NationStates Jolt Archive

Earlier this afternoon, the House passed the revised stimulus bill 246-183, with no Republicans voting for it, and 7 Democrats voting against it.

This evening, having passed the House, the bill went to the Senate. Due to procedural rules, because the Senate had already voted on one version, it required a 60 person vote in order to accept the modified version. The vote passed, 60-38, with all democrats, and three republicans, voting in favor. Voting was held open late to allow Democratic Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown to cast the 60th vote in favor. Brown was out of Washington, attending his mother's wake, when he returned to D.C. to cast his vote, proving the final "yay" vote, and sending it to the President.

It is expected to be signed Monday.

Edit: the two missing votes were from Senator Kennedy, who re-entered treatment for a brain tumor, and the vote from the second senate seat of Minnesotta, which has not been seated yet. In an earlier senate vote in the premodified bill, the vote was 61-38, with Kennedy voting. The three republican senators who votes along with the democrats were: Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania

Yay! *hopes for the best*

He should totally Veto it, itd be so Funny as hell...

He should totally Veto it, itd be so Funny as hell...

psych bitches! Where the white women at?

In before the "ZOMG SocialiZms!!"

The stimulus package proposed by the Aus government has been voted down my the opposition though.

Make no mistake about it. This stimulus package is a gamble. If it doesn't work, we'll have saddled future generations with a massive debt and no obvious way to get out of the morass.

Unfortunately it's still the right thing to do. Its necessary due to the last eight years of fiscal mismangement by both the Bush Administration and, at least for the last four years, the Democratic Congress.

We really need to be more careful about who we elect.

Make no mistake about it. This stimulus package is a gamble. If it doesn't work, we'll have saddled future generations with a massive debt and no obvious way to get out of the morass.

Unfortunately it's still the right thing to do. Its necessary due to the last eight years of fiscal mismangement by both the Bush Administration and, at least for the last four years, the Democratic Congress.

We really need to be more careful about who we elect.

...4 years?

Make no mistake about it. This stimulus package is a gamble. If it doesn't work, we'll have saddled future generations with a massive debt and no obvious way to get out of the morass.

Unfortunately it's still the right thing to do. Its necessary due to the last eight years of fiscal mismangement by both the Bush Administration and, at least for the last four years, the Democratic Congress.

We really need to be more careful about who we elect.
2 years. without being able to get much of anything past the republican president

...4 years?

Hey, I'm still working on big and little. Next week I start on up and down. :rolleyes:

You're absolutely correct it's only been 2 years that the Democrats have controlled congress.:$

...4 years?

That's almost as long as you've been duckin' me.

Why you duckin' me?

It's the Democrats' turn. Republicans had their shot, they fucked it up. Now the Democrats have a chance to get it right...or fuck it up. If they get it right, maybe the country will be just a little bit better than it is right now. If they fuck it up, maybe I'll see the end of the two-party system in my lifetime. Either way, I win. :)

Edit: I also think it's very telling that Arlen Specter, one of the last true conservatives in Congress voted for it.

That's almost as long as you've been duckin' me.

Why you duckin' me?

if you were ever actually online....I'll send ya TG tomorrow, we'll get this rolling probably monday, good?

if you were ever actually online....I'll send ya TG tomorrow, we'll get this rolling probably monday, good?

Fine, but only because you have a real job, a real life, and I know you have to see the wedding planner this weekend about you and Poli.

Fine, but only because you have a real job, a real life, and I know you have to see the wedding planner this weekend about you and Poli.

true, but our wedding planner is...special.

He has a gimp.

I hope that it works, although I'm worried it may be too heavy on spending and not heavy enough on investment in infrastructure and other job-creating spending on new fixed assets. Personally, I would have spent almost all of it on infrastructure spending and to a lesser degree various tax cuts; the other issues such as health care and unemployment insurance can be addressed once Americans get back to work. Right now, I feel that those kinds of "services" spending projects won't do much to revive the economy, whereas infrastructure spending would put people to work.

We'll see, though. Depending on when the funds are released and where the business cycle has recovered to naturally, it may be a vital shot in the arm, a boost to a recovering economy or simply a wasted opportunity.

I'm glad they got this done. Now he needs to start thinking about how to undo the foreign policy/ violation of international law debacle of the Bush admistration.

I'm also glad to see my state's Senators crossed Party lines and did the right thing.

Stimulus Bill aka the Franklin Roosvelt Socalism Empowerment act of 2009

We are all now Socialist! in the USA

Weeeee!!! frankly, I don't care at this point,by the time the shit hits the fan over the spending,I will be dead,so I dont give a S**t.

Stimulus Bill aka the Franklin Roosvelt Socalism Empowerment act of 2009


http://www.portalprelude.com/images/news/dude-wait-what.jpg

Weeeee!!! frankly, I don't care at this point,by the time the shit hits the fan over the spending,I will be dead,so I dont give a S**t.

You don't think taxes are going to stay low once the economy recovers, do you? If anything, I'm pretty sure Obama's going to ratchet them up to finally bring the debt under control.

Either way, I win. :)


And then in 2011, due to fiscal troubles, dwindling resources and increasing unemployment, mud becomes a controlled item. Anyone caught possessing more than 20 grams of mud is imprisoned.

Does LG still win?

You don't think taxes are going to stay low once the economy recovers, do you? If anything, I'm pretty sure Obama's going to ratchet them up to finally bring the debt under control.


No,I dont,this spending has never worked,wont work now either, but hey, you people wanted change...well,you people are going to get it.

Jimmy Carter part two.

And then in 2011, due to fiscal troubles, dwindling resources and increasing unemployment, mud becomes a controlled item. Anyone caught possessing more than 20 grams of mud is imprisoned.

Does LG still win?

I will become a Columbian Mud Lord. *nod*

I will become a Columbian Mud Lord. *nod*

ROTFLMFAO:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vyj2EeFqDw

ROTFLMFAO:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vyj2EeFqDw

That could get tricky...he is married to Crockett, after all. :)

You don't think taxes are going to stay low once the economy recovers, do you? If anything, I'm pretty sure Obama's going to ratchet them up to finally bring the debt under control.

Yeah. Taxes are going to have to go up. Even without the 'stimulus' the tax base is collapsing. The S&P is heading for it's first quarter of -ve earnings in history.

So, you'll get a stimulus which will at best offset continuing demand destruction, and there is going to have to be an increase in taxes - or higher interest rates. Either way, more economy crushing events are in the offing.

I'm betting that social security is about to be 'fixed' again, because that's the best way of plugging the hole.

On the plus side, once the government throws in the towel and lets nature take it's course, there is going to be the secular buying opportunity of several lifetimes. Unfortunately most people will have no money to take advantage of it.

This is a horrible idea executed like they were on a load of crack. Indeed, the U.S. Government has taken a long look at the woes of the financial companies; who made the mistake of leveraging assets they A: didn't understand, B: overvalued, or C: just plain lied about. Taking those mistakes into consideration the US Federal Government has decided to not just screw it all but to not even pretend it has assets to that in which it is getting the 800-ish billion dollars. Literally, it is mortgaging the thin air within the Treasury Department and hoping to God that it will somehow turn out all right (if liberals believed in God, obviously).

Why they believe this will turn out? How they believe it will turn out? They don't know, but hey - it's not their money, is it? Especially if your in Obama's cabinent, heh.

Earlier this afternoon, the House passed the revised stimulus bill 246-183, with no Republicans voting for it, and 7 Democrats voting against it.


Yet, it will be hailed as a bipartisan victory.

Make no mistake about it. This stimulus package is a gamble. If it doesn't work, we'll have saddled future generations with a massive debt and no obvious way to get out of the morass.

Unfortunately it's still the right thing to do. Its necessary due to the last eight years of fiscal mismangement by both the Bush Administration and, at least for the last four years, the Democratic Congress.

We really need to be more careful about who we elect.
That's right. Fight excessive debt with more debt. I like it!

Yet, it will be hailed as a bipartisan victory.

As in, if it works the Republicans will try to steal the credit for it?

I'm surprised how the voting was split along party lines. Seems to indicate that the positions on this bill is more about politics than economics. I'm surprised because I wouldn't think this was an issue you'd want to play politics with.

Apparently, I've been proven wrong.

As in, if it works the Republicans will try to steal the credit for it?

I'm surprised how the voting was split along party lines. Seems to indicate that the positions on this bill is more about politics than economics. I'm surprised because I wouldn't think this was an issue you'd want to play politics with.

Apparently, I've been proven wrong.

Hope springs and all that.

That's right. Fight excessive debt with more debt. I like it!

Let's say they didn't spend at all. No stimulus package. Companies collapse, consumer confidence in the market drops, and people start taking money out of banks and sticking them in the mattress or socks, whatever. People scrimp and save, which is nominally good. Except that with nobody spending, what do you think is going to happen to most of the market which doesn't sell absolute essentials, and all the people they employ?

So let's hear your idea on how to avoid the market collapse then.

He should totally Veto it, itd be so Funny as hell...

psych bitches! Where the white women at?
You bastards! There's coffee all over my keyboard because of you. :D

Let's say they didn't spend at all. No stimulus package. Companies collapse, consumer confidence in the market drops, and people start taking money out of banks and sticking them in the mattress or socks, whatever. People scrimp and save, which is nominally good. Except that with nobody spending, what do you think is going to happen to most of the market which doesn't sell absolute essentials, and all the people they employ?

So let's hear your idea on how to avoid the market collapse then.
We already have in other recent threads. It amounts, essentially, to we should eliminate all financial regulations, really basically just shut down the government altogether, and join the cult of "What's good for General Motors is good for the Country." You know, because of how that has been shown to work so well, historically. Or, it would have, if the corpses had been fresh enough. This time, we'll use really fresh corpses and it WILL work and those fools at the academy will be humiliated by his triumph!!! BUAAHAHAHAHAHA! *ahem*

Don't care. It's all so utterly irrelevant as to be comical.

They debate for a week, make all the news headlines, and score political points.

Meanwhile, the actual problem doesn't get fixed because Geithner is just repeating what Paulson did previously. Just keep in mind, everyone, that Japan during the 90s had one stimulus package after another, with budget deficits of 14% at times.

Stimulus packages don't fix debt deflation, or other effects of a financial meltdown and economy-wide deleveraging.

Let's say they didn't spend at all. No stimulus package. Companies collapse, consumer confidence in the market drops, and people start taking money out of banks and sticking them in the mattress or socks, whatever. People scrimp and save, which is nominally good. Except that with nobody spending, what do you think is going to happen to most of the market which doesn't sell absolute essentials, and all the people they employ?

So let's hear your idea on how to avoid the market collapse then.

Here is an idea, how about we cut our high corporate tax rate of 35%? Which, in fact, is one of the primary reasons that A: Companies are going overseas, or B: Reaching Bankruptcy. Cutting Capital Gains taxes on stocks and other investments would also help because it gives people more opportunity to earn money in the stock market. Although it is to say, in this market, until it corrects itself naturally, it will probably do little.

In this day and age, as soon as the stock plunges, we cry "GREAT DEPRESSION!!!!!!!!", yet it seems we forget we also live in the age where there is more government regulation and market watchers than there were in 1929. And at least this economy is better than the stagflation of the 70's.

Honestly, either this stimulus is a shot in the arm, or a 'shot in the foot'.

I live in desperate fear that this won't have any effect at all because then there will be no escape from the chortling and dancing of the "where's the change, Sauron?" brigade, and I'll have to found a militia in my own armed compound just to get away from their noise. On the other hand, I cling to hope that it will produce some good effects soon so I can sneer at those same people with a "You were saying....?"

But neither of those fantasies is realistic. The reality of this is something that, apparently, nobody is allowed to say to anybody anymore, because may the gods forbid that Americans not act like and not be treated like whiney four-year-olds nowadays.

I really believe that the fact of the matter is that the US economy is so fucked that this is only going to be the first of several, maybe many, multi-billion-dollar stimulus packages. I believe Lacadaemon is right -- if this or the next stimulus does succeed in generating jobs, then as more people start to get work, taxes are going to be raised. They have to be. We are not going to -- and should not -- get back to the bubble-level of personal credit-spending we were doing before. For a good while yet, individuals are going to be motivated to hoarde their cash, and since in that case what is good for the individual is not good for the country, I think money is going to have be forcibly moved through the economy by the government. First, giving it to us in jobs and commerce, and then taking it back from us in taxes, and then giving it to us again in more stimulus -- not dissimilar to putting a critical patient on life-support. Forget a four-year administration, or even eight years -- I would not be surprised if the next THREE or FOUR administrative terms will see federal and state governments operating in deficit mode and running artificial stimulus and tax plans.

And the American people -- and American businesses -- are just going to have to suck it up, grow the fuck up, and do it, because participating in this is what "doing our part" for the country is going to look like. We're going to work hard and pay more taxes. We are not going to realize the kinds of quick income bloat we have come to expect over the past ~20 years. The end. The boom went bust. Deal with it. And the goal now is NOT to rebuild the bubble. The goal is to revamp the entire system to work in the new conditions we find ourselves in. And that is going to cost. Everybody.

And that's just my opinion. /rant.

Meanwhile, the actual problem doesn't get fixed because Geithner is just repeating what Paulson did previously.

and sounding less sure of it all while doing it, which does wonders.


in other news, even people associated with the american enterprise institute are climbing aboard the 'nationalize the fuckers' train these days.

So let's hear your idea on how to avoid the market collapse then.

Why, it's simple. Tax cuts! Tax cuts for everybody! Tax cuts for the rich who don't need it! Tax cuts for the poor who don't pay any ayway! Tax cuts for corporation so they can use it to pay the Americans they're not employing even more (and I hear golden is the new black this season)!

Hey YOU, lady with the defaulted mortgages, crippling credit card debt and unpaid student loans, do you want a pretty flat screen TV? Well with our tax cuts, NOW YOU CAN! (well most of one anyway, we're not crazy enough to give you the whole amount!). I know you don't have a house to put it in anymore, but now you'll be the envy of your homeless shelter!

And YOU, Mister Construction Engineer that's been out of work for 18 months, I know you haven't got an income right now, but you'll be pleased to know that we'll be taking less of it!

Now all of you out there, SPEND SPEND SPEND! Don't, you know...horde it under increasingly uncertain economic times that make you think that even if you're one of the lucky ones that has a job today, there's no promise you'll have one tomorrow...

Because hey, Reganomics might just work this time! I mean...it better. We've spent the last 30 years suckling at the teet of a now dead actor with Alzheimer's, instead of coming up with new ideas. This, uh...well this is all we got.

Shit.

The only part of the stimulus bill I'm for is the up to $8,000.00 tax credit for first time home buyers. The reason I'm for that is very selfish, I want to sell my home in Oklahoma and move to our home in Louisiana and I want to do that soon. This provision of the stimulus bill may help us to do that.

That being said, I'm against the bill but now that it has passed I hope it works but am afraid it will cause more harm in the long run than good. :(

Wow, looks like we're going to have the Economy of Mexico in the mid-eighties, Thanks Congress!

or, as Kenn Jacobine notes:

"At the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, from 2000 to 2007, Timothy Kehoe, Edward Prescott and a team of 24 economists from around the world studied economic depressions that happened in the Twentieth Century. Instead of focusing on what caused each severe downturn, their study examined government’s reaction to the downturn and the consequences thereof.

First, they looked at the economic experiences of Chile and Mexico in the 1980s. Both countries suffered from falling international prices for the commodity they exported – copper for Chile and oil for Mexico. This in turn exposed a weakness in each country’s banking sector. In 1982, Chile took control of its banks; it liquidated the insolvent ones and reprivatized the solvent ones. It set up a new regulatory structure which allowed the market to dictate interest rates and allocation of credit to business. The immediate effect was severe pain, but by 1984 the Chilean economy began to grow and is still the fastest growing in Latin America.

