Must spend more money...
-
I get paid in USD, which converts to AUD on the way to my bank. The dollar was at .62, and everyone was predicting .50. Which has occurred before. In the space of a week, we were up to .74 or so. So, as the USD drops in value, my wage in AUD drops, my wage in USD stays the same.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
I get paid in USD, which converts to AUD on the way to my bank. The dollar was at .62, and everyone was predicting .50. Which has occurred before. In the space of a week, we were up to .74 or so. So, as the USD drops in value, my wage in AUD drops, my wage in USD stays the same.
OK, but what happened is more a matter of a rise in the Australian dollar than a fall in the US dollar since the value of the US dollar did not fall nearly as much against most other currencies. From May 4 to May 12, the value of the Euro went from 1.32 to 1.36 US dollars. The movement in the Japanese Yen was similar. Exchange rates fluctuate and do so under multiple influences.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
1. One person's spending is another person's income. Whether the spender is productive or unproductive makes no difference in terms of the income benefit to the recipient.
That is proof of the economic insanity of these principles. The second person's income is being confiscated one way or another to give to the first person so that he can give it to the second person so that it can be confiscated to give to the first person. If no useful economic multiplyer is genrerated somewhere in that exchange, it is a cycle that must spiral in a donward direction. Sooner or later, the second person is going to have no income left to confiscate to give to the first person so that the second person can have an income that can be confiscated.
John Carson wrote:
2. Additional spending isn't always beneficial, but it is beneficial when the basic economic problem is a general lack of demand.
Wealth does not disappear just because it isn't being spent. If investments are respectec, it simply finds a different route into the economy based on the preferences of millions of individual people acting in their own self interest. If your principles were correct, why not just give the people who have money to spend a tax break for spending it? That is, for every ten dollars I spend, I get a ten dollar tax break on my taxes? Why wouldn't that stimulate the economy at least as well as the government giving it to ner-do-wells to spend?
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The second person's income is being confiscated one way or another to give to the first person so that he can give it to the second person so that it can be confiscated to give to the first person.
No, it is being borrowed. Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy. But when it breaks down, the government needs to step in to keep the thing functioning.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wealth does not disappear just because it isn't being spent.
No, but income does.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If your principles were correct, why not just give the people who have money to spend a tax break for spending it? That is, for every ten dollars I spend, I get a ten dollar tax break on my taxes? Why wouldn't that stimulate the economy at least as well as the government giving it to ner-do-wells to spend?
This whole "ner-do-wells" thing is largely cant. The recipients of government money are teachers, road workers, soldiers... But as to your main point, in principle tax breaks in return for spending could work. The difficulty is in the implementation. How is the government to know that you are spending $10 more than you otherwise would? In practice, the government typically gives tax breaks unconditionally, and the cut in taxes tends to be substantially more than the increase in spending that it induces. Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck, but the problem here is that a lot of programs (infrastructure etc.) take time to get started.
John Carson
-
I am certain that I make more in two months than you've ever made in a year. I am not hurting in the slightest, it's more of an inconvenience. The worst of it is 'I'd like to go to Europe and now maybe I'll go to Queensland'. But, I think we'll still go to Europe. Have you ever left Ohio ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
But, I think we'll still go to Europe.
When you are going? I have to go to Amsterdam again for work in July so rather than have a family holiday in the pacific as we'd been planning they're going to come with me and we'll have a few weeks traveling from Holland to France, Switzerland, Italy and possibly Monaco. Cant wait!
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The second person's income is being confiscated one way or another to give to the first person so that he can give it to the second person so that it can be confiscated to give to the first person.
No, it is being borrowed. Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy. But when it breaks down, the government needs to step in to keep the thing functioning.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wealth does not disappear just because it isn't being spent.
No, but income does.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If your principles were correct, why not just give the people who have money to spend a tax break for spending it? That is, for every ten dollars I spend, I get a ten dollar tax break on my taxes? Why wouldn't that stimulate the economy at least as well as the government giving it to ner-do-wells to spend?
