Economy Stimulus - Buy!
Napoleon
stimulate the economy out of a recession? Since when have Americans no
longer been considered "citizens" and are now just consumers?
How is it that 300 bucks in the hands of low-income, middle-income and
basically most Americans, is going to translate into jobs that are
not outsourced, universal health care, businesses actually
manufacturing goods, technology actually looking into alternative
fuels, property taxes going down or being eliminated, etc, etc.
It's not. Remember when the "War for freedom for all repressed
regimes, oops just Iraq" was first waged and Americans were all
advised to shop til you drop! Shouldn't Americans have conserved
energy, and goods and been willing to pay more taxes instead? Of
course.
But Americans are no longer people who live meaningful lives. They are
only consumers of cheap foreign goods. Reminds me of the Roman empire,
before its collapse.
-N
Rod Speed
> Enlighten me.
Not even possible.
> How is a tax rebate check of the 300 dollars going
> to stimulate the economy out of a recession?
Because most spend that rebate and even someone as stupid as
you should have noticed that that has an effect on the economy.
> Since when have Americans no longer been
> considered "citizens" and are now just consumers?
About the same time you spent your entire 'life' with your dick in your hand.
> How is it that 300 bucks in the hands of low-income, middle-income and basically
> most Americans, is going to translate into jobs that are not outsourced,
Many jobs cant be outsourced. Pizzas are just a tad cold when they come from India or Mexico.
> universal health care,
That $300 has nothing to do with universal health care.
> businesses actually manufacturing goods,
Any modern first world economy is always about a hell of a lot more than just manufacturing goods.
> technology actually looking into alternative fuels,
> property taxes going down or being eliminated, etc, etc.
It isnt even possible to fix all the world's problems with $300 per taxpayer, stupid.
> It's not.
Must be one of those rocket scientist mindless eejuts.
> Remember when the "War for freedom for all repressed regimes, oops just Iraq"
Another bare faced lie. Pity about Afghanistan.
> was first waged and Americans were all advised to shop til you drop!
Another bare faced lie.
> Shouldn't Americans have conserved energy, and
> goods and been willing to pay more taxes instead?
Nope.
> Of course.
Nope, the congress would never have bought that.
> But Americans are no longer people who live meaningful lives.
> They are only consumers of cheap foreign goods.
Any modern first world economy is always about a hell of a lot more than just goods.
> Reminds me of the Roman empire, before its collapse.
More fool you. Nothing like the roman empire before its collapse.
And the modern first world aint about to collapse like the roman empire did either.
Its actually the alternatives that have been collapsing very spectacularly indeed, stupid.
clams_casino
>Enlighten me. How is a tax rebate check of the 300 dollars going to
>stimulate the economy out of a recession? Since when have Americans no
>longer been considered "citizens" and are now just consumers?
>
>How is it that 300 bucks in the hands of low-income, middle-income and
>basically most Americans, is going to translate into jobs that are
>not outsourced, universal health care, businesses actually
>manufacturing goods, technology actually looking into alternative
>fuels, property taxes going down or being eliminated, etc, etc.
>
>
The lower income group will likely spend it immediately, thinking it's a
gift which is excellent for stimulating buying / demand.
The upper income groups will simply save the money or pay down debt (as
a clear majority did with GW's 2001 tax rebate) which has minimal / no
effect at improving the economy / increasing demand.
George Grapman
clams_casino
which is why the best approach is to save the money since it will
eventually be recalled, with interest (via higher than would
need-to-be taxes).
timeOday
My guess is we'll be repaying through inflation rather than taxes, since
people think taxes are evil and govt. services should be free. So
instead we'll just print more and more dollars, forcing the stock market
indices to continue rising (measured of course in dollars of diminishing
value).
timeOday
Here's another link on inflation as a tax.
<http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/benson061804.html>
I just find this "economic stimulus plan" absurd, since it's the same
policy (namely, deficit spending) that caused the problem in the first
place. It's simply a way to delay the pain onto future politicians.
The final chapter in Reagan's legacy cannot be written until the the
full repercussions of "buy now, pay later" govt. economic policy take
root, and are recognized by the voting public.
Rod Speed
> timeOday wrote
>> clams_casino wrote
>>> George Grapman wrote
>>>> clams_casino wrote
>>>>> Napoleon wrote
>>>>>> Enlighten me. How is a tax rebate check of the 300 dollars going
>>>>>> to stimulate the economy out of a recession? Since when have
>>>>>> Americans no longer been considered "citizens" and are now just
>>>>>> consumers?
>>>>>> How is it that 300 bucks in the hands of low-income,
>>>>>> middle-income and basically most Americans, is going to
>>>>>> translate into jobs that are not outsourced, universal health
>>>>>> care, businesses actually manufacturing goods, technology
>>>>>> actually looking into alternative fuels, property taxes going
>>>>>> down or being eliminated, etc, etc.
>>>>> The lower income group will likely spend it immediately, thinking
>>>>> it's a gift which is excellent for stimulating buying / demand.
>>>>> The upper income groups will simply save the money or pay down
>>>>> debt (as a clear majority did with GW's 2001 tax rebate) which has
>>>>> minimal / no effect at improving the economy / increasing demand.
>>>> All of which adds to an already record deficit.
Only minimally.
>>> which is why the best approach is to save the money since it will eventually
>>> be recalled, with interest (via higher than would need-to-be taxes).
Nope, you watch.
>> My guess is we'll be repaying through inflation rather than taxes,
Bet it wont. It will be repaid by the stimulation of the economy which
will avoid a full scale recession and avoiding a full scale recession
itself will increase the tax base and pay for that stimulus.
>> since people think taxes are evil and govt. services should be free.
Only the fools 'think' either.
>> So instead we'll just print more and more dollars,
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
>> forcing the stock market indices to continue rising
>> (measured of course in dollars of diminishing value).
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
>> <http://www.idahostatesman.com/lotterman/story/163164.html>
More mindless pig ignorant silly shit.
> Here's another link on inflation as a tax.
> <http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/benson061804.html>
More mindless pig ignorant silly shit.
> I just find this "economic stimulus plan" absurd,
Your problem.
> since it's the same policy (namely, deficit spending)
> that caused the problem in the first place.
Thats nothing like that has produced the risk of recession, fool.
> It's simply a way to delay the pain onto future politicians.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> The final chapter in Reagan's legacy cannot be written until the
> the full repercussions of "buy now, pay later" govt. economic
> policy take root, and are recognized by the voting public.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Logan Shaw
> I just find this "economic stimulus plan" absurd, since it's the same
> policy (namely, deficit spending) that caused the problem in the first
> place.
In my view, what caused the problem in the first place is a technology
boom during the 1990's, which led to speculation and greed driving up
the price of tech stocks and the entire stock market by record amounts
for the greater part of a decade, finally followed by a huge crash
(exacerbated by 9/11, although that happened quite some time *after*
the stocks started falling), which in turn caused the government to
have to take some kind of action to juice the economy, which turned out
to be lowering interest rates, which in turn stimulated the economy
nicely but stimulated the housing market too much, which caused another
boom, this time in mortgages, which once again turned into speculation
and greed, which will now turn into who-knows-what[1].
Basically, the lesson I see in it is that any time there is a lot of
opportunity in an area (such as internet startups or mortgages), there
will be people who legitimate take advantage of that opportunity and
do something constructive, and there will also be a bunch of people
who gamble, speculate, and cheat, hoping to make a bunch of money off
the opportunity. These people do this because it actually works for
them a certain percentage of the time. It's like going to Las Vegas,
except that the odds are slightly in the gambler's favor, unlike in
Vegas where they're slightly in the house's favor. And so a lot of
people get involved in it, a lot of them win, some of them lose, and
when the odds finally shift to the house's favor, word gets out, the
party ends overnight, everyone goes home, and cable televisions
stations continue to show "Flip This House" even though for some
reason all the episodes are repeats now.
- Logan
hchi...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>Enlighten me. How is a tax rebate check of the 300 dollars going to
>stimulate the economy out of a recession? Since when have Americans no
>longer been considered "citizens" and are now just consumers?
Trickle-up economics. Take money from the government, which gets it
either through taxes or inflation, then give it back to the poor.
They then immediately go out and buy the newest electronic gadget
game, or a new digital tv, and the businesses get to report record
earnings. That pleases the stockholders and puts money into the hands
of the already rich, and voila! the "economy" is saved for the short
term, at least until the day after elections.
The inconvenient truth is that unless serious changes are made to
minimum wage and the supply of nearly free undocumented labor is dried
up, the lower and middle class of citizens will get poorer and have to
work more, while the top cats will just switch their investments out
of the country or at least out of the companies affected, thus
retaining wealth.
There is no question that inflation works to the advantage of
government. If a dollar today is worth fifty cents next year, and the
cost of the war in Iraq is largely in the past, the payments made to
contractors who signed fixed price contractors are effectively cut in
half. A lower value for the dollar encourages foreign investment
here, and slows the drain through U.S. citizens traveling abroad, etc.
etc. The whole dynamics of the process allows wages to increase
without increasing in real value, which then allows politicians to
claim that in the face of unreasonably high executive salaries, they
are fighting valiantly for a living minimum wage law, pass such a bill
by a narrow margin with great moaning, and still have the worker
earning less real money than before. Mom-n-pop businesses might go
bankrupt, but they have no serious clout in Washington anyway. No
senator is going to retire to be on the board of directors for Joe's
Taco's r Us.
The worst of it is that, if the consumer does have savings, continuing
to hold on to them may not be the best course of action. If inflation
tops 10% (it was close to 6% last year in south Florida), then solid
investments can't keep up. It could be better for some people to buy
hard goods that will last for a few years by taking advantage of the
zero percent interest deals - provided the money to pay for the items
is in an interest bearing account for that time. That way the
consumer can leverage the lower current prices for items against the
later inflated price, and earn some interest on top of that. Of
course, this doesn't work if the consumer doesn't have the money to
pay off the item near the end of the zero interest period.
Or, the consumer could really get affairs in order by finding a
sustainable existence that is less affected by inflation or a downturn
in the economy. The Mormon idea of investing in a year's supply of
basic necessities to have in reserve, isn't a bad idea right now,
either. Of course, if you can't pay the mortgage and don't have a
place for storage, that won't work, either.
KarlMarx_MiddleClass_Ipod_HipHop
>
> The worst of it is that, if the consumer does have savings, continuing
> to hold on to them may not be the best course of action. If inflation
> tops 10% (it was close to 6% last year in south Florida), then solid
> investments can't keep up. It could be better for some people to buy
> hard goods that will last for a few years by taking advantage of the
> zero percent interest deals - provided the money to pay for the items
> is in an interest bearing account for that time. That way the
> consumer can leverage the lower current prices for items against the
> later inflated price, and earn some interest on top of that. Of
> course, this doesn't work if the consumer doesn't have the money to
> pay off the item near the end of the zero interest period.
>
> Or, the consumer could really get affairs in order by finding a
> sustainable existence that is less affected by inflation or a downturn
> in the economy. The Mormon idea of investing in a year's supply of
> basic necessities to have in reserve, isn't a bad idea right now,
> either. Of course, if you can't pay the mortgage and don't have a
> place for storage, that won't work, either.
Let us hope that we are not given Black Swan events like we had in
2000 & 2001. The pessimism is mounting now. We can make it through
corrections if time delay is ample enough. The government dilutes debt
via fiat inflation. Panic does not give one much time to make
decisions on where to flee to.
Vic Smith
>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:55:48 -0500, Napoleon <ana...@666yes.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Enlighten me. How is a tax rebate check of the 300 dollars going to
>>stimulate the economy out of a recession? Since when have Americans no
>>longer been considered "citizens" and are now just consumers?
>
>Trickle-up economics.
I can't get any real elevation anymore when I piss.
So it's gonna have to be trickle-down for me.
--Vic
hchi...@hotmail.com
You need an economic stimulus. Perhaps lots of cheap chinese tea?
Rod Speed
> timeOday wrote
>> I just find this "economic stimulus plan" absurd, since it's the same policy (namely, deficit spending) that caused
>> the problem in the first place.
> In my view, what caused the problem in the first place is a technology boom during the 1990's,
Nope, this one is due to the sub prime fiasco.
> which led to speculation and greed driving up the price of tech stocks and the entire stock market by record amounts
> for the greater part of a decade, finally followed by a huge crash
Corse nothing like that that ever happened in the 80s, eh ?
> (exacerbated by 9/11, although that happened quite some time *after*
> the stocks started falling), which in turn caused the government to have to take some kind of action to juice the
> economy,
Yep, thats how we avoid full depressions now.
There were lots of those in the century before 1929.
> which turned out to be lowering interest rates, which in turn stimulated the economy nicely
Yep, it works most of the time. Took the Japs much longer before it worked
tho, with interest rates being dropped to zero, quite literally, for a while.
> but stimulated the housing market too much, which caused another boom, this time in mortgages, which once again turned
> into speculation and greed,
There's always plenty of that. The real problem was operations like S&Ps
that were actually stupid/flagrantly dishonest enough to rate securetised sub
prime mortgages with rating that they didnt come even close to being worth.
> which will now turn into who-knows-what[1].
It will turn into what it always does, recovery. Just like the S&L fiasco did too.
> Basically, the lesson I see in it is that any time there is a lot of
> opportunity in an area (such as internet startups or mortgages), there will be people who legitimate take advantage of
> that opportunity and do something constructive, and there will also be a bunch of people who gamble, speculate, and
> cheat, hoping to make a bunch of money off the opportunity.
