Government stimulus

Amazed · Apr 24, 2011

LOL....sure man...profits determine expansion...but as a "manager" you would know that...

Redress said:
Owned no, been involved in management and running one, yes. Do you have any other irrelevant questions? Do you plan on actually addressing the points made?

Redress · Apr 24, 2011

chevydriver1123 said:
Propping up the economy artificially, does nothing good for the economy. All it does is delay the inevitable, when the government injects money into the economy its akin to giving a patient pain pills when in fact the patient needs surgery.

Not entirely true. Stimulus can fuel a recovery, and keep valleys from getting as deep. Eventually it will take private businesses to create a real recovery though so you are correct to that extent. To put it in a simple form: government is not the answer, but government can help to an extent.

Redress · Apr 24, 2011

Amazed said:
LOL....sure man...profits determine expansion...but as a "manager" you would know that...

This is again not true. A highly profitable business with no place to expand is not going to expand and just have a high profit. Businesses starting up for example almost all lose money for some time, but may expand and expand rapidly. Alot of the auto suppliers for the auto industry is expanding by diversifying despite losing money. In that case it is a survival attempt, since this last recession proved that supplying for just the auto industry is not a good strategy.

Harry Guerrilla · Apr 24, 2011

garb said:
How does the redistribution of wealth stimulate the economy? Again, it gives the low income people you mentioned the illusion that things are better, but you have to get that money from somewhere. Either from other people or from the printing press. Both of those things hurt the economy.

Typically its done with borrowing and not necessarily direct wealth redistribution.

Time, is key though, whomever first receives the money is the first to gets its full value, typically those who spend later get the inflated value.
In the short term, it's good because it provides an illusionary economic stimulus, long term it's a negative, in my opinion.

People have come to depend on stimulus as a means of curbing recessions, we need to go through a non stimulus recession to get rid of that perception.

Catawba · Apr 24, 2011

cpwill said:
let me help

If you can find links to post so we can ascertain their credibility that would be most helpful. I suspect the source was intentionally omitted because of obvious bias by the author.

cpwill · Apr 24, 2011

Redress said:
What about spending on military? Hey wait, that is stimulative, and does create jobs

no, it isn't, and it doesn't. like all government spending, it merely represents the diversion of productive resources to undproductive uses. for every job that government "creates" via defense spending, it destroys more than one in the private economy.

The concept that if businesses if they have more money will hire more people is retarded. Businesses hire more people when they need more employees to meet demand, not because they want to spend money

businesses do not want to spend money. however, businesses have to have money to hire more people.

Mindless conservative talking points don't do well in debate.

and demand-side economics only works on paper.

cpwill · Apr 24, 2011

Catawba said:
If you can find links to post so we can ascertain their credibility that would be most helpful. I suspect the source was intentionally omitted because of obvious bias by the author.

um.... that's sort of a famous chart. you really don't believe that that's what the Obama administration sold the stimulus on?

Redress · Apr 25, 2011

cpwill said:
no, it isn't, and it doesn't. like all government spending, it merely represents the diversion of productive resources to undproductive uses. for every job that government "creates" via defense spending, it destroys more than one in the private economy.

This is bull****. Reagan had great success spending on the military to stimulate the economy.

businesses do not want to spend money. however, businesses have to have money to hire more people.

Again bull****. Businesses who are losing money hire new employees every day.

and demand-side economics only works on paper.

And irrelevant comments don't change nor divert from the fact that you are wrong.

cpwill · Apr 25, 2011

Redress said:
This is bull****. Reagan had great success spending on the military to stimulate the economy.

no, he didn't. Reagan slashed tax prices, reduced regulation, and loosened trade. the increase in spendign (even he agreed) hurt the economy, it didn't help it.

Again bull****. Businesses who are losing money hire new employees every day.

with what money? borrowed money? so they had to get money in order to pay someone that money?

And irrelevant comments don't change nor divert from the fact that you are wrong.

wow, what a thorough debunking. i am now a converted keyensian, despite the fact that it is built on a logical fallacy and the accumulated weight of history has done nothing but demonstrate it's failings again and again.

Catawba · Apr 25, 2011

cpwill said:
um.... that's sort of a famous chart. you really don't believe that that's what the Obama administration sold the stimulus on?