This whole "ner-do-wells" thing is largely cant. The recipients of government money are teachers, road workers, soldiers... But as to your main point, in principle tax breaks in return for spending could work. The difficulty is in the implementation. How is the government to know that you are spending $10 more than you otherwise would? In practice, the government typically gives tax breaks unconditionally, and the cut in taxes tends to be substantially more than the increase in spending that it induces. Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck, but the problem here is that a lot of programs (infrastructure etc.) take time to get started.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy.
Forced borrowing is often referred to by other terms. But let that go; in this case, what we have is Obama borrowing but not promising to pay it back - instead, he's setting up a situation where kids now unable to vote, will find themselves on the hook for trillions of dollars. I have written him a note suggesting that rather than promising my kids' futures, he promise them yours. ;)
John Carson wrote:
Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck, but the problem here is that a lot of programs (infrastructure etc.) take time to get started.
Many years, in fact. It seems that much of our "stimulus" package will not be spent until 2011 or some not until 2012. Meanwhile our unemployment figures continue to hit new highs and no-one, anywhere in the states including any level of government, is pointing to a rash of new hires and saying, "See - this is because of the stimulus package!" Edit I forgot: there was one class of police cadets who were going to be let go instead of being offered jobs upon graduation, who, the mayor of some city or other said, were going to have jobs for at least a year because of the stimulus. /Edit
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
modified on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:02 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The second person's income is being confiscated one way or another to give to the first person so that he can give it to the second person so that it can be confiscated to give to the first person.
No, it is being borrowed. Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy. But when it breaks down, the government needs to step in to keep the thing functioning.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wealth does not disappear just because it isn't being spent.
No, but income does.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If your principles were correct, why not just give the people who have money to spend a tax break for spending it? That is, for every ten dollars I spend, I get a ten dollar tax break on my taxes? Why wouldn't that stimulate the economy at least as well as the government giving it to ner-do-wells to spend?
This whole "ner-do-wells" thing is largely cant. The recipients of government money are teachers, road workers, soldiers... But as to your main point, in principle tax breaks in return for spending could work. The difficulty is in the implementation. How is the government to know that you are spending $10 more than you otherwise would? In practice, the government typically gives tax breaks unconditionally, and the cut in taxes tends to be substantially more than the increase in spending that it induces. Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck, but the problem here is that a lot of programs (infrastructure etc.) take time to get started.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
No, it is being borrowed. Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy.
Or, as I said, confiscated. If it were being 'borrowed' person two would be charging interest for person one being allowed the priviledge of useing his wealth. Thats where the whole 'respect' for investment comes in at....
John Carson wrote:
No, but income does.
No, it just means someone has to actually do something productive to earn the investment rather than just having it handed to them for doing nothing. That is precisely what causes an economy to actually grow wealth.
John Carson wrote:
This whole "ner-do-wells" thing is largely cant. The recipients of government money are teachers, road workers, soldiers...
No, actually, they are mostly ner-do-wells. It is just that the economic inefficiency your princiles create force otherwise productive people into the same class as the ner-do-wells - which is really your goal, after all - make as many people as possible econommically dependent upon you so that you can control their culture from the center.
John Carson wrote:
But as to your main point, in principle tax breaks in return for spending could work. The difficulty is in the implementation. How is the government to know that you are spending $10 more than you otherwise would?
Keep your receipts. It isn't a matter of spending more, it is just a matter of spending. The more I spend, the more tax money I save, which gives me more money to spend. See? It is a perfect system.
John Carson wrote:
Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck
No, as a matter of fact, it does just the opposite. People spending and investing their own money in their own way gives the the biggist bang for the buck. Otherwise, the USSR would have won the cold war, and Cuba would be the richest nation on the planet.
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.
-
John Carson wrote:
Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy.