Conversely, Mexico pursued policies which nationalized banks, provided credit at below-market interest rates to some large firms and no credit to others, and provided massive fiscal stimulus schemes to grow employment. Even though both nations arrived at the same place for the same reasons, it was how each nation’s government dealt with the crisis that determined their economic futures. Since 1982, Chile has experienced significant GDP growth while Mexico has languished with a negligible GDP growth increase..."

More here:http://blogcritics.org/archives/2009/02/12/004257.php

'brilliant' guys.

I kind of want Obama to veto the Bill now, just to mess with everyone's heads.

EDIT: God damn other posters...

Wow, looks like we're going to have the Economy of Mexico in the mid-eighties, Thanks Congress!

or, as Kenn Jacobine notes:

More here:http://blogcritics.org/archives/2009/02/12/004257.php

'brilliant' guys.
ya but mexico will have the economy of mexico in the 30s so we'll still be relatively better.

ya but mexico will have the economy of mexico in the 30s so we'll still be relatively better.

Some of us considered that, and came to the conclusion that it's just not good enough. Still, this is the same management generation that is giving us the economic mess we're in-which is caused by the same mistakes made elsewhere before, and the same management generation that has killed too many American industries to count.

Why is that the people in charge love to copy the examples that failed, rather than the ones that worked?

Some of us considered that, and came to the conclusion that it's just not good enough. Still, this is the same management generation that is giving us the economic mess we're in-which is caused by the same mistakes made elsewhere before, and the same management generation that has killed too many American industries to count.

Why is that the people in charge love to copy the examples that failed, rather than the ones that worked?
it may not be good enough but its kinda what we have. what else can we do?

it may not be good enough but its kinda what we have. what else can we do?

Cut spending, withdraw from the wars, and wait for the government to have enough money to employ more people.

Cut spending, withdraw from the wars, and wait for the government to have enough money to employ more people.
meanwhile we have the economy of 1937?

So let's hear your idea on how to avoid the market collapse then.

He is not being paid to lead the country, and if the person who is cannot think of a better plan, then it is evident we have elected another bum President.

meanwhile we have the economy of 1937?

Not really. And whatever pain we go through now, I can guarantee you it will not be made better by Obama's uncreative solution. Hell, spending loads of money should be the last resort: I expect the President to actually show us why he should be running things, but he is not governing any different than an average poster here would. Obama is obviously nothing special, we just voted him in because:

A: He had the money to run.

B: He wanted to run.

C: The man running against him is an asshole.

This will either be Obama's greatest success, or his greatest failure. I don't know enough about economics to really comment on it.

This will either be Obama's greatest success, or his greatest failure. I don't know enough about economics to really comment on it.

Neither does he, but he will comment anyway. :p

Neither does he, but will comment anyway. :p


I can say this though. One side will hail the result of the Stimulus package as a great success for every little improvement we see in our economy, however the opposite side will say it was a massive failure for how little it actually did.

it not like he hasnt consulted the experts virtually every one of which recommended this course of action. the only reservation they had was that it wasnt a big enough package.

Hell, spending loads of money should be the last resort

you mean like after they try lowering the interest rates?

I expect the President to actually show us why he should be running things, but he is not governing any different than an average poster here would.

Cut spending, withdraw from the wars, and wait for the government to have enough money to employ more people.

Pffft.

Cut spending, withdraw from the wars, and wait for the government to have enough money to employ more people.

But if you cut spending, the economy will likely decline further which will reduce tax revenue further, requiring more spending cuts to cover the decline, in turn weakening the economy further and reducing tax revenues further until it declines all the way down to some bottom of unknown depth and unknown severity of economic effect.

Don't care. It's all so utterly irrelevant as to be comical.

They debate for a week, make all the news headlines, and score political points.

Meanwhile, the actual problem doesn't get fixed because Geithner is just repeating what Paulson did previously. Just keep in mind, everyone, that Japan during the 90s had one stimulus package after another, with budget deficits of 14% at times.

Stimulus packages don't fix debt deflation, or other effects of a financial meltdown and economy-wide deleveraging.

I'm actually interested -- what did Japan do in the 90s to rebuild its economy? I've heard several people comparing the situation there to the situation here, but nobody's mentioned what Japan did to get itself back on track. If it's done anything at all, that is.


I really believe that the fact of the matter is that the US economy is so fucked that this is only going to be the first of several, maybe many, multi-billion-dollar stimulus packages. I believe Lacadaemon is right -- if this or the next stimulus does succeed in generating jobs, then as more people start to get work, taxes are going to be raised. They have to be. We are not going to -- and should not -- get back to the bubble-level of personal credit-spending we were doing before. For a good while yet, individuals are going to be motivated to hoarde their cash, and since in that case what is good for the individual is not good for the country, I think money is going to have be forcibly moved through the economy by the government. First, giving it to us in jobs and commerce, and then taking it back from us in taxes, and then giving it to us again in more stimulus -- not dissimilar to putting a critical patient on life-support. Forget a four-year administration, or even eight years -- I would not be surprised if the next THREE or FOUR administrative terms will see federal and state governments operating in deficit mode and running artificial stimulus and tax plans.

And the American people -- and American businesses -- are just going to have to suck it up, grow the fuck up, and do it, because participating in this is what "doing our part" for the country is going to look like. We're going to work hard and pay more taxes. We are not going to realize the kinds of quick income bloat we have come to expect over the past ~20 years. The end. The boom went bust. Deal with it. And the goal now is NOT to rebuild the bubble. The goal is to revamp the entire system to work in the new conditions we find ourselves in. And that is going to cost. Everybody..

The US will probably have to be running on depression economics for half a decade or more to get out of this. It's a fortunate thing that it's versatile enough to be able to do this, rather than ineffectually and doggedly trying to reinforce an old system which no longer works in current conditions.

It's part of a cycle which repeats every twenty or thirty years, on average; basically, whenever a new generation has grown up and forgotten the mistakes made by the last ones. The US runs on this kind of thing. (And with the kind of debts we have now, people will be lining up to help rebuild our economy so we can settle them. :P Well, maybe.)

Here is an idea, how about we cut our high corporate tax rate of 35%? Which, in fact, is one of the primary reasons that A: Companies are going overseas, or B: Reaching Bankruptcy. Cutting Capital Gains taxes on stocks and other investments would also help because it gives people more opportunity to earn money in the stock market. Although it is to say, in this market, until it corrects itself naturally, it will probably do little.

In this day and age, as soon as the stock plunges, we cry "GREAT DEPRESSION!!!!!!!!", yet it seems we forget we also live in the age where there is more government regulation and market watchers than there were in 1929. And at least this economy is better than the stagflation of the 70's.

Honestly, either this stimulus is a shot in the arm, or a 'shot in the foot'.
I would add that we reduce the capital gains tax to 0 for at least ten years. There is no pain-free way to resolve this, but picking the most painful and rewarding the industries that fail isn't right. I was reading in the WSJ that there are indicators that the economy is improving. With this 2 trillion spending bill, I predict we see a serious recession before 2010.

it not like he hasnt consulted the experts virtually every one of which recommended this course of action. the only reservation they had was that it wasnt a big enough package.
Of course there were the 200 economists that placed the ad, pleading NOT to do this, but what do they know?

Of course there were the 200 economists that placed the ad, pleading NOT to do this, but what do they know?
not as much as the 2000 that didnt?

I would add that we reduce the capital gains tax to 0 for at least ten years.
Stupidest. Idea. Ever.
Instead, let's increase the income tax to 70% and give all the extra revenue to the top 2% of earners in the country.

*is not an economist* I really, really hope this works. I think it's a good sign that SOMETHING is being done, but I don't know enough about economics to truly comment.

I'm actually interested -- what did Japan do in the 90s to rebuild its economy? I've heard several people comparing the situation there to the situation here, but nobody's mentioned what Japan did to get itself back on track. If it's done anything at all, that is.
The banks fixed themselves. 20 years later, at a sustainable (read: much worse than before) level.

The banks essentially went to work on repairing their balance sheets, which took them many years. In the meantime, they weren't doing much lending and people weren't doing much spending (hell, prices were falling, why would you buy now?). So they had 10 years of 0-1% growth and unemployment not coming down, with intermittent stimulus packages keeping it closer to 1%. Then as soon as the government spending stopped, the people employed by it lost their job again and the next little recession started. Fun times.

Meanwhile:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=anccctVJnemE&refer=exclusive
Cloutier, chief executive officer of MidSouth Bancorp Inc. in Lafayette, Louisiana, received a $20 million cash infusion from the U.S. government on Jan. 9 and instructed loan officers to line up borrowers. Then he went on the road to make personal appeals at 14 town hall meetings.

“What we want to do is make people aware we have $250 million to lend,” Cloutier said Jan. 28 at the branch in downtown Lafayette. The 20 or so in the audience were outnumbered by bank employees handing out cookies and bottled water. Nobody asked for an application.

[...]

“If there was a greater demand out there for loans, we’d be out there after them like a dog after a bone,” Hage said.

At the MidSouth meeting in Lafayette, the only lending- related questions were from a man who complained he had been rejected for a $200,000 advance two years ago and a woman who planned to open a Japanese restaurant if she could borrow at a “special” rate.

“Rates can’t get any lower than they are now,” Cloutier told her.

MidSouth charges about 5.25 percent for a 30-year conventional mortgage, depending on the applicant’s credit score. Rates on small-business loans run from about 5.25 percent to 6 percent, depending on the size of the compensating balances the borrower keeps with the bank, said Donnie Landry, MidSouth’s chief lending officer.

Small-business loan rates are as much as two percentage points lower than they were a year ago, Landry said.

[...]

Some MidSouth officials wonder if the bank did the right thing in accepting TARP assistance, said Will G. Charbonnet Sr., MidSouth’s chairman.

The $20 million was in exchange for 20,000 preferred MidSouth shares, which the Treasury Department bought for $1,000 each, according to the bank. MidSouth pays a 5 percent annual dividend. In addition, the Treasury received 208,768 warrants for common shares.

MidSouth rose 54 cents to $9.26 at 4 p.m. yesterday in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares underperformed the Standard & Poor’s SmallCap Financials Index by 18 percentage points over the past 12 months.

“Look, short term this is not a good decision,” Charbonnet said of taking TARP aid. “It costs us money.”

[...]

It's already started. Deleveraging and debt-deflation. Once it gets into people's heads, there is little the government can do about it.

I'm sorry, America, but you're in a very deep hole.

But if you really wanted to do stimulus packages, here's an idea: a temporary, big cut in sales taxes. Maybe that will do something - it might not, but it's not like there are a lot of options on the table.

I would add that we reduce the capital gains tax to 0 for at least ten years. There is no pain-free way to resolve this, but picking the most painful and rewarding the industries that fail isn't right. I was reading in the WSJ that there are indicators that the economy is improving. With this 2 trillion spending bill, I predict we see a serious recession before 2010.

:D Of course. Cut the taxes of the rich and it will trickle down to all you others!

It's done sooo well in the last 8 years. Well it has actually. Except it should be called trickle up poverty.

Don't care. It's all so utterly irrelevant as to be comical.

They debate for a week, make all the news headlines, and score political points.

Meanwhile, the actual problem doesn't get fixed because Geithner is just repeating what Paulson did previously. Just keep in mind, everyone, that Japan during the 90s had one stimulus package after another, with budget deficits of 14% at times.

Stimulus packages don't fix debt deflation, or other effects of a financial meltdown and economy-wide deleveraging.

Well, my work here is done.

But if you really wanted to do stimulus packages, here's an idea: a temporary, big cut in sales taxes. Maybe that will do something - it might not, but it's not like there are a lot of options on the table.

No. There are unrecognized losses. They have to be recognized. The only thing that is in question is who, how and where they get recognized.

Pissing around with taxes changes nothing.

Originally I preferred a big free-market cramdown. This would have been the optimal solution - apportioning losses along the lines delimited by existing law. But apparently that can't happen because of regulatory capture.

So I now prefer a socialist solution. Just to teach people a lesson.

Here is an idea, how about we cut our high corporate tax rate of 35%? Which, in fact, is one of the primary reasons that A: Companies are going overseas, or B: Reaching Bankruptcy.

A: Rubbish. Companies go overseas because they can get the same amount of workers for a fraction of the wages it would take to employ someone locally. They avoid taxes by setting up offshore accounts, not by setting up businesses elsewhere. Get your facts right.

B: Rubbish again. Companies like GM are reaching bankruptcy because the companies chose to remain uncompetitive by selling expensive junk heaps when their competitors were selling what the market really wanted.


Cutting Capital Gains taxes on stocks and other investments would also help because it gives people more opportunity to earn money in the stock market.


Over investing and reliance on projected prices of certain items in the stock market was what brought this mess about, and you want to set it up for round 2?
He is not being paid to lead the country,


Not that it stops people from behaving like they should.


and if the person who is cannot think of a better plan, then it is evident we have elected another bum President.

And sometimes there just isn't a better plan.

Seriously, the majority of the spending populace, middle and lower middle class, will be saving their money about now. That means reduction in public spending. There's no way to get around that without creating a bigger mess right now. But if no one spends, the companies go under. If the companies go under, more people become unemployed. That raises a demand for jobs. But there are no jobs because there's no companies left with cash to hire.

Eventually, people will get desperate and out come the socks and the mattresses where the money was kept. But there's nothing to buy with it, and it's mostly worthless now since the economic machine that it's value was pegged to has blown up.

That's the problem with moving to free flowing value currency. You have to keep generating value, or eventually it will become worthless.

There's no magic button to fix this, unless you have a time machine somewhere, and doing nothing will almost certainly result in a worse mess.

Who knows, maybe the economic system has been overly inflated in value to the point where there is just no saving it anymore, and you'll have to put up with massive unemployment no matter what you do.

A: Rubbish. Companies go overseas because they can get the same amount of workers for a fraction of the wages it would take to employ someone locally. They avoid taxes by setting up offshore accounts, not by setting up businesses elsewhere. Get your facts right.

B: Rubbish again. Companies like GM are reaching bankruptcy because the companies chose to remain uncompetitive by selling expensive junk heaps when their competitors were selling what the market really wanted.


C. The United States has the 2nd lowest effective corporate tax rate.

C. The United States has the 2nd lowest effective corporate tax rate.

I bet you're not counting Somalia.

C. The United States has the 2nd lowest effective corporate tax rate.

No it doesn't.

In fact, if we are talking about effective tax rates, the US has one of the highest in the world. (Personal and corporate).

Where do you think all that military and education shit comes from.

No it doesn't.

In fact, if we are talking about effective tax rates, the US has one of the highest in the world. (Personal and corporate).

Where do you think all that military and education shit comes from.

Judging by the debt, I imagine the military funding comes from thin air.

Also, effective means what actually gets paid, not what the up-front number.

Judging by the debt, I imagine the military funding comes from thin air.

Judging by what debt? The united states has one of the lowest public debt floats in the world.

All those pretty missiles didn't come from nowhere you know. Effective taxation rates are extremely high in this country.

Effective taxation rates are extremely high in this country.

Source?

Judging by what debt? The united states has one of the lowest public debt floats in the world.

All those pretty missiles didn't come from nowhere you know. Effective taxation rates are extremely high in this country.
Right, yes, America has no debt. At all. How could I be so blind.

Also, effective tax rate is not the tax rate listed up front.

Source?
Right-wing "repeat it until its true" sites.

No it doesn't.

