NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's pretend that our Senators actually do what they think is best instead of what they think is politically most opportune.

Let's say that in this world, a bill passes for the stimulus. This bill puts the money in the hands of the people.

It takes 1 Trillion dollars. It puts it in the hands of 50 Million people at 1000/month for 20 months. Nearly two years of steady income.

So how do we select the people. We give the money to the 50 million poorest adults in the US. It has no effect on other benefits whatsoever.

It's only available to citizens. Only adults. So you're talking about approximately a quarter of all adults getting 12 grand a year extra income after taxes.

I have thoughts on effects, but I'll wait for some feedback.

Would you vote for a politician who supported this?
Do you think this would good?
What do you think the good effects would be?
Bad effects?
Would you add requirements?
Would you remove requirements?

What say YOU?

I think a lot of it would get spent on porn in a effort to obtain a different sort of stimulus involving packages.

Yeah, I went there.

My first thought is 'how will this be paid for?'

Would you vote for a politician who supported this?
Nope.
Do you think this would be good?
Fixed. I don't think so, no. I think it would be temporary at best.
What do you think the good effects would be?
Well, it would help the poorest to get by in these tough economic times, but
Bad effects?it would probably be poorly managed, poorly spent, and just leave us with a trillion dollars more debt with little appreciable change.
Would you add requirements?One in particular comes to mind - no felony convictions in the last 5-10 years. I'm not sure how far to go back, but on time frame I'm negotiable.
Would you remove requirements?You didn't have many to begin with.

What say YOU?

I think it's a poor idea.

Yeah, I went there.

I like you.

My first thought is 'how will this be paid for?'

The same way the trillion dollar stimulus was this time.

But there are other bits. For one, most of the money would get spent. These are the poorest people in America. They don't have lots of extra money. The money would get spent. We'd get 10% back almost immediately in sales tax. Plus, it would go to companies to pay salaries and to go to corporate profit. That's more taxes. And so on and so on.

The same way the trillion dollar stimulus was this time.

But there are other bits. For one, most of the money would get spent. These are the poorest people in America. They don't have lots of extra money. The money would get spent. We'd get 10% back almost immediately in sales tax. Plus, it would go to companies to pay salaries and to go to corporate profit. That's more taxes. And so on and so on.

You pay 10% sales tax? That's high.

Besides that - Sales Taxes go to the city, county, and state - the Federal Government levies no sales tax.

The same way the trillion dollar stimulus was this time.

But there are other bits. For one, most of the money would get spent. These are the poorest people in America. They don't have lots of extra money. The money would get spent. We'd get 10% back almost immediately in sales tax. Plus, it would go to companies to pay salaries and to go to corporate profit. That's more taxes. And so on and so on.

I'm not sure I could agree with another trillion dollars of debt being added. I'm not sure that the stimulating effect is worth the future tax increases needed to cover it.

I'm not sure I could agree with another trillion dollars of debt being added. I'm not sure that the stimulating effect is worth the future tax increases needed to cover it.

I think Jocabia's trying to say instead of the current stimulus that this stimulus happened instead.

Edit: Fixed. My brain is crossed.

Nope.

Fixed. I don't think so, no. I think it would be temporary at best.

Well, it would help the poorest to get by in these tough economic times, but
it would probably be poorly managed, poorly spent, and just leave us with a trillion dollars more debt with little appreciable change.

We want people to spend money. You'd have 50 billion dollars being spent monthly. That's an awful big surge on our economy.

One in particular comes to mind - no felony convictions in the last 5-10 years. I'm not sure how far to go back, but on time frame I'm negotiable.
You didn't have many to begin with.

I actually thought about that, but I would make it violent felonies.


I think it's a poor idea.

Yes, except you've not really made much of an argument. It's a debate forum. You've not said exactly why it's poor. You've admitted that the money would start moving right away by being poorly handled.

Being poorly handled is kind of the point. If you gave me this money, I'd save it. I don't need it. If you gave it to the poorest people, they'd spend it.

A percentage might get training or education which is a benefit, too, but even if it all went to cars and televisions, those are sales.

It's my trickle up theory.

You pay 10% sales tax? That's high.

Besides that - Sales Taxes go to the city, county, and state - the Federal Government levies no sales tax.

And who did a lot of the current bailout go? See, when the states and municipalities get money in taxes, that's a good thing. Now the states and other areas have money as well. So they can do the same projects they were asking for. So the infrastructure improves, too.

And I rounded up a bit. It's usually between 7.5 and 9%. But there'd also be some extra taxes from companies that make the money.

I think Jocabia's trying to say instead of the current bailout that this bailout happened instead.

Thus the ALTERNATE REALITY. Except it's a stimulus package, not a bailout.

Thus the ALTERNATE REALITY.

I understood. He didn't.

We want people to spend money. You'd have 50 billion dollars being spent monthly. That's an awful big surge on our economy.
Perhaps, but while that's going on, we'd have banks collapsing left and right. That could be very bad for the economy. This is alternate reality, and the banks would have received no support.

I actually thought about that, but I would make it violent felonies.

Hmm, violent and drug-related I could go with. We don't want all the money going underground to drugs either, that doesn't help us get it back through taxes.

Yes, except you've not really made much of an argument. It's a debate forum. You've not said exactly why it's poor. You've admitted that the money would start moving right away by being poorly handled.

I answered the questions as asked.

Being poorly handled is kind of the point. If you gave me this money, I'd save it. I don't need it. If you gave it to the poorest people, they'd spend it.

Indeed they would, but would it be in such a way that props up the economy at large? Also, with the banks failing, currency confidence would probably also fall, causing untold effects (not an economist).

A percentage might get training or education which is a benefit, too, but even if it all went to cars and televisions, those are sales.

Valid.

It's my trickle up theory.

I've never heard of trickle-up economics, but it sounds fascinating. Tell me more.

The problem with suggesting this as an alternative to the bailout is that they have two very different purposes. The bailout is supposed to keep the financial services system going while this stimulus seems to be an attempt to stimulate the economy in general. If banks collapse the economy is in vast amounts of trouble and the fact that people have an extra trillion dollars to spend wouldn't save it.

The problem with suggesting this as an alternative to the bailout is that they have two very different purposes. The bailout is supposed to keep the financial services system going while this stimulus seems to be an attempt to stimulate the economy in general. If banks collapse the economy is in vast amounts of trouble and the fact that people have an extra trillion dollars to spend wouldn't save it.

The economy will never recover unless the banks are allowed to collapse.

The problem with suggesting this as an alternative to the bailout is that they have two very different purposes. The bailout is supposed to keep the financial services system going while this stimulus seems to be an attempt to stimulate the economy in general. If banks collapse the economy is in vast amounts of trouble and the fact that people have an extra trillion dollars to spend wouldn't save it.

Not bailout. Stimulus package. You do know there was a stimulus package with a nearly trillion dollar price tag, yeah? I thought this was common knowledge.

The economy will never recover unless the banks are allowed to collapse.

And how did you come to that conclusion?

Not bailout. Stimulus package. You do know there was a stimulus package with a nearly trillion dollar price tag, yeah? I thought this was common knowledge.

I am drunk and crossed them in my mind. Give me a few minutes to rethink my last response.

And how did you come to that conclusion?

Combined household+business debt in this country is already unsustainably high, and the whole reason we're in our current crisis is because the economy contains too much debt that can't possibly be paid back. (not even considering the huge government debt)

The only reason Bush/Obama are keeping the banks around is to try to get them to lend more money, and try to get borrowers to borrow more money. But getting the economy into even more debt won't solve the existing debt. In attempting to cure debt with debt, Bush/Obama are simply attempting to cure poison with poison. It's counterintuitive and counterlogical, and will fail. The taxpayer will be left with the tab for this monumental failure of a policy.

Only by allowing the banks to fail, the failed businesses to be liquidated, and the resources of the economy to be reorganized to more efficient ends, can the economy be recovered.

Combined household+business debt in this country is already unsustainably high, and the whole reason we're in our current crisis is because the economy contains too much debt that can't possibly be paid back. (not even considering the huge government debt)

The only reason Bush/Obama are keeping the banks around is to try to get them to lend more money, and try to get borrowers to borrow more money. But getting the economy into even more debt won't solve the existing debt. In attempting to cure debt with debt, Bush/Obama are simply attempting to cure poison with poison. It's counterintuitive and counterlogical, and will fail. The taxpayer will be left with the tab for this monumental failure of a policy.

Only by allowing the banks to fail, the failed businesses to be liquidated, and the resources of the economy to be reorganized to more efficient ends, can the economy be recovered.

I love when people talk about debt this way like people are just buying nothing.

I'm curious, you must have some economic papers that have researched this and come to the same or similar conclusions, right? I mean there are tens of thousands of people who study this. Someone must have written about this need to get rid of borrowing. You got some support?

Not bailout. Stimulus package. You do know there was a stimulus package with a nearly trillion dollar price tag, yeah? I thought this was common knowledge.

Galloism described it as an alternative to the bailout not the stimulus.

If it is meant to provide an alternative to the stimulus as it was passed then it has a number of advantages. No pork, no protectionism and a more immediate increase in spending are all advantages.

Galloism described it as an alternative to the bailout not the stimulus.

If it is meant to provide an alternative to the stimulus as it was passed then it has a number of advantages. No pork, no protectionism and a more immediate increase in spending are all advantages.

Yes, I misspoke. :$

I'm drunk, gimme a break.

I love when people talk about debt this way like people are just buying nothing.

I'm curious, you must have some economic papers that have researched this and come to the same or similar conclusions, right? I mean there are tens of thousands of people who study this. Someone must have written about this need to get rid of borrowing. You got some support?

You are correct, leading economists believe that our economy is pretty much "maxed out" in terms of the debt it can sustain.

Please consult this graph:

http://yellowroad.wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/files/2008/06/img0009_2097970562.PNG

Notice the similarity of the current day, compared to the 1930s.

The American and global economies cannot possibly sustain more debt at the moment, and we've reached the critical tipping point where the credit bubble of the past 50 years will be inevitably deleveraged over the next several years. In previous postwar recessions monetarist methods were stop-gap measures to "restart the economic engine" and to addressing the superficial symptoms of recessions while continuing to let debt get out of hand, which was counterproductive for the long run.

We're now at the point where monetarist methods (like bank bailouts and interest rate manipulations) can no longer restart the engine, and the massive debt must be deleveraged. In every day terms this will be manifested in liquidations, defaults, bankruptcies, withdrawal of capital from the stock market, and high unemployment comparable to the situation experienced during great depression of the 1930s, which was the previous instance where we deleveraged a massive amount of debt.

Whether you like it or not, and despite anything the government can do (short of implementing a Soviet-style command economy), the debt will be paid down and deleveraged.

Combined household+business debt in this country is already unsustainably high, and the whole reason we're in our current crisis is because the economy contains too much debt that can't possibly be paid back. (not even considering the huge government debt)

The only reason Bush/Obama are keeping the banks around is to try to get them to lend more money, and try to get borrowers to borrow more money. But getting the economy into even more debt won't solve the existing debt. In attempting to cure debt with debt, Bush/Obama are simply attempting to cure poison with poison. It's counterintuitive and counterlogical, and will fail. The taxpayer will be left with the tab for this monumental failure of a policy.

Only by allowing the banks to fail, the failed businesses to be liquidated, and the resources of the economy to be reorganized to more efficient ends, can the economy be recovered.

Eliminating banks woould certainly solve the problem of too much debt. Just like if you drain all the blood from a patient it will solve the problem of high blood pressure. In both cases you replace a problem with a catastrophe. How will any business or individual raise money if banks suffer a complete collapse?

Yes, I misspoke. :$

I'm drunk, gimme a break.

It doesn't matter, I think everythings clear now.

Eliminating banks woould certainly solve the problem of too much debt. Just like if you drain all the blood from a patient it will solve the problem of high blood pressure. In both cases you replace a problem with a catastrophe. How will any business or individual raise money if banks suffer a complete collapse?