Forced borrowing is often referred to by other terms. But let that go; in this case, what we have is Obama borrowing but not promising to pay it back - instead, he's setting up a situation where kids now unable to vote, will find themselves on the hook for trillions of dollars. I have written him a note suggesting that rather than promising my kids' futures, he promise them yours. ;)
John Carson wrote:
Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck, but the problem here is that a lot of programs (infrastructure etc.) take time to get started.
Many years, in fact. It seems that much of our "stimulus" package will not be spent until 2011 or some not until 2012. Meanwhile our unemployment figures continue to hit new highs and no-one, anywhere in the states including any level of government, is pointing to a rash of new hires and saying, "See - this is because of the stimulus package!" Edit I forgot: there was one class of police cadets who were going to be let go instead of being offered jobs upon graduation, who, the mayor of some city or other said, were going to have jobs for at least a year because of the stimulus. /Edit
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
modified on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:02 PM
Oakman wrote:
Many years, in fact. It seems that much of our "stimulus" package will not be spent until 2011 or some not until 2012.
That in itself is not such a concern. Infrastructure projects, like software projects, take time to complete, some longer than others. You don't want bridges that only reach halfway across the river. The main issue is how long it takes to get projects started.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
Many years, in fact. It seems that much of our "stimulus" package will not be spent until 2011 or some not until 2012.
That in itself is not such a concern. Infrastructure projects, like software projects, take time to complete, some longer than others. You don't want bridges that only reach halfway across the river. The main issue is how long it takes to get projects started.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The main issue is how long it takes to get projects started.
I was referring to the first shovel in the dirt. However, I would also suggest that projects that need years of planning before being ready to make an economic impact hardly merit the sobriquet of "stimulus," however worthwhile someone may think them.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
No, it is being borrowed. Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy.
Or, as I said, confiscated. If it were being 'borrowed' person two would be charging interest for person one being allowed the priviledge of useing his wealth. Thats where the whole 'respect' for investment comes in at....
John Carson wrote:
No, but income does.
No, it just means someone has to actually do something productive to earn the investment rather than just having it handed to them for doing nothing. That is precisely what causes an economy to actually grow wealth.
John Carson wrote:
This whole "ner-do-wells" thing is largely cant. The recipients of government money are teachers, road workers, soldiers...
No, actually, they are mostly ner-do-wells. It is just that the economic inefficiency your princiles create force otherwise productive people into the same class as the ner-do-wells - which is really your goal, after all - make as many people as possible econommically dependent upon you so that you can control their culture from the center.
John Carson wrote:
But as to your main point, in principle tax breaks in return for spending could work. The difficulty is in the implementation. How is the government to know that you are spending $10 more than you otherwise would?
Keep your receipts. It isn't a matter of spending more, it is just a matter of spending. The more I spend, the more tax money I save, which gives me more money to spend. See? It is a perfect system.
John Carson wrote:
Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck
No, as a matter of fact, it does just the opposite. People spending and investing their own money in their own way gives the the biggist bang for the buck. Otherwise, the USSR would have won the cold war, and Cuba would be the richest nation on the planet.
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
People spending and investing their own money in their own way gives the the biggist bang for the buck. Otherwise, the USSR would have won the cold war, and Cuba would be the richest nation on the planet.
I wish I could agree, but it appears to me that soon China - with a very strongly managed economy however capitalist it may appear when dealing with the rest of the world, will soon be the richest nation on the planet. And Russia yet may regai n its lost ground. Wouldn't it be ironic if they decided to establish SDI?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
People spending and investing their own money in their own way gives the the biggist bang for the buck. Otherwise, the USSR would have won the cold war, and Cuba would be the richest nation on the planet.
I wish I could agree, but it appears to me that soon China - with a very strongly managed economy however capitalist it may appear when dealing with the rest of the world, will soon be the richest nation on the planet. And Russia yet may regai n its lost ground. Wouldn't it be ironic if they decided to establish SDI?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I wish I could agree, but it appears to me that soon China - with a very strongly managed economy however capitalist it may appear when dealing with the rest of the world, will soon be the richest nation on the planet. And Russia yet may regai n its lost ground. Wouldn't it be ironic if they decided to establish SDI?
