Stimulus Could Actually Hurt Jobs

Has anyone heard stimulus advocates like Paul Krugman address this?

 

no, they won't address it. all you hear is that "most economists" agree that we need to act now adn push through this spending...

well, contrary to what Obama and his very selective economic team wants to think - and wants the public to believe, not all economists agree, and not every economist follows along with that theory. furhermore, Obama wants us to beleive that he is open minded to outside theories, but when he only presents what Krugman et al say about how we should go forward, when there is no real talk about real altenatives to them - you know, works from F.A. Hayek, Mises, Buchanan, Friedman, and plenty others including modern economists, you don't get real discussion, and you only get a very small piece of the picture.

So no, this will nto be talked about - in the news media, at least to the extent that it should - but there is plenty of talk of this within the economics profession, but i won't hold my breath to actually see a real discussion happen.

 

Yes. I like what he has to say.

 

Economics are tricky though, hence why there's so many different schools of it, they all work, some work in better ways then others. It doesn't really matter, whether it be full intervention or a complete Austrian school course of action, things would get better no matter what, it's just a question of when, how long, how bad will it get, and the pros and cons of what happens to the future if you try to quick fix the present.

 

Stimulus Could Actually Hurt Jobs

Noooo... really?

 

well...in the end i still trust a nobel prize winning economist the most. although they did give that thing to gore which really destroys the credibility.

 

Yeah, but Stiglitz has also said we need a one world government.

 

As opposed to the theories and mindsets of the neo-liberal, laissez-faire, free marketeer’s back up by such people as F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman, which actually have hurt job security and who actually caused the terrible financial crisis in the first place?

Motion why do you never seem able to answer your critics? I mean you pump out these posts but you never seem able to defend them, why is that?

As I’ve said before “the neo-liberals don’t seem to have any idea how to deal with a crash (besides letting everything fall) and so in this crisis seem to have turned to a corrupted form of Keynesianism, that bails out wealth without the benefits normal Keynesianism brings to society as a whole.”

And as long as the bail outs were going to the financial sector you seemed to be generally supportive.

But when there is a hint of a possible New Dealish, Keynesian stimulus to create jobs, not bail out the rich, suddenly neo-liberals like you are screaming it is wrong.

 

I would imagine if you've lost your job right now you are not too worried about the affect on private capital investment in the future. As to long term growth rates in the future, it would appear our booming economy of the last decade was based more on debt swapping than any true prosperity, and had very little to do with any job creation except those surrounding consumerism and debt creation.

 

How did these people's ideas cause this current crisis? This current crisis was caused by subprime lending. Was Milton Friedman an advocate for subprime loans? Subprime lending started in 1993 under the Clinton Administration. What questions or objections to subprime lending was raised by the Clinton Administration during the 90's?

The causes of this crisis is kinda complex as you can see:


FactCheck.org: Who Caused the Economic Crisis?


Anyway here's what some speculate on how they think Milton Friedman would be viewing today's crisis:

The problem with these stimulus spending approaches is that there aren't too many examples of them working well. Economist are still debating the effectivness of FDR's New Deal policies. Japan tried stimulus approaches in the 90's and they're considered to be failures. Japan is still trying to recover.

Myself I'am open to some of Steve Forbes' ideas like cutting the payroll tax in half for two years which will encourage more hiring by making it cheaper for employers to hire and it will leave more money in the pockets of workers for spending.

 

Motion

Oh come on man…are you still trying to pin the blame on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac you couldn’t defend that crap when you first said it and I’m guessing you still can’t.

Fannie Mae In 2004
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328058

So why are you trying to pull that con?

**

The details of the present crisis are complex but the mindset that brought it about has been very well catalogued, for an overview try reading –

‘A Brief history of Neoliberalism’ by David Harvey
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/gener...oraryPoliticalThought/?view=usa&ci=0199283265

or the more sensationalist ‘The Shock Doctrine’ by Naomi Klein
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

From the foundation of the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947 (members included F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman plus a large number of free market supporting business leaders and journalists) whose stated objective was to promote free market ideas to the founding of well funded free market supporting think tanks (Institute of Economic Affairs 1955, Heritage Foundation 1973, Cato Institute 1977) to a wealth based media that failed in most cases to take dissenting voices seriously.

The free marketeer’s theories produced a mindset that favoured the private over the public, the individual over the community, self-interest over altruism, growth over prudence and exploitation over nurture.

The worst thing for me is that while some free marketeer’s really did think things could go on for ever (and told people they would) other knew that there could (even must) be a crash and knew none of their models could deal with it - except let it all fall.

They knew it would happen but just didn’t care.

 

Well,the republican party(party for the rich) does not like stimulus bill--that means the bill can't be all bad.lol.But yeah I don't think it's going to do much.The thing to do is keep things simple.One example tax products made in China etc. for the US market 1000%,you'll see how quickly many things would be made in the US again.Alot of other "simple and practical" things could be done,that are not being done.Will the democrats do the simple and practical things that would work,I don't think so.So they are as bad as the Republicans.

 

democrats are also rich. they just spend other people's money.

 

every government official spends other people's money.

 

Come on... its a standard joke that is if you ask two economists you will get three opinions. If we're going to sit around waiting for a consensus, we might as well agree to do nothing now.

There are really two options here - a keynsian fiscal stimulus, or do nothing. There's plenty of other economic reforms that can be talked about, but they are more about long term issues than fixing short term problems. Tax cuts can stimulate an overtaxed economy, but they are not a short term stimulus. If the government spends a dollar, a dollar is spent. If you cut taxes a dollar, you can't really be sure what is going to happen - will that additional dollar be spent or invested? Or will it be saved? Its a fair bet that in this environment most people who get their hands on extra money aren't going to go out and spend it, they are going to save it because they are afraid of losing their jobs, and their savings have probably already been depleted by poor investment performance. This argument is made pretty well here.

 

EXACTLY. it's not just a republican thing.

 

I think the financial sector itself has done a fantastic job of crowding out productive investment all on its own with the full backing of the Fed. High Unemployment and deflation are on the cards now with the banks now unwilling to or unable to lend to viable business. Due to monetary instruments being now effectively useless in dealing with this crisis I think public investment in infrastructure and resource creation in new sectors of the economy could play a key role in mitigating the current depression and sustaining employment in the real economy. Better than the proceeds of tax cuts flowing back into the very financial institutions the have proven to be so spectacularly effective and creative in miss alocating the scarce resources of working people.

 

I was actually referring to Krugman...

 

What's left to invest in? Banks? Haven't they been bailed out with no guarrantees. I no longer trust market pundits or Washington. Who exactly are they lookin after. I trust only myself and friends.

If I have any money to bank after paying bills and buying necessities, I'll bank at a small local insured bank. I will not invest in the market. I'll buy savings bonds.

Not sexy, not much of a return, but then no risk either.

 

I say let everything fall and start over. It would be quite an experience.