Not all banks will collapse. The strongest banks survive- that's called capitalism- and the surviving banks form the base of future economic growth. This "base" would be healthy and vigorous unlike all the zombie financial institutions being kept alive on life-support by government intervention.

The "catastrophe" is inevitable anyways. If we continue down our current path set down by Bush/Obama, the economy will become so zombified, and so many defects and inefficiencies will have been perpetuated in its capital structure due to government intervention, that eventually an acute crisis will occur (even seeing mass food and supply shortages) - at which point the "free market" will be back by "popular demand" since the free market is the only form of economy that can sustain prosperity or even survival. At that time, a Yeltsin-style "shock therapy" of liquidation will cause all the nationalized zombie banks and zombie industries to collapse even more painfully than if they had been allowed to collapse today. With our current policies we're just delaying and magnifying our current problems and never addressing the problems themselves.

You are correct, leading economists believe that our economy is pretty much "maxed out" in terms of the debt it can sustain.

Please consult this graph:

http://yellowroad.wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/files/2008/06/img0009_2097970562.PNG

Notice the similarity of the current day, compared to the 1930s.

The American and global economies cannot possibly sustain more debt at the moment, and we've reached the critical tipping point where the credit bubble of the past 50 years will be inevitably deleveraged over the next several years. In previous postwar recessions monetarist methods were stop-gap measures to "restart the economic engine" and to addressing the superficial symptoms of recessions while continuing to let debt get out of hand, which was counterproductive for the long run.

We're now at the point where monetarist methods (like bank bailouts and interest rate manipulations) can no longer restart the engine, and the massive debt must be deleveraged. In every day terms this will be manifested in liquidations, defaults, bankruptcies, withdrawal of capital from the stock market, and high unemployment comparable to the situation experienced during great depression of the 1930s, which was the previous instance where we deleveraged a massive amount of debt.

Whether you like it or not, and despite anything the government can do (short of implementing a Soviet-style command economy), the debt will be paid down and deleveraged.
That graph alone doesn't support your premise, first of all.

Second of all, you don't seem to understand what Obama is asking banks to do. They aren't asking banks to offer loans with no collateral. They are in fact asking the opposite.

I'll tell you what, since you obviously know, why is it CRITICAL to small business that the credit markets unfreeze? Hint: It's not so they can go into debt.

But, hey, thanks for the off-topic side trip, but I'll indulge you for a moment. Is it your belief the best way to pay down the debt is for no one to have any money?

Galloism described it as an alternative to the bailout not the stimulus.

If it is meant to provide an alternative to the stimulus as it was passed then it has a number of advantages. No pork, no protectionism and a more immediate increase in spending are all advantages.

Generally, it's a good idea to look at stuff yourself. But, yes, it has a number of advantages.

I'm not particularly amused by those who desperately want to make this about the bailouts because they only have junk to regurgitate they heard on talk radio.

See, I was hoping people could analyze ideas for themselves which is why I presented something that hadn't been presented yet. Unfortunately, it appears there are some unprepared to do so. You aren't one of them.

I didn't realize it was a thread started by Gallo. You could read for yourself. Or, hey, just read the title. It's there in four short words. Confusing, I know.

I misspoke. Sorry. :$

Not all banks will collapse. The strongest banks survive- that's called capitalism- and the surviving banks form the base of future economic growth. This "base" would be healthy and vigorous unlike all the zombie financial institutions being kept alive on life-support by government intervention.

The "catastrophe" is inevitable anyways. If we continue down our current path set down by Bush/Obama, the economy will become so zombified, and so many defects and inefficiencies will have been perpetuated in its capital structure due to government intervention, that eventually an acute crisis will occur (even seeing mass food and supply shortages) - at which point the "free market" will be back by "popular demand" since the free market is the only form of economy that can sustain prosperity or even survival. At that time, a Yeltsin-style "shock therapy" of liquidation will cause all the nationalized zombie banks and zombie industries to collapse even more painfully than if they had been allowed to collapse today. With our current policies we're just delaying and magnifying our current problems and never addressing the problems themselves.

That relies on the assumption that most banks are fundamentally unsound and can only be maintained by government backing a la Japan in the 90s. However, most banks in the US have a sound base to work from. Their problems are short term, not permanent. And Sweden in the early 90s showed that when your banks suffer a temporary crisis, but are otherwise capable entities, quick, decisive government action can not only avoid an enormous aeconomic collapse but the government can also manage to avoid suffering from crippling debt afterwards as well.

I misspoke. Sorry. :$

I revised that post. Unnecessarily snarky.

That graph alone doesn't support your premise, first of all.

Second of all, you don't seem to understand what Obama is asking banks to do. They aren't asking banks to offer loans with no collateral. They are in fact asking the opposite.
Doesn't matter. Banks aren't going to lend if they already know the economic outlook is extremely bleak and the chance for default is way too high, no matter how good the collateral looks. Which is why - no matter how hard Obama tries - lending will not pick up, and debt-deflation will inevitably occur (that is the downward "plummet" in the 1930s you see in my graph)


I'll tell you what, since you obviously know, why is it CRITICAL to small business that the credit markets unfreeze? Hint: It's not so they can go into debt.
It's critical but life is harsh. No banks will lend to them, just like in the 1930s.

But, hey, thanks for the off-topic side trip, but I'll indulge you for a moment. Is it your belief the best way to pay down the debt is for no one to have any money?

That's inevitable, I'm afraid. Either the banks/government lend en masse and cause inflation that wipes out the value of peoples' life savings, or the banks don't lend and people become poor anyways. The painful adjustment period is inevitable. In the past 30 or so years we've just experienced the largest, vastest credit bubble in the history of mankind. That we will continue to experience the largest credit bust and mass impoverishment in the history of mankind is inevitable, and no government's intervention will prevent this, despite how hard they may try.

Doesn't matter. Banks aren't going to lend if they already know the economic outlook is extremely bleak and the chance for default is way too high, no matter how good the collateral looks. Which is why - no matter how hard Obama tries - lending will not pick up, and debt-deflation will inevitably occur (that is the downward "plummet" in the 1930s you see in my graph)

You kind of missed the point, huh? That's okay, I knew you would.

Do you know what debt is? Do you know what collateral is? If the money lent is less than the value of the collateral and it would be, there is no debt in terms of the graph you presented. You knew that, yeah? (Don't answer. Obviously, you didn't.)


It's critical but life is harsh. No banks will lend to them, just like in the 1930s.

I'm shocked. You didn't answer. Again, another thing that has nothing to do with debt. It has to do with liquidity. But, you knew that, right? (Don't answer. Again, I know the answer is no.)


That's inevitable, I'm afraid. Either the banks/government lend en masse and cause inflation that wipes out the value of peoples' life savings, or the banks don't lend and people become poor anyways. The painful adjustment period is inevitable. In the past 30 or so years we've just experienced the largest, vastest credit bubble in the history of mankind. That we will continue to experience the largest credit bust and mass impoverishment in the history of mankind is inevitable, and no government's intervention will prevent this, despite how hard they may try.

And yet another question you didn't actually answer. But what you did answer is that your hijacking the thread. In other words, your issue is with banks and credit, not my stimulus package. So if you'd like to talk about credit, start a thread. Otherwise, discuss the topic of the thread.

This has been fun.

Generally, it's a good idea to look at stuff yourself. But, yes, it has a number of advantages.

I'm not particularly amused by those who desperately want to make this about the bailouts because they only have junk to regurgitate they heard on talk radio.

See, I was hoping people could analyze ideas for themselves which is why I presented something that hadn't been presented yet. Unfortunately, it appears there are some unprepared to do so. You aren't one of them.

I will say that I think most of the stimulus as it was passed was actually fine and I think it will achieve the stimulus that was intended. The problems that I described with it - pork, protectionism and timing - are fairly minor compared to what I believe will be a pretty positive impact from the bill.

That relies on the assumption that most banks are fundamentally unsound and can only be maintained by government backing a la Japan in the 90s. However, most banks in the US have a sound base to work from. Their problems are short term, not permanent. And Sweden in the early 90s showed that when your banks suffer a temporary crisis, but are otherwise capable entities, quick, decisive government action can not only avoid an enormous aeconomic collapse but the government can also manage to avoid suffering from crippling debt afterwards as well.

There are no fundamental differences between the Swedish, Japanese, and American experiences. Each country experienced a massive debt-fueled asset bubble in real estate and equities, and each country experienced the same painful aftermaths.

The only reason Sweden performed superficially better than Japan was because Sweden slashed government spending and gutted its welfare programs, which allowed some semblance of economic recovery. Japan's government did the opposite - Japan greatly increased government spending and public works, which stymied the Japanese economy for years. The nationalization of Swedish banks also prevented the Swedish economy from achieving its full potential.

Anyways, neither the Swedish nor the Japanese economies were resting on fundamentally solid ground during the 90s. During the 90s, both countries relied heavily on exports to debtor nations; that means both countries were relying on a massive, unsustainable global credit bubble that allowed foreign countries to buy Swedish and Japanese manufactured goods on credit. This meant Sweden's and Japan's economic models were unsustainable and their prosperity during the 90s was temporary and illusory. Now that the credit bubble has burst, the systemic malinvestments (which were global in scope) are laid bare for all to see.

There are no fundamental differences between the Swedish, Japanese, and American experiences. Each country experienced a massive debt-fueled asset bubble in real estate and equities, and each country experienced the same painful aftermaths.

The only reason Sweden performed superficially better than Japan was because Sweden slashed government spending and gutted its welfare programs, which allowed some semblance of economic recovery. Japan's government did the opposite - Japan greatly increased government spending and public works, which stymied the Japanese economy for years. The nationalization of Swedish banks also prevented the Swedish economy from achieving its full potential.

Anyways, neither the Swedish nor the Japanese economies were resting on fundamentally solid ground during the 90s. During the 90s, both countries relied heavily on exports to debtor nations; that means both countries were relying on a massive, unsustainable global credit bubble that allowed foreign countries to buy Swedish and Japanese manufactured goods on credit. This meant Sweden's and Japan's economic models were unsustainable and their prosperity during the 90s was temporary and illusory. Now that the credit bubble has burst, the systemic malinvestments (which were global in scope) are laid bare for all to see.

I know you're confused, but STOP HIJACKING. If you want to talk about this, they have a feature called New Thread. It's a cool feature. You can even choose your title and design the OP. It's great fun. If you need further instruction, TG me and I'll give you more detailed steps. In the interim, speak out the topic of the thread.

You kind of missed the point, huh? That's okay, I knew you would.

Do you know what debt is? Do you know what collateral is? If the money lent is less than the value of the collateral and it would be, there is no debt in terms of the graph you presented. You knew that, yeah? (Don't answer. Obviously, you didn't.)

If you're trying to add assets to debt, you're making a laughable error. For the past 30 years, during the credit bubble, pretty much all assets have been overvalued and leveraged on debt. Due to this fact you've overlooked, asset prices may fall; but debt levels do not fall, which needless to say results in defaults, capital crises, and bankruptcies. Therefore, total debt provides a much better indicator of the economy's soundness.




I'm shocked. You didn't answer. Again, another thing that has nothing to do with debt. It has to do with liquidity. But, you knew that, right? (Don't answer. Again, I know the answer is no.)
Of course it has to do with liquidity. After a period of excess liquidity (the past 30 years), the only place to wash out all the fiscal and monetary garbage and malinvestments that's been accumulated is in an environment of low liquidity, where assets can be fairly priced (at firesale prices).

And yet another question you didn't actually answer. But what you did answer is that your hijacking the thread. In other words, your issue is with banks and credit, not my stimulus package. So if you'd like to talk about credit, start a thread. Otherwise, discuss the topic of the thread.

This has been fun.

I already answered your question multiple times. The only way to pay down debt is to hand money over to the creditor, and therefore have no money. The way to pay down debt is not to take on more debt. The fact that we'll have no money is our inevitable fate. Thanks.

