Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajg1977 | Hacker News Reader

ajg1977

But no mention whatsoever how paying down federal debt instead of stimulus would supposedly have strengthened the economy.

The argument for paying down our debt is usually to prevent inflation or keep future borrowing cheap, but despite the plunge in GDP neither of these are anywhere close to becoming an issue.

Speaking of GDP - it's not the deficit that's responsible for the US's decreasing GDP/debt ratio, it's the drop in tax income due to the job losses following the financial meltdown.

There is plenty to dislike about how the stimulus turned out (too small, partially negated by state-level cuts, focus on tax cuts), but no evidence whatsoever that it made things worse.

View on HN

You mentioned the evidence that it made things worse, by obama's own numbers, the unemployment rates are much higher than he claimed they would be if we DIDN'T pass the bill.

The "stimulus" destroyed jobs, as all government spending does, and it made the economy worse.

Further, it is deficit spending that is killing us, as we are incurring unprecedented deficits.

Finally, borrowing is already becomming a problem with indications that the FED is printing money to participate in the auctions (using a major bank of convenience, of course) in order to keep auction rates low... this means that the treasury auctions have already started to fail. Further, the auctions for the last 2 years have shown a sharp shift towards shorter term notes, which means the amount that has to be rolled over at each auction is snowballing.

You mentioned the evidence that it made things worse, by obama's own numbers, the unemployment rates are much higher than he claimed they would be if we DIDN'T pass the bill.

How is that evidence it made things worse? It could be evidence that job losses were far more severe than anyone anticipated, but with the stimulus they were still lower than without.

Your following two statements are basically soundbites with no reasoning, or basis in economic theory.

Right, just imagine how much blood loss the patient would have experienced if we hadn't used the leeches! His is the kind of nonsense you guys trot out to defend every program... No matter how much damage to the economy, you just claim that things would have been worse otherwise. You never support these claims, of course, but you then go on to claim that those who point out the damage are not supporting their claims, even when they do, and you just, out of the blue make nonsese assertions like "have no basis in economic theory".... Without, of course, defending that asertion. I find this mode of argument particularly anti-intellectual.

Congratulations on knocking down that straw man.

ajg1977 didn't say the economy would have been worse without the stimulus. He said that what you presented as evidence was not, in fact, evidence, because it could be interpreted a different way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com