“I’m very surprised that they find these big impacts,” said John B. Taylor, a Stanford professor and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. “It doesn’t correspond at all to my empirical work.”

Mr. Taylor said the Fed had successfully stabilized the commercial paper and money markets, but he argued that its purchases of $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities have not been effective. And he said the Obama administration’s stimulus program has had “very little impact and not much to show for it except a legacy of higher debt.”

The disagreement underscored the extent to which econometric estimates are heavily reliant on underlying assumptions and models, but Mr. Blinder and Mr. Zandi said they hoped their analysis would withstand scrutiny by other scholars.

“When all is said and done, the financial and fiscal policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as if policy makers had not acted at all,” they write.

What the **** is "saving our bacon"? And why exactly do we want to prevent recessions? Do you actually think it's possible for an economy to just never have recessions?

When the second part hits, I'm sure he'll blame someone else.

Obviously the problem is with future generations for spending their money so recklessly and the future Presidents for not doing enough to prevent the deficit from reaching the levels it will reach.

So it's Jeb Bush's fault?

I'm not sure how you reconcile that with the fact that a) we are still in a recession, b) the worst is yet to come, and c) that those policies you laud as a cure will make this second coming dip, which many here have predicted, long and protracted. However, since we have you on record saying that President Obama's policies have righted the ship, anything from this point on he owns exclusively, correct?

Well, he doesn't really need to reconcile with your "facts" as they are predictions, not facts.

a) Most experts I've read have said we are not in recession any more.

b) A smaller number have said the worst is over.

And c) if there is a second dip, it hasn't been argued by very many experts that I have read that the policies will make them longer.

Personally, I believe we are in for another dip. Whether it will be worse or not will remain to be seen, but we haven't really recovered that much. So another dip will probably put us below the first.

But our views on this are hardly fact.

/sigh

I predict that I will die some day.

Appeal to popularity and authority. These are the same experts who said a recesion was impossible, and then that we weren't actualy in one.

See above.

See above again.

We haven't really recoverd at all. We weren't allowed to recover. The nessecary recession wasn't allowed to happen, further streching the actual supply/demand curve, leading to even greater hardship when it does regres to real numbers. Furthermore foreclosures (lets remember that this is the symptom which caused the near collapse of our financial system) and job loss are still on the rise, and the commercial land bubble hasn't even really begun to pop yet. These circumstances undermine any assurances or "protections" put in place by the current government guarding against another collapse of not only the finantial system, but also the real job market. Compounding this are the problems caused by the enacted temporary "solution", as we have decided to couple our financial system problems with the pre-cursors of hyper-inflation setting the stage for a corresponding currency problem.

Yes, we will have a second dip. Yes, it will be long and protracted.

Unpopular facts are still facts.

A) you don't know if they were the same people or not since I didn't name them

B) it's foolishness to disregard experts in the field for which you are discussing,

C) it is much more... worthwhile to read what experts have to say about a topic than some dude on the internet,

D) I already said I don't agree with them

E) your response is irrelevant to my point, I'm just going to /sigh in your general direction and say "still not a fact".

My question is, is it better to let the economy do what it will and then rebuild it, or shore it up to keep it going?

Seems there are some things that should be gone that won't be if you keep putting on the patches. Chrysler, for instance...

Arathain:

Find me an "economist" whose not an ethically compromised position telling us the recession is over. Just one.

Fine. They are not facts. They are, however, meritorious predictions backed by historical economic fact. Honestly, this is not an argument I would have expected from you, however, given your disdain for aptly applying the proper meaning of words in your constant criticism of "semantic debate". It's nice to see you've changed your tone.

Perhaps we will see less of that from you in the future now that you seem to have embraced the correct and specific application of language. We shall see. I'm pulling for you.

That said...



Bare Assertion. I do, in fact. Minimal research will demonstrate that two large consensuses will have considerable overlap, and show that this administration has employed the same economic advisers. You didn't need to name them. I did your work for you.

Bare assertion: Your use of the term "experts" is subjective.
Appeal to Authority: It is not foolish to disregard information that is demonstrably false.
Strawman: I did not say anyone should be disregarded.

Bare Assertion. If the "dude on the internet" has proven to be correct, and the supposed experts have proven to be incorrect, it serves that the "dude on the internet" is a better source of information, and if you seek to be correct, would be a much more worthwhile read.

So you've "foolishly disregarded the experts"... stunning...

I never expect to see disdain for semantic debate coming from you again.

Arathain:

Find me an "economist" whose not an ethically compromised position telling us the recession is over. Just one.

Diamondeye:

The authors cited in Montegue's original link are ethically compromised. Blinder is a political economy consultant on the private payroll of several PACs linked to the Gore, Kerry, and Obama campaigns. Zandi is the guy who basically "legitimates" Moody's credit ratings for investments and bonds.