I know you're confused, but STOP HIJACKING. If you want to talk about this, they have a feature called New Thread. It's a cool feature. You can even choose your title and design the OP. It's great fun. If you need further instruction, TG me and I'll give you more detailed steps. In the interim, speak out the topic of the thread.

There's no reason why two parallel, closely related conversations can't go on in the same thread. Especially after you keep responding to my posts and keep specifically asking for more information.

Regarding OP, I think it'd be a better alternative to the current stimulus package.

I agree with Pissarro on this one. Your plan is better than what's been put forward, although yes, like Pissarro, I think we will face a major economic depression. For me it is just a gut feeling, but it seems like the forementioned poster can put forward a rational argument for it happening.

Also, yes I would vote for a person who would support that proposal, provided that once the economy showed signs of growth again they take concrete action to develop a sustainable economy that will allow for steady, regulated, long-term growth instead of temporary bubbles and bursts as tends to happen.

However, to Pissarro, this would really be more appropriate for another thread. I bet Neu Leonstein would love to hear your theories, for if I remember correctly, he/she is a banker of some sort. I take it you are probably either socialist or libertarian, as I recall both being opposed to the bailouts in their platforms.

I agree with Pissarro on this one. Your plan is better than what's been put forward, although yes, like Pissarro, I think we will face a major economic depression. For me it is just a gut feeling, but it seems like the forementioned poster can put forward a rational argument for it happening.

Also, yes I would vote for a person who would support that proposal, provided that once the economy showed signs of growth again they take concrete action to develop a sustainable economy that will allow for steady, regulated, long-term growth instead of temporary bubbles and bursts as tends to happen.

However, to Pissarro, this would really be more appropriate for another thread. I bet Neu Leonstein would love to hear your theories, for if I remember correctly, he/she is a banker of some sort. I take it you are probably either socialist or libertarian, as I recall both being opposed to the bailouts in their platforms.

Thanks for your comments. I support a free market. I could accurately be described as a libertarian though I think that word is ugly in terms of aesthetics :D

Neu Leonstein and I have some differences of opinion. IIRC he supports bank bailouts (as should be expected if he's a banker and his job is on the line).

Let's pretend that our Senators actually do what they think is best instead of what they think is politically most opportune.

Let's say that in this world, a bill passes for the stimulus. This bill puts the money in the hands of the people.

It takes 1 Trillion dollars. It puts it in the hands of 50 Million people at 1000/month for 20 months. Nearly two years of steady income.

So how do we select the people. We give the money to the 50 million poorest adults in the US. It has no effect on other benefits whatsoever.

It's only available to citizens. Only adults. So you're talking about approximately a quarter of all adults getting 12 grand a year extra income after taxes.

I have thoughts on effects, but I'll wait for some feedback.

Would you vote for a politician who supported this?
Do you think this would good?
What do you think the good effects would be?
Bad effects?
Would you add requirements?
Would you remove requirements?

What say YOU?

Since people forgot what the topic is. It's not the cause of the current crisis. It's not the bailout.

It's a stimulus plan I concocted and the above related questions.

Since people forgot what the topic is. It's not the cause of the current crisis. It's not the bailout.

It's a stimulus plan I concocted and the above related questions.
If you don't want people to post about a particular topic, don't keep asking for more elaboration and information about that topic.

If you're trying to add assets to debt, you're making a laughable error. For the past 30 years, during the credit bubble, pretty much all assets have been overvalued and leveraged on debt. Due to this fact you've overlooked, asset prices may fall; but debt levels do not fall, which needless to say results in defaults, capital crises, and bankruptcies. Therefore, total debt provides a much better indicator of the economy's soundness.

Except we aren't overvaluing it anymore. There are similar graphs which demonstrate this. Regardless, that's the role of banks to determine the value and hand out out credit that is in line with that. That's what Obama is trying to do. That's not an increase in debt. That's sustainable.

Better my plan would ensure that they had the money to pay back debt, which is the point. You manage to avoid that point to bitch about banks and debt, which isn't relevant to my plan at all.


Of course it has to do with liquidity. After a period of excess liquidity (the past 30 years), the only place to wash out all the fiscal and monetary garbage and malinvestments that's been accumulated is in an environment of low liquidity, where assets can be fairly priced (at firesale prices).

Which again doesn't address the issue. We're talking about businesses borrowing to pay employees with money they have but it isn't in their interest to access. Seriously, you're so single-tracked to detriment of your argument. You're suggesting the best way to pay down the debt is to completely stop the economy when all conventional wisdom and history shows the opposite.

We have resources. We have needs. We have the ability to shuttle those resources to those with needs. Avoiding doing so won't do anything to address the debt. My plan suggests the opposite. I don't mind libertarians with some ability to look at things as the open system it is, rather than a closed system and a loose understanding of correllation and none of causation.


I already answered your question multiple times. The only way to pay down debt is to hand money over to the creditor, and therefore have no money. The way to pay down debt is not to take on more debt. The fact that we'll have no money is our inevitable fate. Thanks.

No, you didn't. I doubt you even caught the question. Much like you didn't actually address the question about small businesses. You changed the subject. That's what people do when they haven't finished studying a subject. They have to keep moving it to something they know well so no one realizes they don't have a broad enough understanding to give a good answer. Prove me wrong. Try addressing the actual questions, the actual thread and the actual posts instead of continual trying to move the thread to things you've already covered.

Meanwhile, the money to hand over to the creditor is what I proposed in the initial bill. The only group taking on more debt is the goverment which, frankly, if the government was the only entity with debt we wouldn't have a problem. I'm proposing a decrease in the current debt of the government guaranteed, along with a decrease in personal debt.

Unfortunately, when you're not regurgitating books, you can't actually address the issue.

If you don't want people to post about a particular topic, don't keep asking for more elaboration and information about that topic.

Well, I was kind of hoping you'd be able to loop back to the original topic, instead of stearing away from all the relevant questions you don't know the answers to.

Look, it's clear to me and you already know, that you can't actually answer the questions I've asked. If you could, you would.

EX: why is it CRITICAL to small business that the credit markets unfreeze?
you: It is critical.

Hmmm... that it's critical is in the question. The question was why. Your answer addressed why you don't care which is changing the subject. That's the issue all throughout. You HAVE to change the subject. Because if you let anyone else lead you on a path, you're going to end up in water you can't swim in. That's why I asked the questions. And that's why it nails you every time you can't answer.

Hint: Next time just owning up when you don't know will get you MUCH further.

Except we aren't overvaluing it anymore. There are similar graphs which demonstrate this. Regardless, that's the role of banks to determine the value and hand out out credit that is in line with that. That's what Obama is trying to do. That's not an increase in debt. That's sustainable.

The banks all think the assets are worth very little, otherwise they'd already be lending and not worried about their capital reserves. Obama can't change the fact that the assets are worth very little. If he wants to bail out banks based on inflated asset values, he's overpaying and that just means a bigger and even more destructive tax burden on the economy. How is that "sustainable"?

Better my plan would ensure that they had the money to pay back debt, which is the point. You manage to avoid that point to bitch about banks and debt, which isn't relevant to my plan at all.
You're just shifting debt from private debtors to the government. Eventually the government will have to pay that debt, by increasing taxes and cutting government programs. Both of these will result in bankruptcies, decreased consumption and investment, and increased unemployment. No matter what proposal you suggest, you inevitably find your way to my conclusion.

We have resources. We have needs. We have the ability to shuttle those resources to those with needs. Avoiding doing so won't do anything to address the debt. My plan suggests the opposite. I don't mind libertarians with some ability to look at things as the open system it is, rather than a closed system and a loose understanding of correllation and none of causation.

What you're arguing is pure alchemy and pure fantasy. You think we can get something from nothing. You think the government's policies are a magical perpetual motion machine that can keep the good times going by creating more debt and indefinitely pushing our debt into the future so that we never have to worry about that debt.

Unfortunately for your fantasy, and unfortunately for all of us living in the economy, the US and global economies have reached their limits as to the amount of debt they can sustain on the existing asset base. Jocabia you are in for a rude surprise when reality hits the economy. I won't be surprised like you'll be, but I'll be suffering the consequences just like every American and pretty much every person in the world.

Which again doesn't address the issue. We're talking about businesses borrowing to pay employees with money they have but it isn't in their interest to access. Seriously, you're so single-tracked to detriment of your argument. You're suggesting the best way to pay down the debt is to completely stop the economy when all conventional wisdom and history shows the opposite.

Here you're just completely wrong. Not one time in history has debt levels decreased in a pain-free way, i.e. without defaults, bankruptcies, liquidations, layoffs, and unemployment. You can't show me one single instance where your claim is true.

What's coming to hit us and hit our economy is inevitable, and inevitably painful. No matter which fantastical Rube Goldberg plans and perpetual motion machines you dream up, you won't be able to solve our economic problems with government intervention and government policy.

No, you didn't. I doubt you even caught the question.

Your question was: "Is it your belief the best way to pay down the debt is for no one to have any money?" Didn't I answer that yes, it is my belief the best way to pay down the debt is for people to have "no money"? Isn't that the definition of repaying debt? I.e. the debtor giving money to the creditor? Why are you insisting I "didn't answer" your question when I've been answering your question in practically every post I've made in this thread?

Look, it's clear to me and you already know, that you can't actually answer the questions I've asked. If you could, you would.

EX: why is it CRITICAL to small business that the credit markets unfreeze?
you: It is critical.

Hmmm... that it's critical is in the question. The question was why. Your answer addressed why you don't care which is changing the subject. That's the issue all throughout. You HAVE to change the subject. Because if you let anyone else lead you on a path, you're going to end up in water you can't swim in. That's why I asked the questions. And that's why it nails you every time you can't answer.

Hint: Next time just owning up when you don't know will get you MUCH further.

You misquoted my answer.

But your question is irrelevant anyways. My point is, it doesn't matter if small businesses think it's "critical" to get loans. It doesn't matter if some woman thinks it's "critical" to get a breast implant. If there's no money, then tough luck for the businesses and tough luck for the breast implant woman. By bailing out banks and giving them more money, the government just makes things worse by not allowing the economy to liquidate malinvested assets and restructure itself. These banking bailouts won't lead to any economic recovery, and 5 years from now you'll be amazed at my foresight. It's not amazing foresight; it's understanding of basic economic principles.


Meanwhile, the money to hand over to the creditor is what I proposed in the initial bill. The only group taking on more debt is the goverment which, frankly, if the government was the only entity with debt we wouldn't have a problem. I'm proposing a decrease in the current debt of the government guaranteed, along with a decrease in personal debt.
The only way to decrease government debt is by cutting government spending and raising taxes. Both of which will hit the economy and result in just the scenario I've been predicting all along. It's funny that all your proposed methods inevitably lead to one conclusion, which is my conclusion: liquidations, defaults, layoffs, bankruptcies, and unemployment - all of which constitute an unavoidable period of readjustment.

*snip*

More of the same. I stand by my point that you recognize that you should avoid the deep water.

You have your thread on what you're qualified to talk about. Use it.

You again failed to address the substantive points in my plan and that they deal with debt that actual currently exists. But, hey, a trillion dollars is just a tiny little detail.

If you don't like the topic, don't enter the topic. Don't make every thread about your topic.

Let's pretend that our Senators actually do what they think is best instead of what they think is politically most opportune.

Let's say that in this world, a bill passes for the stimulus. This bill puts the money in the hands of the people.

It takes 1 Trillion dollars. It puts it in the hands of 50 Million people at 1000/month for 20 months. Nearly two years of steady income.

So how do we select the people. We give the money to the 50 million poorest adults in the US. It has no effect on other benefits whatsoever.

It's only available to citizens. Only adults. So you're talking about approximately a quarter of all adults getting 12 grand a year extra income after taxes.

I have thoughts on effects, but I'll wait for some feedback.

Would you vote for a politician who supported this?
Do you think this would good?
What do you think the good effects would be?
Bad effects?
Would you add requirements?
Would you remove requirements?

What say YOU?

The topic.

Well, I was kind of hoping you'd be able to loop back to the original topic, instead of stearing away from all the relevant questions you don't know the answers to.

