specific attributes for glaciers. What it leads to is that there is variability . Geographic variability in the behavior of the earth climate system.So we can't make general unified statements that are across the board relative to the pace of change in the glaciers, the pace of change in daytime or nighttime temperatures or the change in hydrological cycles. It is hard to generalize this data. But I don't think it negates many of the fundamental things the that the IPCC talks about.
Getting back to the original topic....
There's a lesson from 1937:
Stimulus was working and the economy was improving. The period's 'deficit hawks' immediately became worried about inflation and convinced FDR to cut back on spending. There was an immediate relapse to depression.
Climate change consensus dam is cracking.
More than 31,000 scientists (including 9000+ phDs) have now signed the Oregon Petition rejecting the IPCC line on climate change.
The only climate science consensus which is presently uncontested: there has been no warming since 1998.
So we should take the OPINIONS of 31,000 people, subject to energy industry anti-global-warming propaganda every day, 9000 of whom are PhD's, over those of over 1,000 climate scientists from all over the world who studied this issue for years before reaching the scientific rather than profit-threatening conclusion that global warming is real and that much of it is our fault?
Who were the PhDs who signed the petition? Scientists in a relevant field? Not?
Bernice:
Here is an incomplete but growing list of climate and earth scientists who have not sipped the IPCC kool-aid. The list includes their degrees, their roles, and their positions regarding climate change. If interested, check it out; I have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_...
Let's re-open this closed discussion; let's have the debate. The idealogues are unwilling to do so, scrambling to shore up the fissures in the consensus dam.
Steve--
I looked at the article.
It defines as scientists anyone with a PhD in the 'natural sciences' who has published at least one peer reviewed article in their lifetime (some of these individuals are in fact deceased).
1. No requirement that they know anything about climate science.
2. They list anyone who disagrees with any detail of the 'consensus' -- most of them to not deny the broad point of global warming -- just how much, how soon, and how much of it is anthropogenic.
I guess the right doesn't want to talk about the stimulus any more, since it's hard to overlay a fantasy world on top of such cold, hard facts. Okay, let's talk about global warming instead.
Re: The claim that Dr. Jones has decided that the earth isn't currently warming. Let's look at a couple excerpts from the actual interview in question instead of the Fox-filtered distortions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?"
"...[T]he warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
"Here are the trends and significances for each period:
"Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes"
"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming"
"Yes, but only just...This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
"C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?"
"No..."
...
"E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"
"I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed...[T]here's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
...
"I - Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?"
"No..."
The climate denial echo chamber also performed the same sort of topsy-turvy distortion on Dr. Jones' answers to questions regarding the medieval warm period and other issues. This is what they do.
Regarding the "30,000 scientist petition", if you want to, you can sign it by going here:
http://www.petitionproject.org/instructions_for_signing_petition.php
Please note that having a "BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines" is the only requirement. Of course, they make allowances for MD's and DVM's too.
Further note that the "credentials" section does not require a date of degree, or a granting institution. Draw your own conclusions.
Paul:
Deceased? So, if Phil Jones or Michael Mann became deceased, their work could be disregarded?
Dr. Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center called for an investigation into the “scientific debauchery revealed by ‘Climategate,’” citing the way global warming skeptics have been marginalized by the mainstream media. And, he is not deceased.
Read more about how the consensus dam is cracking:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/03/dr-neil-frank-on-climategate-you-s...
John:
No references from me regarding Fox; Jacob was reading the analysis of the Fox account. Fox seems to enjoy a lot of free advertising.
No one has addressed the link between climate and human activity. While widely accepted, no proof has been offered, only assumptions. Seems there was a warm period between 800-1300 AD. Due to what? Possibly the same mechanism at play during other warm periods lasting centuries.
Perhaps the apogee of human arrogance; "We changed the climate, and now we are going to change it back."
Oh yea, the original topic ...
With unemployment north of 10%, I think declarations of stimulus success are premature.
I do agree that Obama inherited a mess; actually, he waged battle for 18 months to win a mess. I am not now, nor have I ever been a George Bush apologist. More than once, I characterized his spending as that of a drunken sailor. Since Obama has taken office, he stole the crown from W, and having been re-calibrated by the past year of government spending, I have demoted W's spending to that of a trophy wife.
Stimulus deals don't work. Both W packages (2001 & 2008) were ineffective. Would you agree? The current stimulus is the same plan on a grander scale.
During the approach to the 2008 election, I saw bumper stickers claiming that McCain would be Bush's 3rd term. I believe we are in Bush's 3rd term. Out of control spending, bail-outs, and deployment of more troops to the middle east. I don't see the change nor have the hope.
Paul Brandon said:
"Getting back to the original topic....
There's a lesson from 1937:
Stimulus was working and the economy was improving. The period's 'deficit hawks' immediately became worried about inflation and convinced FDR to cut back on spending. There was an immediate relapse to depression."
I am not an economist. And, while there are similarities to the times of the 30's, this is not an identical situation. I don't think Keynes would have thought that injecting more borrowed money on top of our already massive national debt was the best idea. No doubt, dumping 100's of billions of dollars into an economy will undoubtedly have an effect. I'm afraid history may show that our politicians chose the easy course for themselves. They may have just kicked the economic pain down the road for someone else to deal with in a greater magnitude.
On the topic:
I guess I'll just have to take the spinmeisters' word for it and refuse to believe my own lying eyes and ears.
But I fear that unless some remarkable and clear improvements take place between now and October, I suspect not many will join me...