Interestingly, Krugman is famous for his work in international economics. Here's a blog post from Econ International Blog that explains what that red bit on the graph really means. http://www.econinternational.com/bl...n-fewer-jobs-than-administration-projections/ Recovery Report Card: 1.7 million fewer jobs than Administration projections April’s unemployment figures show that the number of people unemployed was 13.7 million, or 8.9 percent of the labor force. Administration economists Romer & Bernstein predicted that the stimulus/recovery program would hold unemployment to only 7.8 percent of the labor force, or approximately 12 million. With unemployment 1.7 million higher than projected, by the Administration’s own benchmarks, it seems that its stimulus/recovery plan is performing much worse than expected. In fact, it is performing worse than if there were no recovery plan. Read more: http://www.econinternational.com/bl...n-administration-projections/#ixzz0GOBeFVIK&B
Yes. But you claim that if we'd preserved those 6M jobs (and I'll note that not all of those 6M have been lost, not even close), the economy would be fine. Your math doesn't add up. Why would I want to do that? He would clearly disagree with your school of economists "who think the worst of the recession would have been past us by now and the actions of the administration have made things a lot worse." Again, his problem with the administration is that they aren't doing enough. barfo
My claim is the economy may have seen its worst by now without the "stimulus" package, and as the red line on the graph shows, we're at least making the situation a lot worse than it needs to be. That's by the administration's own promises and forecasts. Check the source on the graph. They're Obama's economic advisors, getting govt' paychecks. He outright thinks the administration's plan is the wrong one. BTW, his complaints mirror my own - specifically about the banks getting the bulk of the funds while leaving the little guy to suffer foreclosure.
That commentary is rather disingenuous. What the graph shows is that unemployment is higher than was projected with or without the stimulus package. It does not show that "the stimulus/recovery plan" is performing worse than if there was no recovery plan. Now, if you want to make a case that the stimulus package caused higher unemployment, feel free. That graph doesn't make the case, however. That graph just shows that the projections of unemployment were not accurate. barfo
Which gives us all great confidence in any of their predictions, including the benefit of the stimulus.
Yes, and if you want to claim they suck at prediction of short-term unemployment data, I think you'd have a point. However, the red line does not in any way show that the stimulus package is making the situation worse. To adopt that view you have to assume that their prediction of unemployment w/o the stimulus was actually dead-on, while their prediction of unemployment with the stimulus was wildly incorrect. That's not a very unbiased set of assumptions. You need to read more of what he's written, then. He's a critic, sure, but he's clearly on the opposite side from your "school of economists". barfo
That is a reasonable point, I think. Although I'd challenge you to produce anyone who can accurately predict the economic future in detail. barfo
By definition, Obama's advisors are sycophants, and they're the ones making the projections. My prediction is 20 months (at least) of constantly revised economic data, for the worse, and the massive debt and deficits we're incurring are going to kill Social Security and a whole host of your favorite programs. I've read him plenty. That's why I suggested you find someone who actually supports your claims. For the record, he absolutely doesn't think we're not doing enough. He thinks we're doing the WRONG things.
Uhm, no. They aren't sycophants by definition. Here's the definition. syc·o·phant (sĭk'ə-fənt, sī'kə-) n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people. Well, of course the economic data will be constantly revised. That's been true for the past several decades, I'm sure it will go on being true. As for your other predictions, we'll see. I don't have a crystal ball so I'm not going to say you are wrong (or right). Nonsense. link barfo
The administration isn't spending $600B for 3 years on projects that put people to work while building a lasting infrastructure to support ongoing economic growth. What it's doing is spending $2T/year above what they take in, and on everything but those things. The result will be that when they figure it out, it'll be too late. The Chinese won't be loaning us money at that point.
Well since white blue collar workers have been hardest by the Bush/Cheney Depression I would say that they were able to be at home, unemployed and all, and actually watched the speech and voted in the poll. They like the lie better than the truth at this point.
