Recovery, Recovery, Recovery at last?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm


net addition of jobs instead of loss

But a large portion are temporary and government jobs.

and so job rate decreasing has fallen, people have more money which they can spend, and when they do, the Keynesian multiplier kicks in.

Yeah but almost half those jobs are temporary, census workers etc. How can you consider that when referring to overall job stability?

because i just said,if jobs could be added, job losses are slowing, and when this money gets into the economy, it will rev up demand, and therefore, production.

I'm not saying that jobs are stable, but i'm saying, this probably means a turn around point, unless the fed raises interest rates, then we will go into a double dip recession

So if this doesn't work will you finally stop referring to Keynesian Economics?

THANK GOD!

hmmm... when you become an economist and tell that it doesn't work, we can talk, but when i point to FDR and Japan in the 70s and 80s, you tell me.

If it doesn't work, its quite simple why, it wasn't big enough, the debt during FDR as a percentage of GDP was over 100%, we aren't there now, we should be there if we want to get out of a recession, another reason would be that interest rates are bounding on zero because the bush and Reagan regime of supply side economics was to thought vacant to think that a recession could occur, just good times, Nixon, for all the bad rep he gets, economically, was probably greatest conservative president.

Nihil wrote:hmmm... when you become an economist and tell that it doesn't work, we can talk

You're 16. News flash, you're not an economist.

No, but i have devoted hours of my life to its study and have found the most conclusive results with Keynesians

Like i was saying Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz and many others have been able to thoroughly outmaneuver conservative and supply-sider economists through economic math, graphs, and logic.

In fact, I'll do something right now that i haven't done before...



Chronology

1920s-1930s Economic boom, partly fueled by heavy borrowing by stock-market investors, is followed by the Crash of 1929. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal launches the first major government programs aimed at stimulating the economy.
October 1929 Stock market crashes. . . . Banks begin to fail as debtors default on their loans, and panicking depositors try to withdraw their money.
1932 Industrial production falls 45 percent from 1929 levels as the Great Depression begins and spreads worldwide. . . . Roosevelt is elected to his first term.
1933 Twenty-five percent of all U.S. workers are unemployed. . . . Roosevelt and Congress establish Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps and Tennessee Valley Authority to employ laid-off workers and create new public infrastructure.
1934 Heavy government spending enables Sweden to become the first nation to recover from the Depression.
1935 U.S. unemployment rate declines to 20 percent.
1936 Roosevelt is reelected in a landslide. . . . U.S. unemployment rate is just under 17 percent. . . . Military spending pulls Germany out of the Depression.
1937 Unemployment rate falls to 14 percent. . . . Rising federal deficits prompt Roosevelt to cut back on federal public-works spending.
1938 Economic growth slows again as unemployment rises to 19 percent.
1939 Economic growth revives, and unemployment falls to 17 percent as U.S. defense spending rises in anticipation of war.
1940s-1950s Federal spending on World War II and Interstate Highway System helps keep unemployment low.
1941 U.S. manufacturing output is up 50 percent over 1939. **



"The Obama administration has wisely chosen to make rebuilding public infrastructure the centerpiece of its stimulus package. The proposal includes funding not only for traditional infrastructure, like repairing roads and bridges, but also for green infrastructure such as weatherizing and retrofitting buildings to reduce energy consumption and modernization of the nation's electric grid.

Infrastructure is extremely effective as a stimulus since shovel-ready projects can start to create jobs soon after they are authorized. These projects put money in workers' pockets that they will spend. As a result, infrastructure spending has a substantial multiplier effect.

Moodys.com estimated the multiplier for infrastructure projects at 1.59, meaning that we will get $1.59 of additional economic output for each dollar spent on infrastructure. By comparison, the multiplier for payroll tax cuts is less than 1.0 and for business tax cuts just 0.3. This gap is likely to be even larger now, since many families will use tax cuts to rebuild their savings after losing most of their wealth in the housing crash.

Ideally, the spending will go to projects that would have been undertaken in any case, even if not immediately. For example, thousands of schools across the country desperately need repairs, such as new roofs or plumbing. And a considerable backlog of repairs to roads and bridges can be drawn down through this stimulus package.

There are also a large number of energy-conserving improvements that can pay for themselves in three or four years. For example, standard home retrofits cost around $3,000, and typically produce annual savings in the range of $750 to $1,000. If the federal government can provide incentives to encourage individuals, businesses and governments to carry through retrofits, there will be enduring benefits in reduced energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

But two notable pitfalls endanger this path. First, there will be some waste and corruption. That happens when you spend hundreds of billions of dollars. President Obama is establishing mechanisms to minimize this problem by ensuring that the process of disbursing funds is as open as possible.

The other risk is that we will spend money on environmentally harmful projects, such as highways that encourage suburban sprawl. This can and must be prevented. We can tolerate some waste, since it is important that money be spent quickly. But it makes no sense to spend billions of dollars in ways that will worsen our environmental problems."*

"A stimulus package similar to the one Congress approved should create between 3.3 million and 4.1 million jobs over the next two years — around 1.3 million of them from public-works programs — according to Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, chief economist for Vice President Joseph Biden. More than 90 percent of the jobs created will be in the private sector, about a third of them in construction and manufacturing."***

History demonstrates a strong link between infrastructure investment and economic growth, according to an analysis prepared by University of Massachusetts Professor of Economics Robert Pollin and Associate Research Professor James Heintz for the Alliance for American Manufacturing. Between 1950 and 1979, U.S. public investment in infrastructure like transportation and electricity transmission grew by an annual average 4 percent, while annual growth in the gross domestic product (GDP) averaged around 4.1 percent, Pollin and Heintz said. By contrast, between 1980 and 2007 growth in infrastructure investment slowed to 2.3 percent annually while GDP growth slowed to an annual average of 2.9 percent. ****


*= Dean Baker, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research. Written for CQ Researcher, February 2009

**= CQ Researcher, Marcia Clemmitt


***=Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” Transition Office of Barack Obama, Jan. 9, 2009, http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf.


****=CQ Researcher, Marcia Clemmitt




All research done by me for my school project from CQ researcher, very much in favor of stimulus.

Not to mention the famous californian governor supports this idea

“This is the most perfect time . . . to lay out a plan to rebuild America, just like Roosevelt has done because it would stimulate the economy and it would create a tremendous amount of jobs,” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., told CNN. “It's not spending. It's an investment” in a stronger economy, he said.

bro your 16, be an economists after youth

actually i plan on going into physics

Physics is awesome. If I liked math more I would not minding doing that sort of work.