The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Quality Start Machine]

You should ask ChuckD about the time he saw MikeC using the spellchecker.

Many brains knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Shoutbox that day, I can tell you.

Well, as we all know, spell check isn't always perfect.

... already growing old to the American pubic.

When I finally get around to starting my fake band, "American Pubic" is going to be the name of our first fake album.

The fake label I started for Urban Thoreau is looking to expand into producing other fictional artists. What sort of music will your band not play?

did you get my fake demo for Gluteus Maximus and the Mammary Glands?

No.

I wasn't asking you, fake roadie.

[MikeC]

While the unemployment rate bumped up 0.2%, the nonfarm payrolls only lost about 300K last month ,better than expected.  There are signs that at least the economy's descent is slowing, although MikeC does have a grain of truth in there - I think his criticism of the "saved or created" language is exactly right.  How in the world the press corps continues to let that statement be made without any challenge at all escapes me.  How does one know how many jobs were "saved"?  Versus what baseline?

If you're going to try to judge the effects of Obamanomics it's too soon.  Labor markets tend to lag the general economy, so I'd expect to see the unemployment rate turn well after the economy has turned.  It makes sense intuitively - companies don't hire until they have noticeably higher demand for their products.  In my opinion it is still too soon to judge what effects the stimulus package may have.  In either direction.  Let's see how it plays out.

Its true that major parts of the stimulus bill don't kick in in 2009. Thats the point I am trying to make with Obama's lies to the American public. All these prime time spots and his administration saying we need the stimulus now so x, y, z don't happen in 2009. How this stimulus money has already saved 150,000 jobs, how he is gonna "create or save" 2 million jobs in the next 2 years. He is just telling you what you want to hear.

So he knows full well spending isn't going to really kick in till 2010 and that means all his graphs and speeches were pure bullshit because unemployment was going to go up in 2009 regardless if a stimulus bill was passed or not.

Just this week he promised this....

President Barack Obama is announcing Monday that he is ramping up stimulus spending exponentially in the next three months, allowing the administration to "save or create" 600,000 jobs — four times as many as during the first 100 days since he signed the bill.

The spending plans include national parks, summer youth jobs, veterans' medical centers, police and teachers.

Obama will make the announcement during a late-morning Cabinet meeting, when Vice President Joe Biden will present a Roadmap to Recovery, which the White House calls "an administration-wide effort to accelerate implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in its second 100 days."

"As a result of this accelerated pace of activity, over 600,000 jobs are expected to be created or saved by the Recovery

Act in the second 100 days," compared with roughly 150,000 in the first 100 days, the White House said.

600,000 "saved or created" new jobs! Woooohooo, has anyone figured out how you calculate a saved job yet? Has the press even bothered to ask? Do they even care?

I like this passage from an article...

"The expression 'create or save,' which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius," writes Mr. Mankiw. "You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus."

Mr. Obama's comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.

...

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

Now, something's wrong when the president invokes a formula that makes it impossible for him to be wrong and it goes largely unchallenged. It's true that almost any government spending will create some jobs and save others. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, that doesn't tell you much: The government, after all, can create jobs by hiring people to dig holes and fill them in.

[Slaky]

I like this passage from an article...

Most people also like sources. Call me crazy.

[Kermit, B.]

What a fake band bonerslayer that was.

[Jon]

What a fake band bonerslayer that was.

Just when I was finally having some fake fun again.

[Quality Start Machine]

What a fake band bonerslayer that was.

That's a great name for an all-chick band.

[morpheus]

MikeC's sources:

Obama's promises : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23467.html

The article that he likes : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html

Anyway, for what it's worth, I agree - this whole "saved or created" metric is pure bullshit, and I cannot fathom how it's gone unchallenged by the press to this point.  Also, the stimulus was originally supposed to be targeted and temporary (the language I recall being used) and instead most of it didn't even get going until after 2009.  These points are pretty clear.

I was going to go ahead and source those quotes for MikeC... but now I think that I need to plug my own new band, "Fake Roadie."

[Chuck to Chuck]

It's not Obama's "lies" that are the problem.  It's the lack of introspection from the "loyal Bushies" taht leads to them being ignored.

And, if you are upset about the debt now (ME!) you better have been upset about the tax cuts in 2001 (ME!)

[Quality Start Machine]

It's not Obama's "lies" that are the problem.  It's the lack of introspection from the "loyal Bushies" taht leads to them being ignored.

