I have a cunning plan.
The theory:
"First, the likely scale of employment loss is extremely large. The U.S. economy has already lost nearly 2.6 million jobs since the business cycle peak in December 2007. In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan."The results so far:
(chart from Innocent Bystanders)
Calculated Risk: 'Note also that the unemployment rate has already exceeded the peak of the 'baseline scenario'."
14 comments:
Thankfully, D.C. is immune.
Karl Rove needed to add that graph to his article
Why spend all that time to argue your point when a single image does it for you.
Ouch. Thanks Harriet. That's um, stunning.
I believe that we are in uncharted waters ..no way to fight the current & who knows where we'll land.
Rove is throwing stones in glass houses. The previous administration responded to the bursting of the dot com bubble with the spending increases & looser monetary policy which only made the credit/housing bubble worse.
The stimulus has made things worse than if they had done nothing. No shock there, quite expected by many of us. Ralph, good point on Rove. The only difference between Bush and Obama is the sheer magnitude of the Obama stupidity, molesting a much overdue recession into a likely collapse.
The current recession is essentially the completion of the previous recession which was put on hold by the previous administration's policies. Not only that, this recession is far worse than the last would have been had all that "easy money" not been made available.
ralph,
I'm not disagreeing at all, and I'm not pointing blame at Obama and his team for the economic conditions.
What I am complaining about is their inability to grasp the reality of the severity of this situation. Now, it may be a calculated ploy. If the average person knew how bad it was, it might get a lot worse. There is something to be said for conning people into a sense of security so there's no panic.
I don't have to like that, though.
Shamrock,
You are kidding, right? The only thing that graph shows is that few really realized how screwed we were from the previous administration's utter incompetence.
Jeff,
Yup my feelings exactly.
We all seem to share similar opinions on this topic. I wasn't attacking you, Xpovos, I was just reacting to name.
The $6T deficit that existed in 2000/2001 took virtually all of the U.S.' 200-year history to accumulate, which the additional $5T only took 8 years. I'd like to know why the Executive and Legislative branches of the government colluded (and continue to do so) to impoverish the people of this country. I expect such evil from Rove but I'm very, very disappointed in Obama.
There's a long list of politicians, advisers, and bankers who should be sitting in Gitmo for the Financial Terrorism that they've unleashed on the U.S.
Another example of Financial Terrorism, as well as the dangers of terrorism-related legislation (although it's a British example, not a U.S. one): Iceland to repay £2bn UK savings
Foolish institutions lent Iceland way too much money and if they had done the tiniest bit of due diligence would have realized it couldn't be repaid. Now, the Icelanders agreed to pay it back. Wonder if the Brits threatened invasion. Fools who lower their lending standards shouldn't be rewarded with return of capital. Goes for the U.S. banks too.
ralph,
Sorry, I didn't take it as an attack on me, but on Rove, and that is legitimate. I responded because while I agree, there was more to be added. It's not just rove taking a potshot from the opposition's bench. It's a failure across the board to realize how bad this is, that it likely is a continuation as Cara and Jeff mention.
So, no offense taken, and none intended across the board.
I guess it's hard to be sure sometimes. It's been contentious here at times, and the internet is full of shouting people.
I wonder if that chart was created BEFORE Obama was forced by the Party of NO to put do-nothing tax breaks into the stimulus, and cut back the total cost--and then didn't cast ONE vote for it?
And now there are lots of smart people saying the stimulus as it went through was not nearly enough--and the Party of NO is still saying no.
Personally, I think Obama should have let GM and all its suppliers go COMPLETELY DARK. Then perhaps the Limbaugh Party wouldn't be complaining so much. But, that would have been a Hoover/Bush move, so it's not in Obama's DNA.
And I think Obama should have REVERSED all of the changes the Party of NO insisted on, once none of them voted for it. Unemployment rate would be lower in that case, I am sure.
Post a Comment