Right... and all this comes after your own "stay on topic" thread.

Right... and all this comes after your own "stay on topic" thread.

Hey, man, I gave you a chance at the deep water. You keep wading back. You can't answer my questions. That's cool. I ain't mad atcha. You can't regurgitate chapters on economic recovery plans no one would ever try (like the one I'm proposing).

You have a thread on the topic you can discuss. It's not my fault if it's not getting enough attention to suit you.

More of the same. I stand by my point that you recognize that you should avoid the deep water.

You have your thread on what you're qualified to talk about. Use it.

You again failed to address the substantive points in my plan and that they deal with debt that actual currently exists. But, hey, a trillion dollars is just a tiny little detail.

If you don't like the topic, don't enter the topic. Don't make every thread about your topic.

This is hardly deep water. You're advocating for the government to hand out free money to homeless people. Any homeless guy could come up with your thread.

I actually bring some depth and critical thinking into this thread, and I actually offer testable predictions and rationales for my predictions. All you need to know about your "brilliant" plan to shift debt around like a hot potato has been accounted for by my postings here.

Hey, man, I gave you a chance at the deep water. You keep wading back. You can't answer my questions. That's cool. I ain't mad atcha. You can't regurgitate chapters on economic recovery plans no one would ever try (like the one I'm proposing).

You have a thread on the topic you can discuss. It's not my fault if it's not getting enough attention to suit you.

Don't worry, I know it's not your fault.

I think the plan you presented, Jocabia, is a good one, and I would vote for a politician who would support such a plan. Also I think it would stimulate the economy more than simply bailing out failing industries. It would also give the People control over how that money is used to rebuild the economy. That, combined with a real central bank for the United States, would be a good move. The only concern I have is the cost. This is a massive amount of spending for one program, but if that is what it takes, so be it. The good thing about it though is that I take it that the special interests are told to shut up and can't try to get any perks with this plan.

This is hardly deep water. You're advocating for the government to hand out free money to homeless people. Any homeless guy could come up with your thread.

I actually bring some depth and critical thinking into this thread, and I actually offer testable predictions and rationales for my predictions. All you need to know about your "brilliant" plan to shift debt around like a hot potato has been accounted for by my postings here.

Actually, I left out some of my stipulations on purpose, but I wouldn't give it to homeless people. I would address that money differently.

I am amused by your over generalization though because it supports my point. I suppose one quarter of all adults in this country are homeless, huh?

I did notice that you're very good at covering the chapters you've already read. Very nice. Now, finish the book.

My brilliant plan doesn't shift debt. The government already has this debt. The stimulus package of this size already happened. I offered an alternative that actually addresses the issues the current plan does not. Rather than address this or even showing a basic understanding of this, you chose to change the subject because you're don't have answers for the questions you'd have to be able to answer in order to address my plan.

Again, I'm not mad atcha. You can't know everything. But if you're worried that people are going to press you for information you don't have or in areas you don't have an argument, then just don't enter the thread. That's why you can make your own threads.

Actually, I left out some of my stipulations on purpose, but I wouldn't give it to homeless people. I would address that money differently.

I am amused by your over generalization though because it supports my point. I suppose one quarter of all adults in this country are homeless, huh?

I did notice that you're very good at covering the chapters you've already read. Very nice. Now, finish the book.

My brilliant plan doesn't shift debt. The government already has this debt. The stimulus package of this size already happened.

I offered an alternative that actually addresses the issues the current plan does not. Rather than address this or even showing a basic understanding of this, you chose to change the subject because you're don't have answers for the questions you'd have to be able to answer in order to address my plan.

Again, I'm not mad atcha. You can't know everything. But if you're worried that people are going to press you for information you don't have or in areas you don't have an argument, then just don't enter the thread. That's why you can make your own threads.

Meh, you're the only one who's ever changing subjects. Every time I make a point you can't refute, you change the subject.

I think the plan you presented, Jocabia, is a good one, and I would vote for a politician who would support such a plan. Also I think it would stimulate the economy more than simply bailing out failing industries. It would also give the People control over how that money is used to rebuild the economy. That, combined with a real central bank for the United States, would be a good move. The only concern I have is the cost. This is a massive amount of spending for one program, but if that is what it takes, so be it. The good thing about it though is that I take it that the special interests are told to shut up and can't try to get any perks with this plan.

Well, the cool thing about doing it this way is that you'd see a lot of money going to states anyway through local sales taxes. You'd see that even in states that have very little economic movement currently, because they also have a disproportionately low average income. So a lot of the infrastructure work would also be possible.

It's no more governmental debt than we currently have. And because of economic movement it might be considerably less. Plus if the economy recovers, we can do what we should have done in the 90's and deal with the overwhelming level of borrowing.

Meh, you're the only one who's ever changing subjects. Every time I make a point you can't refute, you change the subject.

To the topic. Back to the questions I asked. To the stimulus package that already happened and how this sits as a replacement. Crazy, I know, but I keep trying to bring up the actual topic.

Again, it's okay if you don't know how to talk about anything but your thread, but you have a thread for it. It's available to you. You can post in it all day. Hell, eventually maybe someone will look at it.

Well, the cool thing about doing it this way is that you'd see a lot of money going to states anyway through local sales taxes. You'd see that even in states that have very little economic movement currently, because they also have a disproportionately low average income. So a lot of the infrastructure work would also be possible.

It's no more governmental debt than we currently have. And because of economic movement it might be considerably less. Plus if the economy recovers, we can do what we should have done in the 90's and deal with the overwhelming level of borrowing.

You make a very compelling argument, from a drunk listener perspective. We'll see if it holds up in the morning.

The goal here is economic recovery - we just often use infrastructure building as a means to that proposed end. However, your plan is... interesting. I still want to hear more about trickle-up economics. Also, what do you have in mind as far as restrictions go? I gave the first one that sprang to my mind, but what else do you have?

To the topic. Back to the questions I asked. To the stimulus package that already happened and how this sits as a replacement. Crazy, I know, but I keep trying to bring up the actual topic.

Again, it's okay if you don't know how to talk about anything but your thread, but you have a thread for it. It's available to you. You can post in it all day. Hell, eventually maybe someone will look at it.

Lol, so when I smack down your silly arguments about bank bailouts you quickly retreat to the safety of shallower waters and the safety of your very clever "mail everyone a check" plan. I can understand that.

Don't lose too much sleep over my threads, I only need to post in them when other people do.

Lol, so when I smack down your silly arguments about bank bailouts you quickly retreat to the safety of shallower waters and the safety of your very clever "mail everyone a check" plan. I can understand that.

Don't lose too much sleep over my threads, I only need to post in them when other people do.

Heh. I love that you've finally gotten to "I know you are but what am I?" You didn't even come up with a new metaphor. "Waaaaaah, you keep getting back on topic when I really want to make this about something else."

Seriously, don't get so hot and bothered. I'll still be hear next year and the year after when you've taken ALL of the economic courses. We'll have a lively discussion then.

It's not new. We can always tell people who have taken their first biology course and want to talk about abortion or evolution. We can always tell people who have taken their first government choice and want to explain to us something none of us have ever realized about anarchy. We can always tell the people who have taken their first philosophy course and really want to talk about existentialism. It's exciting stuff and, frankly, I don't want to discourage you from being excited. Please, get very, very excited. I hope you write quotes from your book on the walls. But please understand that we don't want to always talk about the same things. Some of us would like to try new takes on old subjects. That requires you allowing the topic of the thread to be the topic of the thread and not always about you. Sound fair?

You make a very compelling argument, from a drunk listener perspective. We'll see if it holds up in the morning.

The goal here is economic recovery - we just often use infrastructure building as a means to that proposed end. However, your plan is... interesting. I still want to hear more about trickle-up economics. Also, what do you have in mind as far as restrictions go? I gave the first one that sprang to my mind, but what else do you have?

It will, but it will be interesting to see if it holds up to some of the people who can look at it how in compares to the current package from other angles.

It will, but it will be interesting to see if it holds up to some of the people who can look at it how in compares to the current package from other angles.

I think you just insulted my intelligence, but I'm too drunk to be sure, and I don't really care anyway. I get enough of that from my ex-wife.

Heh. I love that you've finally gotten to "I know you are but what am I?" You didn't even come up with a new metaphor. "Waaaaaah, you keep getting back on topic when I really want to make this about something else."

Seriously, don't get so hot and bothered. I'll still be hear next year and the year after when you've taken ALL of the economic courses. We'll have a lively discussion then.

It's not new. We can always tell people who have taken their first biology course and want to talk about abortion or evolution. We can always tell people who have taken their first government choice and want to explain to us something none of us have ever realized about anarchy. We can always tell the people who have taken their first philosophy course and really want to talk about existentialism. It's exciting stuff and, frankly, I don't want to discourage you from being excited. Please, get very, very excited. I hope you write quotes from your book on the walls. But please understand that we don't want to always talk about the same things. Some of us would like to try new takes on old subjects. That requires you allowing the topic of the thread to be the topic of the thread and not always about you. Sound fair?

Heh, love the anti-intellectualism there.

I've never taken an economics course in my life btw. Not even in high school.

It's all original Pissarro ;)

One can pretty much figure out economics just by knowing a bit of history.

Heh, love the anti-intellectualism there.

I'm afraid you missed the point again. It's not a problem that people only have first-year knowledge. It's that I'm not going to treat someone who is just scratching the surface of a topic as if their knowledge is deep and broad, especially when they demonstrate repeatedly it isn't.

Saying that I don't treat med students like chiefs of surgery isn't anti-intellectualism. You should probably look that word up.

I've never taken an economics course in my life btw. Not even in high school.

It's all original Pissarro ;)

One can pretty much figure out economics just by knowing a bit of history.
You should be very proud. I confused you with a first-year student.

One wonders how did I know that your study of economics isn't particularly in-depth. How, oh, how did I figure that out? I don't know you. I don't have your resume. I don't have your work history or your educational history. I only have the posts in this thread. So if your posts are so solid, as you seem to think, how did I figure it out? Must be my ESP.

Hell, look how hard you're working right now just to avoid speaking to the topic. Isn't that a little sad from your perspective? Wouldn't it just be easier to open a book and come back when you're ready? Why all the drama, Obama?

EDIT: For the record, you seem quite intelligent, just a little uncomfortable with stretching your view of the economy past the single dimension you bothered to learn about. You can't blama guy from trying to get you to broaden out a little.

I think you just insulted my intelligence, but I'm too drunk to be sure, and I don't really care anyway. I get enough of that from my ex-wife.
Nah, I was including you... to a degree. NOW I insulted your intellegence. :p

Nah, I was including you... to a degree. NOW I insulted your intellegence. :p

Please take a number and stand behind my ex-wife. It might be a while.

Let's pretend that our Senators actually do what they think is best instead of what they think is politically most opportune.

Let's say that in this world, a bill passes for the stimulus. This bill puts the money in the hands of the people.

It takes 1 Trillion dollars. It puts it in the hands of 50 Million people at 1000/month for 20 months. Nearly two years of steady income.

So how do we select the people. We give the money to the 50 million poorest adults in the US. It has no effect on other benefits whatsoever.

It's only available to citizens. Only adults. So you're talking about approximately a quarter of all adults getting 12 grand a year extra income after taxes.

I have thoughts on effects, but I'll wait for some feedback.

Would you vote for a politician who supported this?
Do you think this would good?
What do you think the good effects would be?
Bad effects?
Would you add requirements?
Would you remove requirements?

