Steve

I await proof from you that the situation is anything but that.

Don't see you offering any proof or your position. Put up or shut up.

You wrote:

Now if you want to say there is a failure of macroeconoimcs, thats probably right.

This is actually AS you defend your chart of unemployment without stimulus.

From wikipedia:

Macroeconomists study aggregated indicators such as GDP, unemployment rates, and price indices to understand how the whole economy functions.

You poor, dumb, SOB. Why don't you insult me again to make yourself even more of an ass.

If you believe NBER

funny thing about me is that I trust my own sensory receptors and I receptor a lot, lol.

I think my speculation that a nice load of 'lumbo had arrived is looking better and better.....

Don't post while drunk.

If you believe NBER, this recession started in December 2007, which does not actually coincide with the November 2006 election.

Thus spoke the nimrod. Jesus Odograph, you really are pathetic.

I'm reading matters this way: The stimulus as offered, is useless in terms of the stated goal of actually keeping the economy afloat, much less growing it.

Well of course you are Michelle. Ummm, Errr I mean Bithead...

I await proof from you that the situation is anything but that.

Um, were in a recession since the donkey's took Congress, then Zero the 666 gets in office and makes plans to spend 13,000,000,000,000 dollars on government jobs, buying banks, and giving car companies to the unions that drug them under.

If you believe NBER, this recession started in December 2007, which does not actually coincide with the November 2006 election.

Demand curves slope downwards with respect to price, upwards with respect to income (for normal goods) and so forth.

Only if you assume "all things being equal."

You can do some nice demand curves for gasoline, and then whoops "Arab Oil Embargo." Nimrod economists say "that's different, we get a do-over." Taleb says no, either you have a prediction that works or you don't. A predictive model with "do-overs" whenever you call them is infantile self-abuse.

Geoff at Innocent Bystanders notes that we are on path for unemployment as if there was no stimulus plan. Problem is there is a stimulus plan. So either the initial estimates of the effect of the recession, absent a stimulus plan, were overly optimistic, or the stimulus plan is providing no benefit at all.

Um, were in a recession since the donkey's took Congress, then Zero the 666 gets in office and makes plans to spend 13,000,000,000,000 dollars on government jobs, buying banks, and giving car companies to the unions that drug them under.

You do the math.

And your beef is with macro-economics, not econoimcs in general.

Spoken by a nimrod who just gave me a "unemployment without stimulus" chart.

Of course, the really interesting question is how a group of very intelligent people could allow themselves to become bewitched by an equation.

Well not really. I think it was the Allais Paradox that showed even top experts in their field will make "irrational" choices.

If you go to the link and look under experiment 1 you'll see that most people like gamble 1A over 1B, and that is usually because 1B has a 1% chance of winning nothing. Then under the second experiment they prefer 2B over 2A. In the first case that 1% of nothing moves people away from the better gamble, but a similar risk but with a bigger payout does not, hence a contradiction. Even top experts in this subject matter can be fooled at times.

Odograph,

It may come as a shock, but economics isn't about holding your hand in everything you do. The problems with making choices under uncertianty are well known and have been explained. That you think otherwise is your problem.

And your beef is with macro-economics, not econoimcs in general. Take for example your article point to Will Wilkinson's complaint about expectation reformulation...the rational way is via Bayes theorem. Problem is that that way is not how many people think. People routinely think P(A|B) = P(B|A). So there is a theory, but it doesn't work in general. People use short cuts and/or fail to understand how probabilities work. There are alternatives, but this is microeconomics stuff and it doesn't get into the macro literature. For example, there is prospect theory. Again the problem is how does it work in aggregate for an entire economy with actors utilizing prospect theory to make choices under uncertainty.

Now if you want to say there is a failure of macroeconoimcs, thats probably right. It is a field that has lots of work still to be done. However, areas like microeconomics are pretty well established. Demand curves slope downwards with respect to price, upwards with respect to income (for normal goods) and so forth.

Low statistical power ... but still good enough for a Verdon post.

See, you are talking out of your ass. It is macro theory you have your beef with.

I'm reading matters this way: The stimulus as offered, is useless in terms of the stated goal of actually keeping the economy afloat, much less growing it.

Well of course you are Michelle. Ummm, Errr I mean Bithead...