More stimulus?

inlet13 · August 2011

markin ball wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

No. The government should not be propping up failing businesses. No company is too big to fail.

Infrastructure investment should not be considered stimulus. It should be considered the cost of being a government.

Can infrastructure investment act as a stimulus, though? Surely those projects put people to work and then the workers have money to create demand for goods and services, and the snowball begins. Business and production are very dependent on efficient infrastructure so aren't there longer term benefits as well?

Even if what you said was true, where does the original money come from?

mikepegg44 · August 2011

markin ball wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

No. The government should not be propping up failing businesses. No company is too big to fail.

Infrastructure investment should not be considered stimulus. It should be considered the cost of being a government.

Can infrastructure investment act as a stimulus, though? Surely those projects put people to work and then the workers have money to create demand for goods and services, and the snowball begins. Business and production are very dependent on efficient infrastructure so aren't there longer term benefits as well?

what I am saying is simple...infrastructure should be an on going investment. We shouldn't need stimulus packages to keep interstates in workable condition. It shouldn't be looked at as a stimulus to the economy, these are the kinds of things that the federal government should be concerning itself with. These are the things that the government should worry about, not whether someone wants to smoke a J or buy a pack of cigarettes...and so that we aren't getting ripped off, we should really think about repealing the laws like the davis-bacon act...

mikepegg44 · August 2011

inlet13 wrote:

markin ball wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

No. The government should not be propping up failing businesses. No company is too big to fail.

Infrastructure investment should not be considered stimulus. It should be considered the cost of being a government.

Can infrastructure investment act as a stimulus, though? Surely those projects put people to work and then the workers have money to create demand for goods and services, and the snowball begins. Business and production are very dependent on efficient infrastructure so aren't there longer term benefits as well?

Even if what you said was true, where does the original money come from?

if I understand you correctly are you getting to the point that money should not be borrowed to pay for a stimulus? Is that the bigger question?

Godfather. · August 2011

inlet13 wrote:

markin ball wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

No. The government should not be propping up failing businesses. No company is too big to fail.

Infrastructure investment should not be considered stimulus. It should be considered the cost of being a government.

Can infrastructure investment act as a stimulus, though? Surely those projects put people to work and then the workers have money to create demand for goods and services, and the snowball begins. Business and production are very dependent on efficient infrastructure so aren't there longer term benefits as well?

Even if what you said was true, where does the original money come from?

we can stop with the aid to other countrys and use it to get started.

Godfather.

markin ball · August 2011

inlet13 wrote:

markin ball wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

No. The government should not be propping up failing businesses. No company is too big to fail.

Infrastructure investment should not be considered stimulus. It should be considered the cost of being a government.

Can infrastructure investment act as a stimulus, though? Surely those projects put people to work and then the workers have money to create demand for goods and services, and the snowball begins. Business and production are very dependent on efficient infrastructure so aren't there longer term benefits as well?

Even if what you said was true, where does the original money come from?

The same place all money comes from in a central bank/fractional reserve system...thin air.

So yes, I say if a heavy investment in infrastructure is properly analyzed and targeted wisely, and is not done half-assed and is an earnest attempt at growth for the entire economy, I say go ahead and put it on the credit card. Gotta spend money to make money.

inlet13 · August 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Even if what you said was true, where does the original money come from?

if I understand you correctly are you getting to the point that money should not be borrowed to pay for a stimulus? Is that the bigger question?

I was trying to hint at this:

Government can't fund anything by itself. It needs tax money in order to do anything. The reality is when you're in a recession tax revenues are very, very low. In order to spend money on anything now, the government would have to tap the ol' credit card. Therefore, they'd pay interest on a loan to obtain money to give a guy a job for a few months working on infrastructure. It's the equivalent of you paying someone with cash advances off your credit card to mow your lawn and claiming that you "created" a job. I'd say you created debt and a "chore" for some poor soul that will be out of work again in 30 minutes.

My logic is simple: Government (all parties involved) should stop saying they can "create jobs". First, if a job is created via stimulus its normally a very short term job (because the reality is it's not a necessity). Second, government only creates jobs by taking money away from the private market which could potentially otherwise support real sustained job growth. Sure, the private sector is not experience rapid job growth... but, I'd argue there's a f'ing reason for that, they don't want to F over more people down the line. I'd instruct the government to cut back their own expenses, bit their lip and suck it up for a bit like the rest of us have been doing for 3+ years.

markin ball · August 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

markin ball wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

No. The government should not be propping up failing businesses. No company is too big to fail.

