Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Col Hogan wrote:I was listening to a Harvard economics lecturer on the D.C. all-news station the other day...he was asked if the stimulus package was helping or hurting the recovery...

He said it's too early to say if it hurt....but his opinion was definate that it wasn't helping the recovery...that the recovery so far would have happened without the stimulus package...it's just a matter ot time before we see if the stimulus leads to inflation (and thus hurts the country) or if it actually helps improve our situation...

dbackjon wrote:I think history will show it kept the economy from completely tanking.

dbackjon wrote:I think history will show it kept the economy from completely tanking.

Col Hogan wrote:I was listening to a Harvard economics lecturer on the D.C. all-news station the other day...he was asked if the stimulus package was helping or hurting the recovery...

He said it's too early to say if it hurt....but his opinion was definate that it wasn't helping the recovery...that the recovery so far would have happened without the stimulus package...it's just a matter ot time before we see if the stimulus leads to inflation (and thus hurts the country) or if it actually helps improve our situation...

Roubini’s case against Ben Bernanke and his predecessor Alan Greenspan is that they kept interest rates too low for too long—and downplayed the significance of the bubble they helped create. “They kept on arguing that this was a minor housing slump, and this housing slump was going to bottom out,” he said. “They kept repeating this mantra that the subprime problem was a ‘niche’ and ‘contained’ problem.” These were serious analytic errors, he said, of a sort that is common near the end of a bubble. “Bernanke should have known better, but it’s not really about him. It’s in everybody’s interest to let the bubble go on. Instead of the wisdom of the crowd, we got the madness of the crowd.

“So when the proverbial stuff hit the fan in the summer of 2007, [the Fed and the Bush administration] were initially taken by surprise,” he concluded. “Their analysis had been wrong. And they didn’t understand the severity of what was to come. And all along, their policy was two steps behind the curve.” He was much more respectful of the judgment that Timothy Geithner showed.

“You know, when Geithner became president of the New York Fed [late in 2003], the first eight speeches he gave were about systemic risk,” he said. (Most were about the way the growing complexity and interconnectedness of financial systems made it harder to know the real degree of risk the entire financial network was exposed to, and how far regulation was lagging behind the quickly changing realities. Most read well in retrospect.) Behind this difference in tone, according to Roubini, was a deeper contrast in belief about what the government could or should do when it saw a financial bubble beginning to form.

D1B wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:I was listening to a Harvard economics lecturer on the D.C. all-news station the other day...he was asked if the stimulus package was helping or hurting the recovery...

He said it's too early to say if it hurt....but his opinion was definate that it wasn't helping the recovery...that the recovery so far would have happened without the stimulus package...it's just a matter ot time before we see if the stimulus leads to inflation (and thus hurts the country) or if it actually helps improve our situation...

Here's another opinon from a highly respected economist:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/roubini

Roubini’s case against Ben Bernanke and his predecessor Alan Greenspan is that they kept interest rates too low for too long—and downplayed the significance of the bubble they helped create. “They kept on arguing that this was a minor housing slump, and this housing slump was going to bottom out,” he said. “They kept repeating this mantra that the subprime problem was a ‘niche’ and ‘contained’ problem.” These were serious analytic errors, he said, of a sort that is common near the end of a bubble. “Bernanke should have known better, but it’s not really about him. It’s in everybody’s interest to let the bubble go on. Instead of the wisdom of the crowd, we got the madness of the crowd.

“So when the proverbial stuff hit the fan in the summer of 2007, [the Fed and the Bush administration] were initially taken by surprise,” he concluded. “Their analysis had been wrong. And they didn’t understand the severity of what was to come. And all along, their policy was two steps behind the curve.” He was much more respectful of the judgment that Timothy Geithner showed.

“You know, when Geithner became president of the New York Fed [late in 2003], the first eight speeches he gave were about systemic risk,” he said. (Most were about the way the growing complexity and interconnectedness of financial systems made it harder to know the real degree of risk the entire financial network was exposed to, and how far regulation was lagging behind the quickly changing realities. Most read well in retrospect.) Behind this difference in tone, according to Roubini, was a deeper contrast in belief about what the government could or should do when it saw a financial bubble beginning to form.

dbackjon wrote:I think history will show it kept the economy from completely tanking.

D1B wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:I was listening to a Harvard economics lecturer on the D.C. all-news station the other day...he was asked if the stimulus package was helping or hurting the recovery...

He said it's too early to say if it hurt....but his opinion was definate that it wasn't helping the recovery...that the recovery so far would have happened without the stimulus package...it's just a matter ot time before we see if the stimulus leads to inflation (and thus hurts the country) or if it actually helps improve our situation...

Here's another opinon from a highly respected economist:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/roubini

Roubini’s case against Ben Bernanke and his predecessor Alan Greenspan is that they kept interest rates too low for too long—and downplayed the significance of the bubble they helped create. “They kept on arguing that this was a minor housing slump, and this housing slump was going to bottom out,” he said. “They kept repeating this mantra that the subprime problem was a ‘niche’ and ‘contained’ problem.” These were serious analytic errors, he said, of a sort that is common near the end of a bubble. “Bernanke should have known better, but it’s not really about him. It’s in everybody’s interest to let the bubble go on. Instead of the wisdom of the crowd, we got the madness of the crowd.