In fact, if we are talking about effective tax rates, the US has one of the highest in the world. (Personal and corporate).

Where do you think all that military and education shit comes from.

C. The United States has the 2nd lowest effective corporate tax rate.

"Yeah huh!"

"Nuh uh!"

Guess what has to come next?

Right, yes, America has no debt. At all. How could I be so blind.


Until the third quarter of last year the public float of debt was only about 35% of GDP. That is extremely low for an industrialized nation.

Yet at the same time the United States maintained at least 53% of the entire worlds military capacity. This from only about 25% share of the world GDP.

I think it is pretty obvious what has been going on.

Source?

You want the one which list japan as having the lowest?

You can't demand "source" and get a list of taxation. What you have to do is look at government sector expenditure v. nominal taxation rates. There is no clear list for this. But if you go through the various sources, you'll see that the effective taxation rate for the US is very high.

Much higher than say, Europe, because in the US, it's all ex-healthcare.

C. The United States has the 2nd lowest effective corporate tax rate.

No it doesn't.

In fact, if we are talking about effective tax rates, the US has one of the highest in the world. (Personal and corporate).

Where do you think all that military and education shit comes from.

Source both of you.
my source is this
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html

shows US with 2nd highest tax rate. not certain what effective would have on it. So need a source.

Also found this one
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/statutory-versu.html

You want the one which list japan as having the lowest?

You can't demand "source" and get a list of taxation. What you have to do is look at government sector expenditure v. nominal taxation rates. There is no clear list for this. But if you go through the various sources, you'll see that the effective taxation rate for the US is very high.

Much higher than say, Europe, because in the US, it's all ex-healthcare.

You have made claim that American effective taxation rates are extremely high. It is up to you to prove your claim, not wave a hand with vague statements and claim that it is true. If you claim it is government sector expenditure v. nominal taxation rates, then it is up to you to provide the data to make the comparison to back your claim. Since you claim it to be true, then you must already have data from which to arrive at this conclusion. Yet not even that is shown.

Why?

Until the third quarter of last year the public float of debt was only about 35% of GDP. That is extremely low for an industrialized nation.

Yet at the same time the United States maintained at least 53% of the entire worlds military capacity. This from only about 25% share of the world GDP.

I think it is pretty obvious what has been going on.

The armchair hawks in charge of the presidency has been channeling money from useful programs into the DoD?

Source both of you.
my source is this
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html

shows US with 2nd highest tax rate. not certain what effective would have on it. So need a source.

Also found this one
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/statutory-versu.html

Your second one contradicts your first one.
And this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/memo-to-fox-news-the-gop_b_136557.html) has more links for proof.

Wow, looks like we're going to have the Economy of Mexico in the mid-eighties, Thanks Congress!

or, as Kenn Jacobine notes:

More here:http://blogcritics.org/archives/2009/02/12/004257.php

'brilliant' guys.
I'm more worried about having the economy of present day Zimbabwe or Argentina.

C. The United States has the 2nd lowest effective corporate tax rate.
Hey smart guy, business doesn't pay taxes. You do. It's called gross margin. When you understand that, you'll understand why cutting taxes to business IS a good idea.

Your second one contradicts your first one.
And this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/memo-to-fox-news-the-gop_b_136557.html) has more links for proof.

the 2nd source i added later trying to find a counter point. (would/should have elaborated but was tired)

though your article does not list the effective tax rate.
What is the number.

I'm more worried about having the economy of present day Zimbabwe or Argentina.

Considering that Mexico had a United States to parasitize, and we don't (being the U.S. an' all), your worry may yet come to pass.

Thanks Congress!

Considering that Mexico had a United States to parasitize, and we don't (being the U.S. an' all), your worry may yet come to pass.

Thanks Congress!

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Gee, I expected a more spirited defense of this latest roll of corporate welfare, KOL, seriously, I did.

Gee, I expected a more spirited defense of this latest roll of corporate welfare, KOL, seriously, I did.

I eventually get to a point where refuting the same "arguement" from the same people over and over again deserves nothing more then :rolleyes:

I eventually get to a point where refuting the same "arguement" from the same people over and over again deserves nothing more then :rolleyes:

Sooo... you think it's going to work as advertised, when similar programmes tried elsewhere have FAILED.

Sooo... you think it's going to work as advertised, when similar programmes tried elsewhere have FAILED.

I think it will work better then the Republican plan, which was "CUT TAXES" and "TAX REFUNDS" as the last eight years showed.

Where have similar programs failed, by the way?

I think it will work better then the Republican plan, which was "CUT TAXES" and "TAX REFUNDS" as the last eight years showed.

Where have similar programs failed, by the way?

The Savings and Loan debacle of the 1980s (domestic). The bailout "Eased the pain" temporarily, and set us up for this banking collapse.

These programmes (as noted in the article linked above) were also tried in Mexico in the eighties-with predictable long-term results. Mexico's a basket-case still.

Central-planned economies were so great for the soviet Bloc that it's taken, what, twenty, thirty years to recover-with HEAVY investment from abroad, frequent arms-sales to embargoed countries, and all the rest?

This is a mess that Government can't fix, that the people who are tasked to "Fix it" are largely responsible for, (though it's nice to have a convenient scapegoat in the form of the Republicans-who were eager participants in setting up this failure themselves-true Bipartisanship, both parties got together to screw the rest of us.)

It's like Gangrene-you can give the patient pain-meds and treat some of the symptoms, but if you don't lop off hte rotten parts, it's going to kill the patient anyway. In this case, expect double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation with single-digit economic growth (the Carter Years, part Two Enhanced) and increased taxation.

People who try to spend their way out of debt, wind up...bankrupt with savaged credit if they're lucky.

The Savings and Loan debacle of the 1980s (domestic). The bailout "Eased the pain" temporarily, and set us up for this banking collapse.
The S&L debacle was a scandal of ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. People went to prison over it. It was not the same as a crisis brought on by many years (both before and after the S&L scandal) of bad banking policy.

These programmes (as noted in the article linked above) were also tried in Mexico in the eighties-with predictable long-term results. Mexico's a basket-case still.
Like the S&L scandal, Mexico's problems are rooted in things other than public spending pograms. Also, Mexico is not the US. You would have to show that Mexico's programs were the same as this one and that its situation was the same as ours.

Central-planned economies were so great for the soviet Bloc that it's taken, what, twenty, thirty years to recover-with HEAVY investment from abroad, frequent arms-sales to embargoed countries, and all the rest?
Same problem applies to the USSR as to Mexico. Also, it is rather silly to say that the current bill is analogous to Soviet nationalization of finance and industry.

This is a mess that Government can't fix, that the people who are tasked to "Fix it" are largely responsible for, (though it's nice to have a convenient scapegoat in the form of the Republicans-who were eager participants in setting up this failure themselves-true Bipartisanship, both parties got together to screw the rest of us.)

It's like Gangrene-you can give the patient pain-meds and treat some of the symptoms, but if you don't lop off hte rotten parts, it's going to kill the patient anyway. In this case, expect double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation with single-digit economic growth (the Carter Years, part Two Enhanced) and increased taxation.

People who try to spend their way out of debt, wind up...bankrupt with savaged credit if they're lucky.
Except that we're not talking about people doing it. We are talking about the government doing it. And the government is not even trying to spend us out of debt. The government is spending to stimulate the movement of money through the economy in the hope that this artificial jumpstart will give struggling businesses the momentum they need to get back up to speed. It is not so much like treating gangrene as treating massive trauma. First, you defibrillate the patient and get the heart pumping again. Then you put the critical patient on life support. Hopefully, that will stablize him enough for you to start experimenting with treatments that will heal the damage. We are only at the defibrillating stage.

It's the Democrats' turn. Republicans had their shot, they fucked it up. Now the Democrats have a chance to get it right...or fuck it up. If they get it right, maybe the country will be just a little bit better than it is right now. If they fuck it up, maybe I'll see the end of the two-party system in my lifetime. Either way, I win. :)

Edit: I also think it's very telling that Arlen Specter, one of the last true conservatives in Congress voted for it.Once my work is done Andrew Jackson shall return as a young man, without any of his rules, and I shall release him upon Congress for their treason to the dreams of the Founding Fathers.

You want the one which list japan as having the lowest?

You can't demand "source" and get a list of taxation. What you have to do is look at government sector expenditure v. nominal taxation rates. There is no clear list for this. But if you go through the various sources, you'll see that the effective taxation rate for the US is very high.

Much higher than say, Europe, because in the US, it's all ex-healthcare.

I will have to disagree. Corporate tax records are a matter of public record both to share holders and the US at large. whats so hard of producing a profits Vs Tax statement. the whole GDP vs this that and the other seems more like people playing with numbers trying to produce results they want.

The S&L debacle was a scandal of ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. People went to prison over it. It was not the same as a crisis brought on by many years (both before and after the S&L scandal) of bad banking policy.


Like the S&L scandal, Mexico's problems are rooted in things other than public spending pograms. Also, Mexico is not the US. You would have to show that Mexico's programs were the same as this one and that its situation was the same as ours.


Same problem applies to the USSR as to Mexico. Also, it is rather silly to say that the current bill is analogous to Soviet nationalization of finance and industry.


Except that we're not talking about people doing it. We are talking about the government doing it. And the government is not even trying to spend us out of debt. The government is spending to stimulate the movement of money through the economy in the hope that this artificial jumpstart will give struggling businesses the momentum they need to get back up to speed. It is not so much like treating gangrene as treating massive trauma. First, you defibrillate the patient and get the heart pumping again. Then you put the critical patient on life support. Hopefully, that will stablize him enough for you to start experimenting with treatments that will heal the damage. We are only at the defibrillating stage.

So.... you're saying the Government isn't made up of People? (I mean, sure, I might call 'em subhuman, but it's weird to hear YOU agreeing with that...)

"Stimulate the movement of money"-this is akin to getting a credit-card to "Stimulate the movement of money" in order to pay off overdue bills caused by another credit-card. A "Jumpstart" would work only if you weren't essentially printing worthless paper-i.e. if the Government HAD reserves to dip into (as it did in FDR's first term) to jumpstart the economy-it doesn't, the money just isn't there. After thirty years of constant deficit-spending, there's just debt, plus more debt, financed by debt. Using moneys to stimulate only works if...you have money. In the Government's case, this is gotten around by the expedient of devaluing the currency-that is, running the printing presses until they break. (Carter.)

There's also the question of a thousand-page bill that was released for vote sight-unseen after being decided behind closed doors without debate, and no debate was permitted (hell, no READING was permitted) before the vote. (apparently the WRONG lessons were learned from the Patriot Act).

As for the S&L situation "Not being the same", sure, because when it happened in 1988, it WAS illegal. It wasn't in 1999 or 2003, or 2007. The deal for the Bailout in '89 included removing those provisions to keep Neil Bush out of jail. The practices were further enshrined in Clinton's revision of the CRA, revisions that allowed Mortgage companies to select the guys who'd buy off on 125% valuations for refinancing (Appraisers) and made it legally kosher to then shop those "assets" onto a worldwide market, bundled with actual good assets, protected by FNMA and FDMC funds (Fannie and Freddy).

The bad debt that triggered the landslide was created by fraudulent practices that were legalized in the nineties, and protected by friends of the industry including Barney Frank, Charles Rangel, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, and Harry Reid. (along with a cast of Republicans, most of them not as well-known or powerful on the Hill.)

Just because a Lobbyist owns the right people on the Hill to get the law changed, doesn't make the formerly illegal practice kosher-it just makes it hard to prosecute.


To "pay off" this stimulus, you're looking at massive inflation (devaluation of currency), and that's assuming it works, and that it doesn't fail.

Failure rates for such stimulus projects are a lot easier to find than success rates, and we don't have the conditions for the one (arguable) success-FDR's depression-era stimulus was backed by a solid currency that maintained its value and depreciated only a little bit because it had a hard limit on how far it could fall-the U.S. Dollar being a fiat currency issued by a debtor nation, is about as solid as the currency of Zimbabwe.

Except that we're not talking about people doing it. We are talking about the government doing it. And the government is not even trying to spend us out of debt. The government is spending to stimulate the movement of money through the economy in the hope that this artificial jumpstart will give struggling businesses the momentum they need to get back up to speed. It is not so much like treating gangrene as treating massive trauma. First, you defibrillate the patient and get the heart pumping again. Then you put the critical patient on life support. Hopefully, that will stablize him enough for you to start experimenting with treatments that will heal the damage. We are only at the defibrillating stage.
Do you think that the government can not become bankrupt? Sudova explains it well, so I won't torture the rest of y'all, but inflation is a serious problem. So is the temporary, false recovery that this 'stimulus' may create. What then? The feds don't have any ammunition left to fight the severe recession that may follow.

Let's provide a gob of money to help the outta work folks. $50 billion, or so, ought to do it. If we must, and I'm not convinced of that, let's spend a couple more billion on saving the giant banks.

But that's it. The tax cuts are in the wrong places and in the wrong amounts. What good is a $250 rebate going to do? It's not enough to plan on a new car. Not enough to do much of anything stimulating. So much for a trickle-up recovery.

So.... you're saying the Government isn't made up of People? (I mean, sure, I might call 'em subhuman, but it's weird to hear YOU agreeing with that...)
That attempt at humor is simplistic and non-responsive. The government does not use money the same way individuals or private households do. It does not use money the way the majority of businesses do. The government is a not-for-profit organization that is not trying to realize income for itself nor maintain its own property. Therefore the people in the government do not use public funds for the nation's affairs the same way they use their own private funds their own personal affairs.

The fact that you come back to me with that remark, as indeed so many who are against this stimulus package do, merely shows that you do not understand what the government is, how it works, or what it is for. The notion that public spending by the government is substantially functionally the same as private spending by individuals is just wrong.

"Stimulate the movement of money"-this is akin to getting a credit-card to "Stimulate the movement of money" in order to pay off overdue bills caused by another credit-card. A "Jumpstart" would work only if you weren't essentially printing worthless paper-i.e. if the Government HAD reserves to dip into (as it did in FDR's first term) to jumpstart the economy-it doesn't, the money just isn't there. After thirty years of constant deficit-spending, there's just debt, plus more debt, financed by debt. Using moneys to stimulate only works if...you have money. In the Government's case, this is gotten around by the expedient of devaluing the currency-that is, running the printing presses until they break. (Carter.)
These remarks are based on the same ignorance as your opening remark, so they are invalid for the same reasons -- error in your understanding of how the government uses money and why. This is evidenced by your use of bizarrely imprecise language instead of references to actual facts. You create a very strange story: Apparently, according to you, FDR had a "reserve" of "essentially worthless paper" that, despite its worthlessness, he was able to "dip into" and use for...what? Nothing? What exactly do you think happened in the Depression? I would like to hear what the timeline of major events was in your mind. You do realize, don't you, that, as bad as debt is, it does not actually generate "worthless paper," right? There is wealth behind the money -- someone else's wealth, yes, but it's not like currency notes that literally represent nothing. If, according to you, Depression era dollars and 1970s recession dollars were so devalued, just how devalued were they and what effect did that have on the US?

There's also the question of a thousand-page bill that was released for vote sight-unseen after being decided behind closed doors without debate, and no debate was permitted (hell, no READING was permitted) before the vote. (apparently the WRONG lessons were learned from the Patriot Act).
That's an interesting accusation. Do you have a source for where you heard it? I was not aware that the bill which both houses of Congress spent days hammering out and arguing over had not been read by them (unlike the Patriot Act, which, as I recall, was written by committee and the executive branch).