Infrastructure investment should not be considered stimulus. It should be considered the cost of being a government.

Can infrastructure investment act as a stimulus, though? Surely those projects put people to work and then the workers have money to create demand for goods and services, and the snowball begins. Business and production are very dependent on efficient infrastructure so aren't there longer term benefits as well?

what I am saying is simple...infrastructure should be an on going investment. We shouldn't need stimulus packages to keep interstates in workable condition. It shouldn't be looked at as a stimulus to the economy, these are the kinds of things that the federal government should be concerning itself with. These are the things that the government should worry about, not whether someone wants to smoke a J or buy a pack of cigarettes...and so that we aren't getting ripped off, we should really think about repealing the laws like the davis-bacon act...

I agree. We have to have the political courage to start making better long term policy decisions in local, state and federal governments.

inlet13 · August 2011

markin ball wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

]

Even if what you said was true, where does the original money come from?

The same place all money comes from in a central bank/fractional reserve system...thin air.

So yes, I say if a heavy investment in infrastructure is properly analyzed and targeted wisely, and is not done half-assed and is an earnest attempt at growth for the entire economy, I say go ahead and put it on the credit card. Gotta spend money to make money.

Printing money comes with a very large price tag and the type of job you speak of will be short-lived with no real triggers to grow the economy. Moreover, those who took the government stimulus job will be right back out of work once the project is completed.

The harsh reality of all this is jobs are created when they are needed. Not the other way around.

markin ball · August 2011

inlet13 wrote:

markin ball wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

]

Even if what you said was true, where does the original money come from?

The same place all money comes from in a central bank/fractional reserve system...thin air.

So yes, I say if a heavy investment in infrastructure is properly analyzed and targeted wisely, and is not done half-assed and is an earnest attempt at growth for the entire economy, I say go ahead and put it on the credit card. Gotta spend money to make money.

Printing money comes with a very large price tag and the type of job you speak of will be short-lived with no real triggers to grow the economy. Moreover, those who took the government stimulus job will be right back out of work once the project is completed.

The harsh reality of all this is jobs are created when they are needed. Not the other way around.

I agree. Demand creates jobs. So, two questions...

How do we "stimulate" demand?

How did the U.S. economy get out of the Great Depression?

inlet13 · August 2011

markin ball wrote:

I agree. Demand creates jobs. So, two questions...

How do we "stimulate" demand?

How did the U.S. economy get out of the Great Depression?

I don't agree necessarily that "demand" creates jobs. I think in some cases, it's a chicken and an egg type situation between supply and demand. In a sense, ideas create jobs, I'd argue... and with that the supply aspect is probably more important.

As far as demand goes, I don't think we should stimulate it. I believe our government has tried to "prop-up" demand with the past stimulus, and although it may work temporarily, it always crashes back. On net, I think it makes matters worse.

The goal on the demand side should be to set the table and make it easy for consumers to spend again, once they feel comfortable. Not to try to force them to. I think the former makes consumers actually feel more comfortable and I do think psychology matters here.

For the Great Depression my answer would be that it took a hell of a lot of time. In my opinion, more time than it should have due to our policies.

I believe during a recession like the current one, the best move is to do what companies did. Our government should have done the same. The goal should be to cut back severely once the recession sets in, not expand. That way, you decrease spending with the recession.... will this hurt more? Yes. But, the duration of pain will be lessened. Look at the Great Depression for proof that Keynesian stimulus only prolongs recessions.

I'd rather be punched hard in the face and maybe even knocked out "once", then be repetitively punched in the stomach for years and years.

markin ball · August 2011

inlet13 wrote:

markin ball wrote:

I agree. Demand creates jobs. So, two questions...

How do we "stimulate" demand?

How did the U.S. economy get out of the Great Depression?

I don't agree necessarily that "demand" creates jobs. I think in some cases, it's a chicken and an egg type situation between supply and demand. In a sense, ideas create jobs, I'd argue... and with that the supply aspect is probably more important.

As far as demand goes, I don't think we should stimulate it. I believe our government has tried to "prop-up" demand with the past stimulus, and although it may work temporarily, it always crashes back. On net, I think it makes matters worse.

