The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog

The world has many wrongs, and many wars, but there's only one wrong Iraq war.

"A wrong war like during the Iraq war was cannot just be sitted idly by by." --The Proprietor

Saturday, February 20, 2010

The Results Are In: The Stimulus Made There Be ALOT Of Jobs (In The Future)

WHycome we know the stimulus worked you ask. Well we know on account of ANAYALSIS from STUDIE"S you jacass. STudie's from SMART people like Yggie

Which is how without further adieu here's a good blog post were Yggie show's a GRAPH (yes thats right dhingers ever try using graphs?).

Basically, it's a graph of how many jobs the Stimulus made in the future:



So you see, thats the answer to the question Did the Stimulus make jobs. Answer yes- in the future. Case closed. Tahts basically all the argument you need against someone who questions whether the Stimulus made jobs. It totally did (just look at that graph).

Where did Yggie get this he got it from Macroeconomic Advisor's. Thats how you know its solid right there. At first I was like skeptical. But then when I heard it was from Macroneconomic Advisors. Well I mean how can you argue with that. (Are you a Macroeconomic Advisor? Thought not). Furthermore, as Yggie points out, "all private sector forecasters" agree with it. ALL of them. Take the set of all Private Sector Forecasters. (i.e. People with the job title Private Sector Forecaster). ALL of the members of that set agree with the above graph, as far as Yggie can tell. Now thats what I call a impressive number/finding.

But Reputzi's(stupid/Palin) squint there eyes the don't understand the graph. To hard I guess. Ya I suppose if i was form like Alaska or Kansas me too would be it's hard to understand. So let me go over it slowly for the leiperson.

First, what Macroeconomic Advisors did (using study's/analysises/data/formula's) is, they figured out the baseline number of jobs that's going to exist in the future. That's, like, if there wasn't of been a Stimulus. How many jobs would there of been (in the future). So thats a basic starting point. Now this is a hypothetical concept because its counterfactual. So you can to calcalate it. But so that's what they did first, is calculated that number basicelly. Just the baseline.

Second (step 2), once they got hte baseline (which was probalby the easy part) is then they just calculated how many jobs there's really going to be in the future. Like in 2011 and 2012 and 2013 and so on. They got that number (from calculations.). With data.

Then they substracted them together and put it in a graph. That's basically a nutshell how they did it. Meaning that the Stimulus made those extra jobs (in the future). It's right there in the graph. Like if you want to know how many jobs the Stimulus made in 2011? You find 2011 on the x-axis. Then you take you're straightedge and perpendicularly aligned it with 2011 and find were it crosses the graph. Mark that with your felt tip. Then look across to the y-axis. That's how you can figure out how many jobs the Stimulus made in 2011. I get something above 2.4 millions which is a IMPRESSIVE NUMBER INDEED of jobs to have made. In the future.

See dhingers this is waht science is totallaly like. Maybe you should try it sometime guess not oh well have fun with yr tea bag's RFLO.

UPDATE: But its solemnly humbling when you thing about it. Just think. Because of the Stimulus, as we speak there's nearly 2.6 millions peoples who now can fell secure that they will have jobs that they weren't going to have without the Stimulus. (In around 2011-2012). Those people can sleep easy at night and have the Stimulus to thank. Because of teh graph.

7 Comments:

At 2/20/2010 4:37 PM, Blogger Trenton Powers-Mellencamp said...

There should be a graph showing how many Iraq people will be killed in the future because of Bushs war

 
At 2/20/2010 7:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thenk you meant to sey "bushes warS", there helpped you out...

Back to the graphs, yggie knows all. Anyway, I **TRUST** Obama, he is the knew president, he is the ruler. I beleive in Barock to do the write thing (I.E. HEATHCARE)

Passing heathcare = Jobs, DUH, DO IT!

-Donkey Boner

 
At 2/21/2010 7:13 AM, Blogger Andy said...

Does Yggie do dead people because of Bush war graphs? Or just good jobs graphs?

 
At 2/23/2010 1:13 PM, Blogger lukemcgook said...

Yggie's logic here is unsailable. Even if there *was* a PSF (Private Sector Forecaster) who refused to see how spending made there be (future) jobs, he would keep quiet as soon as he saw that graph. I read that Quantitative Display Book, and visual information is nearly always unsailable.

 
At 2/23/2010 6:46 PM, Blogger Anon. said...

It puzzles me that it trails off. The money put in to create jobs, creates more jobs, which in turn creates even more. It stimulates the economy. That's McKenzian economy 101. Why would those jobs unravel?? After all, each guy spending his $'s and starting the process, he's not anyone's boss, he's not at the top of the hierarchy and meanwhile more jobs have been created, starting the process anew.

Something's fishy about that graph. Unless the expect the baseline to drop sharply and consistently they're being too pessimistic.

Anon.

 
At 11/19/2010 12:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Stimulus Made There Be ALOT of Jobs (In the Future)? REEEAAALLY? I'm reading this, and you have some gall to call someone else a 'jacass'. A GRAPH, huh? Google the 2009 economic stimulus, and you should come up with the website that tries to explain where all of this money is going. $24 Billion went to the state of California, where the unemployment is at the highest rate in the nation. It states on that very website that this $24 Billion went to creat a whopping 74,000 jobs. It doesn't account for the 1.2 million jobs (bureau of labor statistics, yes even us republicans can read a graph) that were LOST in California. The economic stimulus has done NOTHING to help an already stagnant economy. Congress would have done better to give the $77 Trillion dollars directly to the American people (which translates into about $42,000 per taxpayer) which would have done more to stimulate an economy than paying for the savings of some multi-national corporations. Dude, if you can manage to peel your tounge off of your window for more than 2 seconds, take a deep breath. Get some oxygen to that drug addled brain of yours, and look, really look at what's happening in the economy. Not all "private sector forecasters" agree with this, as you'll find that the Professor Emeritus of the Harvard School of Economics is highly critical of this move; you can't borrow from Peter to pay Paul without some consequence. If you think that I'm a conservative, I'm not; I'm a moderate. And finally, it's Layperson, not Leiperson. A lei is what they give you when you visit Hawaii, you waste of skin.

 
At 11/19/2010 9:22 PM, Blogger Andy said...

Guess Anonymous told you, Trnton Powers Mellencamp!

If Harvard schools of economics says it, emerod professor says it's bad, then maybe it might be. Bad, I mean.

Just a side note here, and it really don't matter...but this post is 9 months old, and it's always funny to me when Mr. Anonymous comments on 9 month old posts. Especially when he tries to correct spellin', and graphatical errors...then spells "Republican" with a little "r."

Just sayin'...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on 
BlogShares Blog Directory & Search engine