As for the S&L situation "Not being the same", sure, because when it happened in 1988, it WAS illegal. It wasn't in 1999 or 2003, or 2007. The deal for the Bailout in '89 included removing those provisions to keep Neil Bush out of jail. The practices were further enshrined in Clinton's revision of the CRA, revisions that allowed Mortgage companies to select the guys who'd buy off on 125% valuations for refinancing (Appraisers) and made it legally kosher to then shop those "assets" onto a worldwide market, bundled with actual good assets, protected by FNMA and FDMC funds (Fannie and Freddy).

The bad debt that triggered the landslide was created by fraudulent practices that were legalized in the nineties, and protected by friends of the industry including Barney Frank, Charles Rangel, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, and Harry Reid. (along with a cast of Republicans, most of them not as well-known or powerful on the Hill.)

Just because a Lobbyist owns the right people on the Hill to get the law changed, doesn't make the formerly illegal practice kosher-it just makes it hard to prosecute.
No, Sudova. The crime came independent of and before the bail out. It was the crime of bribery. Oh, and it was a truly bipartisan scandal. The bankers did not reserve all their money to one party over the years, and as for the Republicans involved being low-profile, at least one of them as been in the news recently: John McCain. Not guilty of bribe taking, but just as deep in the shit as all the rest. Your attempt to paint the Democratic party as the crooked one is adorable but lame.

To "pay off" this stimulus, you're looking at massive inflation (devaluation of currency), and that's assuming it works, and that it doesn't fail.
No shit. That's pretty much what I was talking about in my earlier posts, which I'm sure you have not read.

Failure rates for such stimulus projects are a lot easier to find than success rates, and we don't have the conditions for the one (arguable) success-FDR's depression-era stimulus was backed by a solid currency that maintained its value and depreciated only a little bit because it had a hard limit on how far it could fall-the U.S. Dollar being a fiat currency issued by a debtor nation, is about as solid as the currency of Zimbabwe.
I'm still waiting for you to find such an example.

Do you think that the government can not become bankrupt? Sudova explains it well, so I won't torture the rest of y'all, but inflation is a serious problem. So is the temporary, false recovery that this 'stimulus' may create. What then? The feds don't have any ammunition left to fight the severe recession that may follow.

Let's provide a gob of money to help the outta work folks. $50 billion, or so, ought to do it. If we must, and I'm not convinced of that, let's spend a couple more billion on saving the giant banks.

But that's it. The tax cuts are in the wrong places and in the wrong amounts. What good is a $250 rebate going to do? It's not enough to plan on a new car. Not enough to do much of anything stimulating. So much for a trickle-up recovery.
No, I don't think the government cannot become bankrupt, but Sudova's "explanations" are based on factual error and are clearly colored by political or ideological bias -- as are yours. There is no evidence at this time that THIS stimulus bill will have the dire consequences you predict even if it does fail. Your "the sky is falling" warnings ring hollow unless you have more, real and specific, information about the current situation to offer.

No, I don't think the government cannot become bankrupt, but Sudova's "explanations" are based on factual error and are clearly colored by political or ideological bias -- as are yours. There is no evidence at this time that THIS stimulus bill will have the dire consequences you predict even if it does fail. Your "the sky is falling" warnings ring hollow unless you have more, real and specific, information about the current situation to offer.
I don't think it's about the US going bankrupt, it won't do so until the Chinese stop buying treasuries, which they can't without shooting themselves in the foot. But it definitely is about getting bang for the buck, and from what I've heard the actual modeling that the promised results of the package are based on is extremely optimistic.

For further explanations:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Stratfor-$pd20090213-P85PP?OpenDocument

I don't think it's about the US going bankrupt, it won't do so until the Chinese stop buying treasuries, which they can't without shooting themselves in the foot. But it definitely is about getting bang for the buck, and from what I've heard the actual modeling that the promised results of the package are based on is extremely optimistic.

For further explanations:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Stratfor-$pd20090213-P85PP?OpenDocument
I am aware of the realistic shortcomings of the plan. I have stated that I have issues with it several times over a couple of threads on the topic, and in this thread I stated pretty categorically that I believe this stimulus package will only be the first of several (second, if you count the one Bush gave away as parting gifts to his friends). I also stated that our country, and probably several others are going to have to operate in near-depression deficit spending mode for perhaps ten or more years. If another bubble (like the housing or dot-com bubbles) come along, the reprieve will only be temporary and the bust will be just as bad if not worse, if we do not do the unglamorous and un-fun work of restructuring significant parts of our economy to work differently than it has been doing over the past 15-20 years.

I further stated that all of this is going to be tough shit for all of us. There is no way out of this hole but to climb, and that is what we are going to have to do -- all of us. Working harder and paying more taxes, for the foreseeable future. The party is over. It was never a party I wanted to be at in the first place, and I resent like hell having to go through this to clean up its mess now.

Now, I happen to be of the school of thought that, in a crisis like this, government spending, even if it is 100% deficit spending, is necessary to stimulate job growth. One of my issues with the current plan is how much of that was cut out of it. My bottom line is that I do not believe we will be able to build a real economy again unless we reestablish a manufacturing base within the US. Government programs to jumpstart massive infrastructure improvement can help seed solid old-fashioned things like steel mills, cement works, glass works, etc, etc, as well as many other kinds of businesses. Government programs can also help to seed start-ups in new technology development. The history of the 20th century gives strong evidence in support of this. If I have to survive through possibly ten years of economic shit, then by the gods, I want to see some American industries coming the fuck up for it.

What I DO NOT want to see is yet another parade of ideologues trotting their pet theories in front of me like this is some kind of How to Run an Economy version of the Westminster Kennel Club show. And, while I'm expressing myself, I may as well mention that there is a boot up the ass waiting for the next egghead who says to me anything like "deregulation and tax cuts are the way to go for a free market, blah blah blah."

I do not believe we will be able to build a real economy again unless we reestablish a manufacturing base within the US.
I hope not. If this is the case, then we're boned.

I don't think it's about the US going bankrupt, it won't do so until the Chinese stop buying treasuries, which they can't without shooting themselves in the foot. But it definitely is about getting bang for the buck, and from what I've heard the actual modeling that the promised results of the package are based on is extremely optimistic.

For further explanations:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Stratfor-$pd20090213-P85PP?OpenDocument
Today, I read about the Chinese... Apparently, they are trying to diversify out of the USD.
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/china-is-considering-ways-to-diversify-out-of-the-dollar/2009/02/16/
The big problem is, all the other currency sucks, too.

My thought is that the only way to survive this period, financially, is to start buying some real estate.

The other thought is some T-bills are adjusted for inflation. Anyone have experience with TIPS ETFs?

I hope not. If this is the case, then we're boned.

We are, unless we make it more friendly for companies to manufacture goods in the US. And I don't mean government health care.

Clinton's wildly-successful budget didn't get a single Republican vote. Meanwhile, the last three Republican presidents have all enjoyed bipartisan support for their dissatrous budgets.

The pattern is clear: if Republicans support it, it's a bad budget. When Obama has a budget that makes every Republican burst into flames, he'll know he's hit the sweet spot.

The other thought is some T-bills are adjusted for inflation. Anyone have experience with TIPS ETFs?
Not really. Putting money into US debt doesn't necessarily seem like a great idea over the next year or two though, from a macro perspective. Even if the Chinese keep buying, there's still something of an oversupply thing going on.

All I know about TIPS is that you pay taxes now for the extra principal you get at the end (to compensate for inflation).

Clinton's wildly-successful budget didn't get a single Republican vote. Meanwhile, the last three Republican presidents have all enjoyed bipartisan support for their dissatrous budgets.

The pattern is clear: if Republicans support it, it's a bad budget. When Obama has a budget that makes every Republican burst into flames, he'll know he's hit the sweet spot.
Unless you believe in normal business cycles... Then, the economy was successful and deficits decreased in spite of --- not because of --- Clinton's budget.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/budget/whither3/whither3.htm

Excuse me, I used the wrong word. It should say, "Unless you acknowledge normal business cycles..." Using the word "believe" makes it sound too much like man-made global warming.

I hope not. If this is the case, then we're boned.
Why do you think it is not possible to build a new manufacturing base in the US?

I'm serious about this, because I think it is possible, but will be very difficult.

Unless you believe in normal business cycles... Then, the economy was successful and deficits decreased in spite of --- not because of --- Clinton's budget.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/budget/whither3/whither3.htm

Excuse me, I used the wrong word. It should say, "Unless you acknowledge normal business cycles..." Using the word "believe" makes it sound too much like man-made global warming.
Tell me, what kind of conditioner do you use? Because I find that many conditioning products cause hair discoloration when they contact my tinfoil hat, and you seem to be precisely the person to ask about this problem.

Why do you think it is not possible to build a new manufacturing base in the US?

I'm serious about this, because I think it is possible, but will be very difficult.
What do you think is needed to make business come back to the US?

What do you think is needed to encourage business to start up in the US?

Tell me, what kind of conditioner do you use? Because I find that many conditioning products cause hair discoloration when they contact my tinfoil hat, and you seem to be precisely the person to ask about this problem.
When Clinton's own staff diminishes the deficit reduction effects of his 'miracle' budget, I have to go with that.

What do you think is needed to make business come back to the US?

What do you think is needed to encourage business to start up in the US?
Government programs to solicit development in new technology in energy, waste management, and security (just off the top of my head). Emphasis on decentralizing the programs and issuing localized contracts to smaller manufacturers and development companies, perhaps at the state level, to prevent the contracts from all going to the same major corps that have been getting them. Tax incentives to companies that hire and produce within the US, and tax penalties to companies that offshore. Heavy penalties; also loss of public contracts.

Also, and this is just brainstorming, government programs to offer or support banks offering micro-finance business loans to in-US small manufacturers who are doing things that will advance or revamp troubled or troublesome industries. For instance, small manufacturers who are attempting to improve the costs and environmental impact of paper manufacturing, which can have a ripple impact on agriculture, forest resource management, waste management, water management, all within the US. Basically, I think that if the government instituted a plan of identify (via applications) businesses/entrepreneurs with promising proposals for significant improvement to industries in which the US is lagging or which are opening up as new demands globally, and allowed some kind of minimal funding program to seed such start-ups on the grounds of public interest in the industry, that would be a good idea. Most such entrepreneurs are starting small and will need time to build their businesses because they are creating them as they go along. Big loans would not necessarily be conducive but the potential to apply for several small loans over time (less than $5000 each with a limited number of loans applications per borrower), would likely be more effective for targeting the kinds of people I would want to see take the reins of a future economy.

The key is to break the hold of the big corporations -- the Exxons, the Time Warners, the Halliburtons, etc. They embody the system that I do not believe works anymore, and like dinosaurs, they cannot adapt to the changing conditions. It's time to give some of those little critters that have been haunting the niches a chance to rise up, if they can. Future manufacturing will be in new technologies, and the current big players have too much of a history of obstructing development, rather than promoting it. It is time to drop them. They have outlived their usefulness.

Essentially, I do not believe it would be necessary to change much of the way business start-ups work. Only for the government to change who they choose to give a leg-up to, in terms of preference for public contracts and/or support.

Oh, and nationalized health care would be good, too.

Government programs to solicit development in new technology in energy, waste management, and security (just off the top of my head). Emphasis on decentralizing the programs and issuing localized contracts to smaller manufacturers and development companies, perhaps at the state level, to prevent the contracts from all going to the same major corps that have been getting them. Tax incentives to companies that hire and produce within the US, and tax penalties to companies that offshore. Heavy penalties; also loss of public contracts.

I'm not sure what the government can do here. The government mostly deals in big things - ships, planes, tanks, etc. A small machine shop isn't going to have the capability to build a new tank or airplane. They can make smaller parts that the GD and Lockheed's can sub out.

Same thing with energy projects, waste management, or security. For the project to be useful on a governmental scale, it will require more than me with my drill press, computer, truck, etc to carry it out. Small business can exist as subcontractors to large industry, but large industries are the only ones with the capability to handle large projects.

The federal government has been promoting small business programs for years with the SBIR system.
http://sbir.us/related.html
Worthwhile proposals can become production runs. Maybe this is a little closer to what you intend. I still see a huge program administration bureaucracy in the making, if the government at any level is going to expand it's role in industry. That's bad for a couple reasons --- Foremost, the industry is hampered by levels of decision making and second, the bureaucracy isn't free.

I like the idea of tax incentives -- read capital gains and income tax cuts -- but I'm not fond of the notion that the goverment will tax anyone that goes offshore. That just encourages a shift in the corporate headquarters. Not toward the U.S., either.

Also, and this is just brainstorming, government programs to offer or support banks offering micro-finance business loans to in-US small manufacturers who are doing things that will advance or revamp troubled or troublesome industries. For instance, small manufacturers who are attempting to improve the costs and environmental impact of paper manufacturing, which can have a ripple impact on agriculture, forest resource management, waste management, water management, all within the US. Basically, I think that if the government instituted a plan of identify (via applications) businesses/entrepreneurs with promising proposals for significant improvement to industries in which the US is lagging or which are opening up as new demands globally, and allowed some kind of minimal funding program to seed such start-ups on the grounds of public interest in the industry, that would be a good idea. Most such entrepreneurs are starting small and will need time to build their businesses because they are creating them as they go along. Big loans would not necessarily be conducive but the potential to apply for several small loans over time (less than $5000 each with a limited number of loans applications per borrower), would likely be more effective for targeting the kinds of people I would want to see take the reins of a future economy.

The key is to break the hold of the big corporations -- the Exxons, the Time Warners, the Halliburtons, etc. They embody the system that I do not believe works anymore, and like dinosaurs, they cannot adapt to the changing conditions. It's time to give some of those little critters that have been haunting the niches a chance to rise up, if they can. Future manufacturing will be in new technologies, and the current big players have too much of a history of obstructing development, rather than promoting it. It is time to drop them. They have outlived their usefulness.

Essentially, I do not believe it would be necessary to change much of the way business start-ups work. Only for the government to change who they choose to give a leg-up to, in terms of preference for public contracts and/or support.

Oh, and nationalized health care would be good, too.
You know small business is already the largest employer in the US, right? If we're looking to expand the manufacturing base, capital costs are huge. If I want to start making widgets for the F-35, for instance, I need several certifications, a number of machines, and people to operate them. Same thing if I want to supply GM or Ford. That's a reasonable thing, but it's not like starting a cookie company the markets on the internet. So the question is are we trying to really increase the manufacturing base? Do we want more steel mills? Do we want to compete with foreign car makers? If the answer to those questions is yes, then a couple $5000 loans isn't going to be the answer.

I'm not sure what the government can do here. The government mostly deals in big things - ships, planes, tanks, etc. A small machine shop isn't going to have the capability to build a new tank or airplane. They can make smaller parts that the GD and Lockheed's can sub out.
<snip for space>
Myrm, I knew when I decided to answer your questions that you would not agree with me. I know perfectly well what you think should be done because you have told us all in sufficient detail often enough. I think I have also made my disagreement with you pretty clear, too.

So I am not going to get into a tit for tat with you on whether my thoughts are valid or not. I know that you will never agree with me, no matter what I say. Why? Ideology, that's why. The very thing I said I never wanted to hear again. Since the fundamental divide between us is ideological -- our ideas of how things are supposed to be done -- I'm not going to fight with you about it. There are only so many NSG endless round dances I can do in a month.

HOWEVER, that said, I will say this one thing about your response to me -- which really was very serious and thoughtful, for which I thank you -- BUT I notice that you criticized my ideas on the grounds that small businesses and entrepreneurs cannot match the production levels of the existing big corps. You apparently chose to ignore the fact that I specifically stated that I believe the time has come to abandon the big corps, which obviously would necessitate a difference in the kind of projects the government fronts and how they do it. So since, obviously, I was not talking about doing things the same way the big corps have been doing it, that would make the criticism that we wouldn't be working like we did with the big corps kind of irrelevant, wouldn't it?