The goal on the demand side should be to set the table and make it easy for consumers to spend again, once they feel comfortable. Not to try to force them to. I think the former makes consumers actually feel more comfortable and I do think psychology matters here.

For the Great Depression my answer would be that it took a hell of a lot of time. In my opinion, more time than it should have due to our policies.

I believe during a recession like the current one, the best move is to do what companies did. Our government should have done the same. The goal should be to cut back severely once the recession sets in, not expand. That way, you decrease spending with the recession.... will this hurt more? Yes. But, the duration of pain will be lessened. Look at the Great Depression for proof that Keynesian stimulus only prolongs recessions.

I'd rather be punched hard in the face and maybe even knocked out "once", then be repetitively punched in the stomach for years and years.

1. You can have all the supply and ideas in the world, though, and without the ability to pay there is no demand. So I would argue the ability for consumers to pay, sparks innovation, ideas and supply. If you've got money, someone will supply something for you to buy. Supply can affect demand, but I would say that it all begins with the ability to pay.

2. I don't see how you can prove stimuli prolonged the depression. Too many variables and ifs. Many would say the stimuli used in the Great Depression wasn't strong enough, so its hard to argue that stimuli as a theory was a failure, but for the sake of argument, perhaps the way it was utilized was. That's why I put a lot of disclaimers in my original response and said I might support a well targeted, well analyzed and committed approach.

inlet13 · August 2011

markin ball wrote:

1. You can have all the supply and ideas in the world, though, and without the ability to pay there is no demand. So I would argue the ability for consumers to pay, sparks innovation, ideas and supply. If you've got money, someone will supply something for you to buy. Supply can affect demand, but I would say that it all begins with the ability to pay.

You need jobs in order to have money. Hence, once could argue supply creates its own demand. Moreover, one could say supply is more important.

markin ball wrote:

2. I don't see how you can prove stimuli prolonged the depression. Too many variables and ifs. Many would say the stimuli used in the Great Depression wasn't strong enough, so its hard to argue that stimuli as a theory was a failure, but for the sake of argument, perhaps the way it was utilized was. That's why I put a lot of disclaimers in my original response and said I might support a well targeted, well analyzed and committed approach.

I completely disagree. Do me a favor and read a bit of Hayek or Friedman. They'll explain it better than I can in a short message.

The "not strong enough" claim is also being used now. It will never be "stong enough" because it never works... and F's us over everytime. I'll end it like this: this is a fundamental disagreement in two economic ideologies (The Keynesians vs. The Classicals/Monetarists/Austrians --- or everyone else). I side with the latter.

In a way, our disagreement comes down to these two videos (for those who prefer videos to reading the actual sources):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

RFTC · August 2011

311jj wrote:

No stimulus. It does not work. Why do we have to cut our spending when times are tough, but our gov't gives itself a larger budget and raises? That is just bad economics.

The stimulus just falsely props up businesses that would otherwise fail. My company will grow when there is a real demand, and not false money, making it grow.

respectfully disagree here, tax credits for hiring is not a bailout, failing business's, especially SMB do not hire if they are failing, they do the exact opposite and then cut more n more to stay liquid. if your hiring, you are either experiencing increased demand or project increased demand due to hiring i.e. increase in sales, R & D, etc.

if your company only grows when there is 'real' demand, that's a business to get out of. in my line of business, we can grow by:

1. taking market share away from competition, i.e. hire salespeople
2. innovate & invest to extract new types of customers
3. raise our prices

markin ball · August 2011

inlet13 wrote:

markin ball wrote:

1. You can have all the supply and ideas in the world, though, and without the ability to pay there is no demand. So I would argue the ability for consumers to pay, sparks innovation, ideas and supply. If you've got money, someone will supply something for you to buy. Supply can affect demand, but I would say that it all begins with the ability to pay.

You need jobs in order to have money. Hence, once could argue supply creates its own demand. Moreover, one could say supply is more important.

markin ball wrote:

2. I don't see how you can prove stimuli prolonged the depression. Too many variables and ifs. Many would say the stimuli used in the Great Depression wasn't strong enough, so its hard to argue that stimuli as a theory was a failure, but for the sake of argument, perhaps the way it was utilized was. That's why I put a lot of disclaimers in my original response and said I might support a well targeted, well analyzed and committed approach.

I completely disagree. Do me a favor and read a bit of Hayek or Friedman. They'll explain it better than I can in a short message.

