Economic Stimulus: Quit Smoking.

John Carson

Oakman wrote:

I think what I may have missed, but apparently you think you saw, was any claim by Harkin that Keynesian economic theory justified his proposal, Instead I responded to Harkin's explanation of why he'd inserted this measure into a bill that we are assured will have a payout inside of the next year.

You seem to be applying this "respond to what he actually said" principle very selectively. Harkin is not quoted in the article saying anything about "a payout inside of the next year". In any event, whether Harkin fully understands the rationale for the spending proposals is not central. You asked

That said, would someone like to explain to me why the so-called "economic stimulus package" (Senate version) contain fifty-fracking-seven million dollars to fund smoking cessation programs???

That is not quite the same as:

Please explain to me what Harkin was thinking

Harkin is acting within the context of a large spending package and the decision to have such a spending package has certainly been determined largely by Keynesian analysis.

Oakman wrote:

The funny thing is that Keynes was pretty much discredited thirty years ago, but somehow a bunch of New Keynesians have come crawling out of the woodwork.

Government spending as an all-purpose solution to any unemployment problem was certainly discredited (just as the last 8 years have discredited tax cuts as an all-purpose solution to economic problems), though it is hard to pin such a belief on Keynes himself anyway. Keynesians also took a few lumps over some more technical issues. However, a core of Keynesianism was never discredited and the resemblance of the current crisis to some aspects of the Great Depression has brought Keynesianism roaring back into fashion. This is not a matter of New Keynesians coming out of the woodwork. It is the general view of the economics profession.

Oakman wrote:

Although Keynes himself (in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money) advocated spending primarily on infrastructure as well as lowering interest rates, the New Keynesians are quite sure that simply inflating the money supply without necessarily creating value is enough. If I understand their - and your, argument correctly, the most efficient way of getting the economy going again would be to print up a bunch of 100 dollar bills, load th

VonHagNDaz

I found this a little funny being that it's Oboma's stimulus package and he is a smoker himself...

[Insert Witty Sig Here]

Dan Neely

And what part of politician + hypocrisy is even slightly out of the ordinary?

Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall

Oakman

John Carson wrote:

You seem to be applying this "respond to what he actually said" principle very selectively

You certainly aren't advocating promiscuity are you? I'm not that kind of a guy. Well, not any more, anyway. On a more serious note, I assumed that anyone who would respond would be familiar with the oft-repeated assurance of Harkin and his Party that this was a job-stimulating package. Surely having to reiterate the entire context of the American bailouts would have been a waste of bandwidth.

John Carson wrote:

That is not quite the same as: Please explain to me what Harkin was thinking

Of course it isn't. I went on to tell you what Harkin was thinking, as he, himself, had explained it. You seem to be quoting quite selectively, John, with little regard for context.

John Carson wrote:

It is the general view of the economics profession

I'm not sure that it is quite as prevalent as you think it is, nor do I see any signs that any theory of economics is as full of answers as its proponents claim. Indeed, while most economic theories can help to explain what has already happened, they all seem to fail miserably as prescriptions for economic ills. The Japanese government, for instance, tried to spend its way out of a recession in the 90's, and failed miserably.

John Carson wrote:

Keynesians have always argued, in opposition to the Monetarists, that, particularly in depressed conditions such as we have now, mere availability of money doesn't mean that people will spend it, which is why you need the goverment to actively buy things.

I am aware of the Keynesian antipathy to saving, however, I thought that was the role of banks - to turn savings into investments, i.e. allow people who need capital, to buy things. I expect you'll think that's terribly old fashioned of me.

John Carson wrote:

I don't find this argumentation about Keynes as a person particularly relevant,

I know what you mean. It's hard to know where placing ideas, or art, in context ends and ad hominem attacks begin. At the same time, the concept that the idea, or the art, is independent of its creator seems silly. I think it is worthwhile to note that Keynes espoused a number of views on the way society should work that are about as fa

Rob Graham

Fisticuffs wrote:

Given that CVD is the biggest all-cause killer/disabler in most of the Western world, it doesn't sound implausible that funding smoking cessation hard would decrease health care spending in the immediate future.

I think you have it backwards. Clearly smoking cessation will cause the former smokers to live longer and thus require health care services over a longer time. This will have the net effect of increasing the burden on health care services, while at the same time reducing the revenue to fund them that is obtained by the exorbitant tax on tobacco products that the former smokers no longer use. ;P

Rob Graham

Thought the above clearly tongue in cheek remark merited a 1-vote? Please log off and get a life. You are suffering from a chronic lack of any sense of humor.

Lost User

Absolutely - it's clear that for the sake of economic stimulus, smoking should be encouraged! :D

- F

Rob Graham

VonHagNDaz wrote:

it's Oboma's stimulus package

Actually, it's not. Pelosi and her team of mad spenders authored this piece of drek, and largely ignored Obama's request to avoid porking it up.

VonHagNDaz

if((Obama preelection != Pelosi) && (Obama postelection == Pelosi)) { American people == Duped } else { //Country still in the tank, who cares... }

[Insert Witty Sig Here]

Oakman

Even with two of us voting to balance, we only got you to 2.7, so it's a platinum. My guess it's our old friend, pseudonym67.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

Rob Graham

Yeah, he seems to be just blindly voting by the posters name rather than the post content. Like I said, the man needs to get a life.

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

Like I said, the man needs to get a life.

For some folks, that's easier said than done.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

Brady Kelly

Waaaaahhhn!

Brady Kelly

Oakman wrote:

less end-of-the-bell-curve people

:confused:

Oakman

Brady Kelly wrote:

:confused:

On the bell-curve of lifestyles, Keynes was way out on one end. Most folks would, of course, hang out in the center.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

Stan Shannon

Sounds kinda like an earmark to me.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

Sounds kinda like an earmark to me

Apparently the proviso has to state exactly who the recipient is.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.