They will only continue to grow as long as they become ever more capitalistic. If they don't, all the wealth we have pushed their way will evaporate. If they do become truly capitalistic, great! More power to them. Hell, I might move there to help them fight the evil American communists (I understand they are building a world class navy) If we could get government out of people's lives, we would have an explosion of wealth that no one could compete with.
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.
-
John Carson wrote:
No, it is being borrowed. Borrowing from person 2 so that person 1 can spend is a normal part of the functioning of the economy.
Or, as I said, confiscated. If it were being 'borrowed' person two would be charging interest for person one being allowed the priviledge of useing his wealth. Thats where the whole 'respect' for investment comes in at....
John Carson wrote:
No, but income does.
No, it just means someone has to actually do something productive to earn the investment rather than just having it handed to them for doing nothing. That is precisely what causes an economy to actually grow wealth.
John Carson wrote:
This whole "ner-do-wells" thing is largely cant. The recipients of government money are teachers, road workers, soldiers...
No, actually, they are mostly ner-do-wells. It is just that the economic inefficiency your princiles create force otherwise productive people into the same class as the ner-do-wells - which is really your goal, after all - make as many people as possible econommically dependent upon you so that you can control their culture from the center.
John Carson wrote:
But as to your main point, in principle tax breaks in return for spending could work. The difficulty is in the implementation. How is the government to know that you are spending $10 more than you otherwise would?
Keep your receipts. It isn't a matter of spending more, it is just a matter of spending. The more I spend, the more tax money I save, which gives me more money to spend. See? It is a perfect system.
John Carson wrote:
Direct government spending gives the most stimulus for the buck
No, as a matter of fact, it does just the opposite. People spending and investing their own money in their own way gives the the biggist bang for the buck. Otherwise, the USSR would have won the cold war, and Cuba would be the richest nation on the planet.
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Or, as I said, confiscated. If it were being 'borrowed' person two would be charging interest for person one being allowed the priviledge of useing his wealth.
The government does pay interest on its bonds. Didn't you know that?
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, it just means someone has to actually do something productive to earn the investment rather than just having it handed to them for doing nothing. That is precisely what causes an economy to actually grow wealth.
You are reciting dogma and ignoring the issue. If income is not spent, then income falls. That is basic national income accounting.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Keep your receipts. It isn't a matter of spending more, it is just a matter of spending. The more I spend, the more tax money I save, which gives me more money to spend. See? It is a perfect system.
People always spend. You can't give a tax credit for all of their spending. That would involve an insane level of the deficit (and, no, it is not the case that if deficit spending is good at some level, then it is a case of "the more the better"). And a partial credit (5 cents on the dollar, say) isn't much different in terms of its effect than an unconditional tax cut. Contrary to your claims, the issue is entirely one of spending more. Further, this "keep your receipts" thing is just moonshine. The amount of administation involved (for both the private and public sector) would be massive. No sane person would even think of such a policy as a short term economic management tool.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, as a matter of fact, it does just the opposite. People spending and investing their own money in their own way gives the the biggist bang for the buck.
Again, your remarks are non-responsive; you are just reciting dogma without attempting to address the issues. When we talk about "bang for the buck" in this context, we mean extra spending per dollar increase in the Federal deficit. Sure, it would be lovely if the private sector just increased their spending. The question is how to get them to do it. One way is tax cuts, but this gives a poor "bang for the buck". The extra spending is substantially less than the amount of the tax cut --- at least in the "first round" of effects.
Stan Shannon w
-
John Carson wrote:
general lack of demand.
So if a lack of demand for the products and services that people normally buy is the problem, how is the solution to spend money hiring more government workers and give out billions and billions to banks who are just going to stash it away or send it overseas going to help the economy?
Intel 4004 wrote:
So if a lack of demand for the products and services that people normally buy is the problem, how is the solution to spend money hiring more government workers and give out billions and billions to banks who are just going to stash it away or send it overseas going to help the economy?