The "not strong enough" claim is also being used now. It will never be "stong enough" because it never works... and F's us over everytime. I'll end it like this: this is a fundamental disagreement in two economic ideologies (The Keynesians vs. The Classicals/Monetarists/Austrians --- or everyone else). I side with the latter.

In a way, our disagreement comes down to these two videos (for those who prefer videos to reading the actual sources):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

So if you stimulate production, and create supply, people are put to work and then have money to buy goods and services?

Jason P · August 2011

Is this thread in regards to vibrators and playboy magazines?

:geek:

inlet13 · August 2011

markin ball wrote:

So if you stimulate production, and create supply, people are put to work and then have money to buy goods and services?

Ha ha... I'm not saying to "stimulate" anything at all, man. I'm against stimulus.

But to clarify, when people decide to supply a good (for instance, let's say they come up with a good idea for a new good that will be kinda cool) they may decide to hire a person or two, thinking there's a big market for it. You don't "stimulate" this type of thing... other than creating an environment where's it's possible to happen. But, this is how jobs are created. Government doesn't do this.

keeponrockin · August 2011

Godfather. wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

My gut says yes.

But I want to make sure that it's to the right places.

I want infrastructure. I want new bridges, I want high-speed rails, I want more jobs that can't be out-sourced like fixing things that need to be fixed and building things that will improve American lives. We need to stop patting ourselves for being the "greatest country in the world," admit we're not even close and do something about it. Maybe bring highest-speed internet to the whole country, invest in inner-city schools and projects that mean something.

Not just gifts to huge corporations with nothing to stop them from just donating it back to lobbyists.

This.

and 3rd this ! :thumbup: ....except the greatest country thing cause we are

Godfather.

There are some things that America is the best at, and some things they're not (I'm a dual citizen Canada/USA). I think a well thought out stimulus can do a lot of good for a country. Imagine high speed rail in the USA, something like 250/300 kph. Not only does this create jobs when it's built, it creates new commerce opportunities, making travel cheaper and more convenient, AND more environmentally friendly than planes. From Ottawa (because I know the distances, but pick any two US cities within 5-6 hours), if I could get to Toronto in an hour and a bit by train, I'd much rather do that then the 45 minute flight or 5 hour drive.

This is the type of money that needs to be spent.

unsung · August 2011

Yes, but we shouldn't be forced to pass a stimulus spending bill to improve infrastructure.

markin ball · August 2011

inlet13 wrote:

markin ball wrote:

So if you stimulate production, and create supply, people are put to work and then have money to buy goods and services?

Ha ha... I'm not saying to "stimulate" anything at all, man. I'm against stimulus.

But to clarify, when people decide to supply a good (for instance, let's say they come up with a good idea for a new good that will be kinda cool) they may decide to hire a person or two, thinking there's a big market for it. You don't "stimulate" this type of thing... other than creating an environment where's it's possible to happen. But, this is how jobs are created. Government doesn't do this.

Exactly. The "market for it", be it in the present or future, actual or perceived, aka demand, is the reason goods and services are supplied, and why jobs are created to produce/perform them. And without the ability to consume, there is no real demand, and no need to produce.

Put some money in my pocket, and watch me demand goods and services, and in turn and watch suppliers respond to the new demand.

brianlux · August 2011

It still makes sense to me to stimulate the economy in new ways rather stay on the treadmill to nowhere.

What about:
--Creating more true-green jobs (in other words NOT sending Fijian water half way around the world) would be a good start. Pretty much everybody agrees that renewable energy is the only viable choice for our future.
--Getting more people involved in local business-- especially agriculture because when the oil runs low we'll need more small farms. Plus healthy food= healthy people= less illness= more productive, happy people.
--Need more jobs? Let's put people to work getting our rail system back on track--to at least what it was in the early 1900's which was far more superior and inefficient than what we run today. Put people to work building walkable communities-- the suburbs are doomed- they are the slums and eventually the ghost towns of the future.
--Stop taxing small business owners so unfairly (we pay a much higher percentage than most people do, especially corporate heads) and rebuild town centers to encourage small local businesses, and create walkable communities to allow more people to work closer to home.

We're overdue for getting off this dead-end treadmill to oblivion. It's time to start thinking outside the box, and create something positive and healthy.

More stimulus?

Comments

Categories