My God, you are an idiot.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

2, but I'm still more interested in knowing whether club or anyone else disagrees with Summers on what the problem is, before we all solve it.

It seems that Club does not care about that problem and instead only cares about the deficit.

Which, of course, puts him in line with nearly every pol in Washington.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

It seems the Club does not care about that problem and instead only cares about the deficit.

Which, of course, puts him in line with nearly every pol in Washington.

Looks like the Republicans manufactured a crisis but forgot to build a way out.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Looks like the Republicans manufactured a crisis but forgot to build a way out.

In fairness, the White House and the Washington press corp helped mightily in the building.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't think anyone said that extending unemployment benefits would create jobs, did they?

That is because it is actually a disincentive to employment.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

2, but I'm still more interested in knowing whether club or anyone else disagrees with Summers on what the problem is, before we all solve it.

I honestly don't remember at this point what he said. Demand/lack of jobs?

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

We spent an additional $850B than we would have without the bill. We "saved or created" $3.5 million jobs. You can get your panties in a bunch all you'd like, the facts don't change.

Before we reach full dudgeon, look at your link. Through Q1 2011, total outlays and tax cuts were $666B.

Of that, $293B were tax cuts, which were not so much the Jackbooted Boot of Government Waste, but God's Mother's Milk of Entrepreneurial activity, so those don't count.

Therefore, we have completely pissed away not $850B, but something more like $370B. Right?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Just to focus on one small point, because I realize the limits of your logical capabilities, I don't think anyone said that extending unemployment benefits would create jobs, did they? How would extending benefits for people not working create jobs?

Small point, because I realize the limits of your logical capabilities - are you sure the extension was part of the stimulus package?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

That is because it is actually a disincentive to employment.

Yes, this is a much easier argument to make in my book. Beer money for some of my relatives - only employment created likely at Genny Cream Ale.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

It seems that Club does not care about that problem and instead only cares about the deficit.

Which, of course, puts him in line with nearly every pol in Washington.

I care about the problem, I just don't think government can solve it by spending money. It can certainly offer short term demand, but what happens after the money is spent? Either you have to inject more money (and you know where that leads) or the private sector has to fill the gap.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Small point, because I realize the limits of your logical capabilities - are you sure the extension was part of the stimulus package?

Yes. Extended again later, but there was an extension in the ARRA as I recall.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Small point, because I realize the limits of your logical capabilities - are you sure the extension was part of the stimulus package?

Yes. Cf. Section 2006 of the Act.

I take this as an admission you can't figure out how this particular $40 billion was intended to create jobs. Also an admission that you've been participating in fuzzy math. And on pi day no less.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I honestly don't remember at this point what he said.

Summers:

I think the biggest problem the country has right now is not the budget deficit. The biggest problem the country has right now is the jobs deficit. Yes, there’s a risk that we will misplay things and make the mistakes of the 1970′s, and have inflation and have excessive borrowing. But far and away the larger risk is that we will make the mistakes of 1937, and that we will not have a recovery that is sustained, that we will make the mistakes that Japan made, and that we will have a decade or two of stagnation. The right question to be focused on is how to stimulate demand.

Look out there, guys. The Treasury bond rate, Treasury note rate for ten years is 2.85 percent. Nobody is failing to invest because 2.85 percent is too much. They are failing to invest because there are no customers in their store. They are failing to invest because their factories are sitting empty. They are failing to innovate because they’re not sure how large the market for the product will be. That is the problem that we need to address. By the way, an extra percent a year on the growth rate for the next five years will do more for the budget than any amount of the entitlement-cutting that’s under discussion.

So I think the President has been right to be focused, and I think he could even focus more intensely on what is, I think, the central problem, which is how to get enough demand and enough confidence going, so that this economy achieves escape velocity from the recession. We’ve been flying out of the recession, but we’ve been flying out of it dangerously close to stall speed, and doing something about that should be our top priority. I mean it is crazy.

MR. ISAACSON: Does that mean more stimulus?

DR. SUMMERS: Well, you can call it that. That’s one part of it. It is crazy if you think about it, that we have schools across this country where we tell our kids that education is the most important thing in the world, but we ask them to study in classrooms where the paint is chipping off the walls. We can borrow money to invest in fixing that, at 2.8 percent. Twenty percent of the people in the country who are doing construction are unemployed, and we’re not trying to do something about that, when we have a major demand problem? It just doesn’t make any sense. We have infrastructure in this country — I mean you can argue whether we need a new high speed rail system or whether we don’t need a new high speed rail system. But I don’t know what the argument is for letting bridges collapse. I don’t know what the argument is.

I mean every time, and unfortunately it’s fairly often, I fly in and out of Kennedy Airport to any other airport in the world that you might fly to from Kennedy — you can fly to Europe, you can fly to Asia, any of those places, and you compare Kennedy Airport with the airport where you land, and you ask yourself which is the airport of the greatest country, richest, most powerful country in the world? I mean, and you know, you can say airports aren’t that important or whatever. But it is symbolic of an approach to infrastructure that probably never made any sense, and certainly doesn’t make any sense when you can borrow money at 2.8 percent and you’ve got 20 percent of the construction workers unemployed. So I’d rather see us focus on the jobs deficit. I’d rather see us focus on the public investment deficit. I’d rather see us focus on the human capital deficit. Those are deficits that we need to focus on also.

Yes, in the long run right now, thanks mostly to what happened during the Bush administration, the United States of America taxes 14 percent of GDP. Fourteen percent. That’s about four and a half percent below the average of what we’ve done over the post World War II period, and we now have the oldest population that we’re ever going to have, a larger debt than we had before. We have, apart from the aging of the population, a public sector that’s heavily involved in health care, and in every country in the world, health care has grown relative to GDP. The idea that somehow 14 percent is adequate, or that the priorities starting at 14 percent should be to cut taxes, is crazy...

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes. Extended again later, but there was an extension in the ARRA as I recall.

Ah, that is what I was remembering. I know there have been several votes on the extension.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Summers:

I agree with his identification of the problem. Happy?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Yes. Cf. Section 2006 of the Act.

I take this as an admission you can't figure out how this particular $40 billion was intended to create jobs. Also an admission that you've been participating in fuzzy math. And on pi day no less.

If you'd like to deduct $40B off the $850, that's fine. We are now down to $231K/job.