Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Without being specific it is pretty easy to say who disagrees with me.
The basis of my post is pretty basic. Government stimulus needs to generate its impact before the costs off-sets the impact. If you find an economist who disagrees with that, let me know and we can take it from there. Government can "prime the pump" or get the party started and for that you need something immediate.
{added} Just for kicks I went to AEI's website, and read this:
AEI - The Year Ahead
seems like they may actually agree with me. |
Talk about moving the goal posts. You said
"It is a failure because it should not take 18-24 for a government stimulus plan to create jobs.
It is a failure because the focus is not on the parts of the economy that actually creates net new jobs."
And the link you provided clearly states that
Quote:
|
"The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009."
|
So yes, even the highly partisan AEI disagrees with what you said. The section you quoted basically says that because the stimulus package is not as big in 2010 the economy should suffer a bit. It is actually the complete opposite of what you said in your first post.