a.) The chart does not show that GDP had stopped free-falling, it shows that there was a small bounce in January - as there had been in November. The trend levels out after the stimulus is passed. The author also does not account for expectations of stimulus spending.
b.) "Monthly job losses bottomed out in early 2009 while the Index of Leading Economic Indicators started to rise in April." Yes, after the stimulus had passed.
c.) "When the recession officially ended in June 2009, just 15% of the stimulus money had gone out the door." Yes, but more money than that had been promised in the forms of contracts and grants and tax credits. Companies were already doing work and collecting bits of the money right on schedule. States were still doing their budgets, and hadn't spent the money yet.
d.) The Taylor part has been addressed. (http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/taylor-seems-to-agree-with-keynesians.html) He does not reject the idea of stimulative government spending, he said people did not spend tax credits and that government spending did not increase enough. Those were both key complaints about the stimulus from Keynesians.
e.) Did you notice Taylor's repeated use of "simulation?" That's because it's an economic model being compared to data to see how accurate it is. You have repeatedly decried that approach with regard to pretty much everything else stimulus-related.
f.) The Barro article says, "He acknowledged, however, that there are times when stimulus programmes are needed – such as in the recent recession. But he said they should be delivered through necessary capital projects and tax cuts, to deliver required services and make the economy more efficient." Oh look, that's exactly what Keynesians advocate for. A stronger safety net, tax cuts (don't give me the "no tax cuts" crap, it's a distinction without a difference), and infrastructure.
g.) Barro's view on the long-term multiplier has already been established, and his WSJ op-eds on the topic have been thoroughly demolished. You're not presenting anything new.
h.) So, where are your studies on the effect of stimulus? Taylor's has already been covered; do you have anything empirical, ideally something with a consensus?
no subject
a.) The chart does not show that GDP had stopped free-falling, it shows that there was a small bounce in January - as there had been in November. The trend levels out after the stimulus is passed. The author also does not account for expectations of stimulus spending.
b.) "Monthly job losses bottomed out in early 2009 while the Index of Leading Economic Indicators started to rise in April." Yes, after the stimulus had passed.
c.) "When the recession officially ended in June 2009, just 15% of the stimulus money had gone out the door." Yes, but more money than that had been promised in the forms of contracts and grants and tax credits. Companies were already doing work and collecting bits of the money right on schedule. States were still doing their budgets, and hadn't spent the money yet.
d.) The Taylor part has been addressed. (http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/taylor-seems-to-agree-with-keynesians.html) He does not reject the idea of stimulative government spending, he said people did not spend tax credits and that government spending did not increase enough. Those were both key complaints about the stimulus from Keynesians.
e.) Did you notice Taylor's repeated use of "simulation?" That's because it's an economic model being compared to data to see how accurate it is. You have repeatedly decried that approach with regard to pretty much everything else stimulus-related.
f.) The Barro article says, "He acknowledged, however, that there are times when stimulus programmes are needed – such as in the recent recession. But he said they should be delivered through necessary capital projects and tax cuts, to deliver required services and make the economy more efficient." Oh look, that's exactly what Keynesians advocate for. A stronger safety net, tax cuts (don't give me the "no tax cuts" crap, it's a distinction without a difference), and infrastructure.
g.) Barro's view on the long-term multiplier has already been established, and his WSJ op-eds on the topic have been thoroughly demolished. You're not presenting anything new.
h.) So, where are your studies on the effect of stimulus? Taylor's has already been covered; do you have anything empirical, ideally something with a consensus?