Investor's Business Daily claims the stimulus has failed. The New York Times believes additional stimulus spending should be pursued.
Both debaters are missing the key point. This is not an economic debate. This is, as I've mentioned before, ex post storytelling. In other words, both groups, pro and con, are constructing ever evolving arguments around underlying theory mixed with the most recently released data. Bad unemployment numbers come out? Anti-stimulus folks instantly claim the spending has failed. Pro-stimulus types retort say it has mitigated more colossal economic destruction and that more is needed to alleviate further pain.
But no one knows for sure. We can't control and lab test any of this. There are no alternative universes to see what would have happened under different conditions and policies.
This was never about economics. This was always about politics. We can honestly debate the merits and faults of Keynesian ideas to no end, a debate well worth having, but let's not pretend the same thing is going on in Washington, D.C.
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
More Stimulus and Unemployment
Wisdom from Chicago Boyz.
In a recent meeting, my boss made the obvious but true point that it would make no sense for us to hire someone who would provide $0.90 worth of value per $1.00 of cost. In a similar vein but from a consumer perspective, I would never spend $1.00 on a candy bar that I valued at $0.90 (trivial prices aside).
I assume the New York Times would agree that the above logic makes sense. So then why do they invoke government to do the exact opposite at taxpayer's expense?
The stimulus bill was $787 billion. The bill is estimated (by Obama administration) to "create" 3 million jobs. Forget the fact that these jobs are all temporary and for the most part are involved in sectors of the economy that see very little current demand, and thus will provide very little short-term value (and more likely than not long-term as well). The fact is each job will cost taxpayer's $262,333.33 per job.
How again does this make sense?
In a recent meeting, my boss made the obvious but true point that it would make no sense for us to hire someone who would provide $0.90 worth of value per $1.00 of cost. In a similar vein but from a consumer perspective, I would never spend $1.00 on a candy bar that I valued at $0.90 (trivial prices aside).
I assume the New York Times would agree that the above logic makes sense. So then why do they invoke government to do the exact opposite at taxpayer's expense?
The stimulus bill was $787 billion. The bill is estimated (by Obama administration) to "create" 3 million jobs. Forget the fact that these jobs are all temporary and for the most part are involved in sectors of the economy that see very little current demand, and thus will provide very little short-term value (and more likely than not long-term as well). The fact is each job will cost taxpayer's $262,333.33 per job.
How again does this make sense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