You also failed to note that I drew a distinction (I probably could have done that better) between government contracts and government incentives/support for private industry. You also did not realize that I suggested decentralizing some government projects, breaking them up by states, so that contracts would be smaller and thus more accessible to smaller businesses. Etc. I think you basically took my ideas and tried to fit them to your plan-mold, and it didn't fit, which is not surprising considering it is built on an entirely different mold/model than the one you use.

You and I can agree 100%, I think, on this: that we have polar opposite ideas of how the US economy and society should be structured, and that each of us is strongly motivated NOT to come over to the other's side. We need to keep that in mind any time we talk about anything.

I seriously hesitated to answer your questions at all because there is just never going to be a productive discussion about these things between you and me on the internet, where we don't actually HAVE TO reach a conclusion. But your questions were good and serious, so I decided to go for it, and I tried to give a decent representation of my thinking on the matter. I probably did not do the best possible job because I was still on my first cup of coffee, but I tried. I just wanted to present my thoughts so that you and others might get a sense of where I'm coming from on this issue.

And I recognize that you gave a good and reasonable response in your reply to it. But it is clear to me that your response is based solidly on your preconceptions about how things are supposed to be done, how you think they must be done or what you think is the only way for them to be done. And that is just on a completely different track than my comments are on.

I suppose we could get into an in-depth discussion of our respective social visions, but I don't want to because (1) it will bring out all the junior libertarians and Ayn Rand fans who I really need a break from, (2) I just don't have the time or energy for something that intense, and (3) I know that I hold my opinions on this based on deep personal principles, and I believe you hold yours for the same reason, so what point would there be to the exercise?

I suggest we just agree to disagree on this, accept the fact of our opinions, and carry on. I personally don't think you fully understood me because you were looking at my statements through the prism of your thinking rather than trying to follow my thinking, but I don't think addressing that is going to result in agreement, so I'm okay with living with it. Maybe over time, and as more things come up in various related discussions, a better picture of what I have in mind will emerge, which will be more accessible to you looking at it from your point of view.

EDIT: Myrm, there are few specific details in your post that I could talk about, but since right now I'm standing on one side of the Grand Canyon and you're standing on the other, I am kind of afraid to get into just taking shots across the divide to see if something connects. I am willing to wait for more content to come up to for more directed questions to arise, if you are really interested in exploring this.

Enjoy yer inflation and lengthened depression again, the US.

If it was so important that the stimulus bill happen right away, right now, why did he wait a few days to sign it?

Enjoy yer inflation and lengthened depression again, the US.

Stagflation is coming, lol. Shades of Jimmy Carter.

Stagflation is coming, lol. Shades of Jimmy Carter.
Eh more like FDR without the fireside chats, and even more paying off the corporations before a mild and eminently reversible tax hike on them.

If it was so important that the stimulus bill happen right away, right now, why did he wait a few days to sign it?

....because it was signed on a Friday night, and any agency that could even do anything about implimenting it would have, by law, been closed over the three day weekend?

Fucking duh?

....because it was signed on a Friday night, and any agency that could even do anything about implimenting it would have, by law, been closed over the three day weekend?

Fucking duh?

Guess it wasn't too important. That, and more than half the money in it won't be spent until at least 2011.

Guess it wasn't too important.

I like how you just totally ignored what I said. What would have been accomplished by him signing it Friday, when every government office will be closed until Tuesday?

What is truly sickening, is they know it won't do anything. So before the bill has been signed, the dems are already cautioning people not to expect things to change right away. They've already prepped their excuses. When it gets worse, they'll tell people to wait. When it continues to get worse, Biden will remind people that he warned there was a 30% chance it wouldn't work and they'll blame the Republicans and Rush for sabotaging it.

What is truly sickening, is they know it won't do anything. So before the bill has been signed, the dems are already cautioning people not to expect things to change right away. They've already prepped their excuses. When it gets worse, they'll tell people to wait. When it continues to get worse, Biden will remind people that he warned there was a 30% chance it wouldn't work and they'll blame the Republicans and Rush for sabotaging it.

Politics is politics. No party is above this.

What is truly sickening, is they know it won't do anything. So before the bill has been signed, the dems are already cautioning people not to expect things to change right away. They've already prepped their excuses. When it gets worse, they'll tell people to wait. When it continues to get worse, Biden will remind people that he warned there was a 30% chance it wouldn't work and they'll blame the Republicans and Rush for sabotaging it.

Curse them and their devilishly realistic expectations, know they no shame! Don't they know that should be saying things like "Slam dunk!" and "They'll great us as liberators!" How dare they address a complex situation like we're adults! It's a plot, I tells ya, a plot!

What is truly sickening, is they know it won't do anything. So before the bill has been signed, the dems are already cautioning people not to expect things to change right away. They've already prepped their excuses. When it gets worse, they'll tell people to wait. When it continues to get worse, Biden will remind people that he warned there was a 30% chance it wouldn't work and they'll blame the Republicans and Rush for sabotaging it.

And the best part is that when things pick up in a year and a half and we have a balanced budget by 2013 and run budget surplusses until 2017, you can credit the cyclical nature of business. ;)

Sometime this year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

"Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
"A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

"Q. Where will the government get this money?
"A. From taxpayers.

"Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
"A. No, they are borrowing it from China. You children are expected to repay the Chinese.

"Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
"A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

"Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
"A. Shut up."


Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.

If you spend it on gasoline it will go to Hugo Chavez, the Arabs and Al Queda

If you purchase a computer it will go to Taiwan.

If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).

If you buy a car it will go to Japan and Korea.

If you purchase prescription drugs it will go to India

If you purchase heroin it will go to the Taliban in Afghanistan


If you give it to a charitable cause, it will go to Nigeria.

And none of it will help the American economy.

We need to keep that money here in America. You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, marijuana, or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US.

What is truly sickening, is they know it won't do anything. So before the bill has been signed, the dems are already cautioning people not to expect things to change right away. They've already prepped their excuses. When it gets worse, they'll tell people to wait. When it continues to get worse, Biden will remind people that he warned there was a 30% chance it wouldn't work and they'll blame the Republicans and Rush for sabotaging it.

Telling you children not to expect rapid change over night is "preparing an excuse"?:rolleyes:
We need to keep that money here in America.

They tried something like that. It was the Buy American clause. And you and your ilk howled about it being socialist or something.

They tried something like that. It was the Buy American clause. And you and your ilk howled about it being socialist or something.

I think it was after Europe threatened to take us to the WTO courts again.

I think it was after Europe threatened to take us to the WTO courts again.

Thats no why DK and his kabal foamed at the mouth over it. They did it just because it was in the Democrat's bill.

And I still think we should have told Europe to fuck themselves (whats wrong with making sure the US stimulus bill stimulates the US economy?), but thats for another thread.

Sometime this year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

"Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
"A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

"Q. Where will the government get this money?
"A. From taxpayers.

"Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
"A. No, they are borrowing it from China. You children are expected to repay the Chinese.

"Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
"A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

"Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
"A. Shut up."


Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.

If you spend it on gasoline it will go to Hugo Chavez, the Arabs and Al Queda

If you purchase a computer it will go to Taiwan.

If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).

If you buy a car it will go to Japan and Korea.

If you purchase prescription drugs it will go to India

If you purchase heroin it will go to the Taliban in Afghanistan


If you give it to a charitable cause, it will go to Nigeria.

And none of it will help the American economy.

We need to keep that money here in America. You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, marijuana, or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US.

Spend it on clowns. :)

Why do you think it is not possible to build a new manufacturing base in the US?

I'm serious about this, because I think it is possible, but will be very difficult.

I do not think it is possible to build a manufacturing base in the US because there is no way the government can make it competitive with those based in third-world countries without horribly sacrificing every worker's right that's ever been passed. The only manufacturing that the US can afford to sustain is that of specialty goods, or those that can only be produced here. I don't know what these are offhand, but I know there aren't many.

Myrm, I knew when I decided to answer your questions that you would not agree with me. I know perfectly well what you think should be done because you have told us all in sufficient detail often enough. I think I have also made my disagreement with you pretty clear, too.
...
EDIT: Myrm, there are few specific details in your post that I could talk about, but since right now I'm standing on one side of the Grand Canyon and you're standing on the other, I am kind of afraid to get into just taking shots across the divide to see if something connects. I am willing to wait for more content to come up to for more directed questions to arise, if you are really interested in exploring this.
This is what the internet and forums are good for... exchanging ideas. Where else can very different people get together and talk openly? Different points of view are good things. How many discussions, meetings, classes, whatever do you get into, where the protagonists have opposing ideas? Plenty, I'll bet. My days usually start that way. Generally, we come up with a solution that is better than if everyone had agreed to begin with.

I'm not going to promise that I'll ever change my opinions, but I do promise that I will be open minded about ways to improve the conditions in the USA. I'm not happy with the way the country is headed and if your side of the Grand Canyon has the answers, I'll embrace them. I will also promise not to be pedantic, dogmatic, rude, or too stubborn -- at least where discussions with you are concerned.

Back to business -- How do we increase the manufacturing base in the US? Do we need to abandon the big business model? I'm not against the idea, but I don't know how to do it. I'm not sure we ever can. I'm not sure we need to, either. Not if we are talking about increasing the manufacturing base in the US, anyway.

We certainly can make it more attractive or lucrative to run a small business. The federal government does some of that with the SBIR grants. And there are undoubtedly improvements that can be made. Ever hear of P2P lending? Look at Prosper.com. It's a clever way of avoiding the large financial corps. Does that give you any ideas? I love to see people taking care of each other, without needing government help.

How do we divert big contracts from the big corp that usually gets them? I really don't know. I'm sure we can pass laws that require this and that, but those laws usually have unintended consequences. Are there more subtle ways? Or are there some contracts that are just too big to be done by small business?

Small business is great for some things. More patents per employee, more new jobs created, high tech havens... The SBA (http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf)says that small business employs about half of all workers. They also pay a lot more in compliance costs per employee than do big employers. That's my experience, too. It was just expensive to hire people. Then, there are other costs like insurance, health care, dental, vision, etc. We tried to do all that, but the premium increases were just hideous. I ended up giving everyone an allowance for buying their own health and dental care.

What is truly sickening, is they know it won't do anything. So before the bill has been signed, the dems are already cautioning people not to expect things to change right away. They've already prepped their excuses. When it gets worse, they'll tell people to wait. When it continues to get worse, Biden will remind people that he warned there was a 30% chance it wouldn't work and they'll blame the Republicans and Rush for sabotaging it.

*sigh* so "hope and change" is a rhetoric to get people to believe Obama is a messiah but "hold on, we won't see effects right away" is knowing that it won't work. Either he's building hopes too high, or he's dashing them.

What the fuck is it with you people?

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.

If you spend it on gasoline it will go to Hugo Chavez, the Arabs and Al Queda

If you purchase a computer it will go to Taiwan.

If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).

If you buy a car it will go to Japan and Korea.

If you purchase prescription drugs it will go to India

If you purchase heroin it will go to the Taliban in Afghanistan


If you give it to a charitable cause, it will go to Nigeria.

And none of it will help the American economy.

We need to keep that money here in America. You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, marijuana, or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US.


are you under the impression that TV stores and drug stores and gas stations and Wal-Mart are just empty places where you go, pick out what you want, and slip your cash into a drop box?

Are you unaware of the fact that people work in those stores?

I do not think it is possible to build a manufacturing base in the US because there is no way the government can make it competitive with those based in third-world countries without horribly sacrificing every worker's right that's ever been passed. The only manufacturing that the US can afford to sustain is that of specialty goods, or those that can only be produced here. I don't know what these are offhand, but I know there aren't many.
1) Nationalized health care would significantly reduce or eliminate the main cost that employers complain keeps them from being competitive globally. It would not sacrifice every worker's right.

2) Every year, various financial magazines do pieces on highly profitable corporations, both American and international, which treat their workers equitably and even generously. The belief that, in order to be competitive, the workers must be reduced to near slavery is a lie promulgated by big business interests, who have been banging that drum since the 1900s.

3) I agree with KoL that the much maligned Buy American feature that was cut from the stimulus bill is the right way to go. Just a tiny portion of protectionism can be helpful, as long as it is not overdone. It is the government of the US and a member of NAFTA/CAFTA (which I hate, but still), so should our economic policy be more localized?

4) Back in the 1970s, when the US still had a steel industry, my mother was a steel trader. In her firm, she specialized in trading cold-rolled galvanized foundry seconds to Pakistan. That was the first world trading raw goods to the third world where it was turned into value-added goods. I see no reason why that cannot be reversed, and the third world, which now is producing the raw materials, selling those to us where we turn it into value-added goods.

5) You are also forgetting that changes in industry and technology that have already occurred, globally, are creating demands for new, cheaper, more sustainable ways to do both new things (like security, both personal and governmental) and old things (like engineering and a host of old school manufacturing). These new demands are not yet dominated by any one nation and are ripe for exploitation over the coming few decades.

Establishing a manufacturing base does not have to mean re-establishing the same specific industries that we have lost. There are new industries to be developed. Doing new stuff is what the US is all about.

Rebuilding the manufacturing base of the US also does not have to mean total protectionism or isolationism. It only needs to mean some intelligent temporary controls on international trade.

are you under the impression that TV stores and drug stores and gas stations and Wal-Mart are just empty places where you go, pick out what you want, and slip your cash into a drop box?

Are you unaware of the fact that people work in those stores?

Yes. He doesn't look at those people.

This is what the internet and forums are good for... exchanging ideas. Where else can very different people get together and talk openly? Different points of view are good things. How many discussions, meetings, classes, whatever do you get into, where the protagonists have opposing ideas? Plenty, I'll bet. My days usually start that way. Generally, we come up with a solution that is better than if everyone had agreed to begin with.


ARRGH!!! I spent more than 1.5 hours writing a response and Jolt ate it. *glares at forum*. I'll try to remember what the hell it was I wrote and reply to this later tonight.

ARRGH!!! I spent more than 1.5 hours writing a responseHoly shit, Mur. :eek:

I doubt I could spend fifteen minutes typing up a reply, much less an hour and a half. :eek2:

has the EU reacted to this yet? *has been busy*

Thats no why DK and his kabal foamed at the mouth over it. They did it just because it was in the Democrat's bill.

ahem I do believe I made a thread on that :mad:

And I still think we should have told Europe to fuck themselves (whats wrong with making sure the US stimulus bill stimulates the US economy?), but thats for another thread.

I'm sorry but your kinda fucked without the EU so maybe its best you respect its wishes

I'm sorry but you kinda fucked without the EU so maybe its best you respect its wishesI think that works both ways.

And I still think we should have told Europe to fuck themselves (whats wrong with making sure the US stimulus bill stimulates the US economy?), but thats for another thread.

something about violating the principles of free trade and the agreement the US signed when we joined/help form the WTO. along with numerous other treaties.

I think that works both ways.

since when has the EU ever ignored what the US wants?

its odd we get all this talk of goodwill and friendship from the US but when we disagree with something suddenly the US turns into the worlds largest prick with its fingers in its ears

something about violating the principles of free trade and the agreement the US signed when we joined/help form the WTO. along with numerous other treaties.

don't be silly you can't hold the US to silly things like treaties

I'm sorry but your kinda fucked without the EU so maybe its best you respect its wishes

How so? Youve already stated that you dont buy anything from us...As well, we're the ones buying the majority of the stuff Europe sells...