1. It is one of two problems. The other problem is insolvent banks. 2. Hiring government workers gives them jobs and an income, which they spend on goods and services.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
The main issue is how long it takes to get projects started.
I was referring to the first shovel in the dirt. However, I would also suggest that projects that need years of planning before being ready to make an economic impact hardly merit the sobriquet of "stimulus," however worthwhile someone may think them.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I was referring to the first shovel in the dirt.
Are you sure? Or are you quoting newspaper reports from people who didn't make the distinction?
Oakman wrote:
However, I would also suggest that projects that need years of planning before being ready to make an economic impact hardly merit the sobriquet of "stimulus," however worthwhile someone may think them.
I agree.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
I wish I could agree, but it appears to me that soon China - with a very strongly managed economy however capitalist it may appear when dealing with the rest of the world, will soon be the richest nation on the planet. And Russia yet may regai n its lost ground. Wouldn't it be ironic if they decided to establish SDI?
They will only continue to grow as long as they become ever more capitalistic. If they don't, all the wealth we have pushed their way will evaporate. If they do become truly capitalistic, great! More power to them. Hell, I might move there to help them fight the evil American communists (I understand they are building a world class navy) If we could get government out of people's lives, we would have an explosion of wealth that no one could compete with.
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They will only continue to grow as long as they become ever more capitalistic.
Capitalism, as we both have acknowledged, serves Feudalism and Fascism as well as it does Democracies and Republics. However, I see no reason to believe that they will give up their particular brand of internal socialism/slavery for 90% and rip-roaring capitlism for 10% in the near future.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If we could get government out of people's lives
Careful, you neglected to use "central" as a modifier. What you posted is the kind of thing I would say.
Stan Shannon wrote:
we would have an explosion of wealth
I suspect that is not the only explosion we would have, but we already live in interesting times. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
I was referring to the first shovel in the dirt.
Are you sure? Or are you quoting newspaper reports from people who didn't make the distinction?
Oakman wrote:
However, I would also suggest that projects that need years of planning before being ready to make an economic impact hardly merit the sobriquet of "stimulus," however worthwhile someone may think them.
I agree.
John Carson
While I cannot cite chapter and verse, the reports I saw were specific about the start dates and the reasons for them. In many cases, it seems, the project was created in order to take advantage of the money flowing from Washington and there had been no more planning done that was necessary to write up a proposal. Whatever the theory is behind economic stimulus coming from the government - the practice is that corruption and greed will reign rampant. The government after much hoopla about their website where all will be able to track the stimulus as lit leaves Washington and heads for the hinterlands, has now admitted that at least another year will pass before it is ready and it is likely that it will never be tracked further down than the top two layers of bureacracy - since (they say) they do not have the power to compel the states to tell them what they are doing with the money.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Or, as I said, confiscated. If it were being 'borrowed' person two would be charging interest for person one being allowed the priviledge of useing his wealth.
The government does pay interest on its bonds. Didn't you know that?
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, it just means someone has to actually do something productive to earn the investment rather than just having it handed to them for doing nothing. That is precisely what causes an economy to actually grow wealth.
You are reciting dogma and ignoring the issue. If income is not spent, then income falls. That is basic national income accounting.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Keep your receipts. It isn't a matter of spending more, it is just a matter of spending. The more I spend, the more tax money I save, which gives me more money to spend. See? It is a perfect system.
People always spend. You can't give a tax credit for all of their spending. That would involve an insane level of the deficit (and, no, it is not the case that if deficit spending is good at some level, then it is a case of "the more the better"). And a partial credit (5 cents on the dollar, say) isn't much different in terms of its effect than an unconditional tax cut. Contrary to your claims, the issue is entirely one of spending more. Further, this "keep your receipts" thing is just moonshine. The amount of administation involved (for both the private and public sector) would be massive. No sane person would even think of such a policy as a short term economic management tool.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, as a matter of fact, it does just the opposite. People spending and investing their own money in their own way gives the the biggist bang for the buck.