What say YOU?
what i say, and is the economics 101 point a lot of people, and especially those in politics seem to be missing, is that you don't create wealth by printing money, because money itself isn't wealth, its a symbol that represents value, simply a medium of exchange who'se only value is as a means of exchange and pretty much none at all in and of itself.

so, that being said, what a real stimulus package would need would be to create real value, not just the symbol that represents value, which the latter is simply watering down the soup even more.

actually just giving money to ordinary people WOULD stimulate that MORE then giving it to the banks, because unlike banks, we'd go out and spent it on real things, tangible goods, real services we actually find useful, and various means of real gratification, all of which create jobs for people to make these things, which of course, bailing out the financial service industry, in reality as far as i can see the con game industry, does nothing of the sort.

resistence to this, and it isn't entirely wrong, is that this would still just be printing paper and still, at least in principal, watering down the soup.

the only real stimulus government can provide is in one or both of two ways, one is by buying things, just like we would if we had it in our own pockets, which is something it does, and does without offending the pseudoconservative worshippers of symbolic value. however there ARE problems with this too, which can never be a complete solution. the OTHER thing governmenst can do, is to put people to work, creating real value directly, in addition to paying them for doing so.

this is what the idea of a works projects administration is all about, which is precisely what saved capitolism's ass the last time arround when its reality check was bouncing really bad back in the 1930s.

i'm not so sure this time, actually rescuing capitolism as a concept is neccessarily in the best intrest either of the planet nor of the human species, even of any one or another given country.

the most real and present danger currently faced by humanity, as far too few seem to realize or understand, is its own geed motivate devistation of the very web of life itself, which is where the air we breathe, among other things, everything we take for granted and depend upon to survive, unlimately comes from, and of neccessity has to.

still, there are certain things, greed alone cannot and does not motivate, among them being public utility infrastructure, and making and keeping that infrastructure such as to not overload and degrade, as it is currently doing, nature's cycles of renewal, which again, all of life, INCLUDING our own, entirely depends on.

anyone who thinks they can buy air when there isn't any is probably imagining its only a matter of filtering out the gunk we put in it, which is not the problem i'm refering to at all. you can't buy what doesn't exist. not without someone somewhere making it and that in turn requires them to have a means of doing so, which i maintain, in any practical sense, we do not.

Well, you were doing very well until you suddenly started bitching about air and the renewal cycles of nature.

Sticking with the bits that actually address the economy, I agree we need the infrastructure projects, but what if you could get to them through a different kind of stimulus. As you say, people would spend this stimulus I'm suggesting. Spending begets sales tax. The sales tax goes to the very governmental levels the current stimulus goes to. It gives the financial boost they need to get started on the VERY dire public works projects.

Don't get it twisted, I point out all the time that our infrastructure is in shambles. We've been abandoning the preventive maintenance it requires for 30 years. There's a price tag on that kind of neglect. I'm just trying to find another way to get there.

I'm afraid you missed the point again. It's not a problem that people only have first-year knowledge. It's that I'm not going to treat someone who is just scratching the surface of a topic as if their knowledge is deep and broad, especially when they demonstrate repeatedly it isn't.
Yeah like you would know. Jocabia, the one who confounds assets and debts and thinks that collateral "negates" debt. Wtf? :D

You should be very proud. I confused you with a first-year student.

One wonders how did I know that your study of economics isn't particularly in-depth. How, oh, how did I figure that out? I don't know you. I don't have your resume. I don't have your work history or your educational history. I only have the posts in this thread. So if your posts are so solid, as you seem to think, how did I figure it out? Must be my ESP.

Haha very nice try. None of what I posted about is ever taught in "1st year economics". It's not taught in any university basically. If you were at all familiar with the field of economics you'd have realized this immediately. I guess that's why you don't understand any of my arguments- they're simply too intuitive for nonintuitive people to grasp.

Here's a tip, read "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises to learn you some economics. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet but I've heard great things about it.

Hell, look how hard you're working right now just to avoid speaking to the topic. Isn't that a little sad from your perspective? Wouldn't it just be easier to open a book and come back when you're ready? Why all the drama, Obama?

No, I'm not sad. Not that there's anything wrong with sadness.

And how can you say I'm avoiding the topic? You're the one who wanted to talk debts and bank bailouts with me, check your post #21. I found that momentarily much more interesting than the OP, but that doesn't mean I won't be back to share more of my thoughts.

(in response to jacoba's entirely valid point's, and my appearing to stray from context)

well you know, the thing is, o&m always gets the short end of budgeting because new projects are always politically sexier. and so you've got this incentive in the wrong direction sort of built into 'the system'. one of several such, but that's the big one in the context this thread addresses more directly.

but it IS all part of the bigger picture, that i wasn't just dragging in to kick my favorite 'dead' horse.

and if we put people to work building and maintianing transportation systems people didn't have make long term commitments of indenture, e.g. as having to buy and maintain one's own vehicule involves, that were propelled by means that didn't involve burning anything, and created and maintained the energy infrastructure that used methods that didn't involve burning anything, you know that would go a long way toward solving BOTH problems, and that's the tie in (to this specific context) i was trying to get at.

I'm just not sure that it's an efficient use of money and, while I'd rather stray from disparaging the poor, I fear a good amount of money would go to waste, whether to the black market or to luxury items of limited value.

I don't agree with giving money to the banks either, I'd have preferred that the government roped off toxic assets and simply guaranteed them, that is the money could only be used to bail out the huge deficits in those assets when applicable.

In terms of the most efficient use, I'd rather place that money in education in the poorer sectors of society, bringing them up to date with IT and learning tools.

$1T would go a long way to bringing the poorer schools up to date, the benefits would accrue exponentially for the future.

bridging the digital devide may sound like an awfully aligorical infrastructure project but it sounds to me like a damd fine idea too. that and fiber to every landline subscriber, that's another excellent one. all of these, or even any of them, make more sense then this nonsense of just printing more money, backed by nothing, to give to banks to give as bonusus to their otherwise looser con artist ceo's.

bridging the digital devide may sound like an awfully aligorical infrastructure project but it sounds to me like a damd fine idea too. that and fiber to every landline subscriber, that's another excellent one. all of these, or even any of them, make more sense then this nonsense of just printing more money, backed by nothing, to give to banks to give as bonusus to their otherwise looser con artist ceo's.

Subsidizing broadband is a futile endeavor. South Korea tried that... and now national broadband is a fiscal black hole for the S Korean government with nothing to show for it. We should learn from that mistake not repeat it.

Subsidizing broadband is a futile endeavor. South Korea tried that... and now national broadband is a fiscal black hole for the S Korean government with nothing to show for it. We should learn from that mistake not repeat it.

What are you talking about?

South Korea is highly wired and, along with Japan and Sweden, are noted for the fact that you won't have rapid broadband roll-out without government assistance.

'...nothing to show for it'?

Honestly...

Yeah like you would know. Jocabia, the one who confounds assets and debts and thinks that collateral "negates" debt. Wtf? :D

I apologize. I tried to get you to recognize there are more aspects to the economy. If only talking about one thing at a time is necessary for you, you'd probably do better in a thread about debt.


Haha very nice try. None of what I posted about is ever taught in "1st year economics". It's not taught in any university basically. If you were at all familiar with the field of economics you'd have realized this immediately. I guess that's why you don't understand any of my arguments- they're simply too intuitive for nonintuitive people to grasp.

Here's a tip, read "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises to learn you some economics. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet but I've heard great things about it.

Yes, yes. If only one day someone would be able to comprehend your one-dimensional arguments. "Debt is all that matters. Don't bring up assets or resources or economic movement because I don't know how that wor.... Uh, I mean, I'm too intuitive for that stuff."

No, I'm not sad. Not that there's anything wrong with sadness.

And how can you say I'm avoiding the topic? You're the one who wanted to talk debts and bank bailouts with me, check your post #21. I found that momentarily much more interesting than the OP, but that doesn't mean I won't be back to share more of my thoughts.

I definitely brought up debt and bank bailouts. I certainly wasn't replying to a post in 21, was I?

You: the bailouts will never work. We need to let the banks fail so we can get rid of this debt.
Me: You talk about debt as if it's all that matters.
You: (several more posts about the bailout)
Me: The topic is about economic stimulus.
You: What? You brought up bailouts and banks.

It's true. I brought it up... as long as we ignore your previous posts on the subject. Do you have anything to say on the OP? Come on, you're a bright guy. Certainly you can at least make it seem like you can speak to resources, economic movement, assets, spending and the like, yeah? You can. I just know you can. Fake it. If you're even close, I'll pretend it's brilliant.

I'm just not sure that it's an efficient use of money and, while I'd rather stray from disparaging the poor, I fear a good amount of money would go to waste, whether to the black market or to luxury items of limited value.

I don't agree with giving money to the banks either, I'd have preferred that the government roped off toxic assets and simply guaranteed them, that is the money could only be used to bail out the huge deficits in those assets when applicable.

In terms of the most efficient use, I'd rather place that money in education in the poorer sectors of society, bringing them up to date with IT and learning tools.

$1T would go a long way to bringing the poorer schools up to date, the benefits would accrue exponentially for the future.

I thought of that. About the schools. Here's the thing. I think you would see a lot of purchases of limited value. Purchases that yield sales tax. Which would give money to the states. Which would allow the states to invest in infrastructure and schools.

And you'd have a share of the people receiving this money that would use it to better their lot in life. So 20 months later, we'd have some drop (I won't guess how much) in people on welfare. We'd have some drop in the homeless population. We'd have some increase in the education level of the impovershed. And beyond all that, we'd have economic movement (which what the purchase of luxury items is), and we'd have job creation because someone has to make those goods. During all that time the movement would be taxed, so we'd be getting money back.

Again, I agree that we have a third-world infrastructure. We should be ashamed. But if we're going to create a sustainable system for dealing with that, it has to be built upon the idea of a sustainable economy, not on happening to catch a break and get a President that treats it as a priority.

What are you talking about?

South Korea is highly wired and, along with Japan and Sweden, are noted for the fact that you won't have rapid broadband roll-out without government assistance.

'...nothing to show for it'?

Honestly...

I'm glad you showed up, Barr.

So we disagree on the benefits of my package, but do you think it's salvagable? There are the questions in the OP, can you take a look at them?

Would you support a politician that was willing to vote for this albatross, for example? It's certainly not politically smart to vote for something that's going to be seen as redistribution of wealth and a handout to those evil and lazy poor.

Well, the cool thing about doing it this way is that you'd see a lot of money going to states anyway through local sales taxes. You'd see that even in states that have very little economic movement currently, because they also have a disproportionately low average income. So a lot of the infrastructure work would also be possible.

It's no more governmental debt than we currently have. And because of economic movement it might be considerably less. Plus if the economy recovers, we can do what we should have done in the 90's and deal with the overwhelming level of borrowing.

Jocabia, just curious, are you an American citizen who is at least 25 yrs old? If so, would you be interested in running for House of Representatives for your district, because your plan is far more intelligent than what others have come up with, including President Obama. I agree with what you say on borrowing, as it seems that most people when talking about economics never realize this or they conveniently ignore it.

Jocabia, just curious, are you an American citizen who is at least 25 yrs old? If so, would you be interested in running for House of Representatives for your district, because your plan is far more intelligent than what others have come up with, including President Obama. I agree with what you say on borrowing, as it seems that most people when talking about economics never realize this or they conveniently ignore it.

I am old enough and American. I think our politicians should be leaders. They should do things that are sometimes unpopular but will help us in the long run. We aren't focused on running our government. We're busy with our own jobs. As such, we need to put leaders in these positions, not people who answer to people who know nothing about what's going on with various issues just because those people vote. They're there to best represent us. Stop looking at polls and start looking at the evidence and figure out what will lead us in the right direction.

Would you vote for a politician who supported this?

My first reaction on hearing this would likely be to question the politician, it seems a populist move along the lines of a Hugo Chavez, much would depend on how it was laid out.

Do you think this would be good?

Ultimately I wouldn't be overly against it, given we're throwing $1T at something, this seems as good an idea as any. I would prefer it to be invested in somewhere, and leaning to the future since our children will be paying for this anyway, hence I wouldn't mind it being invested in them.

What do you think the good effects would be?

I'd like to think it sparks some people to do something, I'm not sure what but I'd like to think someone could really use that money as they have a great idea but unable to secure the smallest loan. I don't suppose I mind if just 5% of recipients really put it to good use.

