Monday November 23, 2009 2:09 AM ET
SmartMoney
Comments

Story Comments

RSS RSS | Join the SmartMoney Twitter Community
The Stimulus Placebo Effect
How could anyone think this stimulus plan will help the economy?
 
You must be registered to use comments. Please login
User Comments
Posted by: rlthur
Remember this: When FDR took office in 1932, unemployment was at 27%. When we went to war (essentially at the start of 1942), unemployment was at 16%. Unemployment was reduced at the rate of 1% per year, despite all of the New Deal spending. While $1 trillion dollars sounds like a lot (my office calculator doesn't go that high!), it works out to $333 per person - I am not sure that will be sufficient to get the economy moving. I think 2 things need to occur. 1. The banks must start lending. By force if necessary. The real estate market is being strangled to death because 30% down is out of the reach of many people. 2. A better system than a board of directors needs to be instituted. This is a shabby "Old Boys (and now Women0 back scratching hogs at the trough" Vampire-ism that needs to stop. There is no one who deserves 20 million dollars. Period! Read of the ridiculous excesses in this weeks Economist. 1.2 million dollar remodel of one CEO's office at the end of last year, complete wi...(Read more of this comment)
Posted by: otis chandler
Tell me, has anyone tried to count the number of times that Luskin has been dead wrong? Wasn't he advising everyone to throw good money after bad into the stock market all through 2008, directing scorn at those who advised caution? Didn't he announce time after time that the downturn was over,kaput, finished? Has he ever admitted his horrendous errors, his dreadful judgements, his record of almost always being wrong?

At one level you have to admire a guy with his level of denial and arrogance. I guess that's what makes a Wall Streeter.
Daniel4012 SmartMoney Insiders
1 Comments
From what I have read elsewhere, the stimulus package appears to be a payback to thiose who put the Democrats back in pwere.

The stimulus package is likely to be an inefficient way to get the economy moving; too many regulations already in place that few will want to sidestep.

Tax cuts can occur in the next paycheck, IRS just reduces the cut from your check. That's money that is then readily available for spending, a very efficient process. Some people will spend it on food, spme to pay off debt, some to buy a car or computer, some to buy marijuana and cocaine, some to give to charity and some to build mansions. Billions of dollars will be available next week for consumer/voters to spend in the way they best choose, whether they voted for Democrats or Republicans.

Tax cuts seem to be more fair than a stimulus package.

Posted by: W.M.
Several hundred economists and counting, including Nobel laureates, have signed on in opposition to the stimulus plan:

http://www.cato.org/fiscalreality

Despite all the noise from certain liberal academics about the necessity of Keynesian spending, most economists know that such a plan is not only not necessary, but it is actually dangerous and will make things worse.

Stiglitz & Co. are leftist hacks. They are in favor of any redistribution-of-wealth plan by the very fact that it involves redistribution of wealth. They have been shilling endlessly for socialization schemes, as long as I can remember. They pat each other on the back with rewards and positions for promoting the leftist ideology in the economics profession. Frankly, they have had too much influence for too long, and I am enjoying how they are getting more and more marginalized as time goes by. Convincing people they can get something for nothing is a hard sell, and you can't fool all the people ...(Read more of this comment)
Posted by: MarkASadowski
Does anyone think this stimulus will work? Yes, 387 economists signed a letter urging one including three Nobel laureates: Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Solow, and George Akerlof.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/Economists_letter_2008_11_19.pdf

Since putting out an appeal for "credentialed" economists opposing a stimulus, John Boehner has managed to come up with a list of 34 economists. It is distinguished by their lack of distinction. In particular Donald Luskin is second on the list, although being a college drop-out he has no credentials:

http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/stimulusskeptics.pdf

In fact here is what Brad delong has to say about this pathetic list:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/01/stupidest-party-alivetm.html

And here is what Donald Luskin had to say the day before Lehman Brothers went under:

"This would suggest that anyone who says we're in a recession, or heading into one -- especia...(Read more of this comment)
dennisl59 SmartMoney Insiders
3 Comments
'If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.'
Posted by: kbarnld
I started to read Mr. Luskin's article (re: The Stimulus Placebo Effect). Then I remembered he was the author of the totally misguided piece of January 2 in which he argued that the Recession had ended, that giant banks "stopped blowing up". Hint for the author: he and others also dictate that the stock markets recover before the general economy does, so after equities had their worst January on record, where are we now Mr. Luskin? Maybe after two more quarters of GDP contraction and another million-plus jobs lost, reality will find its way back into his thinking and writing.

