Which as I pointed out to 1perry is not the case. ]/quote]
these things have all collapsed? show me the money silos.
Come again? That makes no sense. A trillion dollars on corporate balance sheets and growing collective individual savings suggests, you are as usual, wrong.
actually what it suggests is that American citizens are deleveraging (a good thing) and that corporations have high amounts of uncertainty. gosh I wonder if that uncertainty has anything to do with an overexpansive federal government lurching from one overreaction to another?
but let's put your theory to the test. you want to increase demand. so, you borrow from individuals and companies who are looking to take their money and pour it into savings. then, in order to stimulate their demand, you give it back to them. what are they going to do with it? oh, that's right - they are going to put it back into savings, or use it to pay down on our massive levels of personal and corporate debt. just like we did with Bush's 2008 "stimulus".
Considering you are down to sniping and reliance upon arguments that completely ignore how corporations and individuals are spending/savings their money
see, it's funny how
you say that, and then when
I point out that individuals and companies in highly leveraged economies tend to pour windfalls into paying off debt and/or increasing savings
you declare that the study must be flawed; as
just because people are actually doing that doesn't mean that they would actually be doing that. :roll:
Seriously, are you completely cut off from the market since the past 3 years? Corporations are literally sitting on a trillion dollars of cash.
yes, see above about the implications of that.
Individual consumption is way down compared to the boom years.
and thank goodness. the sooner you stop digging, the less you have to work your way out of.
Even luxury spending is considerably off compared to the mid-2000s. Large numbers of investors are buying gold and little else. It's not just the wealthy. Large institutional money artificially pumped oil up to record highs because there was little else to buy. Your argument is completely idiotic because you are assuming there are opportunities out there that are superior.
this is incorrect - the treasury is a superior investment in many ways during periods of intense turbulence. hence it's status as a "flight to risk" investment. that's why we've seen treasuries go 'real' negative at points - as people move to value security over return.
but none of this answers the basic point; what would they be doing with 1.5 Trillion if we weren't selling that much in treasuries.
I've already argued this point a dozen times before
yes, but you seem to have "you arguing a point" confused with "you demonstrating a point".
I call you people cowards because you are.
no, you call people cowards because you need to.
That coming from a guy who thinks that a trillion dollars sitting on corporate balance sheets doing nothing and huge amounts piling up collectively for individuals is a sign that money is being used.
certainly I would rather have it there than have government wasting it.
Really. My analysis is wrong that such income isn't being used...but your analysis that by doing nothing it's doing something is right?
question 1: the US does, or does not, have a fractional banking system that just went through a massive liquidity crises?
question 2: the American private sector is or is not still highly leveraged?
question 3: consumption is or is not the trading of earlier excess production?
That is a sign of a crackpot belief.
see, I would tend to interpret the obsessive focus on the next quarter, the insistence that bubbles be maintained post-pop no matter the cost, the refusal to allow the market to reallocate resources as indications of a crackpot belief.
Considering how you had to look that up before replying to me, you are finally one of them.
not really - as I didn't. but I'll chalk this up as example #1,298 how you have a weird need to declare yourself the smartest person in the room.
Wow. Could you lie some more? What I argued for is not what you are claiming. Yes, we do need to invest in alternative energy. That is not the same thing as simply giving money out willy nilly as you are implying.
if you are doing it through government then absolutely the economic effect is as if you had done it nily willy; because you are handing it out according to
political incentives rather than
economic ones.
however, I find your repeated insistence that to disagree with you is to lie interesting.
No one except you argued that. As evident by your constantly cowardly refusal to address the growing cash mountain, the private sector and private individuals are not spending the cash.
they certainly aren't spending it all. which is
fine. in fact, it's probably
good. you can only consume what you haven't yet produced for so long, and the sooner you close the gap, the better.
And savings rates are so low that they frankly aren't going anywhere in relation to inflation. Effectively the money does nothing. It is not that the money does not exist, it is still in M1. It's just that the velocity is zero and multiplier is zero.
It goes to recapitalize the banks (good) or it goes to pay down debt (good); and in both instances it will enable future consumption and investment (also good).
but remember that people tend most to save fully the perceived windfalls, while spending and investing at a more steady rate from regular income.
in other words,
BY TAKING MONEY FROM PEOPLE THAT CAME TO THEM IN THE FORM OF INCOME AND GIVING IT BACK TO THEM IN THE FORM OF A WINDFALL YOU ARE INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WILL TAKE PRECISELY THE KIND OF ACTION THAT YOU ARE SEEKING TO AVOID.
