The Glade 4.0

According to two leading economists, the bailouts under the previous administration, the stimulus under this administration, The Wall Street bailout, emergency action by the fed, etc, saved us from another great depression. Without it, they argue, we would have a 6.5% loss in GDP and would have lost an additional 8.5 million jobs.

While there is some disagreement, the fact of the matter is pretty clear - doing these things saved our bacon. And doing nothing would have really screwed us.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Your argument makes the assumption we've fully recovered. And we haven't.

_________________
The Dude abides.

And now, a consensus of two. Amazing.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Both Alan Blinder and Mark Zindi are compromised parties who stand to benefit personally, financially, and politically from saying so. You sure you want to go down this road? I mean, at least the Times was kind enough to include the work of Stanford's reigning guru on Keynesian policy as a counter point, John B. Taylor:You should really be more careful with your title names and the reading of your sources. Taylor's work is likely to appear in peer reviewed journals, as he's been doing empirical analysis all along and is one of the few Keynesians who thinks things are not exactly getting any better.

_________________

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?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

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...

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

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?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

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

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

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?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Yes, if he had been more proactive in his deficit reduction policies and if future generations had been more critical of past expenditures then we wouldn't be in the mess that we are going to be in! Dammit!

_________________

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.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I echo that prediction. Still not a fact.



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



See above. /sigh and "still not a fact".



/sigh - "still not a fact".



So you say. Still not a fact.



Very true. Unfortunately, these are neither popular nor unpopular facts. They are predictions, interpretations, and opinions.

Semanics debate in 1.. 2.. 3..

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

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.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Define what you think "semanics" means. I think you mean "semantics", but in addition to an inability to logic your way out of a wet paper bag, you can't spell for crap. [Insert addled rant tantrum here]

Oh, I've been meaning to tell you...nice avatar, that.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Oops, I wasn't at home w/ firefox, so no spellchecker to save me.

Also, I like it in the wet paper bag. I never want to leave.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I think it's better to let the economy do what it will

If businesses are failing, they're probably failing for a good reason. To keep them around on life support would only prevent better ones from taking their place instead.

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

Arathain:

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

_________________

I think maybe you ought to clarify what "ethically compromised" means here. I don't know that anyone here is familiar with the professional ethical code for economists.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

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.

_________________

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that he is under no obligation to reconcile his opinions with your own. As I've said before, if "semantics debates" are relevant, in that they impact the point of discussion, they are worth ironing out. Where they constitute a derail, and have no impact on the point of discussion they are not worth debating.

In this case, it is my opinion that stating your predictions as fact, and asking how he will reconcile his experts' predictions with your "facts" lends an undeserved air of authority behind your predictions, and makes an implication that if he cannot reconcile, then he is wrong. When in fact, he need not reconcile the two to have his carry the appropriate weight of an opinion.



My position is consistent and unchanged.



Again, not a fact. You don't know what opinions I've read. If you do, a) please name them, and b) stop stalking me.



Yes, "experts" is subjective. So what?

You have not demonstrated sufficiently to me that its provably wrong. Even if you had, it is still worth considering the opinions of experts. (Note: Don't waste your time as I already agree with you on this.)

Good for you.



Since your predictions have not been proven to be correct (hence why they are not facts, with which you have agreed), and therefore the experts have not been proven to be incorrect, no - dude on the internet is not a better read.



No, please read what I wrote more carefully. I read them, assessed, and disagreed. I would be a fool to disregard them.



You can expect whatever you like. As I said before, if you can keep your semantic discussions on target, they may very well be important.

Why would I feel compelled to do this?

One problem is that in order to be a professional economist, you need to be paid by someone. Very few entities that will pay an economist aren't tied to something related to the economy.

Regardless, I reject the implication that funding results in opinions becoming invalid. The funding should be considered, of course, but it's not an automatic disqualifier.