Would it stimulate the economy, I fear the money just trickles back up to the top, the entire question did crystalise a thought on economics, which I might outline in this or another thread later.

Bad effects?

The resentment, the howling of injustice and I think it would be all to easy to find the people who use it to bad effect, whether on drugs or whatever, and that could easily be used in the media.

Would you add requirements?

I've the funny thought of only providing it to mothers, we were talking about the India micro-financing scheme last night and how they mostly lend to females. I understand there'd be complaints here.

Would you remove requirements?

I'd prefer, ultimately, something like this to be as open as possible.

What are you talking about?

South Korea is highly wired and, along with Japan and Sweden, are noted for the fact that you won't have rapid broadband roll-out without government assistance.

'...nothing to show for it'?

Honestly...

Your argument is circular. You argue that we will all have rapid broadband access to show for government subsidizing rapid broadband. Likewise we will all have Egyptian-style pyramids to show if the government starts building gigantic Egyptian-style pyramids. By your argument then doesn't that mean the government should start building pyramids?

Why do countries even need "rapid broadband roll-out"? It does not augment the economy, and only drains resources from the economy considering that all government-subsidized broadband programs run deficits.

I apologize. I tried to get you to recognize there are more aspects to the economy. If only talking about one thing at a time is necessary for you, you'd probably do better in a thread about debt.

Hmm I'm beginning to think you don't even know how assets and debts even work. Nominal debt levels don't magically fluctuate. Asset prices fluctuate, and if asset prices go down as they have been for the past 2 years, then we're all up shit creek (and so we are).

Yes, yes. If only one day someone would be able to comprehend your one-dimensional arguments. "Debt is all that matters. Don't bring up assets or resources or economic movement because I don't know how that wor.... Uh, I mean, I'm too intuitive for that stuff."

Debt is all that matters at this point, no matter how much you and other ignorant people deny it. This is why all your analyses fall flat on its face while my analyses correctly model and predict outcomes.

If you try to bring up "resources" and "assets" then you're just undermining your own argument.

Nominal debt levels stay the same. If you borrow $200,000 to buy a house, you have to pay back $200,000 + interest, and that amount doesn't change even if your house price goes down to $150,000. See the inherent problems with that? This is essentially the story of the American and global economies as a whole. The economy's plummeting asset prices are not nearly worth enough to cover the huge, unshifting debt levels which don't magically go away. There are only two ways to correct this: inflation or debt-deflation. Neither solution is pleasant to say the least. You appear to be blind to this fact.



I definitely brought up debt and bank bailouts. I certainly wasn't replying to a post in 21, was I?

You were. Can you then explain to me why you enthusiastically replied to my posts while later accusing me of hijacking the thread? How can I hijack the thread if I'm carrying on a conversation with the original poster?


You: the bailouts will never work. We need to let the banks fail so we can get rid of this debt.
Me: You talk about debt as if it's all that matters.
You: (several more posts about the bailout)
Me: The topic is about economic stimulus.
You: What? You brought up bailouts and banks.

It's true. I brought it up... as long as we ignore your previous posts on the subject. Do you have anything to say on the OP?
I did address it, several pages back, didn't you read it? I already stated, in clear and easy-to-understand language, that it's a better plan than the current stimulus package. Allowing private individuals to spend money the way they want, without any restrictions at all, is always superior to centralized government initiatives like highway building.

Come on, you're a bright guy. Certainly you can at least make it seem like you can speak to resources, economic movement, assets, spending and the like, yeah? You can. I just know you can. Fake it. If you're even close, I'll pretend it's brilliant.

If we're talking about "resources, economic movements, assets, and spending," then your arguments about "sustainability" of the current situation are further undermined. Taking a closer look at assets and spending further emphasizes the inevitability of debt-deflation, and "resources and economic movements" will be liquidated part-and-parcel of the debt deleveraging process. That's what paying down debt entails; do yourself a favor and look up the concept sometime so you don't continue to fall into the error of thinking that the good times can magically continue forever.

Would you add requirements?
I would alter in so it wasn't just a cut off. It would be given to a few more people and those with the most (eligible section of society) would get less. I think that those just at the cut off that didn't get the money would be the most negatively affected by this. Although, then again then they might just save it. I would also make it so that those with children get slightly more (at the expense of those without), and only one of these "bonuses" per household. I would add that you would have to have had a clean record, for the past 5-10 years, as an other poster said.
Would you remove requirements?
If they are under the age of 18 and attending a post-secondary institution (they skipped a grade, or what have you) they should also be eligible.

What say YOU?
I don't know what the affect would be on their motivation to work as a whole. For some it would be a chance to get out of poverty, others would use it as a free ride for two years, I can't guess what the net effect would be.
I some ways I think it is better than Obama's plan. It would stimulate the economy very well. However, I still feel that some things in the stimulus plan such as the $87 billion to Medicare, the $150 for education and increased unemployment benefits and some of the public works money to be better means of maintaining the economy for a longer stretch of time, possibly because I support more money in general to those things. But still, it is important to get everyone spending more and to work on more long term solutions and the increases to education would definitely help more in the long term.
Also with the current package there is more control over what industries make money and how much. I feel like certain industries might benefit artificially at first so that when the market gets back into full swing some industries would suddenly start to fail again. Also some inferior items (I think that's the right term) might suffer causing certain companies to do worse.
In general I think a combination of the two might be best.

Heh, love the anti-intellectualism there.
That wasn't anti-intellectualism


One can pretty much figure out economics just by knowing a bit of history.

There are other factors involved in understanding economics that history alone won't cover, although history is a very interesting tool.

Your argument is circular. You argue that we will all have rapid broadband access to show for government subsidizing rapid broadband. Likewise we will all have Egyptian-style pyramids to show if the government starts building gigantic Egyptian-style pyramids. By your argument then doesn't that mean the government should start building pyramids?

Why do countries even need "rapid broadband roll-out"? It does not augment the economy, and only drains resources from the economy considering that all government-subsidized broadband programs run deficits.

Broadband is not equivalent to an outsized mausoleum for some dead guy, it's more equivalent to highways, and I know you think that people in LA can live without lobster but the simple fact is that the fast delivery of information is a benefit to a nation.

Beyond that, it's helped companies such as Samsung and LG go global, the online economy from CyWorld to Daum is also expanding fast, it's created opportunities to the point that people look to Korean innovation on the web and try to emulate it.

That the government is taking the loss is partly why it's for the government to undertake the investment, because they can and it's important.

Broadband is not equivalent to an outsized mausoleum for some dead guy, it's more equivalent to highways, and I know you think that people in LA can live without lobster but the simple fact is that the fast delivery of information is a benefit to a nation.

Beyond that, it's helped companies such as Samsung and LG go global, the online economy from CyWorld to Daum is also expanding fast, it's created opportunities to the point that people look to Korean innovation on the web and try to emulate it.

That the government is taking the loss is partly why it's for the government to undertake the investment, because they can and it's important.

Samsung and LG went global because their manufactured products are superior to rival firms' products, not because the South Korean government made sure that any housewife in a small rural town can download soap operas with her government-subsidized broadband connection. Also, countries without broadband subsidies have internet companies (Google, Baidu, etc.) that perform just as well as, or even better than, CyWorld and Daum; nobody is "looking toward" so-called Korean innovation.

Furthermore, telecom providers in South Korea are not as streamlined, efficient, and technologically advanced as they could be had not the government used subsidies and bailouts to remove their incentive to provide better and more advanced service. Furthermore the highly politicized nature of South Korean government broadband contracts makes sure only a few of the big industrial conglomerates gain access to the money for broadbands, creating artificial barriers preventing newcomers and innovators from entering the market, further stifling innovation. The South Korean experience is simply a costly failure on all fronts.

There are other factors involved in understanding economics that history alone won't cover, although history is a very interesting tool.

History is pretty much economics. (paraphrasing of Marx)

History is pretty much economics. (paraphrasing of Marx)

No, there are many more aspects of history and there are many more aspects of economics.

Samsung and LG went global because their manufactured products are superior to rival firms' products, not because the South Korean government made sure that any housewife in a small rural town can download soap operas with her government-subsidized broadband connection. Also, countries without broadband subsidies have internet companies (Google, Baidu, etc.) that perform just as well as, or even better than, CyWorld and Daum; nobody is "looking toward" so-called Korean innovation.

If the administration decides to look abroad for answers, it will see that see that countries such as Japan, South Korea and France have developed faster and less expensive broadband networks, but have also refrained thus far from implementing strict net neutrality rules.

Link (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/021209-international-net-neutrality.html)

Furthermore, telecom providers in South Korea are not as streamlined, efficient, and technologically advanced as they could be had not the government used subsidies and bailouts to remove their incentive to provide better and more advanced service.

Far better than the US.

The wholesale model for providing Internet access is used in countries such as Japan, South Korea and France, where state-regulated telecom monopolies are required to give access to retail providers. Harvard Law School professor and Web guru Lawrence Lessig, who is also a proponent of net neutrality, has written that this model of delivering Internet service has led to "fierce competition" that in turn has led to a faster, less expensive Internet in other countries.

Furthermore the highly politicized nature of South Korean government broadband contracts makes sure only a few of the big industrial conglomerates gain access to the money for broadbands, creating artificial barriers preventing newcomers and innovators from entering the market, further stifling innovation. The South Korean experience is simply a costly failure on all fronts.

Feld thinks that the most important lesson that the country can learn from international broadband policy is the need to have government invest in helping carriers build out better networks. He believes that the broadband provisions contained within the Obama administration's economic stimulus package are a good start and he's pleased to see money going toward grants to help pay for projects that deliver measurable speed upgrades.

You've reach a conclusion and then just baldly assert information to back up your pre-set conclusion.

No, there are many more aspects of history and there are many more aspects of economics.

Economics doesn't cover all of history, but history alone covers economics.

If the administration decides to look abroad for answers, it will see that see that countries such as Japan, South Korea and France have developed faster and less expensive broadband networks, but have also refrained thus far from implementing strict net neutrality rules.

Link (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/021209-international-net-neutrality.html)



Far better than the US.

The wholesale model for providing Internet access is used in countries such as Japan, South Korea and France, where state-regulated telecom monopolies are required to give access to retail providers. Harvard Law School professor and Web guru Lawrence Lessig, who is also a proponent of net neutrality, has written that this model of delivering Internet service has led to "fierce competition" that in turn has led to a faster, less expensive Internet in other countries.



Feld thinks that the most important lesson that the country can learn from international broadband policy is the need to have government invest in helping carriers build out better networks. He believes that the broadband provisions contained within the Obama administration's economic stimulus package are a good start and he's pleased to see money going toward grants to help pay for projects that deliver measurable speed upgrades.

You've reach a conclusion and then just baldly assert information to back up your pre-set conclusion.

....can you hurry up and get around to tearing my post apart? I'm getting bored waiting for a response.

Economics doesn't cover all of history, but history alone covers economics.
Mathematics is required as is a certain degree of psychology, sociology and then some environmental and ethical things once you get into normative economics.

You can also download this PP as to the social and economic benefits of broadband roll-out in Korea.

www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/27/1936518.ppt

....can you hurry up and get around to tearing my post apart? I'm getting bored waiting for a response.

Me?

Which post?

I don't rip apart posts do I :(

Me?

Which post?

I don't rip apart posts do I :(

Yes you

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14617679&postcount=83

And... I didn't mean it as a bad thing I just want someone to talk to about the original topic :(

Yes you

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14617679&postcount=83

And... I didn't mean it as a bad thing I just want someone to talk to about the original topic :(

Oh, well I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, I think there should be a balance between investing money into areas of benefit to the future, such as education and health, into immediate areas even where that's propping up a failing industry if only to cushion the blow and generally increased benefits to the lower end of society.

Although I understand the logic in letting the market decide, and although I even suspect that would help sort out the market quicker, the issue is that I don't really place the market over basic human needs.

The economic focus on the market above all else, where the stock price of a company is more important than its underlying value, has led to much of the troubles we're facing today.