Sounds to me like the EU is the only one "fucked" in this equation...

since when has the EU ever ignored what the US wants?

its odd we get all this talk of goodwill and friendship from the US but when we disagree with something suddenly the US turns into the worlds largest prick with its fingers in its earsNo, I was agreeing with you. We both need each other, by extension, that means not ignoring each other. It makes sense.

since when has the EU ever ignored what the US wants?



Weve never bitched when you buy local...

since when has the EU ever ignored what the US wants?

its odd we get all this talk of goodwill and friendship from the US but when we disagree with something suddenly the US turns into the worlds largest prick with its fingers in its ears

the EU didn't do anything wrong. they just said hey this here WTO membership says your not supposed to do stuff like that. And you threatened to take it up with the WTO if the measure remained.

How so? Youve already stated that you dont buy anything from us...As well, we're the ones buying the majority of the stuff Europe sells...Since when do EU nations not buy stuff from America?
Ever heard of Caterpillar (The company)?

Since when do EU nations not buy stuff from America?
Ever heard of Caterpillar (The company.)?

I was commenting on what Call to Power said in a previous thread on the subject...

has the EU reacted to this yet? *has been busy*



ahem I do believe I made a thread on that :mad:

Yeah, and you didnt understand it either.

I'm sorry but your kinda fucked without the EU so maybe its best you respect its wishes

ROFL in what world do you live in kiddo?

How so? Youve already stated that you dont buy anything from us...As well, we're the ones buying the majority of the stuff Europe sells...

fizzy drinks, liquor, fast food, Microsoft, porn

you could say your the cause of all Europes problems :p

fizzy drinks, liquor, fast food, Microsoft, porn

you could say your the cause of all Europes problems :p

Well, at least we're getting our revenge somehow, lmao :rolleyes:

don't be silly you can't hold the US to silly things like treaties

Yeah, but we have found we have to when the its about trade and the EU complains.

besides I find the WTO benefits the US in relation to the EU. We would have almost no cut into the market with out the WTO.
compare Boeing's and Airbus's net income. in 2008. boeing has a net income of + 2.6 billion USD.
While Airbus had a net loss of 900 mil euro.
If we pass a buy American steel provision the EU is likely to pass a buy European plans measure. No reason to hurt the one Us industry that actually makes money and decent equipment.

This is what the internet and forums are good for... exchanging ideas. Where else can very different people get together and talk openly? Different points of view are good things. How many discussions, meetings, classes, whatever do you get into, where the protagonists have opposing ideas? Plenty, I'll bet. My days usually start that way. Generally, we come up with a solution that is better than if everyone had agreed to begin with.

I'm not going to promise that I'll ever change my opinions, but I do promise that I will be open minded about ways to improve the conditions in the USA. I'm not happy with the way the country is headed and if your side of the Grand Canyon has the answers, I'll embrace them. I will also promise not to be pedantic, dogmatic, rude, or too stubborn -- at least where discussions with you are concerned.
Okay, I’ll bite. Here’s version 2 of what Jolt swallowed and refused to spit up earlier.

Back to business -- How do we increase the manufacturing base in the US? Do we need to abandon the big business model? I'm not against the idea, but I don't know how to do it. I'm not sure we ever can. I'm not sure we need to, either. Not if we are talking about increasing the manufacturing base in the US, anyway.
I do not think it would be either possible or desirable to give up on the concept of big business. Business models that link manufacturing to shipping, and which inherently have the capacity to grow enormously, have been part of economies for, perhaps, thousands of years -- for as long as humans have been traveling long distance to trade goods and putting together organizations to facilitate doing that. The corporations we see today have their roots in the Florentine bankers of the Renaissance, in the East India Company, in the mercantile shipping magnates of early New England (the guys with names like Macy and Starbuck). (And I mean they literally have their roots in those sources; historians can draw up “family trees” of corporate entities and even mercantile families stretching that far back.)

The big business model, in and of itself, is not the problem.

The problem is the specific companies and even specific people dominating US business at the present time.

You and others often talk about how business and the economy rise and fall in cycles. This is absolutely true. And those cycles hit the men at the top of the game just like everybody else. There is nothing happening here that we have not seen before. The kings of the hill do not want to be replaced at the top, but they have reached the end of their game. The circumstances of the world change, and the old business guard cannot adapt. Like all things that cannot adapt, they are doomed. But like all doomed creatures, they will cling to what they have as long as they can, by any means. They manipulate markets and corrupt the law to keep their new competitors from rising. They maintain their position not by good business but by cheating. But this current crisis, just like all similar crises before it, shows that the world is no longer able to carry their dead weight.

We have seen this pattern over and over again in history. If the failed heads of business will not come down from the high seat, they must torn down. If they will not let go of control, they must be cut loose. They had a good run, but now it’s time for them to go. They will cry and whine and threaten in the face of increased regulation, increased quality standards, and other things that will likely force them to change or close shop, but they should count themselves lucky. 200 years ago, they would have been facing revolution and the guillotine so society could be rid of them.

Make no mistake -- I am talking about the government taking deliberate action to change the kinds of business models and kinds of industries it will support with its patronage. This will naturally lead to massive upheavals in the economy as companies variously fail or rise up. It will lead to massive upheavals in employment and the job market. It will probably necessitate a temporary further shrinking of the US economy, because the new companies that come up to replace the old corporate guard will not be as big as that old guard at first. And that will require more government involvement than a lot of people would like in order to help the people absorb the shock of the changes.

It’s not a matter of inventing a manufacturing base and then finding business models to fill it. It is more a matter of making the decision to try to steer the country in a certain direction, and then meeting up with the companies who are already along that road.

And those companies and entrepreneurs do exist in the US, both large and small. All they need is the government to break the stranglehold a few mega corporations have on the markets, and a little help facilitating connecting resources, and they will step up to the plate to make themselves and the country richer.

We certainly can make it more attractive or lucrative to run a small business. The federal government does some of that with the SBIR grants. And there are undoubtedly improvements that can be made. Ever hear of P2P lending? Look at Prosper.com. It's a clever way of avoiding the large financial corps. Does that give you any ideas? I love to see people taking care of each other, without needing government help.
It is my view that modern business support tools such as the internet make it so much easier to access very large markets and to work with alternative business models now than it was 30 years ago, that new-model businesses may actually need less help to expand their businesses than they would have before. That is why I talked about micro-finance rather than big ticket contracts or grants.

It is also why I think it is even more important for government to remove obstacles to high level business competition than to deliver large amounts of direct assistance to business. Proper enforcement of the law and elimination of outright political corruption and cronyism from government contracting and commercial regulation would do more to open up support to those trying to build new manufacturing business in the US than almost anything else.

Eliminate unfair obstruction. Temporarily subsidize some businesses to facilitate them meeting the needs of other businesses -- such as encouraging farmers to grow crops needed for pharmaceuticals or paper or textiles, etc, but without dealing with ADM, Agrimark or Conagra. Even permanently subsidizing industries that connect and facilitate many other businesses and provide public service, such as public transportation. Do things that will seriously reduce costs of doing business, such as making the tax regulations simpler and more transparent and socializing all or part of health care costs. Most of these are things the government has done in the past and could do again, and which I believe, based on history, would have a beneficial effect.

How do we divert big contracts from the big corp that usually gets them? I really don't know. I'm sure we can pass laws that require this and that, but those laws usually have unintended consequences. Are there more subtle ways? Or are there some contracts that are just too big to be done by small business?
Of course there are contracts that are too big for small businesses. A small business could never fulfill a military armament contract or build space shuttles, for instance.

But there are other kinds of contracts that could easily be divvied up among smaller businesses, particularly in infrastructure construction, public services, etc. But contracts are only a part -- preferably the smaller part -- of the picture. There are contracts, but there are also support and incentives to private industry.

But this is not a matter of inventing the perfect government contract system to give work to small businesses while the businesses sit idle waiting for the money to be spoonfed to them. What the government needs to do is decide what it wants and how it wants it to be delivered to it, and then let the businesses seeking the contracts, whoever they may be, raise themselves up to meet the needs of the contracts. Or let those seeking the incentives rise to meet the requirements to qualify for the incentives. It sort of is a “build it and they will come” situation, just as long as when they come, they don’t find the doors locked against them.

And that brings us to your question of how to divert contracts away from those who usually get them. Really, there should be nothing easier. Just don’t renew those contracts when they come up for renewal. Surely, there must be a point at which a contractor has fucked up one job too many -- blown schedules by years and budgets by billions often enough that they just don’t get any more government contracts for anything. This is what I mean by eliminating corruption and cronyism. Stop this bullshit of sweetheart and no-bid deals that get auto-renewed without any review or anyone saying a word about it. And that’s where the voting and taxpaying public comes in. 200 years ago, it would not have been just the captains of industry called to account for their service to the people, and so it should be again -- though without the beheadings. I suppose.

Small business is great for some things. More patents per employee, more new jobs created, high tech havens... The SBA says that small business employs about half of all workers. They also pay a lot more in compliance costs per employee than do big employers. That's my experience, too. It was just expensive to hire people. Then, there are other costs like insurance, health care, dental, vision, etc. We tried to do all that, but the premium increases were just hideous. I ended up giving everyone an allowance for buying their own health and dental care.
You have often declared your dislike of nationalized health care, but I have to tell you, I really think it is the one thing, out of all the available options, that would solve that massive problem for you.

I have spent about 20 years thinking about this and comparing the US private payors system against other first world countries’ nationalized single payor systems. I see absolutely nothing good for business or individuals in the US system. I see nothing bad for business or individuals in the various first world nationalized systems -- especially by comparison to the US system. As far as I can see, the only thing the US would lose by nationalizing health care would be crippling costs to businesses and individuals and the incessant whining of the insurance and pharma industries. I don’t know about you, but I would not miss either of those.

Finally, a last thought -- I picked up Chinese food for dinner tonight, and the fortune cookie that came with it is eerily apropos. It reads:

You never suffer from a money problem. You always suffer from an idea problem.

If we want to re-establish a manufacturing base in the US, all we need to do is figure out how to make that happen. We are humans. We have big brains. Figuring out how to do things is what we evolved to do.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-stimulus-saves-microsoft-billionaire-hundreds-of-millions-phew-2009-2

# Allen owns a majority stake in cable provider Charter Communications.
# Charter Communications this month said it would reduce its debt load by $8 billion and enter Chapter 11.
# Normally, partners at a firm like Charter Communications would have to pay taxes on the amount of debt forgiven in this process, which is, in a sense a one-time income windfall. Tax law calls it a "deemed distribution."
# But under the new bill, companies like Cable Communications will be able to avoid paying taxes on forgiven debt until 2014. Even then, Paul will have until 2018 to pay it completely off.
# Paul owns about half of Charter, so his share of the Cable Commuincations' $8 billion debt forgiveness is around $4 billion. At a tax rate of 25%, Allen could avoid paying as much as $1 billion in taxes until 2014, tax expert Robert Willens told the WSJ.

I think he'll be buying another mega-yacht. Not green, but certainly a lot of fun.

Don't you love unintended consequences? Or is this why Paul Allen gives to the DNC?

He could always paint it green.
I got a stimulus at work. I couldn't stand up for a while because there were ladies present.

We're not clear how a corporate tax benefit would be passed through to Paul's personal tax payments, but that's what Willens seems to be saying. Any tax experts out there care to clarify?

It's becoming really boring...

For what it's worth, one of Paul's representatives told the WSJ the billionaire didn't lobby for the windfall. It just fell into his lap, lucky dog.

Who did lobby for this to be included, I'm not saying either way, but real assumption there,

So what will Paul do with that money until 2014? Invest it in technology that reduces our dependence on foreign oil and creates new "green collar" jobs for America, per the goals of Obama's stimulus plan, of course.

You've decided boat.

I mean, so many presumptions, such a definite conclusion by you,

...really, really boring.

It's becoming really boring...

Who did lobby for this to be included, I'm not saying either way, but real assumption there,

You've decided boat.

I mean, so many presumptions, such a definite conclusion by you,

...really, really boring.

Yeah, it's boring that he's gotten a windfall of at least 1 billion...

Yeah, that's made a lot of jobs right there, hasn't it - or is it your assumption that this is somehow making jobs?

OK, so let me see if I understand this correctly. The stimulus saves this guy a BILLION dollars, except that it doesn't actually save HIM anything, because it's a corporate tax break designed to relieve corporate tax obligations, and even as a majority shareholder, he can't spend that money on himself because, even though he has a controlling interestin the corporation, it's still the corporation's money, and if he tries to spend it on himself he's liable for a derivative suit...and it's not really letting him save that money, just delay paying it off.

So, I suppose this post headline could be rewritten as "Law designed to allow business entities to delay tax payments allows business entity to delay tax payments"

Yeah, it's boring that he's gotten a windfall of at least 1 billion...

Yeah, that's made a lot of jobs right there, hasn't it - or is it your assumption that this is somehow making jobs?

Yeah, I suppose, allowing debt repayment over a longer term really screws over smaller companies who could use that money to re-invest.

Perhaps we should expand government even more to account for every individual case.

Marcus (Max) Baucus proposed this inclusion by the way, a Democrat, I'm sure you're glad to hear, aimed specifically at letting rich Democrats off the hook.

Yeah, it's boring that he's gotten a windfall of at least 1 billion...

what fucking windfall? It just allows him 5 years to pay it off instead of one. He still owes that money.

And it's not HIS debt anyway, it's the business entity's

dk is now just phoning it in

Don't you love unintended consequences
This isn't unintended. The bailout is pretty clearly a way to line the pockets of the already-wealthy, with other peoples' jobs being saved as an added bonus. It's like what Reagan did in the 1980s, just dressed up in vaguely socialist garb.

This isn't unintended. The bailout is pretty clearly a way to line the pockets of the already-wealthy, with other peoples' jobs being saved as an added bonus. It's like what Reagan did in the 1980s, just dressed up in vaguely socialist garb.

So you're saying it's my fault for not being fabulously wealthy, and I'm stupid for paying my taxes all these years?

So you're saying it's my fault for not being fabulously wealthy, and I'm stupid for paying my taxes all these years?
Not really, what I am saying is that the stimulus package is really going to help those with money already, and outside of a short-lived tax break for MC types and the poor, they'll be the ones that are going to benefit from it in the medium term.

so the tax cuts that the republicans so desperately wanted were a bad idea?

go figure.

so the tax cuts that the republicans so desperately wanted were a bad idea?

go figure.

again, it's not even a tax CUT, it's an allowance to delay payment. And it's not a personal benefit, it's a business benefit.

again, it's not even a tax CUT, it's an allowance to delay payment. And it's not a personal benefit, it's a business benefit.

Because Charter Communictions is so vital to the economy, and has been such a well-run business!

Because Charter Communictions is so vital to the economy, and has been such a well-run business!

which is relevant how? Sorry DK, once again you make a post that has no grounding in reality and got called out on it. Don't get snippy at me because you, once again, fail to understand what it is you're posting.

which is relevant how? Sorry DK, once again you make a post that has no grounding in reality and got called out on it. Don't get snippy at me because you, once again, fail to understand what it is you're posting.

It's relevant because it's not stimulating any jobs, and it's going to cost the government at least a billion in the short term.

But I guess that's stimulating the economy for you.

So wait. Let me get this straight. There are problems with how the Stimulus is working because a corporate tax delay is doing exactly what a corporate tax delay is supposed to do?

Seriously?

So wait. Let me get this straight. There are problems with how the Stimulus is working because a corporate tax delay is doing exactly what a corporate tax delay is supposed to do?

Seriously?

that...seems to be the issue yes.

It's relevant because it's not stimulating any jobs

Seriously. It's been THIRTY SIX WHOLE HOURS since this law was signed, and this guy hasn't done a THING with this billion dollars he doesn't have yet.