Again, your remarks are non-responsive; you are just reciting dogma without attempting to address the issues. When we talk about "bang for the buck" in this context, we mean extra spending per dollar increase in the Federal deficit. Sure, it would be lovely if the private sector just increased their spending. The question is how to get them to do it. One way is tax cuts, but this gives a poor "bang for the buck". The extra spending is substantially less than the amount of the tax cut --- at least in the "first round" of effects.
Stan Shannon w
John Carson wrote:
You are reciting dogma and ignoring the issue. If income is not spent, then income falls. That is basic national income accounting.
Carson. Listen very carefully. An economy grows because people are productive and for no other reason. People who make things or do things that other people actually need is the only way to grow an economy. Sure, you can probably sustain an economy with any number of gimmicks but you cannot grow it. But when an economy wants to fail, it needs to be allowed to fail. It will all come roaring back of its own accord soon enough. There will simply be some short period of time when the grass roots decency of human nature will be required to hold things together socially, aided as necessary by a little extra vigilence from local law enforcement. And that is what you are really afraid of. You are horrified of the prospect of anything that proves that government control of the economy or the social agenda really isn't needed at all, by anyone, for any reason.
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.
-
John Carson wrote:
You are reciting dogma and ignoring the issue. If income is not spent, then income falls. That is basic national income accounting.
Carson. Listen very carefully. An economy grows because people are productive and for no other reason. People who make things or do things that other people actually need is the only way to grow an economy. Sure, you can probably sustain an economy with any number of gimmicks but you cannot grow it. But when an economy wants to fail, it needs to be allowed to fail. It will all come roaring back of its own accord soon enough. There will simply be some short period of time when the grass roots decency of human nature will be required to hold things together socially, aided as necessary by a little extra vigilence from local law enforcement. And that is what you are really afraid of. You are horrified of the prospect of anything that proves that government control of the economy or the social agenda really isn't needed at all, by anyone, for any reason.
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Carson. Listen very carefully. An economy grows because people are productive and for no other reason.
The US economy is currently contracting at an annual rate of around 6%. Have people become less productive? Have their skills deteriorated? Have their computers stopped working? Have trucks broken their axels? Have the assembly lines seized up? The current short-term economic decline has nothing to do with productivity and hence its reversal has nothing to do with productivity either.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But when an economy wants to fail, it needs to be allowed to fail.
Religious dogma.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And that is what you are really afraid of. You are horrified of the prospect of anything that proves that government control of the economy or the social agenda really isn't needed at all, by anyone, for any reason.
If you imagine that a deep recession/possible depression from which the economy recovered without active government intervention is somehow going to convince people of the benefits of the free market, then you are a loon. You may not care about the unemployment and lost output in the interim, but the public will. The real truth is that you fear a repeat of the Roosevelt experience; successful government intervention that set up support for expanded government activity for a couple of generations. The only thing that will stop your nightmare coming true is excessive tentativeness on the part of the Obama Administration in addressing the issue.
John Carson
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
So if a lack of demand for the products and services that people normally buy is the problem, how is the solution to spend money hiring more government workers and give out billions and billions to banks who are just going to stash it away or send it overseas going to help the economy?
1. It is one of two problems. The other problem is insolvent banks. 2. Hiring government workers gives them jobs and an income, which they spend on goods and services.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
1. It is one of two problems. The other problem is insolvent banks.
If the banks are insolvent then let them go down. Banks need to operate within specified boundaries to prevent them from becoming insolvent.
John Carson wrote:
2. Hiring government workers gives them jobs and an income, which they spend on goods and services.
There are two things wrong about this. More government workers is a sign of increased government and government spending. Increased government and spending is not the way to speed up the restructuring process of the economy. The economy is like the ecosystem in many ways, one thing you cannot do is somehow 'fix' the economy. The basic demand for money will force people to build new connections in the money supply lines. If they have a direct supply line from the government then that is how it will restructure which is not good.