Whole Reason

Hi Daniel: The graph you posted misleads. The “without the stumulus” graph came from the average prediction of private sector economists who didn’t know the economy was as sick as it turned out to be (Krugman warned that this might be the case at the time). What the graph does show is that the stimulus was not EXPECTED to turn the economy around instantaneously, with the biggest difference between WITH and WITHOUT stimulus coming in late in 2010. Since the economy was worse that the private sector economists thought, it appears that Krugman might have been right that the stimulus was too small.
your friend
Keith

Those blue lines are provided by the OBAMA administration. The red is simply tracking the facts.
OBAMA promised that unemployment would hit 9% unless we quickly pushed through the giant pork laden, crony payoff, generational theft stimulus.
Good thing he never said the following:
BARACK OBAMA: …When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them.
RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!
BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.
Oh… wait… well he might have actually said that…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnYnIDX0Eg
By the way, the Krugman bit is the fallacy of begging the question. "We need to spend spend spend spend to stimulate the economy! Not working? We must not have spent enough!"

I know, Obama is looking like the total liar/hypocrite by trying to push his pork bills through before his honeymoon popularity wears off and people see how his policies are going to make things much worse rather than better.
And I totally agree with your description: "pork laden, crony payoff, generational theft stimulus", except you forgot "liberal social engingeering"

hi James:
Obama GOT the blue lines by assuming the average private sector prediction for WITHOUT STIMULUS and calculating by using standard estimates for the multiplier effect to calculate the WITH STIMULUS graph. The real graph drawn reflects the fact that the economy was sicker than the private economists thought. If Obama had used the most pessimistic WITHOUT STIMULUS estimates (closer to the way things worked out) his WITH STIMULUS blue line would have been higher than the one he produced. The proper comparison is the DIFFERENCE between the blue lines, not the absolute values of the blue lines.
your friend
keith

Oh, and massive experiment.
I will grant you that Keith, all day long. Here's something I would find very interesting, and perhaps you can help find it. Are there any Keynesian economists who more accurately predicted the "stickier economy" and the effect of a stimulus that was not "large enough?" You mention Krugman, I know that he pontificated after the appearant failure of the stimulus, but did he do so before hand? Any others? And why was he ignored by Obama if so?
On the flip side, I wonder if you've examined any of the evidence that corrolates the "sticker economy" to fears of the articulated Obama policy? Things such as charts and graphs showing market reactions to public statements by likely-democratic candidate Obama, democratic candidate Obama, likely President-elect Obama, President-elect Obama, and President Obama, and then more recently, gains on the stock market tied to walk backs on these policy initiatives that are stalling (cap and trade, health care). If so, what do you think, if not, I'd love it if you looked and shared your thoughts.