WHERE'S THE CHANGE OBAMA?

So wait. Let me get this straight. There are problems with how the Stimulus is working because a corporate tax delay is doing exactly what a corporate tax delay is supposed to do?

Seriously?

Democrats always say that tax cuts and tax delays don't stimulate the economy.

So now you're saying that they do?

again, it's not even a tax CUT, it's an allowance to delay payment. And it's not a personal benefit, it's a business benefit.
yeah.

i dont even have a problem with him using any extra money he might make this year on a boat. boat builders/staff have to make money too.

(ya ya i read the part where its not going to go to him personally)

Democrats always say that tax cuts and tax delays don't stimulate the economy.

So now you're saying that they do?
they dont.

so whats your point? tax cuts and tax delays were put in to satisfy the republicans.

Democrats always say that tax cuts and tax delays don't stimulate the economy.

So now you're saying that they do?
Things may have changed, also they needed to get Republicans on board to pass this ridiculous bailout.

Democrats always say that tax cuts and tax delays alone don't stimulate the economy.

Fixed

Fixed

Hardly. The party line is that they don't fix anything, don't stimulate anything, and are a reward for the rich.

Hardly. The party line is that they don't fix anything, don't stimulate anything, and are a reward for the rich.

Source?

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. That is economic fact. It seems to me usually only the Republicans go against fact in their soundbites.

Source?

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. That is economic fact. It seems to me usually only the Republicans go against fact in their soundbites.

You missed Pelosi's objections to any tax cuts in the stimulus.

You missed Pelosi's objections to any tax cuts in the stimulus.

Was her objection, "I object to tax cuts because they won't stimulate the economy?"

Otherwise, you're still wrong. I would also like to add that even though Pelosi is a high-ranking Democrat, I'd hardly call her every word the "party line".

From the mouth of Nancy Pelosi:

We provide the most significant expansion of tax cuts for low- and moderate-income Americans ever, which will lift more than 2 million Americans out of poverty.
From her speech in the defense of the stimulus.

http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1007

they dont.

so whats your point? tax cuts and tax delays were put in to satisfy the republicans.

Ironic isn't it?

"WAaaaaah! We want tax cuts!"

*tax cuts are written in*

"WAaaaaah! People are actually benefiting from their tax cuts!"

Ironic isn't it?

"WAaaaaah! We want tax cuts!"

*tax cuts are written in*

"WAaaaaah! People are actually benefiting from their tax cuts!"
"ironic" is some of the republican congressman taking credit for bringing money to their districts from the stimulus bill that they didnt vote for.

"stupid" is republican governors considering the possibility of rejecting stimulus money altogether.

It is true, that democrats DO NOT BELIEVE that tax cuts can stimulate an economy. At all, in any way shape or form.

if they DID believe that then SURELY, when the economic crisis broke, Obama would have used focused tax cuts on the lower and middle class as a means of stimulating the economy a forefront issue of his campaign....

wait....fuck...

It is true, that democrats DO NOT BELIEVE that tax cuts can stimulate an economy. At all, in any way shape or form.

if they DID believe that then SURELY, when the economic crisis broke, Obama would have used focused tax cuts on the lower and middle class as a means of stimulating the economy a forefront issue of his campaign....

wait....fuck...

He offered those as a "bipartisan" measure.

Something Pelosi and the other Democrats aren't too keen on. Obama is unique.

"ironic" is some of the republican congressman taking credit for bringing money to their districts from the stimulus bill that they didnt vote for.

"stupid" is republican governors considering the possibility of rejecting stimulus money altogether.

True.

He offered those as a "bipartisan" measure.

Something Pelosi and the other Democrats aren't too keen on. Obama is unique.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14528960&postcount=28

I wish people read my posts more often.

You were arguing for tax cuts and now that you have them they are bad? Tax delays benefit businesses and that is bad? Taxes that benefit the wealthy are bad? I.....I.....I.....I....I

http://forums.armageddononline.org/images/newsmilies/whacky110.gif

The tax provisions are working for me to the tune of about $10K, that's all I care about at the moment.

OK, so let me see if I understand this correctly. The stimulus saves this guy a BILLION dollars, except that it doesn't actually save HIM anything, because it's a corporate tax break designed to relieve corporate tax obligations, and even as a majority shareholder, he can't spend that money on himself because, even though he has a controlling interestin the corporation, it's still the corporation's money, and if he tries to spend it on himself he's liable for a derivative suit...and it's not really letting him save that money, just delay paying it off.

So, I suppose this post headline could be rewritten as "Law designed to allow business entities to delay tax payments allows business entity to delay tax payments"

Yeah, but that would be honest, and require people to consider intended "stimuli" in stimulus package, and not just throw out the first accusation to pass through their brain

And so the government's policy of rewarding incompetence continues. Maybe I should rack up a bunch of debt and get bailed out too...I knew this would happen, though. The stimulus package was rushed through Congress so quickly and without concern for its contents that it ends up doing nothing more than waste money on things that will likely have negligible economic impact. I'd say the only things in there that will do anything are the infrastructure spending and the tax cuts...the rest is just going to end up flushed down the drain through one wasteful program or another.

Okay, I’ll bite. Here’s version 2 of what Jolt swallowed and refused to spit up earlier.

If we want to re-establish a manufacturing base in the US, all we need to do is figure out how to make that happen. We are humans. We have big brains. Figuring out how to do things is what we evolved to do.

Thanks for fighting with Jolt. I've found that if the browser doesn't completely crash, I can, sometimes, go back a page and recover the "Reply to Topic" screen. But you probably know that, too.

It didn't take me three days to write this, just one day to read it and two days to get back to it.

I guess the Chinese food industry doesn't feel obligated to attribute quotes. I thought the money vs idea thing sounded familiar -- It's attributed to Robert H. Schuller, yep, the TV minister. I started looking at other quotes by Schuller and I particularly like "You can often measure a person by the size of his dream," which is also very appropriate.

I'm not sure that our problems can be traced back to business. For years upon years, business has existed to make profits for the owners. At the risk of sounding dogmatic, that's been business's sole purpose since trading began. I don't believe that the upper echelons of today's businesses are any different than their counterparts from bygone days. Arguably, the J.P. Morgan's and Andrew Carnegie's of the past were far more ambitious and self-serving than the captains of today's industries.

What of the need to clean house for industry? Sure, there are folks that should leave. Every felon should be arrested and prosecuted. Every incompetent should be sent packing by the Board of Directors. And it does happen. For every Enron and Ken Lay, there are a hundred business that are run well and honestly. For every HP and Carly Fiorina, there are a hundred other CEOs that run their companies well. Those multi-million dollar severance packages are very counter to common sense, but if that's the deal, it needs to be honored.

That doesn't mean the way compensation is determined shouldn't be reconsidered. A number of boards and compensation committees are 'cross-pollinated', i.e. they have members that serve a number of different companies. I wouldn't mind seeing some SEC involvement to make sure that a compensation committee only represented the interests of the one corporation. But I wouldn't ever presume to limit their decisions about the amount of compensation -- just make sure they are fairly representing the shareholders. Is this fodder for anti-trust actions? I don't know, but I don't think what's going on in the compensation of upper echelon executives is anything more than a good ol' boy system that looks out for one another. Carl Icahn really took Jack Welch to task over this same issue. It's a good read...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/15/AR2009021501256_pf.html. So's the Welch OP-ED that Icahn links in. If you don't want to read them, fine. The summary is that shareholders are poorly represented, if at all, in most boardrooms.

Private companies need no such protections and should be able to deal with employees in any manner that they see fit -- barring illegal activity, of course.

Let me take a chance now and explain how I view complex decisions. This is a good transition into what the government should(not) do to assist business. I like numbers and they are particularly appropriate to what's going on right now. Anyone that thinks that they can directly control an economy, or even a sector of an economy is either incredibly arrogant, incredibly uninformed, or the most incredible genius ever known to man. Why? Because the numbers of interactions between elements in a system are complex. If you take a system with just 10 elements, the number of relationships between those 10 elements is equal to n*(n-1) = 90. It's not hard to find 10 elements in a modern system related to economics or business. Now, each of those elements can change, right? Let's say they can only be off or on. That's 2 raised to the 90th power. Well over a gazillion relationships between those 10 elements in our fictitious system. Certainly this is something that no human can manage, but as everyday examples show us, the market figures out quite well.

Last time you went to the grocery store, how many products were just not there? Many, probably not. Grocery stores have a remarkable tendancy to always have what we want. I'd guess that a big grocery store keeps around 100,000 different items on the shelves. And the shelves are always well stocked. What is the bottom line motivation for each and every producer? It's not love for their fellow man, as nice as that would be... No, it's profit. Profit for the company, wages for the workers, or again risking a violation of my earlier promise, people are keeping those shelves stocked because they are 'greedy'. They are serving themselves by providing what's profitable to them.

To try and direct even one of those producers to do things the way we want is folly. For example, let's make me the oatmeal czar. We may have a car czar, so why not? I need to direct the planting, harvest and distribution of oats. I need to manage the containers -- envelopes, boxes, round cardboard containers. I need to organize the resources needed for farming oats, for shipping oats -- tractors and semis. There are eight big elements here. Oops, there are those pesky gazillion relationships that I have to worry about, too! Better to just let the oatmeal companies do what they do best and stay out of the way.

So now, what do to about helping business? Do we make decisions that force a direction for future businesses? Do we favor 'green' Maybe. Maybe we need to provide some reason to explore new technology. I'm kinda disappointed that there is no funding for hydrogen fuel cells in the stimulus bill. I'm sure that a sharp enterprenuer, or several, would be able to pull the existing technology together and make fuel cells manufacturable. But I'm getting off the point. Maybe there are some ways that we can direct the flow of business without causing too many ripples in these gazillion relationships. We need to be very deliberate and careful in our decisions, though. I'm sure that for every good path there are a hundred paths that will cause all sorts of unforeseen consequences. Kind of like when the farmers in the midwest started selling produce to make ethanol for gasohol. The food prices in January 2008 for corn, wheat, and soybeans hit all time high prices and that rippled through the economy during those months where oil and gas prices were so high. Anyhow, it's just one example of how unintended consequences can strike a move in what seems to be a good direction.

When it comes to innovation, there's nothing to compare to small business. The best thing would be to have a small business organization with big business resources. Maybe that's what the government can provide, the resources that are available to the biggies. And the micro-finance (maybe an order of magnitude bigger that what you suggested) might be a start in that direction. Big companies have a lot of R&D dollars. They can buy the test equipment, prototyping, etc that smaller companies can't do. I was lucky; I had a home to put a second mortgage on and my costs were covered. P2P lending is another way to come up with the $5k-$10k that might just get a fledgling business off of the drawing board.

But the basic difference I see is that I would like the market to decide what direction to take us -- I don't mind recompeting contracts on a regular basis and I think law enforcement is critical, but I don't think the government has the foresight to know where to direct the economy. The numerous agencies that make up the government know what they want from year to year -- maybe we should just expand the SBIR program to make sure those needs are met. But the idea that government can see the economic future is not well supported by history. Better they wait for people with good ideas to come to them and then be fairly neutral in the way they give support.

One last bit about health care. My family and I spent 20 years as a victim of rationed health care, i.e. the USMC/USN hospital system. I was a little luckier than they were since I was an aviator. I had a direct line to a flight surgeon. They didn't they waited in clinics and Emergency Rooms until it was their turn. They wasted hours upon hours in those hospitals and clinics. When we talk about other nations and their health care services, waiting is always mentioned. Sometimes it's denied, but I suspect there is more waiting involved only because of the nature of "free" stuff. If something is free, everyone wants as much as they can get. Why is health care any different than that?

Costs are terrible. I know that first hand. From an financial point of view, I'd far rather hire a contract employee because I don't have the burden of his health care, or any other governmental costs, if I pay him on a 1099. I boost the pay by about a third and live with that. Mostly, I hire direct employees and pay the costs. The return is worth it. But I'd like to pay less. The thing is, I believe our system mostly works, it just needs to respond to market needs more than to government direction -- how many relationships are there in a health care system?

The way to pay less in health care is to let us shop for the parts we want. We means each employee, not employer, in this case. Let us buy what we want. If I buy an extended warranty on my car, I can usually pick how comprehensive the coverage is. I hate to start using insurance as an example, because we aren't talking about health insurance, we're talking about health care, but I will. If I buy auto insurance, I get a wide range of choices on amounts and products in addition to the state-required minimums. Let's do the same thing with health care. Set some state required minimums. Leave the optional stuff to the buyer. Let's make things like psychiatric, maternity, etc, add-ons to the basic policy, so we can buy the annual physical with 10 doctor visits option for $100 a month and add on maternity benefits for another $150 a month.

Let's also make people responsible for their lifestyles. Let's make smokers pay extra since they engage in a lifestyle with documented dangers. On the other hand, the policies need to be guaranteed renewable and sick people need to be able to sign up. Auto insurance has an assigned risk pool that is mandated by law for bad drivers, something similar should be created for people with pre-existing conditions. They will have to pay more, but they are going to cost more than a healthy person. And for Pete's sake, let's get Medicare fixed up to the point where someone who can't pay, can still get routine care.

The big difference I see between what we want is what role government should play. Historically, it's when government has less of a role that life is generally good. Where government has played a huge role, there have been a lot more problems. All or none are not the choices, just less or more. We still need some government intervention.

I'll end with another "fortune" from Schuller..."It takes but one positive thought when given a chance to survive and thrive to overpower an entire army of negative thoughts." We do have big brains. Let's use them for positive purposes.

Sometime this year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

"Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
"A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

"Q. Where will the government get this money?
"A. From taxpayers.

"Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
"A. No, they are borrowing it from China. You children are expected to repay the Chinese.

"Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
"A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

"Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
"A. Shut up."


Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.

If you spend it on gasoline it will go to Hugo Chavez, the Arabs and Al Queda

If you purchase a computer it will go to Taiwan.

If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).

If you buy a car it will go to Japan and Korea.

If you purchase prescription drugs it will go to India

If you purchase heroin it will go to the Taliban in Afghanistan


If you give it to a charitable cause, it will go to Nigeria.

And none of it will help the American economy.

We need to keep that money here in America. You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, marijuana, or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US.
im getting a stimulus check?

im getting a stimulus check?

no you can haz jail.

no you can haz jail.
3 hots and a cot. thats not a stimulus but its g'ment money going to support me.

im getting a stimulus check?

The equivalent of 13 dollars a week! Go forth and stimulate!

The equivalent of 13 dollars a week! Go forth and stimulate!

Those were my mother's dying words.

The equivalent of 13 dollars a week! Go forth and stimulate!
is that in the form of a check?

Those were my mother's dying words.

You don't have a mother. <.<

You don't have a mother. <.<

Yes I do. But I was immaculately conceived by the force.

Or mom really stuck to her story.

is that in the form of a check?

For those who don't pay federal income tax (30% of Americans), yes, in the form of a "tax refund".

Funny how you can get a refund for taxes you never paid.

Yes I do. But I was immaculately conceived by the force.

Or mom really stuck to her story.

Ah, yes, the midiclorians. You know... your mom was a ho and yo' daddy a pimp.

Ah, yes, the midiclorians. You know... your mom was a ho and yo' daddy a pimp.

Don't talk about mom that way!

*draws blue lightsaber*

Err *taps it, and it turns red*

There we go!

3 hots and a cot. thats not a stimulus but its g'ment money going to support me.

after Obama was possessed by the spirit of Cheney he decided to bring back debtors prison. you will be working 18 hours a day while there.

For those who don't pay federal income tax (30% of Americans), yes, in the form of a "tax refund".

