Moody's Analytics - Clinton Will Create 10.4 Million Jobs

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/moo...would-create-10-4-million-jobs-in-four-years/

Moody's looked at what would happen if her plans were fully or partially implemented through the year 2026. Some of it is standard fare: it found that her proposals to spend government resources on infrastructure would stimulate the economy and that financing the spending by levying more taxes on the wealthy would not have a significant economic impact. It also warned of a minimal negative effect on jobs stemming from her call for a higher minimum wage (although there is good evidence that the economy can swallow minimum wage increases without significant job losses).
But the economy would also benefit greatly, according to Moody's, from more unique aspects of Clinton's agenda.

-----

Trump's plans are heavy of large tax cuts for the wealthy and massive deficits. Clinton's plans aims at Working Americans.

 

[barbos]

And we should trust Moody's analysis, why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis

 

[dismal]

And we should trust Moody's analysis, why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis

We seem to like Moody's here when it says what we want to hear.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well,what are the flaws in the analysis? I get that it's hip amongst the kids these days to dismiss things due to where they came from as opposed to due to what they say, but is it a bad study due to how it was done or due to the face that Moody's did it?

 

[barbos]

Well,what are the flaws in the analysis? I get that it's hip amongst the kids these days to dismiss things due to where they came from as opposed to due to what they say, but is it a bad study due to how it was done or due to the face that Moody's did it?

For starters there is no analysis to read, they forgot to publish it or something.

 

[dismal]

Well,what are the flaws in the analysis? I get that it's hip amongst the kids these days to dismiss things due to where they came from as opposed to due to what they say, but is it a bad study due to how it was done or due to the face that Moody's did it?

The flaw is in the very basic idea that Moody's has a black box that accurately tells us how various policies affect the economy.

Do you actually believe Moody's has solved the economy?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Well,what are the flaws in the analysis? I get that it's hip amongst the kids these days to dismiss things due to where they came from as opposed to due to what they say, but is it a bad study due to how it was done or due to the face that Moody's did it?

The flaw is in the very basic idea that Moody's has a black box that accurately tells us how various policies affect the economy.

Do you actually believe Moody's has solved the economy?

Has anyone?

 

[dismal]

The flaw is in the very basic idea that Moody's has a black box that accurately tells us how various policies affect the economy.

Do you actually believe Moody's has solved the economy?

Has anyone?

I don't know that anyone has.

Certainly if someone claims they have solved the economy, and managed to reduce it to a few sliders to be tweaked, we should question it.

 

[untermensche]

The way you create jobs is to put more money into the hands of people that will spend it.

You don't do it by putting more money into the hands of the most rich and reducing government services, Republican economics since Reagan, and no reason to think Trump will be different.

Raising wages for workers and government programs to reduce the costs of workers, like day care, and lower tuition, and universal heath insurance is how you create jobs.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Over 10 years how many jobs would be added anyway?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tristan Scott]

The way you create jobs is to put more money into the hands of people that will spend it.

You don't do it by putting more money into the hands of the most rich and reducing government services, Republican economics since Reagan, and no reason to think Trump will be different.

Raising wages for workers and government programs to reduce the costs of workers, like day care, and lower tuition, and universal heath insurance is how you create jobs.

This is true-things started falling apart for the middle class when we got away from progressive taxation in the 80s. There was a reason for progressive taxation and that was wealth distribution. It was republican propaganda made many believe that the old system was riddled with "loop holes", when in reality these were targeted loop hole designed to distribute the wealth more evenly.

As to the Moody Analytics report Forbes has a more in depth analysis:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi2wOT2wKDOAhUE12MKHf3xBJoQqQIIKjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fmaggiemcgrath%2F2016%2F07%2F29%2Fmoodys-where-trumps-economic-policies-might-spark-recession-clintons-could-boost-gdp-and-lower-unemployment%2F&usg=AFQjCNEVa37u9PCRMFfnw4inpeS2HPmpEA&sig2=Z-NocSB0kLKV_Hbk8DC-3Q&bvm=bv.128617741,d.cGc

 

[untermensche]

The way you create jobs is to put more money into the hands of people that will spend it.

You don't do it by putting more money into the hands of the most rich and reducing government services, Republican economics since Reagan, and no reason to think Trump will be different.

Raising wages for workers and government programs to reduce the costs of workers, like day care, and lower tuition, and universal heath insurance is how you create jobs.

This is true-things started falling apart for the middle class when we got away from progressive taxation in the 80s. There was a reason for progressive taxation and that was wealth distribution. It was republican propaganda made many believe that the old system was riddled with "loop holes", when in reality these were targeted loop hole designed to distribute the wealth more evenly.