And, if you are upset about the debt now (ME!) you better have been upset about the tax cuts in 2001 (ME!)

As asinine as the tax cuts were in 2001 (a "projected" surplus is still unrealized. Besides, we had a shitload of debt), the notion of making them permanent while at war is the economic equivalent of eating paste.

[RV]

MikeC's sources:

Obama's promises : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23467.html

The article that he likes : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html

Anyway, for what it's worth, I agree - this whole "saved or created" metric is pure bullshit, and I cannot fathom how it's gone unchallenged by the press to this point.  Also, the stimulus was originally supposed to be targeted and temporary (the language I recall being used) and instead most of it didn't even get going until after 2009.  These points are pretty clear.

I was going to go ahead and source those quotes for MikeC... but now I think that I need to plug my own new band, "Fake Roadie."

FWIW, Jake Tapper has been questioning the administration on this. I wouldn't say it's gone unchallenged.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/todays-qs-for-os-wh-682009.html

[morpheus]

MikeC's sources:

Obama's promises : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23467.html

The article that he likes : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html

Anyway, for what it's worth, I agree - this whole "saved or created" metric is pure bullshit, and I cannot fathom how it's gone unchallenged by the press to this point.  Also, the stimulus was originally supposed to be targeted and temporary (the language I recall being used) and instead most of it didn't even get going until after 2009.  These points are pretty clear.

I was going to go ahead and source those quotes for MikeC... but now I think that I need to plug my own new band, "Fake Roadie."

FWIW, Jake Tapper has been questioning the administration on this. I wouldn't say it's gone unchallenged.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/todays-qs-for-os-wh-682009.html

I was really trying to go back to fake band names.  But, since you insist.

TAPPER:  A couple questions.  One, last week, I assume you were -- you weren't here in your D.C. quarters, but...

GIBBS:  I think I saw you in France.

TAPPER:  Yes.  It was lovely.  The commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics testified before Congress, and he was asked about the 450,000 claim.  Can you substantiate...

GIBBS:  The 450...?

TAPPER (correcting self): ...150,000 job claim. And he was asked if he could substantiate the claim.  And he called -- the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner said, "No, that would be a very difficult thing for anybody to substantiate." He was asked, again, "So you're saying you can't verify that the administration's policies have created an additional 150,000 jobs?" And he said, "No, we're busy just counting jobs. Is it fair for the administration to use a statistic like 150,000 jobs saved or created when the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not stand by the number?

GIBBS:  I would point you to what -- what Jared talked about and the two reports that are on the Internet.  I do think it's fair.  And I haven't seen the report, having been overseas, but, yes, we continue to think it's fair.

TAPPER:  OK.  And the other question I had is, ABC interviewed Lakhdar Boumedinne, the former Guantanamo detainee...

Some challenge.  "The government agency that counts jobs cannot possibly substantiate the claims you're making."  "No, we think it's fair."  "OK... let's move on."  How was Gibbs able to withstand it?

[Brownie]

It's not Obama's "lies" that are the problem.  It's the lack of introspection from the "loyal Bushies" taht leads to them being ignored.

And, if you are upset about the debt now (ME!) you better have been upset about the tax cuts in 2001 (ME!)

I'm upset at the percentage of government spending as a percentage of GDP. I was upset about it 15 years ago. I was upset about it 5 years ago. And I am furious about it now.

And Chuck, if I cut my prices on bus parts, I have no room to bitch about a salesman turning in a bullshit expense report or a vendor jacking prices up 25% or reneging on a contract?

[Chuck to Chuck]

I'm upset at the percentage of government spending as a percentage of GDP. I was upset about it 15 years ago. I was upset about it 5 years ago. And I am furious about it now.

Good.  I agree.  Too bad a (small r)epublican form of government doesn't encourage fiscal responsibility.

And Chuck, if I cut my prices on bus parts, I have no room to bitch about a salesman turning in a bullshit expense report or a vendor jacking prices up 25% or reneging on a contract?

No you don't, but the two issues may not correlate. You may be cutting prices because you have no choice.  It's either that or go out of business.  Or maybe it's that to force a competitor to close up shop.  And the salesman is simply over his T&E budget by a few percent because the last salesman blew the T&E budget and left you with no sales.

[ChuckD]

Having just taken a course on economic impact modeling, I'll try to shed some light on how the numbers are produced.