Some people think humanity be damned, the markets will sort it all out, but that's just not the case where there's irrational exuberance, especially to the levels seen from 2001 to 2006, causing an enormous crash in value, a crash that affects industry and thus those who never even dabbled in the market because the company they work for, and those invested in profiting from share price movement, was more focused on lying to affect share price over taking hard truths and re-tooling for future benefit.

If the administration decides to look abroad for answers, it will see that see that countries such as Japan, South Korea and France have developed faster and less expensive broadband networks, but have also refrained thus far from implementing strict net neutrality rules.

Link (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/021209-international-net-neutrality.html)

I would like to see the data that shows Japan, SK, and France developed "less expensive broadband networks." Faster, maybe, but fast internet connections are uncorrelated with the economic health of the nation, especially in S Korea's case.

It's inconceivable that the cost of providing 100 mbs broadband is anything but cheap. I'm assuming the author of that article disingenuously ignored the cost of taxation of providing this broadband.


Far better than the US.

The wholesale model for providing Internet access is used in countries such as Japan, South Korea and France, where state-regulated telecom monopolies are required to give access to retail providers. Harvard Law School professor and Web guru Lawrence Lessig, who is also a proponent of net neutrality, has written that this model of delivering Internet service has led to "fierce competition" that in turn has led to a faster, less expensive Internet in other countries.

See my argument above. It's inconceivable that "100 mbs for all" internet access in Japan and Korea are more efficient than in the US where there is very little excess and superfluous broadband capacity, and supply is finely tuned to demand.



Feld thinks that the most important lesson that the country can learn from international broadband policy is the need to have government invest in helping carriers build out better networks. He believes that the broadband provisions contained within the Obama administration's economic stimulus package are a good start and he's pleased to see money going toward grants to help pay for projects that deliver measurable speed upgrades.

You've reach a conclusion and then just baldly assert information to back up your pre-set conclusion.

All of the information you've provided is very likely incorrect and does not pass the logic test. Giving broadband connections to everyone does not stimulate the economy. Obama should learn from the examples of S Korea and Japan, two countries that suffered horrendous GDP contractions the past year despite their governments' enormous internet investments.

Oh, well I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, I think there should be a balance between investing money into areas of benefit to the future, such as education and health, into immediate areas even where that's propping up a failing industry if only to cushion the blow and generally increased benefits to the lower end of society.

Although I understand the logic in letting the market decide, and although I even suspect that would help sort out the market quicker, the issue is that I don't really place the market over basic human needs.

The economic focus on the market above all else, where the stock price of a company is more important than its underlying value, has led to much of the troubles we're facing today.

Some people think humanity be damned, the markets will sort it all out, but that's just not the case where there's irrational exuberance, especially to the levels seen from 2001 to 2006, causing an enormous crash in value, a crash that affects industry and thus those who never even dabbled in the market because the company they work for, and those invested in profiting from share price movement, was more focused on lying to affect share price over taking hard truths and re-tooling for future benefit.

I think that we may agree too much to debate. *is sad*

Oh, well I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, I think there should be a balance between investing money into areas of benefit to the future, such as education and health, into immediate areas even where that's propping up a failing industry if only to cushion the blow and generally increased benefits to the lower end of society.

Although I understand the logic in letting the market decide, and although I even suspect that would help sort out the market quicker, the issue is that I don't really place the market over basic human needs.

The economic focus on the market above all else, where the stock price of a company is more important than its underlying value, has led to much of the troubles we're facing today.

Some people think humanity be damned, the markets will sort it all out, but that's just not the case where there's irrational exuberance, especially to the levels seen from 2001 to 2006, causing an enormous crash in value, a crash that affects industry and thus those who never even dabbled in the market because the company they work for, and those invested in profiting from share price movement, was more focused on lying to affect share price over taking hard truths and re-tooling for future benefit.
The market will sort it all out in this case. Nothing the government does will be able to avert the very real economic crash that's at the world's doorstep. Widespread poverty and economic ruin are our unavoidable fate for the near future; the government can't fool the market. No amount of bailouts, stimuluses, and government spending programs will avert this. The best thing governments can do is step aside so as to ensure that the world's poverty won't be a permanent thing and that recovery can begin.

...inconceivable...inconceivable

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I have to, it's the law.

I would like to see the data that shows Japan, SK, and France developed "less expensive broadband networks." Faster, maybe, but fast internet connections are uncorrelated with the economic health of the nation, especially in S Korea's case.

I"d like to see any evidence whatsoever behind your claims, I'll see if I can find the data but I've provided further evidence to the benefits of broadband, mostly in response to your claim that broadband expansion in Korea has been of no use whatsoever.

It's inconceivable that the cost of providing 100 mbs broadband is anything but cheap. I'm assuming the author of that article disingenuously ignored the cost of taxation of providing this broadband.

Who's saying it's cheap, it's not, that's why government support is required, but it's currently seemingly cheaper to implement and even more market competitive than the means in which the US is doing it.

See my argument above. It's inconceivable that "100 mbs for all" internet access in Japan and Korea are more efficient than in the US where there is very little excess and superfluous broadband capacity, and supply is finely tuned to demand.

Your belief in the efficiency of supply and demand in this case is wrong.

All of the information you've provided is very likely incorrect and does not pass the logic test. Giving broadband connections to everyone does not stimulate the economy.

Bald assertions disproved by the linked Powerpoint.

Obama should learn from the examples of S Korea and Japan, two countries that suffered horrendous GDP contractions the past year despite their governments' enormous internet investments.

Unrelated to broadband roll-out, especially where the US is going through the same.

The market will sort it all out in this case. Nothing the government does will be able to avert the very real economic crash that's at the world's doorstep. Widespread poverty and economic ruin are our unavoidable fate for the near future; the government can't fool the market. No amount of bailouts, stimuluses, and government spending programs will avert this. The best thing governments can do is step aside so as to ensure that the world's poverty won't be a permanent thing and that recovery can begin.

Obviously the government will not be able to prevent a recession, but I haven't seen any evidence that a depression is completely unavoidable, or economic situation must go down eventually but they can soften the blow for a while, it would be indefinite but that's the nature of a business cycle short term ups and downs hopefully avoiding any deep depressions as long as people spend and we have resources there is no reason why wide spread poverty is inevitable.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I have to, it's the law.



I"d like to see any evidence whatsoever behind your claims, I'll see if I can find the data but I've provided further evidence to the benefits of broadband, mostly in response to your claim that broadband expansion in Korea has been of no use whatsoever.



Who's saying it's cheap, it's not, that's why government support is required, but it's currently seemingly cheaper to implement and even more market competitive than the means in which the US is doing it.

Your link does not demonstrate that it's "cheaper" or even "seemingly cheaper" to implement or "more market competitive."

Bald assertions disproved by the linked Powerpoint.
That powerpoint presentation was somewhat useless as it could've been made about China, US, Ebay, Google, Amazon, or any variety of examples that do the same things South Koreans do, like digitize books and files, provide online university educations, etc.


Unrelated to broadband roll-out, especially where the US is going through the same.

If broadband roll-out is unrelated to economic outcome then there's no reason to pursue it in the US. If anything broadband rollout is a burden; Korea's government-sponsored artificial overinvestment in internet (an "internet bubble" if you will) in the past few years will only drag economic recovery in a recessionary scenario where overinvestments seek liquidation. I would logically expect more liquidation in Korea's internet economy than in the US' internet economy.

That powerpoint presentation was somewhat useless as it could've been made about China, US, Ebay, Google, Amazon, or any variety of examples that do the same things South Koreans do, like digitize books and files, provide online university educations, etc.

So access to these is a benefit, faster access provided to all is thus an advantage thanks.

If broadband roll-out is unrelated to economic outcome then there's no reason to pursue it in the US.

Unrelated to this particular economic situation, you're just responding blindly now. I could just as easily assert that broadband rollout will help South Korea compared to the hypothetical that it never rolled it out, it's more efficient to have broadband and I'm sure you love efficiency.

If anything broadband rollout is a burden; Korea's government-sponsored artificial overinvestment in internet (an "internet bubble" if you will) in the past few years will only drag economic recovery in a recessionary scenario where overinvestments seek liquidation. I would logically expect more liquidation in Korea's internet economy than in the US' internet economy.

Just whatever, soon you'll be saying the Internet as a whole is of no use whatsoever.

I've yet to see one single piece of back up from you, just bald assertion after bald assertion.

Obviously the government will not be able to prevent a recession, but I haven't seen any evidence that a depression is completely unavoidable, or economic situation must go down eventually but they can soften the blow for a while, it would be indefinite but that's the nature of a business cycle short term ups and downs hopefully avoiding any deep depressions as long as people spend and we have resources there is no reason why wide spread poverty is inevitable.

That's the thing, people have nothing to spend. Private sector debt-to-GDP ratios in the US (and the rest of the world too) have peaked and a variety of economic and demographic factors will prevent it from going back up and facilitating the debt culture that allows us to spend and consume so much. The good times are over, and the last thing on anyone's minds, whether households or businesses, is more spending. All this debt accumulated over the past 50 years will be deleveraged through liquidations, bankruptcies, layoffs, and mass unemployment.

Also, governments should never try to "soften the blow". Every time during a recession in the past 50 years when government intervened with monetary or fiscal policies to soften the blow, the government only encouraged the expansion of more public and private debt to cover up the economy's fundamental defects and problems and give a "veneer" of prosperity - more cars are sold on credit, more consumer goods and real estate sold on credit, so that people "feel" more prosperous while totally ignoring that this system of debt is not sustainable for the long run. The whole system is one that runs on borrowed time, and today in 2009 the time has run out. The government cannot "restart the economic engine" like they did in the past, because there's simply too much debt everywhere and for the first time in many generations people realize this debt can't possibly get paid back. When people finally come to this realization, just like they did in 1929, the economy can no longer sustain any more debt; no further debt-fueled consumption binges are possible; and a painful depression becomes unavoidable.

That's the thing, people have nothing to spend. Private sector debt-to-GDP ratios in the US (and the rest of the world too) have peaked and a variety of economic and demographic factors will prevent it from going back up and facilitating the debt culture that allows us to spend and consume so much. The good times are over, and the last thing on anyone's minds, whether households or businesses, is more spending. All this debt accumulated over the past 50 years will be deleveraged through liquidations, bankruptcies, layoffs, and mass unemployment.

Also, governments should never try to "soften the blow". Every time during a recession in the past 50 years when government intervened with monetary or fiscal policies to soften the blow, the government only encouraged the expansion of more public and private debt to cover up the economy's fundamental defects and problems and give a "veneer" of prosperity - more cars are sold on credit, more consumer goods and real estate sold on credit, so that people "feel" more prosperous while totally ignoring that this system of debt is not sustainable for the long run. The whole system is one that runs on borrowed time, and today in 2009 the time has run out. The government cannot "restart the economic engine" like they did in the past, because there's simply too much debt everywhere and for the first time in many generations people realize this debt can't possibly get paid back. When people finally come to this realization, just like they did in 1929, the economy can no longer sustain any more debt; no further debt-fueled consumption binges are possible; and a painful depression becomes unavoidable.

Except you miss out economic growth spurred by technology, creation of greater efficiency, as seen by rail, vehicle, flight, computers and the Internet.

On that last one, broadband would help.

So access to these is a benefit, faster access provided to all is thus an advantage thanks.

The two clauses in your sentence are not logically compatible. Faster access is in fact a disadvantage to the economy if much of the access is wasted and money to provide this access is wasted. Fast access makes no difference for accessing the majority of the internet, which is why thriving and technologically advanced corporations like Google or Amazon are able to establish themselves in nonsubsidized internet environments.

Except you miss out economic growth spurred by technology, creation of greater efficiency, as seen by rail, vehicle, flight, computers and the Internet.

On that last one, broadband would help.


Technology and greater efficiency simply cause job layoffs, yet the government insists on the short-sighted policy of mandating to prevent job losses by fiat. Do you see the contradiction there? In fact the implication of your powerpoint presentation is that many teachers should be laid off since broadband allows online classes and online exams, which can be administered by much less labor. Yet government tries at all steps to prevent the job losses.