The documentation I have provided shows that he did exactly that. Got any proof the economy has not improved? Have any source links to those "famous" charts of yours?

cpwill · Apr 25, 2011

Catawba said:
The documentation I have provided shows that he did exactly that. Got any proof the economy has not improved? Have any source links to those "famous" charts of yours?

just to be clear, you are stating that the chart that claims that unemployment "without the recovery plan" would peak at 8% was not part of the Obama administrations' push for the stimulus. ?

Catawba · Apr 25, 2011

cpwill said:
just to be clear, you are stating that the chart that claims that unemployment "without the recovery plan" would peak at 8% was not part of the Obama administrations' push for the stimulus. ?

Again, got a source link for that chart?

cpwill · Apr 25, 2011

it will be the product of about a 30 second google search. i just want to make sure that you are claiming that somehow that this chart

does not portray the claims that were used by the Obama administration to sell the stimulus?

cpwill · Apr 25, 2011

while instead this

unemployment-rate-with-and-without-obama-recovery-plan1.jpg

was the reality? look at the gap between the dark blue line and the red line - that's the credibility gap of those who hawk keyensian solutions.

Catawba · Apr 25, 2011

cpwill said:
it will be the product of about a 30 second google search.

Let us know when you have 30 seconds then to do a search for a link to this "famous" graph of yours that means nothing. How could anyone know that the Bush Recession would have gone has high as it did? Hell, the other candidate for president didn't even know we were in a recession at all! :sun

cpwill · Apr 25, 2011

Catawba said:
Let us know when you have 30 seconds then to do a search for a link to this "famous" graph of yours that means nothing.

it was famous. mostly it became infamous after it became obviuos how boneheadedly wrong the assumptions that went into it were.

Catawba · Apr 25, 2011

cpwill said:
it was famous. mostly it became infamous after it became obviuos how boneheadedly wrong the assumptions that went into it were.

Right........................ Meanwhile, from the Bureau of Economic Analysis -

Ultimately, what you and I think doesn't matter. What matters is if the voters credit Obama next November for improving the economy over what it was when he entered the office. My guess is, given that no one is rated a strong contender against him, that he will be reelected easily. Especially since the GOP played their class war hand against the middle class and the elderly in their budget proposal.

It will be the year of the rich against the middle class and the elderly and I'm fairly confident which groups have the greater numbers.

cpwill · Apr 25, 2011

Catawba said:
Right........................

it is right that all the keyensian assumptions that went into that chart were wrong, as demonstrated by the reality of the past two years.

Meanwhile, from the Bureau of Economic Analysis

this is on GDP. do you ever get tired of desperately trying to change the subject?

however, if you want to talk GDP:

Had the U.S. economy recovered from the current recession the way it bounced back from the other 10 recessions since World War II, our per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) would be $3,553 higher than it is today, and 11.9 million more Americans would be employed...

On average, three years after the four deepest previous recessions started, real GDP was 7.6% higher than the pre-recession level. During the Obama recovery, real GDP is up only 0.1%. Forty months after the start of the 1953, 1957, 1973 and 1981 recessions, total employment was on average 4.7% higher than the pre-recession peaks, while total employment today is still down 4.7%—that's a total employment gap of 13.9 million jobs...

If we had matched the 1982 recovery rate, today annual per-capita income would be $4,154 higher than before the recession—that's an extra $16,600 for a family of four—and some 15.7 million more Americans would have jobs. That's enough jobs to employ 100% of the 13.5 million Americans currently classified as unemployed. In addition, we would have provided jobs for 30% of both the 2.4 million discouraged or marginally attached workers and the 4.8 million who have totally dropped out of the work force since January 2008...

Ultimately, what you and I think doesn't matter. What matters is if the voters credit Obama next November for improving the economy over what it was when he entered the office.

that is true, though I think that whether or not Obama is able to successfuly scare Seniors into forgeting that he, too, wants to cut Medicare will have a significant effect.

My guess is, given that no one is rated a strong contender against him

what? plenty of the leading Republicans are strong contenders against him, though some of our leading 'names' (Gingrich, Romney, Barbour) all have negatives attached to them as well. 52% of Americans don't believe that Obama deserves another term, which means that the Republican Candidate just has to be bland enough to make the election about the President.

Which is why a Candidate with a strong executive governing record, a history of turning a deficit into a surplus, strong economic credentials, a history of solid medical reform that actually lowers costs, a history of appealing to independent voters, and no serious negatives would whomp Obama in the General. we are talking 1980/1984 style here.

meet Mitch Daniels, two term Governor of Indiana:

...When Daniels took office, the state had an $800-million deficit. He turned that into a $1.3-billion surplus. Since 2005, he has saved roughly $450 million in the state’s budget and reduced the state’s rate of spending growth from 5.9 percent to 2.8 percent... He won re-election by 18 points last year [in 2008, when Obama carried the state]. He won 20 percent of the black vote, and beat his Democratic opponent among voters under age 30 by 7 points...

under Daniels' Leadership, the state of Indiana demonstrated how to actually reform healthcare, with market incentives.