K. Arnold
Fairfax, VA
vernhuffer SmartMoney Insiders
81 Comments
Just whose taxes would be cut? CEO's with multi-million dollar bonuses? The clueless heirs whose great grandfathers built empires in another gilded age? How will the tax cut money be spent? On energy guzzling macmansions, limos and Hummers? Villas on the Med? Deposited in off shore banks?

The public infrastructure right here has decades of deferred maintenance. Economists agree that that money needs to be spent better that it give the most people the benefit.
Posted by: othoschild
The only reason this article could be written, as well as some of the comments with it, without getting rode out of town on a rail...is that most of the Great Generation are gone. Revisionist history/economics like the BS in the article are nothing but the fatally flawed thinkning of the Hoover administration being reborn like a Frankenstein monster.
Posted by: ekz904
Thanx for not drinking the Kool-Aid.
Posted by: 2291bvde
It is WRONG to tell America that this means job creation. Only lowering taxes so businesses can plan into the future will create jobs, not handing people money. This precedes the excuse to raise taxes to pay for all this. How do think FDR funded his loser New Deal? When Coolidge left offce the top tax rate was 20%. When Pearl Harbor was attacked the top tax rate was 70%. This "stimulus package" will be the worst hamstring pull in history...
Posted by: selmer6player
The president has already achieved the most important element of an economic recovery by engaging full time in monitoring and managing the economy, and restoring consumer and investor confidence. In fact, the biggest problem now is managing our expectations about what the stimulus plan can achieve. A positive outlook on the future is the single most important ingredient of a recovery. If businesses expect future conditions to worsen they may lay off workers even before there is a reason to do so. Likewise, if consumers are insecure about the future, they may stop spending altogether. The ultimate effect could be a downward spiral of expectations that lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Posted by: Rotz123
the president HAS to spend his way out of this recession. That's part of what got him voted in. Everybody knew what he was going to do, and the people voted him in. Let him do what the people want. besides, our chidren are already doomed to be saddled with a mountain of debt given to us by presidents like Reagan, and Bush. Why can't Obama do the same?

I would gladly endure some long term pain if it meant saving my daughter some pain in the future. Unfortunately, I think that's what we need, but that's not a popular opinion.
Posted by: mnt111
You should continue to disagree with Luskin.

He continues to follow the doctrine that tax cuts alone will provide a stimulus to the economy. Isn't that what ex-President Bush has done for years? Isn't that what turned a budget surplus into a huge budget deficit?

Perhaps when his job is finally eliminated, then perhaps he'll believe in the severity of this market. After all, we are witnessing the largest lost of jobs since 1939. That doesn't seem to phase him, so just eliminate his job and then maybe he'll become a believer; standing in the unemployment line.
Posted by: richpete2
For the last year or so, I've just assumed I would disagree with any new article Luskin wrote. He was dead wrong telling us all to buy stocks as the market was crashing. I do agree with him on this point though. Obama's stimulus package is a road to the poor house for future generations. I'm glad I don't have any children as I'd hate to leave them saddled with the debt we have created.
BackType
Comments From Around the Web
Posted by: jim on Sadly, No!

How on Earth can this ass-whuppin’ post not even get 100 comments while those other sluttier posts get way more? These threads are being rigged … by ACORN! Wake Up sheeple!!1!1!@!

Posted by: Shklovsky on Sadly, No!

My god, did you drop some Sugarhill AND 9353 in the same column? A man of parts!

Posted by: Dr.BDH on Sadly, No!

Sadly, there are people who read Smart Money for financial advice. It’s not like Luskin only wrote for The Washington Times or The Weekly Standard. “Smart” Money put this idiot in print month after excruciatingly wrong month. And that was after he revealed what an ignorant fool he was by going up against Krugman and being completely discredited. I recommend you submit this to Dumb Monkey as a cover story on how not to report on the economy. They owe to their readers.

Posted by: tatateeta on Sadly, No!

Wow! This guy Luskin is a whack job.

Posted by: sukabi on Sadly, No!

after watching a clip of the CNBC financial brain trust interviewing Roubini and Nassim the other day, I wasn’t sure if your portrayal of Luskins “advice” was satire or not… looks like you took a serious look at what passes for “expert advice”… you sir, have done the country a service.

Posted by: dex on Sadly, No!

this post? this post, genius. thank you for the genius post.

