14 economic indices, pre- and post-stimulus

[Soflasnapper]

Here, from Mosler Economics. (http://www.moslereconomics.com/wp-content/pdf/stimulus.pdf)

A pdf document.

Each graph tracks from earlier '07 through to today.

As will surprise almost no one paying attention, for some odd reason, all these plunging lines turned around to a positive trend almost exactly as of the stimulus passage.

Note two interesting facts. On the U Michigan Consumer Confidence scale, although things improved well right after the stimulus began to take effect, it plunged to the same depths as it had reached during the free-fall part of the recession, as of March through December 2011, the time when the GOP was mucking around with default on the debt by their negotiation strategy on the debt ceiling increase.

Arguably, a great deal of the tapering off of economic improvement can be laid to the take back of the House by the GOP as of January 2011, and the cut-throat tactics they used.

Also note that sometimes, a DECLINE in a given index is a good thing. Cf: the yield on the 10-year Treasury notes. It has been declining since the stimulus, contrary to the very confident claims that we'd have hyperinflation effects from 'large' spending (which would have seen interest rates for T-notes spike by the demand of the market to be protected from such inflation).

[cushioncrawler]

I am thinking that there woz no stimulus.
What theusofa had woz a bailout of some banx etc, and a bailout of some carmakers.

I am thinking that fed spending didnt go up under obama, exklooding bailouts which i think will be repayed sooner or later allbeit in the case of banx by virtue of fed gifts which meens that they are fake repayments.

On the other hand the fed debt haz gone up, which praps meens that there woz a stimulus. I aint sure now.
mac.

[Soflasnapper]

The actual spending part of the several-year, $800 billion or so stimulus was fairly small.

Roughly 40% went to tax cuts (no spending, just lowered receipts to the federal government, of questionable effect). About 30% to the states and local governments to support their spending (not allowing new spending, but keeping in place employees and help with the Medicaid and other expenditures, i.e., again not a positive stimulative effect as to more spending, but to prevent LESS SPENDING from being forced upon the states). And then lastly, about $120 billion a year, x 2 years, on the actual extra federal government spending, for infrastructure projects, etc.

The problem was a $1 to $2 trillion hole in the prior level of the country's spending, caused by the retrenchment and increased savings and less propensity to spend, and less credit facilities to borrow, from the approx. $15 trillion in losses in wealth and the reverse of the wealth effect. (Where, if you know you have more wealth or money, you spend more even in the face of mounting debt and no greater income, as when your 401k is way up, or the house value is soaring.)

The direct extra spending was about 90%++ too small to fill this hole, and the rest of it, like pushing on a string.