...In Indiana's HSA, the state deposits $2,750 per year into an account controlled by the employee, out of which he pays all his health bills. Indiana covers the premium for the plan. The intent is that participants will become more cost-conscious and careful about overpayment or overutilization.

Unused funds in the account—to date some $30 million or about $2,000 per employee and growing fast—are the worker's permanent property. For the very small number of employees (about 6% last year) who use their entire account balance, the state shares further health costs up to an out-of-pocket maximum of $8,000, after which the employee is completely protected.

The HSA option has proven highly popular. This year, over 70% of our 30,000 Indiana state workers chose it, by far the highest in public-sector America. Due to the rejection of these plans by government unions, the average use of HSAs in the public sector across the country is just 2%....

State employees enrolled in the consumer-driven plan will save more than $8 million in 2010 compared to their coworkers in the old-fashioned preferred provider organization (PPO) alternative. In the second straight year in which we've been forced to skip salary increases, workers switching to the HSA are adding thousands of dollars to their take-home pay. (Even if an employee had health issues and incurred the maximum out-of-pocket expenses, he would still be hundreds of dollars ahead.) HSA customers seem highly satisfied; only 3% have opted to switch back to the PPO.

The state is saving, too. In a time of severe budgetary stress, Indiana will save at least $20 million in 2010 because of our high HSA enrollment. Mercer calculates the state's total costs are being reduced by 11% solely due to the HSA option...

Overall, participants in our new plan ran up only $65 in cost for every $100 incurred by their associates under the old coverage. Are HSA participants denying themselves needed care in order to save money? The answer, as far as the state of Indiana and Mercer Consulting can find, is no. There is no evidence HSA members are more likely to defer needed care or common-sense preventive measures such as routine physicals or mammograms.

It turns out that, when someone is spending his own money alone for routine expenses, he is far more likely to ask the questions he would ask if purchasing any other good or service: "Is there a generic version of that drug?" "Didn't I take that same test just recently?" "Where can I get the colonoscopy at the best price?"

By contrast, the prevalent model of health plans in this country in effect signals individuals they can buy health care on someone else's credit card. A fast-food meal costs most Americans more out of pocket than a visit to the doctor. What seems free will always be overconsumed, compared to the choices a normal consumer would make. Hence [Indiana's] immense savings...

Especially since the GOP played their class war hand against the middle class and the elderly in their budget proposal.

Obama and Ryan both reduce Medicare expenditures. The difference between the two is that Ryan gives the decision to seniors on where their Medicare dollars should be allocated, and adopts a plan that has been demonstrated to lower costs, starting in 2022. The President wants an unelected board of politicized bureacrats to make one-size-fits-all decisions and impose them on America's seniors by fiat starting in 2014. The Democrats this cycle will get alot of mileage out of semi-lying-semi-just-not-telling-the-truth about this.

even Politifact (left leaning as it is) is calling the DNC on it's crap - but we will see how it all turns out.

It will be the year of the rich against the middle class and the elderly and I'm fairly confident which groups have the greater numbers.

it will be the year that Democrats try to turn the rich against the elderly and the old against the young. we will see how vulnerable American society is to such fracturing, and how open Americans are to being educated. if exit polling indicates that folks still think we can solve our deficit woes by cutting pork projects and foriegn aid.... then Republicans will have failed and Democrats will have won.

Catawba · Apr 25, 2011

cpwill said:
it is right that all the keyensian assumptions that went into that chart were wrong, as demonstrated by the reality of the past two years.

Phil Gramm, is that really who you just posted as your "expert?" One of the architech's of ENRON and of our Recession? Sorry, you just lost all credibility cp.

cpwill · Apr 25, 2011

Catawba said:
Phil Gramm, is that really who you just posted as your "expert?

not for the chart, but he wrote the article which pointed out the differences in the basic numbers. but the numbers are public informationand available for all to see.

what you are attempting here is the "ad hominem" fallacy; where - because you lack the ability to meet the points and facts that have been raised and seem to dispute your position - you attack the spokesman. it's the old Lawyers' rule "When the law is against you, argue the facts, when the facts are against you, argue the law, when both are against you, attack the plaintiff" in debate form.