“So when the proverbial stuff hit the fan in the summer of 2007, [the Fed and the Bush administration] were initially taken by surprise,” he concluded. “Their analysis had been wrong. And they didn’t understand the severity of what was to come. And all along, their policy was two steps behind the curve.” He was much more respectful of the judgment that Timothy Geithner showed.

“You know, when Geithner became president of the New York Fed [late in 2003], the first eight speeches he gave were about systemic risk,” he said. (Most were about the way the growing complexity and interconnectedness of financial systems made it harder to know the real degree of risk the entire financial network was exposed to, and how far regulation was lagging behind the quickly changing realities. Most read well in retrospect.) Behind this difference in tone, according to Roubini, was a deeper contrast in belief about what the government could or should do when it saw a financial bubble beginning to form.

UNI88 wrote:

D1B wrote:
Here's another opinon from a highly respected economist:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/roubini

dbackjon wrote:I think history will show it kept the economy from completely tanking.

IMO, history will show that TARP played a much greater role in keeping the economy from tanking. A financial collapse although not certain would have been catastrophic.

History will show that the Stimulus package was largely a wasted opportunity that ended up filled with pork projects that provided little long-term value to the American economy. Primary responsibility for the steaming pile of crap that was the stimulus bill lies with Congress for not having the courage to focus on infrastructure, education and other projects that would really benefit the country for years to come.

UNI88 wrote:

D1B wrote:
Here's another opinon from a highly respected economist:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/roubini

dbackjon wrote:I think history will show it kept the economy from completely tanking.

IMO, history will show that TARP played a much greater role in keeping the economy from tanking. A financial collapse although not certain would have been catastrophic.

History will show that the Stimulus package was largely a wasted opportunity that ended up filled with pork projects that provided little long-term value to the American economy. Primary responsibility for the steaming pile of crap that was the stimulus bill lies with Congress for not having the courage to focus on infrastructure, education and other projects that would really benefit the country for years to come.

AZGrizFan wrote:

UNI88 wrote:History will show that the Stimulus package was largely a wasted opportunity that ended up filled with pork projects that provided little long-term value to the American economy. Primary responsibility for the steaming pile of crap that was the stimulus bill lies with Congress for not having the courage to focus on infrastructure, education and other projects that would really benefit the country for years to come.

As usual, 88, you are spot on.

CID1990 wrote:

D1B wrote:
Here's another opinon from a highly respected economist:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/roubini

D1B, did you know that Roubini was on NPR this weekend endorsing Bernanke's re-appointment? He, along with 70% of the economists surveyed on the subject.

D1B wrote:

CID1990 wrote:

D1B, did you know that Roubini was on NPR this weekend endorsing Bernanke's re-appointment? He, along with 70% of the economists surveyed on the subject.

What do you think Myron? Post a link or shut the fuck up.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:

What do you think Myron? Post a link or shut the fuck up.

Go take your meds and come back in an hour.

We'll wait.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Go take your meds and come back in an hour.

We'll wait.

Fuck, Z, I don't know CID for shit. Just asking to back that up is all...

D1B wrote:

CID1990 wrote:

D1B, did you know that Roubini was on NPR this weekend endorsing Bernanke's re-appointment? He, along with 70% of the economists surveyed on the subject.

What do you think Myron? Post a link or shut the fuck up.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:
Fuck, Z, I don't know CID for shit. Just asking to back that up is all...

How do you link to a radio station?

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:
****, Z, I don't know CID for ****. Just asking to back that up is all...

How do you link to a radio station?

CID1990 wrote:

D1B wrote:
Here's another opinon from a highly respected economist:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/roubini

D1B, did you know that Roubini was on NPR this weekend endorsing Bernanke's re-appointment? He, along with 70% of the economists surveyed on the subject.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:
Fuck, Z, I don't know CID for shit. Just asking to back that up is all...

How do you link to a radio station?

CID1990 wrote:I listened to the whole radio show. I wouldn't have known how to link to it.

That being said, he does support Bernanke. Unless he was lying when he said what he said.

I'm more surprised you didn't make some snide ass comment about the fact that I am a conservative who listens to NPR, but then you're only sharp in the name-calling category.



Or not.

Appaholic wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:I was listening to a Harvard economics lecturer on the D.C. all-news station the other day...he was asked if the stimulus package was helping or hurting the recovery...

He said it's too early to say if it hurt....but his opinion was definate that it wasn't helping the recovery...that the recovery so far would have happened without the stimulus package...it's just a matter ot time before we see if the stimulus leads to inflation (and thus hurts the country) or if it actually helps improve our situation...

My vote is it hurts....too many special projects for certain agendas that weren't tied to infrastructure....too much government spending....I'm no economist, but I think the other shoe drops Q1-Q2 2010....and it'll be worse....

D1B wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I listened to the whole radio show. I wouldn't have known how to link to it.

That being said, he does support Bernanke. Unless he was lying when he said what he said.

I'm more surprised you didn't make some snide ass comment about the fact that I am a conservative who listens to NPR, but then you're only sharp in the name-calling category.



Or not.

Good for you CID, here's a cookie.

Read the whole Atlantic article, not just the snippet I posted. Then read, again, what this thread is about and what it was responding to. Then comment, if you can. Got it Opey?

You are not a conservative. You voted for Cheney/Bush twice, like a dumbass.