Et tu, WSJ?

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009 @ 12:36 pm | Uncategorized

Sadly, the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal has decided to spread liberal propaganda about Obama’s economic stimulus package:

WASHINGTON — Government efforts to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy appear to be helping the U.S. climb out of the worst recession in decades. …

Economists say the money out the door — combined with the expectation of additional funds flowing soon — is fueling growth above where it would have been without any government action.

Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter — something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago. Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus.

And Iowa’s using that stimulus money to repair infrastructure that would normally be put on the back burner during hard times:

Iowa ranks second nationally in using federal stimulus dollars allocated for highway and bridge projects, a congressional committee reported today..

Eighty-five percent of the federal money granted to Iowa has already been awarded to contractors, with 75 percent of the work underway. Eighty-seven percent of the money has been assigned to road projects sent out for bids, according to the U.S House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

I think the tea-baggers should go protest contractors that have accepted stimulus money financed projects. Ya know, show those construction workers the courage of their convictions.

-mg

7 Responses to “Et tu, WSJ?”

  1. Zach Rock Says:

    While it may be good news for some, but it’s still bad news for all in the long run. The currency’s worth is still going to drop steadily because of it and prices are going to continue to rise while wages stay the same.

    Let’s all treat the gunshot wound with another bullet.

  2. Descent Says:

    Um, that’s what interest rate modification by the Federal Reserve is for, Zach.

  3. Jldmeyer Says:

    Obama needs to learn a little bit of advice from his predecessor. When the economy is down and your healthcare promotion isn’t doing so hot in the news you need to go out and get yourself a good war. Not some quagmire in the middle east. We need a real war of words! We need to find a country who hates our guts and really start messing with them. Give them something to really hate us for! History has always shown that the good people of America love their country more when the terror threat level changes to a more sinister color. Going from beige to tan makes me want to go buy a tv from Walmart even more. Plus the war of words makes for great tv. The problem with Saddam was he was killed too quick. The face of the war was taken away. No more sound bites from the villain. Bin Laden hasn’t truly shown his face in way too long. We definitely need a new war. 1% contraction in the second quarter, blah blah blah. BORING. What we need is a war. Obama wants to talk about issues and make us understand them. Just pull a Bush. Start a war to throw off everyone’s attention and pass the bugger in the dead of night when our backs are turned. That’s how it is done by a real president.

  4. mike g Says:

    Well, it’s certainly a form of Big Government intervention “libertarians” never seem to have a problem with.

  5. Zach Rock Says:

    Interest rate modification? Don’t make me laugh.

    The Federal Reserve is one of the biggest culprits, if not the biggest, behind the housing market boom and inevitable collapse of the housing boom specifically because of “interest rate modification”. You might want to actually take a look at the stats behind the Fed and how our dollar has fared since its inception.

    Actually I’ll save you the time of looking it up. It’s low. Low than ever thought possible at the time it was created.

    Interest Rate modification is just a different name for keeping the interest rate as low as possible in order to produce “wealth”. It’s not actually wealth, it’s a lie.

    Damn straight that’s what a real president does. The only real presidents are from Texas or have that cowboy look anyway.

  6. Descent Says:

    Relative to what, Zach? It’s value pegged to the gold standard? Rubles? Cabbages? You’ve provided no context or reference.

    And keeping interest rates low produces LESS wealth for the originator. That is if we understand interest to mean the price we pay for borrowing. If what you were saying was true then credit card companies wouldn’t be charging 22% interest.

  7. Zach Rock Says:

    Relative to consumer price index.

    Here:

    http://tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=082709A

    From 1776 to 1912 (136 years), the value of the dollar, relative to the Consumer Price Index, increased by 11%. A dollar could buy 11% more goods in 1912 than in 1776. Thus, if in 1776, you sat on your savings pile of $1,000,000 for 136 years, it would then be worth $1,110,000 in purchasing power (it will have appreciated in value by 11%). A loaf of bread for Thomas Jefferson cost the same as a loaf of bread for Lincoln 50 years later and again the same for J.P. Morgan 50 years after that.

    After the Fed’s creation, from 1913 to 2008 (95 years), the value of the dollar, relative to the Consumer Price Index, decreased by 95%. A dollar could buy 95% fewer goods in 2008 than in 1913. Thus, if in 1913, you sat on your savings pile of $1,000,000 for 95 years, it would then be worth only $50,000 in purchasing power (it will have depreciated in value by 95%). One would now need to pay about 20X more than J.P. Morgan for one’s bread. Ask my mother how much the price of milk has increased just in the last ten years alone

    Yes it produces a LOWER amount of wealth. However, when you push the interest rate down to a completely unrealistic amount of 1% you practically beg the speculators to come along and BOOST the amount of money in that system to completely unrealistic highs. Speculators are ususally fine and, because they have a purpose to serve, but when you add a falling market and massive speculation into a prime market with Adjustable Rate Mortgages, that default far easier than the subprimes, you have a complete receipe for disaster.

    Keep in mind that during this time the banks who made the loans packaged them into deals which they sold almost exculsively to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, huge government subsidies by the way, who in turn then packaged them with other parts of packaged deals to create a portfolio with divirsified interest. A huge portion of this money somewhere around the ball park, 80% I’m thinking but it’s probably higher, went to government agencies and that’s how they made their massive profits. Which I guess could bee seen as good until you add massive homebuilding that the home market can’t sustain with eventual collapse. So there you go. That’s how the Fed has operated so far under Greenspan and Bernanke.