Posted by: protected static on Sadly, No!

Too bad you can't ask the Chicago City Comptroller Coalition Provisional Authority about that… WordPress willing, FTFY Just remember: pallets of bills, totally unaccounted for. C-5s full of cash.

Posted by: int argc on Sadly, No!

Is this the same Donald Luskin that engaged in a several-years-long war of attrition with the Light Blue Satan, resulting in several hilariously futile attempts to out the notorious Atrios? Because if he is the same person, I didn’t think, until reading this post, that he could be more thoroughly punked. Bravo.

Posted by: Daverz on Sadly, No!

The only way I can explain Luskin getting a forum anywhere is that there really is a conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid.

Posted by: Gore Vidal Sassoon on Sadly, No!

It’ll be a recession in a couple of months when they can pin it on Obama with a straight face.

Posted by: OB-GYN Kenobi on Sadly, No!

I suspect that if they have been listening to him. they likely can't afford the rope. I believe justme has won the thread.

Posted by: henry lewis on Sadly, No!

I dunno about this bold thing. Every comment looks like a stern e-mail.

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© on Sadly, No!

owlbear1 said, February 11, 2009 at 12:06 Who the f!*k is Luskin's audience? Why haven't they lynched him yet?His audience is the usual dupes of the Church of Free Market Triumphalism.

Posted by: jim on Sadly, No!

Yeah, he’s dead-on about this being a great time to buy stocks - if you get the ones with all the ornate lettering & fancy-ass graphics, I hear they make real pretty wallpaper. Donald Luskin is the Bill Kristol of Wall Street!

Posted by: owlbear1 on Sadly, No!

Who the f!*k is Luskin’s audience? Why haven’t they lynched him yet?

Posted by: justme on Sadly, No!

how about rainbow toe socks and short pants.I’d prefer not to have to remove my eyes with an impromptu spork. I suppose the double wetsuit reference goes here.

Posted by: Lesley on Sadly, No!

I'd love to see this clown in stocks. If stocks aren’t possible, how about rainbow toe socks and short pants. Every day for the rest of his life.

Posted by: Lesley on Sadly, No!

I wish I could be wrong so often and still keep my job. Heh, that would be sweet. Try the Securities Exchange Commission. They prize incompetence almost as much as moral bankruptcy.

Posted by: Snorghagen on Sadly, No!

Holy s!*t. Somebody pays this guy to write columns?Amazing, isn’t it? And he gets away with it, year after year. He’s turned being a moron into a lucrative career.

Posted by: Smut Clyde on Sadly, No!

In fact, you'd think it had fallen into a boiling hot volcano. That's how empty you'd think that glass was. Empty? You call that ‘empty’? When I were a lad, we had glasses that were so empty that we had to hold them under a running tap for 20 minutes just to get the sides wet. But you didn’t hear us complaining, mainly because our throats were too dry.

Posted by: justme on Sadly, No!

I’d love to see this clown in stocks. I think we really need to bring those back. The wooden ones with holes for the wrists and neck, that is. If we as a nation invested in that sort of stocks, heavily, like lining the National Mall with them, and made them the punishment for being a media asshat who is always wrong, we’d be waaaaaayyyyyyy better off. Oh, yeah. They get to be the sentence for douchenozzle politicians, too. Baskets of rotting veggies for all! Sigh. Sweet reverie, a man can dream, can he not?

Posted by: CNBC on Sadly, No!

Based on this story, I’m investing in d!*k commodities. Oh wait, we already have a surplus. Maybe if we package Kudlow with Deutsch we can make a couple of worthless commodities look like a good deal. I better get the team on this. Bulls Away!

Posted by: M. Bouffant on Sadly, No!

Corporate executive is another possibility.

Posted by: Grace Nearing on Sadly, No!

I wish I could be wrong so often and still keep my job. Heh, that would be sweet. Well, the trick is to pick a job for which there is no pesky oversight board like, say, the American Bar Association; or one in which you may inadvertently kill your clients, like medicine, and then have to face litigious family members; or rat catcher, where if you kick back too long the rats start nibbling your toes; or bus driver or airplane pilot, where your miscalculations not only are going to get you maimed or killed but also wind up on the evening news. So that pretty much leaves politician and media personality.

Posted by: M. Bouffant on Sadly, No!

As long as Mr. Luskin is getting his commission, the best time to buy stock is now, as well as tomorrow, also.

Advertisements