Yes, but its perfectly possible to identify the spivs and con men and avoid them.
> These people do this because it actually works for them a certain percentage of the time. It's like going to Las
> Vegas,
Nope, nothing like Las Vegas. With Las Vegas its completely trivial to
mathematically analyse the risk and returns and see its a mugs game.
> except that the odds are slightly in the gambler's favor,
Hell of a lot better than slightly if you know what you are doing.
> unlike in Vegas where they're slightly in the house's favor.
And like I said, trivially mathematically provable.
> And so a lot of people get involved in it, a lot of them win, some of them lose, and
> when the odds finally shift to the house's favor, word gets out, the party ends overnight,
Thats not what its about.
> everyone goes home, and cable televisions stations continue to show "Flip This House" even though for some reason all
> the episodes are repeats now.
The trouble is that it doesnt repeat, the detail is always quite different.
And thats all an entirely separate issue to what it makes sense for the govt to do now.
Rod Speed
Or just carry on regardless and wait for it all to settle down again.
> The Mormon idea of investing in a year's supply of basic
> necessities to have in reserve, isn't a bad idea right now, either.
Mindlessly silly. The world's moved on, things wont get that bad, you watch.
> Of course, if you can't pay the mortgage and don't
> have a place for storage, that won't work, either.
It doesnt work even if you can keep paying the mortgage and somewhere to store the year's supply.
Vic Smith
Didn't say I needed lead in my pencil.
--Vic
Logan Shaw
> The inconvenient truth is that unless serious changes are made to
> minimum wage and the supply of nearly free undocumented labor is dried
> up, the lower and middle class of citizens will get poorer
Well, I won't comment on the undocumented labor, but about the
minimum wages, I just looked at an article about this on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States
It says that minimum wage decreased 29% in real terms from 1979
to 2003. But the new(-ish) law increasing the minimum wage is
going to ultimately increase it from $5.15 to $7.25.
I find those numbers interesting because a drop of 29% means
multiplying by 0.71. And increasing from $5.15 to $7.25 is a
40.7% increase, which means multiplying by 1.407. If you
multiply those two numbers together, you get a curious
number: 0.999. So basically you get almost exactly 1.
That means they've probably targeted the new minimum wage to be
at the level necessary to restore it to what it was, in real
terms, in 1979. Now, that law doesn't take full effect until
July 24, 2009, so by then the $7.25 will be worth a bit less,
but it sounds like we're back in the general ballpark we were
in during the 1970's, as far as the minimum wage is concerned.
- Logan
Rod Speed
> hchi...@hotmail.com wrote
>> The inconvenient truth is that unless serious changes are made to
>> minimum wage and the supply of nearly free undocumented labor is dried up, the lower and middle class of citizens
>> will get poorer
Mindlessly silly with the middle class seeing historical record highs in home ownership.
> Well, I won't comment on the undocumented labor, but about the
> minimum wages, I just looked at an article about this on Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States
> It says that minimum wage decreased 29% in real terms from 1979 to 2003.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> But the new(-ish) law increasing the minimum wage is going to ultimately increase it from $5.15 to $7.25.
> I find those numbers interesting because a drop of 29% means
> multiplying by 0.71. And increasing from $5.15 to $7.25 is a
> 40.7% increase, which means multiplying by 1.407. If you
> multiply those two numbers together, you get a curious
> number: 0.999. So basically you get almost exactly 1.
Yep, the claim is stupid and pig ignorant.
> That means they've probably targeted the new minimum wage to be
> at the level necessary to restore it to what it was, in real terms, in 1979. Now, that law doesn't take full effect
> until July 24, 2009, so by then the $7.25 will be worth a bit less, but it sounds like we're back in the general
> ballpark we were in during the 1970's, as far as the minimum wage is concerned.
And his line about 'nearly free undocumented labor' is even sillier.
Logan Shaw
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote
>> hchi...@hotmail.com wrote
>
>>> The inconvenient truth is that unless serious changes are made to
>>> minimum wage and the supply of nearly free undocumented labor is dried up, the lower and middle class of citizens
>>> will get poorer
>
> Mindlessly silly with the middle class seeing historical record highs in home ownership.
>
>> Well, I won't comment on the undocumented labor, but about the
>> minimum wages, I just looked at an article about this on Wikipedia:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States
>
>> It says that minimum wage decreased 29% in real terms from 1979 to 2003.
>
> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Not that hard. The chart in the upper right hand corner of that page
shows the data. (If you click on it, you get the raw numbers.)
Basically, the idea is that you take the legislated minimum wage
and scale it by dividing by the Consumer Price Index.
Here are the two sources of data that are linked to by the wikipedia
page for that chart:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
>> But the new(-ish) law increasing the minimum wage is going to ultimately increase it from $5.15 to $7.25.
>
>> I find those numbers interesting because a drop of 29% means
>> multiplying by 0.71. And increasing from $5.15 to $7.25 is a
>> 40.7% increase, which means multiplying by 1.407. If you
>> multiply those two numbers together, you get a curious
>> number: 0.999. So basically you get almost exactly 1.
> Yep, the claim is stupid and pig ignorant.
I was saying the opposite: that the legislators may very well have
arrived at the number $7.25/hr by looking at the CPI and choosing a
dollar amount that would put the minimum wage back to where it was
at some point in the past, in real terms (as defined by the CPI).
- Logan
Rod Speed
>>>> The inconvenient truth is that unless serious changes are made to
>>>> minimum wage and the supply of nearly free undocumented labor is
>>>> dried up, the lower and middle class of citizens will get poorer
>> Mindlessly silly with the middle class seeing historical record highs in home ownership.
>>> Well, I won't comment on the undocumented labor, but about the
>>> minimum wages, I just looked at an article about this on Wikipedia:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States
>>> It says that minimum wage decreased 29% in real terms from 1979 to 2003.
>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> Not that hard.
We'll see...
> The chart in the upper right hand corner of that page shows the data. (If you click on it, you get the raw numbers.)
The problem is that purported inflation data isnt what
those on the minimum wage spend their money on.
> Basically, the idea is that you take the legislated minimum wage and scale it by dividing by the Consumer Price Index.
And the CPI isnt what those on the minimum wage spend their money on.
> Here are the two sources of data that are linked to by the wikipedia page for that chart:
> http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm
> ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
Still not what those on the minimum wage spend their money on.
>>> But the new(-ish) law increasing the minimum wage is going to ultimately increase it from $5.15 to $7.25.
>>> I find those numbers interesting because a drop of 29% means
>>> multiplying by 0.71. And increasing from $5.15 to $7.25 is a
>>> 40.7% increase, which means multiplying by 1.407. If you
>>> multiply those two numbers together, you get a curious
>>> number: 0.999. So basically you get almost exactly 1.
>> Yep, the claim is stupid and pig ignorant.
> I was saying the opposite:
No you werent. You were saying that his claim that the
lower class of citizens will get poorer is just plain wrong.
> that the legislators may very well have arrived at the number $7.25/hr by looking at the CPI and choosing a dollar
> amount that would put the minimum wage back to where it was at some point in the past, in real terms (as defined by
> the CPI).
Yes, and that means that the original claim that lower
class of citizens will get poorer is just plain wrong.
Stormin Mormon
the economy?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Napoleon" <ana...@666yes.net> wrote in message
news:tep1p3pkb8v2u5fm3...@4ax.com...
Rod Speed
> Where, in the Constitution does it give the Fed the authority to regulate the economy?
Doesnt need to.
There isnt authority to take part in WW2 either.
Too_Many_Tools
What I really liked was the phase..."Run Like A Bunny" from the
Treasury Secretary.
TMT
Shawn Hirn
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Where, in the Constitution does it give the Fed the authority to regulate
> the economy?
Read section 8.
Stormin Mormon
And which sentence, specifically, gives any government agency the power to
stimulate or retard the economy?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-566369.0...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
Cindy Hamilton
<cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
> And which sentence, specifically, gives any government agency the power to
> stimulate or retard the economy?
Looks like this one:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general
Welfare of the United States;
If they can collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the
united
states, it is reasonable that they can rebate taxes for that purpose.
Not very specific, I'll grant you, but if the government limited
itself to
what is exactly stated in the Constitution, we'd have a country that
operated along 18th Century lines. No, thank you.
Cindy Hamilton
Rod Speed
> Stormin Mormon <cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
>> And which sentence, specifically, gives any government
>> agency the power to stimulate or retard the economy?
> Looks like this one:
Nope.
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
> the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
> If they can collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the united
> states, it is reasonable that they can rebate taxes for that purpose.
Yes, but the main way the economy is stimulated and retarded is with the fed controlling interest rates.
> Not very specific, I'll grant you, but if the government limited itself
> to what is exactly stated in the Constitution, we'd have a country
> that operated along 18th Century lines. No, thank you.
Precisely.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Cindy Hamilton" <angelica...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:595f2628-7992-4617...@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...