As to the Moody Analytics report Forbes has a more in depth analysis:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi2wOT2wKDOAhUE12MKHf3xBJoQqQIIKjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fmaggiemcgrath%2F2016%2F07%2F29%2Fmoodys-where-trumps-economic-policies-might-spark-recession-clintons-could-boost-gdp-and-lower-unemployment%2F&usg=AFQjCNEVa37u9PCRMFfnw4inpeS2HPmpEA&sig2=Z-NocSB0kLKV_Hbk8DC-3Q&bvm=bv.128617741,d.cGc

I think the salient point is that Trump is not going to do anything that will increase jobs. He will promise that reducing taxes of the rich will create jobs but that's a proven lie.

Clinton might.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Hard to say. Under Bush unemployment hit a high of 10%. Under Clinton it dropped to just below 4% Policies matter but the economic condition may affect things no matter your policies. Would Trump's massive deficits damage the economy and employment? Surely yes, but how much is hard to quantify.

 

[dismal]

Hard to say. Under Bush unemployment hit a high of 10%. Under Clinton it dropped to just below 4% Policies matter but the economic condition may affect things no matter your policies. Would Trump's massive deficits damage the economy and employment? Surely yes, but how much is hard to quantify.

Wait, I thought deficits were supposed to be good for the economy.

Does the Moody's model say they are bad now?

 

[barbos]

The way you create jobs is to put more money into the hands of people that will spend it.

You don't do it by putting more money into the hands of the most rich and reducing government services, Republican economics since Reagan, and no reason to think Trump will be different.

Raising wages for workers and government programs to reduce the costs of workers, like day care, and lower tuition, and universal heath insurance is how you create jobs.

This is true-things started falling apart for the middle class when we got away from progressive taxation in the 80s. There was a reason for progressive taxation and that was wealth distribution. It was republican propaganda made many believe that the old system was riddled with "loop holes", when in reality these were targeted loop hole designed to distribute the wealth more evenly.

As to the Moody Analytics report Forbes has a more in depth analysis:

Correlation != causation. Things started to get apart with China becoming capitalist county.

 

[Trausti]

This is true-things started falling apart for the middle class when we got away from progressive taxation in the 80s. There was a reason for progressive taxation and that was wealth distribution. It was republican propaganda made many believe that the old system was riddled with "loop holes", when in reality these were targeted loop hole designed to distribute the wealth more evenly.

As to the Moody Analytics report Forbes has a more in depth analysis:

Correlation != causation. Things started to get apart with China becoming capitalist county.

Yeah, let's just skip over the high taxation and malaise of the 1970's.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Correlation != causation. Things started to get apart with China becoming capitalist county.

Yeah, let's just skip over the high taxation and malaise of the 1970's.

Can we skip over to the higher taxation and unprecedented peacetime economic boom of the 90's?

I'm not a fan of long-term economic projections. They have an accuracy rating somewhere between Ouija boards and Astrology. Trump's plan is to change a tax code law and then trillions of dollars will just flood our economy and invest in our ~'crumbling infrastructure', as if private equity is involved in public infrastructure. I can at least see how Clinton's plan can work. Trump's plan is based on right-wing Ayn Rand fan-fic.

 

[Elixir]

Yeah, let's just skip over the high taxation and malaise of the 1970's.

Can we skip over to the higher taxation and unprecedented peacetime economic boom of the 90's?

Well, we HAVE to. It doesn't fit with the neo-con narrative!

 

[Trausti]

Yeah, let's just skip over the high taxation and malaise of the 1970's.

Can we skip over to the higher taxation and unprecedented peacetime economic boom of the 90's?

I'm not a fan of long-term economic projections. They have an accuracy rating somewhere between Ouija boards and Astrology. Trump's plan is to change a tax code law and then trillions of dollars will just flood our economy and invest in our ~'crumbling infrastructure', as if private equity is involved in public infrastructure. I can at least see how Clinton's plan can work. Trump's plan is based on right-wing Ayn Rand fan-fic.

Comparing '70's taxation to '90's taxation is apples and oranges. Plus, the success of any tax plan depends on the overall economy. Taxing yourself to prosperity is just silly talk. The 90's benefited greatly from the dot-com boom.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Correlation != causation. Things started to get apart with China becoming capitalist county.

Yeah, let's just skip over the high taxation and malaise of the 1970's.

The seventies was all about inflation, Nixon's disastrous wage/price freeze, and Jimmy Carter's inability to work with his own congress. The Nineties prospered in part because of the dot com wave, but also because we cut the deficit, which freed up capital, but even that prosperity did little to help the middle class. That can only be fixed by a redistribution of wealth. To deny that is to deny economic history-we were in the same boat in the early twentieth century: most of the nation's wealth was controlled by only a few people. That was why progressive income tax was instituted in the first place. To redistribute the wealth.