CBO: Recovery Act Raised GDP and Lowered Unemployment but Effects Are 'Expected to Wane'

by: Ben Armbruster  |  ThinkProgress.org | news analysis

ABC News reports that the Congressional Budget Office this week released its latest report on the effects of the Recovery Act and found that it “raised the GDP, lowered unemployment, and increased the number of people with jobs.” According to the report, CBO estimates that the Recovery Act’s policies in the third quarter of the calendar year 2010 had the following effects (emphasis added):

  • They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent,
  • Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.8 percentage points and 2.0 percentage points,
  • Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.6 million, and,
  • Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 5.2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers).

At the same time however, the CBO said that the Recovery Act’s effects “on output peaked in the first half of 2010 and are now diminishing” and that its effect “on employment and unemployment are estimated to lag slightly behind the effects on output; they are expected to wane gradually beginning in the fourth quarter.” The Republican Study Committee and other GOP members of Congress picked up on this latter point on twitter today, presumably acknowledging that the Recovery Act did indeed have a positive impact on the economy? 

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



I've never been a fan of

I've never been a fan of this kind of esoteric analysis based on wild conjecture. Not the spread between 1.4 and 3.6 million jobs created or saved. Could be three times as many? Do these analysts bundle derivatives by chance?

I believe ZERO of these nonsensical conjectures.



Steve, what do you believe,

Steve, what do you believe, then? And what do you base it on?

I don't know how close these numbers are to reality, but the fact that they give ranges gives me more confidence in them than if they had just given specific numbers. It shows they at least tried to be objective, to base their conclusions on what they knew and on estimates for what they didn't know, and they tried to give a range to indicate their uncertainty.

In any case, the general gist of the article seems right to me. A stimulus is bound to have some effects like increasing employment and GDP above what they would have been, and it's bound to be temporary, especially if it isn't enough to push the economy "over the hump". Tax cuts for the wealthy, on the other hand, obviously will continue to not do any short or long term good for the economy while increasing the national debt, which is bad for the economy long-term.



"I've never been a fan of

"I've never been a fan of this kind of esoteric analysis based on wild conjecture."

If by "wild conjecture" you mean proven empirical statistical methods, then yes, it's "wild conjecture".

If you bothered to study statistics, even at the introductory level, you would know what a confidence interval is, and that this is the reason why the ranges are the way they are.

The variation is still concerning to me, but prove a positive effect. The theorems and equations used to produce confidence intervals are mathematically proven, and have been so for quite some time.



Moody's Analytics supports

Moody's Analytics supports the results reported by CBO. Without the Stimulus, the national unemployment figures would have been 11.5%.