The method used to estimate the jobs is based upon an Input-Output analysis of data that's collected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. IO Analysis looks at how a marginal dollar spent by one company (output) is re-spent by its suppliers (input) within an economic area.  So, if we give the hypothetical Chicago Obamadong Corp. a hypothetical dollar, they're going to spend it on molding equipment, latex, staples, etc--anything that's needed to implant dongs in the mouths of Obamanazis. Each of those suppliers then spends the fraction of the dollar they receive from Obamadong to purchase inputs from their suppliers. Por ejemplo, the staple manufacturer, also located in Chicago, takes the 20 cents or whatever they received from Obamadong and pays 10 cents to a metal refinery in PITTSBURGH for raw inputs. The 20 cents would be counted as regional economic activity, but the 10 cents would not--it's been "externalized" and is now creating economic activity in PITTSBURGH. The process repeats itself until the original dollar has been completely externalized. This is the main principle behind "buy local" campaigns or, at the national level, "buy American." More spending within the economy = less externalization = more economic growth.

Anyway, at the end of the process, the total of the times the original dollar is spent are summed to produce a "multiplier." So, Obamadong spends the original dollar, and by the time it has completely externalized, the original dollar has been spent 3.5 more times by Chicago-area entities in the company's supply chain. The multiplier would be 4.5, or 1+3.5. With the multiplier, you can determine the number of jobs impacted. Simply take the total employment of Obamadong (or the entire dong implantation industry sector) and divide it by the total economic output. The result is the number of jobs per dollar of output.

I won't go in to exactly how you create the model, but it's pretty widely accepted as a sound methodology. This guy (anti-Communist, FWIW) won a Nobel Prize in economics for discovering the matrix inversion that makes the thing run. Here's a full text available online if you really want to look in to the matter. You can do it in Excel if you have the data, or there's software called IMPLAN that automates much of the process.

The model works in two ways. You can stimulate the final demand (adding a positive value) for an industry and determine how much additional output would be produced by the economy as a whole. Or, you can contract the final demand (adding a negative value) and see how much would be lost.

Here is the shit you probably care about: If the market is allowed to contract, jobs will be lost. This can be predicted by estimating the contraction, plugging the values in to the model's final demand, summing the resulting lost output across all industries, and converting that in to jobs. This is the baseline prediction; it's what will happen without any intervention. For example, let's say that a 5% contraction in consumer spending is estimated to reduce jobs across all industries by 1 million.

Now, we want to predict the impact of the stimulus funds. The stimulus funds are plugged in to the model and they offset some of the contraction, but not completely. The model spits out some figures that show a 5% contraction in consumer spending coupled with the stimulus would result in a reduction in employment by 200,000. The difference between the two figures is 800,000. Some of those jobs are new because government spending cannot perfectly match the consumer spending patterns which would have occurred otherwise (nor would they want to). But other jobs are saved by the stimulus because the government spending does somewhat overlap with those spending patterns.

Some jobs are saved. Others are created. There's no way to calculate specifically the number of jobs saved or the number of jobs created. But be aware that there is a way of calculating the "number of jobs saved or created."

[ChuckD]

There are, however, problems with the approach.

For one, BEA data doesn't differentiate between full-time and part-time employment. Of these 150,000 jobs, 50,000 might be full-time, salaried jobs with benefits but the remainder might be part-time jobs at retail stores. Some better detail about the jobs and the associated impacts on employee compensation would be good to have.

The model is also only accurate in extrapolating the past economy forward through the future. That is to say, if a major retooling of the economy occurs, then all (a lot of) bets are off. As an example, if you were evaluating the impact of the newspaper industry, you would need to use data from 2005-7. However, it's commonly agreed that newspapers are entering a world of pain. Adjustments would need to be done or else the economic activity produced by the industry will be overvalued.

They're probably also being extremely generous with attributing "new jobs" when, in reality, these jobs would stay around regardless of whether the stimulus occurred. For instance, if the demand for trucking is currently maxed out, then the new demands on the sector by the stimulus money isn't going to create as many new jobs. Some jobs will be created, yes, but more likely is that it's simply going to shift capacity from other uses and raise the market clearing price for trucking services.

I will say that I take issue with the use of the "rule of thumb" where 1% of GDP is assumed to equal 1,000,000 jobs. It seems like lazy work when BEA/BLS have information regarding input/output and employment at extremely detailed levels of analysis. That's all I'll say about it. Back to your regular programming.