- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,418
- Reaction score
- 1,903
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Because the govenrment creates a securitization scheme when it was coopeted by banks pleading to address the initial dysfunction brought about by government meddling in the market. government interference cobined with corporatism was the problem.
I understand a great deal. Cash for clunkers was a mess and a pure redistribution to those able to take advantage of it. If you look at the data, it didn't really stimulate demand for new product at all. All it did was transfer moeny to people to allow them to forward shift a replacement that would have occurred anyways within a reasonable time horizon, while at the same time driving up the price of used vehicles as it artificially reduced vehicle stock.
As for filling the gap in aggregate demand, if the finger isn't big enough for the hole, temporally speaking, like cash for clunkers was, it doesn't do much of anything except waste taxpayer money.
As for money to the states, the states should have borrowed the money then if they wanted it.
And fact is, you're still in a crisis, with very little left to do about it except ratchet back spending and consumption. Cause it's going to get a whole lot worse, precisely because of this out of control spending.
then the incentives were not big enough. Spending to improve capital stock can be justified. Spending that does other things cannot - the money would be better directed through tax relief and particularly the elimination (which is much better than temporary forebearance, which just shifts wealth rather than impacting behaviour) of distortative taxes.
Sorry, I paid attention to RCP during the last election and they seemed pretty non-partisan to me.
As for forecasted benefits of regulation, like various ways of manipulating deficit projections, i put very little faith in those sorts of statistuics (about as much as in "jobs saved and created" based on artificial multipliers applied without any empirical evidence).
It was both. It was the lack of important regulation, combined with the existence of regulation that made it harder for a correction to happen. It's not like you can say "we need 100 regulations and everything will be ok". If they are not the right regulations, it ain't gonna help. Obama is not advancing the right regulations.
Yes, by bankrupting it. That will work really, really well.
it is entirely true.
Yes, but one isn't even interested in showing up at the dance studio. Israel may be reluctant to put on its shoes, but it has done so on multiple ocassions in the past and only taken them off when the Palestinians used the dance as an excuse to try to step on Israel's feet. By contrast, the Palestinians have never had any intention of dancing. Their entire purpose in being as a political entity is to break Israel's feet.
