random($foo)

Stimulus 101 #

random($foo) is the personal site of Leonard Lin, where I collect shiny things and publish original writing and code. more »

I’ve been otherwise occupied this month, so I’ve only had a chance to keep an intermittent eye on the Stimulus Plan and its development. One of the things that I was a bit disappointed to find is that despite the copious amounts back-and-forth prattle coverage and the much better ongoing discussions in the economic/biz blogs that I follow, that I couldn’t find a really good single page/resource for describing in simple, understandable terms what’s happening to the economy and why economic stimulus is needed and how the plan will help.

One of the first places I went to was WhiteHouse.gov and the complete failure in communicating and selling the stimulus plan on there, especially coming from my experience on the campaign, was a (surprising) failure on the part of the Obama administration. And, while I think that this past week has been much better with the President’s recent WP op-ed and tonight’s press conference (video), I think that having a good, concise one-pager would still be an enormous benefit.

It’s one thing to talk about a full-blown crisis, but an image like this (posted Friday on Nancy Pelosi’s blog) makes things much clearer:

Job Losses in Recent Recessions

(Here’s a version with job losses from all post-WWII recessions, although I don’t know if they’re using consistent measurements)

Also, from a understanding macro-economics or fractional banking perspective, I think that there’s a pretty big gap in terms of understanding what’s going on (about 3min in to hear about the details of the bank run):

For me, the things I’d be most interested in are the economic projections (job losses? GDP shortfall?) and accessible breakdowns of the stimulus plan effects (hint: a 100pg PDF is not the ideal format), the effects of the infrastructure investments, and comparisons of tax cuts vs direct spending:

Fiscal Stimulus Bang for the Buck

Lastly and perhaps most importantly I think is that spotlight on the economy needs to force us to talk about and address the huge structural problems that we’ve been ignoring – sustainability of growth, consumption, income inequality, etc. Here’s a video of Robert Reich discussing some of this:

While I’m disappointed that neither the MSM nor the Stimulus Plan backers have done something like this, it’s occurred to that this is the perfect sort of project some good designers to tackle in conjunction w/ either some of the economist bloggers that have covering this stuff or some of the civic groups out there. (Just saying.)

(FWIW, I recently started reading Krugman‘s The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 which has been pretty interesting so far. For those looking for a better idea of how our money and our economy works, Chris Martenson’s Crash Course is good (and depressing) start. The Wikipedia entry on the Economy of the United States is also a good place to start surfing.)

Tags: , , ,

  • Jess
    OK, I've seen this jobs-loss graph numerous places now, and I've only just taken the time to read the captions and discover how misleading (or if you prefer, decontextualizing) it is. On average, the total number of jobs goes up over the long term -- just look at the right 2/3 of the graph to see this, or think about population. Therefore, in order to meaningfully compare the deltas of events at different points in time (and different "peak" baselines), we would need to compare their relative magnitudes, not their absolute magnitudes. More conventionally, a graph could just show the total jobs and total losses at all times and allow us to infer what the relative losses were.

    As the tiny print in the left margin admits, this is a graph of absolute numbers of jobs lost. That is, the absolute deltas, removed from the context of the peak jobs baselines. That is, we see three slides from zero without being shown how many jobs actually existed at those zero points. That is, this graph doesn't show us anything.

    If I just plug some numbers in out of the air, assuming that each successive recession started out with more jobs (which we know to be the case), then the only thing this graph shows is that jobs have been lost more slowly (since the slopes of the deltas are roughly equal for the three successive events, the slopes of the measured amounts must be getting shallower), but for a longer period, in each successive recession. Does this make each successive recession "worse"? Who knows? Not anyone relying on this graph for her information. Since I'm a suspicious person, I'll just go ahead and assume that graphing the relative job losses, or graphing total jobs in a conventional way, would show this recession to be nothing remarkable, which is why those who want us to think the sky is falling created the graph in this misleading way.
  • lhl
    Jess,

    No need to assume, the link I included below shows graphs in %s from peak (for all recessions post-WW2). I think that the relative numbers are important for context (they look "worse" than the past couple recessions), but that the absolute numbers are still important - since you know, those are *actual* people out of work. Real unemployment is currently at 14%. It's pretty safe to say it's going to get worse. Unemployment however is just once piece of the bigger picture.

    If it were just a bad recession, I don't there'd be as much to worry about... but this whole thing was triggered by a crazy financial crisis which has yet to resolve itself. If that doesn't get fixed, there are all sort of terrible implications (where something akin to Japan's lost decade might be one of the less bad scenarios). The skepticism that you hold actually is a great example of how this really *hasn't* been well communicated.

    I'll be posting some more links on that soon, but the numbers are quite frankly, crazy - over $10T (T as in Trillion) in assets within the (unregulated) shadow banking system vs $6T in the five largest US banks (Geithner, June 2008), $43T in CDS's outstanding, more than half the size of the entire asset base of the global banking system and total derivatives of over $500T (Gross, Jan 2008)...

    As a comparison, US GDP is just under $14T.
blog comments powered by Disqus