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.

  • http://randomfoo.net/ 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.

  • kitesurf

    Very nicely put, I appreciate the hard work.

  • termllife

    Recession has put me in a great trouble, I just pray to God for good things ahead!

  • surfboards

    Recession has really put shackles in my legs, I am very much frustrated now!

  • http://www.englishclass.com.tw 家教

    Have to say I do agree. Things like this just are what they are.

  • http://www.clarityx.com/ Clarityx

    Interesting post. Appreciate it as I have seen something new now.

  • http://ywamny.org/ ywam

    Yup ! It's too bad………. :(

  • http://beaandmildred.com/ Gifts and Bones Audio Book

    Yup !
    Its a very serious situation : (

  • http://www.syntaxerror.info syntaxerror

    right! very serious!!

  • http://learn-forex-strategies.blogspot.com Learn Forex

    Yes, we are in a recession. The big question is, “How will we get out of this recession?”. China and foreign expansion saved the USA in the last recession but is that going to happen this time? The world is going to need a miracle to get out of this one. We might see a world depression. It doesn't make sense that China and India's GDP is growing at a slower pace but their stock markets are down. They will not be able to save the USA this time.

  • surfboards

    Hey there, thanks for the interesting post, I liked reading it, keep posts like this one coming!

  • http://www.branddaze.com Wholesale Jordan Shoes

    Have to say I do agree. Things like this just are what they are.

  • websitedesignservice

    website design service 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.

  • websitedesignservice

    Ecommerce Web Design That is, we see three slides from zero without being shown how many jobs actually existed at those zero points.

  • http://us-creditcards.com credit card reviews

    I don't think that there will be as much to worry about… but this whole thing was triggered by a crazy financial crisis which has yet to resolve itself.

  • williyamb

    website design service 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,

  • williyamb

    website design service 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.

  • alvaaclay1980

    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 mocospace.com 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

  • smithfreddick
  • http://www.hhhwcenter.com/ HGH

    this recession seems to be the strongest

  • fred flintstone

    Are you a stupid ass or what? There is a difference between graphing data as a percentage vs. absolute. For example, if there were 100 people working in 1980 and 10% were laid off, you would graph the data point at 10 (people). If there were 200 people working in 2009 and 10% were laid off, you would graph the data point at 20 (people). This would be an absolute plot and it would make 2009 look much worse (twice as bad) as 1980, even though they are exactly the same percentage loss. Get it?