Technology won't save us, especially government investments in technology, which are typically malinvestments and unsustainable for the long run. The depression is unavoidable; there's simply too much debt all over the world. And the only way to pay down this debt is by liquidating assets, bankrupting many companies, etc.

The two clauses in your sentence are not logically compatible. Faster access is in fact a disadvantage to the economy if much of the access is wasted and money to provide this access is wasted. Fast access makes no difference for accessing the majority of the internet, which is why thriving and technologically advanced corporations like Google or Amazon are able to establish themselves in nonsubsidized internet environments.

..and people in LA don't need lobsters, I know I know.

Technology and greater efficiency simply cause job layoffs, yet the government insists on the short-sighted policy of mandating to prevent job losses by fiat. Do you see the contradiction there? In fact the implication of your powerpoint presentation is that many teachers should be laid off since broadband allows online classes and online exams, which can be administered by much less labor. Yet government tries at all steps to prevent the job losses.

Not where it creates new jobs due to that economy, in anticipation of your next paragraph, the growth of companies such as Google created jobs due to technology and the people's ability to access the fruits of that technology.

Teachers don't necessarily need to be laid off, far from it, they can simply gain greater efficiency and therefore free up time for more productive avenues.

Technology won't save us, especially government investments in technology, which are typically malinvestments and unsustainable for the long run. The depression is unavoidable; there's simply too much debt all over the world. And the only way to pay down this debt is by liquidating assets, bankrupting many companies, etc.

We're doomed, doomed I tell you.

Beyond all this, my original wish was not limited to broadband roll-out but also the services associated with that, and I was mostly focused on education and schools, it was a package aimed at education rather than mere broadband roll-out, which helps those schools access those tools.

Of course, you'd rather only those who can afford it receive it, widening the gap between rich and poor to the detriment of the economy, keeping the disadvantaged not only still disadvantaged but even more by comparison.

..and people in LA don't need lobsters, I know I know.
They need lobsters as much as they're willing to pay for them.

Not where it creates new jobs due to that economy, in anticipation of your next paragraph, the growth of companies such as Google created jobs due to technology and the people's ability to access the fruits of that technology.
Precisely, that's why we shouldn't be afraid to lay off teachers. They'll find work in new jobs created by technology. Keeping so many teachers around is simply a large waste of resources that retards economic growth.

Teachers don't necessarily need to be laid off, far from it, they can simply gain greater efficiency and therefore free up time for more productive avenues.

Your argument doesn't make sense. By your argument no one ever needs to be laid off when new technology rolls around.

Only the profit-loss model can determine what is the best time to lay off a worker.


We're doomed, doomed I tell you.

Beyond all this, my original wish was not limited to broadband roll-out but also the services associated with that, and I was mostly focused on education and schools, it was a package aimed at education rather than mere broadband roll-out, which helps those schools access those tools.

Of course, you'd rather only those who can afford it receive it, widening the gap between rich and poor to the detriment of the economy, keeping the disadvantaged not only still disadvantaged but even more by comparison.

Nope, I support providing high quality educations to all; the most effective way to do this is to abolish school licensing laws so that anyone can start a school and anyone can teach; and this increase in competition in the field of education will drive costs down and drive quality up. Currently laws prevent the establishment of low-cost educational institutions by using school licensure as a means of protecting from competition a few lucky high-cost, inefficient schools (both public and private) that can get official state licenses. The government artificially limits supplies when there is so much demand, obviously driving costs up.

Your argument doesn't make sense. By your argument no one ever needs to be laid off when new technology rolls around.

Only the profit-loss model can determine what is the best time to lay off a worker.

Education isn't a zero-sum game that we leave to the markets to decide.

Nope, I support providing high quality educations to all; the most effective way to do this is to abolish school licensing laws so that anyone can start a school and anyone can teach; and this increase in competition in the field of education will drive costs down and drive quality up. Currently laws prevent the establishment of low-cost educational institutions by using school licensure as a means of protecting from competition a few lucky high-cost, inefficient schools (both public and private) that can get official state licenses. The government artificially limits supplies when there is so much demand, obviously driving costs up.

Sure, and if the market wants to teach creationism then let them.

Again, money will accrue to the top, widening the gap, in various areas government intervention is required to provide a modicum of equality, hence I support equal broadband roll-out for all rather than to just those who can afford it.

The market will not supply that.

Education isn't a zero-sum game that we leave to the markets to decide.
Nothing is a zero-sum game in the free market. Technology allows ever-increasing productivity in education too, as you have yourself acknowledged.


Sure, and if the market wants to teach creationism then let them.

The public education system certainly isn't that great at teaching evolution either. Half of Americans believe in creationism and a quarter of Canadians believe in creationism. If an expensive state-licensed education cartel achieves these dismal results, why not let a cheaper unlicensed free market education achieve the same results?

Again, money will accrue to the top, widening the gap, in various areas government intervention is required to provide a modicum of equality, hence I support equal broadband roll-out for all rather than to just those who can afford it.

The market will not supply that.

How would money accrue to the top and how does the "gap" "widen"? Government interventions and subsidies for public schools only drive high-quality, low-cost educational institutions out of business, such as inner-city Catholic schools in the US which provide free or low-cost education to disadvantaged black kids and achieve much better results than the public school fiscal black holes that suck in huge amounts of tax money with little return to speak of.

Broadband roll-out, if it occurs, will be a tragic farce, and another nail on the country's economic coffin. Maybe a lot of movies will be downloaded and shared on the broadband, but no sustainable economic growth will come out of it, especially in our current economy. By "sustainable" I mean economic growth sustainable for the long term without having some government intervention like a destructive war that destroys malinvested excess productive capacity that governments were too short-sighted to have allowed to be liquidated peacefully.

Nothing is a zero-sum game in the free market. Technology allows ever-increasing productivity in education too, as you have yourself acknowledged.

Yes it does, and so I did, to prove the point that technology is a benefit. It does not require teacher lay-offs, especially when there's not enough teachers to start with, what it can do is free up teachers to focus on better teaching.

The public education system certainly isn't that great at teaching evolution either. Half of Americans believe in creationism and a quarter of Canadians believe in creationism. If an expensive state-licensed education cartel achieves these dismal results, why not let a cheaper unlicensed free market education achieve the same results?

Better a progression than regression, it's enough of a battle to keep creationism our of the science class already, the government is the last line of defense in this.

How would money accrue to the top and how does the "gap" "widen"? Government interventions and subsidies for public schools only drive high-quality, low-cost educational institutions out of business, such as inner-city Catholic schools in the US which provide free or low-cost education to disadvantaged black kids and achieve much better results than the public school fiscal black holes that suck in huge amounts of tax money with little return to speak of.

Where this occurs, I'm open to reasonable solutions but I don't believe it works for everywhere, government is required for equality of shared resources. Something like education is just too important to be left to the market alone.

Broadband roll-out, if it occurs, will be a tragic farce, and another nail on the country's economic coffin.

You've provided no evidence of this whatsoever...

Maybe a lot of movies will be downloaded and shared on the broadband, but no sustainable economic growth will come out of it, especially in our current economy. By "sustainable" I mean economic growth sustainable for the long term without having some government intervention like a destructive war that destroys malinvested excess productive capacity that governments were too short-sighted to have allowed to be liquidated peacefully.

...which makes this all moot.

Technology and greater efficiency simply cause job layoffs,
No, they don't, human resources are still limited resources and subject to scarcity. If not all people are people used then there is an inefficient use or resources. The ability of a company to use their human resources more efficiently (because of improved access to technology, or improved technology) isn't necessarily going to cause them to fire people.
yet the government insists on the short-sighted policy of mandating to prevent job losses by fiat. Do you see the contradiction there?
No

Technology won't save us, especially government investments in technology,
It's done a pretty good job so far, I quite like all the research funding that universities have been using.
which are typically malinvestments
oh?
and unsustainable for the long run.
Not as long as you budget for it, although the hope with many technologies is that eventually they will be capable of sustaining themselves
The depression is unavoidable; there's simply too much debt all over the world.
Proof?
the only way to pay down this debt is by liquidating assets, bankrupting many companies, etc.
Which may hurt more than, if not just as much as a depression so we mights as well try to solve it.

That's the thing, people have nothing to spend.Hence the stimulus bill this threat is suggesting
Private sector debt-to-GDP ratios in the US (and the rest of the world too) have peaked and a variety of economic and demographic factors will prevent it from going back up and facilitating the debt culture that allows us to spend and consume so much.
Agreed.
The good times are over,
Not permanently, we're innovative little creatures.
and the last thing on anyone's minds, whether households or businesses, is more spending.
Hence the stimulus bill.
All this debt accumulated over the past 50 years will be deleveraged through liquidations, bankruptcies, layoffs, and mass unemployment.

Hopefully we can avoid that. If that's inevitable we might as well try to fix it.
Also, governments should never try to "soften the blow".Every time during a recession in the past 50 years when government intervened with monetary or fiscal policies to soften the blow, the government only encouraged the expansion of more public and private debt to cover up the economy's fundamental defects and problems and give a "veneer" of prosperity - more cars are sold on credit, more consumer goods and real estate sold on credit, so that people "feel" more prosperous while totally ignoring that this system of debt is not sustainable for the long run.
Then why have the government? Again, your system sounds worse then what it's try to prevent.
The whole system is one that runs on borrowed time, and today in 2009 the time has run out.The government cannot "restart the economic engine" like they did in the past, because there's simply too much debt everywhere and for the first time in many generations people realize this debt can't possibly get paid back. When people finally come to this realization, just like they did in 1929, the economy can no longer sustain any more debt; no further debt-fueled consumption binges are possible; and a painful depression becomes unavoidable.
The stimulus bill, both the real one and this one are trying to mobilize money to avoid this. Your problem is that your solution is the same as the crisis we want to avoid. While you might have given up the rest of us haven't, so we might as well try. We recovered from the Great Depression when resources and capital were mobilized during the war, maybe we can do this artificially, if not... what do we have to loose?

Yes it does, and so I did, to prove the point that technology is a benefit. It does not require teacher lay-offs, especially when there's not enough teachers to start with, what it can do is free up teachers to focus on better teaching.



Better a progression than regression, it's enough of a battle to keep creationism our of the science class already, the government is the last line of defense in this.



Where this occurs, I'm open to reasonable solutions but I don't believe it works for everywhere, government is required for equality of shared resources. Something like education is just too important to be left to the market alone.



You've provided no evidence of this whatsoever...



...which makes this all moot.

Shhhhh... Barr, you're acting like the fact that, historically, education and innovation have mobilized economies means that we should expect it to continue to be true. You're acting like the fact that, worldwide, privatized schools broaden the education deficit is something we should consider. You're acting like people are resources and it's to our benefit to use them efficiently and like their occupation is a measure of the economy.

Silly Barr, see, you're not supposed to look at the evidence, economic theory, and history. You can learn the economy intuitively. Education is for pussies.

Let's pretend that our Senators actually do what they think is best instead of what they think is politically most opportune.

Let's say that in this world, a bill passes for the stimulus. This bill puts the money in the hands of the people.

It takes 1 Trillion dollars. It puts it in the hands of 50 Million people at 1000/month for 20 months. Nearly two years of steady income.

So how do we select the people. We give the money to the 50 million poorest adults in the US. It has no effect on other benefits whatsoever.

It's only available to citizens. Only adults. So you're talking about approximately a quarter of all adults getting 12 grand a year extra income after taxes.

I have thoughts on effects, but I'll wait for some feedback.

Would you vote for a politician who supported this?
Do you think this would good?
What do you think the good effects would be?
Bad effects?
Would you add requirements?
Would you remove requirements?

What say YOU?That would cause serious inflation because poor people would actually spend the money. Right now the banks are just sitting on the money so they are not so over leveraged. We are not going to see inflation until the rich start lending it. Inflation is only good when the rich can collect interest off it.