Funny how you can get a refund for taxes you never paid.
youve never heard of the earned income credit eh?

tax refunds arent stimulus payments. they are just a useless part of the stimulus bill.

Why will the new stimulus bill succeed where others have always failed?

I might agree with you. but provide some proof examples and ETC. otherwise it is U versus Obama's economist. and Obama's economist have degrees.

Why will the new stimulus bill succeed where others have always failed?

If this is all the effort you're going to put into your op you could have just thrown it in the other stimulus thread where the simplistic idea has already been discussed. That way your hit and run won't take up forum space.

I might agree with you. but provide some proof examples and ETC. otherwise it is U versus Obama's economist. and Obama's economist have degrees.

US 1930s, Japan 1990s

The Soviet Union was one big stimulus package

Why will the new stimulus bill succeed where others have always failed?
because Obama wants it to succeed. and we don't want to piss off the Obama... Right? :hail:

RIGHT?

If this is all the effort you're going to put into your op you could have just thrown it in the other stimulus thread where the simplistic idea has already been discussed. That way your hit and run won't take up forum space.

This thread is for the people who missed the other thread (including me).

Legitimately, we do need to spend money on infrastructure; that area has been in a deficit for so long that spending the money will have a stimulative effect due to the previously wasted resources that can now be spent more effectively. However, I would say the other provisions besides infrastructure spending are by and large a waste and will do nothing to boost the economy. While they might be necessary, they are not stimulative on anywhere near the same scale as infrastructure spending.

US 1930s, Japan 1990s
The US ones are still being debated to this day, but the last time I read up on this, most historians agree that they did indeed help. Japan's however were a matter of too small, too late, and very badly targeted thanks to the way the ruling party had things (and to some extent still has them) set up.

The Soviet Union was one big stimulus package
Uh... no.

This thread is for the people who missed the other thread (including me).

It's still on the front page, champ.

The US ones are still being debated to this day, but the last time I read up on this, most historians agree that they did indeed help.

The New Deal prolonged the great depression in the US.

Japan's however were a matter of too small, too late, and very badly targeted thanks to the way the ruling party had things (and to some extent still has them) set up.

Japan's stimulus was not "too small." Japan's infrastructure spending in the 1990s proportionately dwarfed the 1930s US New Deal, which is why Japan is saddled with such a titanic public debt, with no results to show for it.


Uh... no.
A western-style stimulus package is a centrally-planned government initiative without a profit-loss model. This is no different from anything a Soviet central planner comes up with.

A western-style stimulus package is a centrally-planned government initiative without a profit-loss model. This is no different from anything a Soviet central planner comes up with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

It's still on the front page, champ.

Well, hopefully people will post in this thread too.

The New Deal prolonged the great depression in the US.

you really should try listening to people that are more known for being right than for being hacks. it'll save you from making stupid claims as frequently.

A western-style stimulus package is a centrally-planned government initiative without a profit-loss model. This is no different from anything a Soviet central planner comes up with.

haha, oh wow. that isn't even wrong.

Well, hopefully people will post in this thread too.

Why? Why do we need additional threads on the same subject, especially when you're exuding minimum effort to rehash a discussion still going? Why jam up the front page with our economic/political problems with redundant conversations when we share this board, founded by an Australian and hosted by Brits, with people from all over the world? Are you so lazy that not only will you not form a cogent or insightful argument but that you won't even take the negligible effort to simply pick up the conversation already in progress? Is it the attention, does your fragile sense of self need to see your little name at the top of the thread because daddy didn't hug you enough? What possible reason should there be to indulge your half assed effort to spark a conversation already being had by people who can at least be bothered to form complete fucking sentences as replies.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/locked.gif

The New Deal prolonged the great depression in the US.
According to Gene Smiley, "a number of economists" believe the New Deal delayed economic recovery. A 1995 survey of economic historians asked whether "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Of those in economics departments 27% agreed, 22% agreed 'with provisos' (what provisos the survey does not state) and 51% disagreed. Of those in history departments, only 27% agreed and 73% disagreed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression
Economic historians and other historians disagree with you.

Japan's stimulus was not "too small." Japan's infrastructure spending in the 1990s proportionately dwarfed the 1930s US New Deal, which is why Japan is saddled with such a titanic public debt, with no results to show for it.
Japan's was indeed too small because it spent the money in fits and starts throughout the lost decade and, MUCH more importantly, spent it building unneeded dams and expanding its road network instead of targeting areas that really needed it. As said, this was due to how Japan's political system worked which is very, VERY different than that of the US so trying to say "But it didn't work in Japan!" misses a great deal.

A western-style stimulus package is a centrally-planned government initiative without a profit-loss model. This is no different from anything a Soviet central planner comes up with.
If you are really trying to ignore the differences between the communistic style command economy of the USSR and the capitalist one of the US all I can really say is that your arguments are just that of an ideologue (Quite possibly true because you haven't actually bothered to explain your statements or source them) and are therefore worthless.

Why? Why do we need additional threads on the same subject, especially when you're exuding minimum effort to rehash a discussion still going? Why jam up the front page with our economic/political problems with redundant conversations when we share this board, founded by an Australian and hosted by Brits, with people from all over the world? Are you so lazy that not only will you not form a cogent or insightful argument but that you won't even take the negligible effort to simply pick up the conversation already in progress? Is it the attention, does your fragile sense of self need to see your little name at the top of the thread because daddy didn't hug you enough? What possible reason should there be to indulge your half assed effort to spark a conversation already being had by people who can at least be bothered to form complete fucking sentences as replies.

Take it up with the mods. I will respect their decision if they wish to banish this thread.

Funny how you can get a refund for taxes you never paid.

Hence the term "tax credit."

Japan's was indeed too small because it spent the money in fits and starts throughout the lost decade and, MUCH more importantly, spent it building unneeded dams and expanding its road network instead of targeting areas that really needed it.

What did Japan "need"? What "areas" do you think should've been targeted? Not even Japanese economists can answer you that question, even in retrospect. Japan certainly didn't need more spending, because the economy was already overleveraged.

In the 1990s Japan needed to rein in private and government spending, to equilibrate against the previous few decades of credit overexpansion. Japan also needed the liquidation of unprofitable industries and companies, which the government refused to allow. The US is experiencing the same scenario, and the US government is responding in the same misnformed way.


As said, this was due to how Japan's political system worked which is very, VERY different than that of the US so trying to say "But it didn't work in Japan!" misses a great deal.

This has nothing to do with political systems. This has to do with the problem of overspending and credit overexpansion, which caused bubbles in Japan and the US. Credit overexpansion can never be cleaned up with more spending, more stimulus. What you're proposing is like taking even more poison with the intent of curing the effects of poison.

I honestly believe a cheaper AND more "Stimulating" approach would have been giving every American citizen 1 million in US Dollars...

So what do you do when every US citizen has 1 million and you are afraid of hyperinflation???

You freeze enterprise for only a few years. You could solve todays housing market problem in only a hand full of months!!!! To stimulate our enconomy... all you need to do is have people spend spend spend... When everyone is given 1 million to spend as they see fit... They will go out and pay off the loans to their houses... bringing the foreclosure rate to a huge minimum. People would go out and buy cars and the car makers wont have to worry anymore about failing. People would have money... to guess what... PUT IN BANKS!!!!! Once their vaults are full of customer dollars they will no longer have to worry about failing either. As far as unemployment... That problem would be fixed as well... People would be able cover the payroll for more employees.

See the pattern here? a lot of the issues would be delt with

oooh, SOMEBODY got a B+ in intro to economics!

And that comes to the question why the people giving advice to Obama on the matter haven't come to the same conclusion.

And that comes to the question why the people giving advice to Obama on the matter haven't come to the same conclusion.

The people giving advice to Obama are the same people who dispensed advice to GW Bush. People like Bernanke and Geithner are all holdovers from that unpleasantness. Do you really expect the Bush/Obama team to come up with any useful ideas?

You make a good point my friend.

And I'll be frank....

I haven't been too interested in this political BS until a few months ago and even since then I've been following it loosely...

Would you by chance have come accross the reason why he is keeping the same advisors that were around when Bush was?

Cause thats sorta pointless... What would a new president change if his damn advisors are the same for when the last pres. was around?

youve never heard of the earned income credit eh?

tax refunds arent stimulus payments. they are just a useless part of the stimulus bill.

Hence the term "tax credit."
Same, same. Tax credit, rebate, EIC, ... All euphemisms for welfare payments or income redistribution, if you'd rather be classy about it. None of those payments have anything to do with taxes paid or income earned. Not by the recipient, anyway.

You make a good point my friend.

And I'll be frank....

I haven't been too interested in this political BS until a few months ago and even since then I've been following it loosely...

Would you by chance have come accross the reason why he is keeping the same advisors that were around when Bush was?

Cause thats sorta pointless... What would a new president change if his damn advisors are the same for when the last pres. was around?

All of these Bush/Obama policies directly screw over the common man and directly enrich the bankers, CEOs, and others of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country. Bush and Obama are completely in their pockets, so it comes as no surprise that both Bush and Obama only appoint advisors approved by that circle of people.

That makes fair sense. Its quite the shame that much can't be done from the very low level we are at durring this point in time.

Since, having this stimulus bill finally on the move... I can imagine that all the analysts predicting our nations future are going to be relatively correct about what they say.

Many people don't really think so.. But I believe its possible for the worst senarrio to actually take place... and I find that to be overall disenfranchisement.

Why will the new stimulus bill succeed where others have always failed?

Who cares whether it succeeds, although I think it will help. The important thing is that the centre-left has control of the economic agenda.

At last, after thirty years of economic liberal nastiness, we have control of the purse strings.

All I can say to all the right wing idealogues out there is, "Suffer, baby." Now you know how we've felt all these years.

On a more serous note. My experience of observing economic matters over that thirty year period is that implementing economic ideology doesn't seem to matter over all. I've seen Keynesian governments preside over continuous high growth and also over stagnation and recession. I've seen the same with monetarist governments.

The important thing is confidence. This is severely lacking at the moment and urgently needs to be restored. Right wing prescriptions tend to reduce confidence in these sorts of incidences. Keynsian prescriptions seem to do better.

Who cares whether it succeeds, although I think it will help. The important thing is that the centre-left has control of the economic agenda.

At last, after thirty years of economic liberal nastiness, we have control of the purse strings.

All I can say to all the right wing idealogues out there is, "Suffer, baby." Now you know how we've felt all these years.

On a more serous note. My experience of observing economic matters over that thirty year period is that implementing economic ideology doesn't seem to matter over all. I've seen Keynesian governments preside over continuous high growth and also over stagnation and recession. I've seen the same with monetarist governments.
You falsely believe in a dichotomy between Monetarism and Keynesianism when these two ideologies are in fact complementary and together constitute a horrible Frankenstein monster that has created the greatest and most disastrous asset bubble in all of history. Now you see the results of the Keynesian-Monetarist monster and you will witness its inability to solve the problem it itself created.

The important thing is confidence. This is severely lacking at the moment and urgently needs to be restored. Right wing prescriptions tend to reduce confidence in these sorts of incidences. Keynsian prescriptions seem to do better.

We're not lacking in confidence. We're lacking in solvency and no government initiative will ever solve that. The government must allow liquidation to solve the systemic economic imbalances created by the Keynesian-Monetarist regime over the past decades.

Why will the new stimulus bill succeed where others have always failed?
There's nothing to say it necessarily will, but previous failures (if they are indeed failures; we need some criteria for 'success') do not necessitate that this stimulus package will 'fail'.

That's shoddy reasoning.

The Soviet Union was one big stimulus package
Say wha...?

You falsely believe in a dichotomy between Monetarism and Keynesianism when these two ideologies are in fact complementary and together constitute a horrible Frankenstein monster that has created the greatest and most disastrous asset bubble in all of history. Now you see the results of the Keynesian-Monetarist monster and you will witness its inability to solve the problem it itself created.

I'm happy to be educated. Please go ahead and explicate what you're saying.

We're not lacking in confidence. We're lacking in solvency and no government initiative will ever solve that. The government must allow liquidation to solve the systemic economic imbalances created by the Keynesian-Monetarist regime over the past decades.

I disagree. I'll give an example.

Over the last 6 months the Australian Reserve Bank (equivalent to the US Federal Reserve) has been reducing interest rates spectacularly. The idea is to give people more spending money, thereby increasing business confidence.

The problem is - everyone's using the extra cash to pay off their debts. This is a lack of confidence. It's not panic. It's perfectly rational. People anticipate that house prices will fall. They also anticipate that unemployment will rise. Both fears will certainly be true without stimulus in the current environment. Everyone wants to have as much equity as possible when the crunch comes. We all spiral into recession.

There's nothing to say it necessarily will, but previous failures (if they are indeed failures; we need some criteria for 'success') do not necessitate that this stimulus package will 'fail'.

That's shoddy reasoning.
That's why I'm interested to see if any reasonable justification can be given for this new stimulus.

A thread with no effort put into actually getting information into the OP...

Where's the Change Obama? lol

I'm happy to be educated. Please go ahead and explicate what you're saying.
In a one-post summary: Monetarist inflationary policies created the asset bubble. Keynesianism made things worse by increasing debt levels and making the economy even less flexible and capable of deleveraging the bubble. With both operating in toxic tandem in every country in the world for the past 30 years, an unprecedented and intractable economic crisis is created.


I disagree. I'll give an example.

Over the last 6 months the Australian Reserve Bank (equivalent to the US Federal Reserve) has been reducing interest rates spectacularly. The idea is to give people more spending money, thereby increasing business confidence.

The problem is - everyone's using the extra cash to pay off their debts. This is a lack of confidence. It's not panic. It's perfectly rational. People anticipate that house prices will fall. They also anticipate that unemployment will rise. Both fears will certainly be true without stimulus in the current environment. Everyone wants to have as much equity as possible when the crunch comes. We all spiral into recession.

I assume you believe the "aggregate demand" nonsense. Aggregate demand, GDP, and other macro statistics are absolutely useless because they only comment on the volume - and not quality or sustainability - of economic activities. Aggregate demand needs to fall, to wash out the bad debts and bad investments made in the past few years. Monetarist-Keynesian nonsense will only perpetuate these bad investments. Liquidation solves these bad investments.

Also, it's irrational to decrease interest rates when demand for capital is high. The price of money should be high when the demand for money is high.

The price of money...
Capitalism is such a strange game to play.

Government spending boosts market confidence, it doesn't really matter what you spend it in after that, because macroeconomics is only useful for slowing growth (such as limiting inflation) not stimulating it

Capitalism is such a strange game to play.

Money's a commodity just like hats and cars. Money has a price.

Interest rates are the price of money.

Money's a commodity just like hats and cars. Money has a price.
I realise this.

It is just An Odd Thing.

I realise this.

It is just An Odd Thing.

How is it odd? If money didn't have a price it would be impossible to price goods in terms of the money, thus defeating the purpose of money.

How is it odd?
Because if money didn't have a price it would be impossible to price goods in terms of the money, thus defeating the purpose of money.

That is Odd.

Interest rates are the price of money.

Nah

Nah

Aye

Aye

Nay

Don't talk about mom that way!

*draws blue lightsaber*

Err *taps it, and it turns red*

There we go!

You know as well as I do that mom was a ho. She was a ho!

And your lightsaber is made out of plastic.

Because if money didn't have a price it would be impossible to price goods in terms of the money, thus defeating the purpose of money.

That is Odd.

Well to each his own I guess.

Well to each his own I guess.
You don't find the international monetary system odd in the slightest?

Doesn't, for example, the fact that (to put it simplistically) a company can sharply devalue because people think it might sharply devalue seem a tad bizarre?