Harry Guerrilla · Apr 25, 2011

What if...? said:
Or sometimes one or the other.

I mean the whole idea that government spending doesn't create jobs is simply, obviously, not true.

We sit here fighting about whether government spending creates jobs on the internet, which was born in the military, paid for by govt.

Microwave ovens, microcircuitry, velcro, lots of things that we take for granted were born under government contract.

Private enterprise commodified them and brought them to market, but govt gave the grants to the universities/companies that made the core discoveries.

We have complex problems that are going to require complex solutions.

Reductionist arguments are not going to help us solve anything.

Maybe its time the people figured out what to do amongst ourselves and then told the govt what we want them to do.

But that means a genuine exchange of ideas.

Which for some reason seems possible here lately.:2wave:

People discovered these things, not the government.
What you are failing to see is that the money could of better been spent on something more productive.

By the way, the internet was already invented in concept form by Nikoli Tesla and the telegraph was an early internet.

Government can create jobs, but not with any efficiency.
It must take or borrow the money, which is inherently inefficient, so the loss of productivity with the money is already in the negative before the first dollar is spent.

So in total, the government can create jobs but it does harm the economy in the long run.

Catawba · Apr 25, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
People discovered these things, not the government.
What you are failing to see is that the money could of better been spent on something more productive.

By the way, the internet was already invented in concept form by Nikoli Tesla and the telegraph was an early internet.

Government can create jobs, but not with any efficiency.
It must take or borrow the money, which is inherently inefficient, so the loss of productivity with the money is already in the negative before the first dollar is spent.

So in total, the government can create jobs but it does harm the economy in the long run.

If US taxpayers don't continue to wage war in the ME to keep the oil flowing so the oil companies can continue to keep raking us over the barrel how will you continue to afford the gasoline for your car, that you claimed in another thread was the answer to peak oil in our own country?

Harry Guerrilla · Apr 25, 2011

Catawba said:
If US taxpayers don't continue to wage war in the ME to keep the oil flowing so the oil companies can continue to keep raking us over the barrel how will you continue to afford the gasoline for your car, that you claimed in another thread was the answer to peak oil in our own country?

I don't care for war in other countries.
I much prefer trade.

No one is being raked over a barrel, you can always buy an electric car.

cpwill · Apr 25, 2011

The U.S. has the largest Oil Reserves in the World.

how about this for a solution. maybe we should, oh, i dunno, create jobs here in America by tapping our own natural resources, just like we expect everyone else to do.

What if...? · Apr 25, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
People discovered these things, not the government.
What you are failing to see is that the money could of better been spent on something more productive.

By the way, the internet was already invented in concept form by Nikoli Tesla and the telegraph was an early internet.

Government can create jobs, but not with any efficiency.
It must take or borrow the money, which is inherently inefficient, so the loss of productivity with the money is already in the negative before the first dollar is spent.

So in total, the government can create jobs but it does harm the economy in the long run.

I was speaking more in relative terms regarding excessive absolutes in our discussions.

I understand where you're coming from and often agree with you to some degree.

I'm just trying to point out where the disconnects are occurring between the two basic ideologies here.

And what I'm seeing is a rejection by the left of some on the rights insistence on black and white statements, while acknowledging their point to some extent.

And a refusal to concede anything by some on the right, accompanied by derision at the inability of the lefties to grasp what they are being told.

And almost always it seems that those on the left say something like"Yes, but you also have to take this into account". At which point the original argument is repeated as if the leftie didn't understand the first time. Leftie tries again, often making every apparent effort to communicate, only to be flatly rejected. And ridiculed. Round and round.

I get excessively combative, because it seems obvious we have to find common ground to deal with the real problems we're facing, and "our way or the highway" is too often the refrain from the right.

So I mention govt funded research as a counter to the absolute, "government doesn't create jobs", because government funding does often lead to job creation.

And while business often can do things more efficiently than govt, it won't do some things because they are not profitable enough, or the research is inherently too expensive. Thats where govt can play a role.

I would really like to see a little more qualification of statements.

"A is a result of B" is a much harder starting point than "A is primarily a result of B"

Absolutes are starting positions for politicians, not discussions.

And compromise isn't defeat. In fact, at this point in time, refusal to consider compromise may cost us a great deal.:2wave:

Government stimulus

?

It helps the economy.

It hurts the economy.

I don't know.

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Disappointed Evolutionist

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist