|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Will the Stimulus Work? |
| Economic Saviour |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
| Something needs to be done |
|
45% |
[ 14 ] |
| Disaster |
|
51% |
[ 16 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 31 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:20 pm Post subject: Obama's Stimulus. Saviour or Disaster? |
|
|
| Do you think the stimulus will save the US economy? Or is it a pork laden spend up that will leave future generations carrying the burden? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeff's Cigarettes

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The worst thing that happened was "W" wasn't allowed to serve as Pres for life, IMO. Of course it's pork laden and only increasing the dept while not offering any long term strategy. The Empire was a better idea and the timing was perfect. Here�s what the Congressional Budget Office had to say about "Bamma's Crib" Communist Stimulating Package.
"President Obama�s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.
CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
grendellives
Joined: 06 Jan 2009
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jeff's Cigarettes is a republican? Wow! I din't see that one coming  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dude Ranch

Joined: 04 Nov 2008
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Obama's stimulus is like a guy gettin laid off of work and saying he is going to stimulate his own personal economy by re modelling his kitchen |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Demonicat

Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Location: Suwon
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, its more like a rich guy who after seeing lots of people with no work suffering says, "Y'know, I'm sure I have some yard work that needs doing". The goal is to make jobs. We may not need a ton of new roads, or new broadband, or this or that- but by making them we make jobs. By making jobs, we encourage spending, spending which constitutes 2/3's of the American economy. Letting it be without doing anything will just not work right now, hell we tried that and watched as the banks collapsed. Pure tax cuts do not work as they do relatively little for the 623,000 people out of work.
A note about the 623,000 number which was released today. That is the number of new people filing for unemployment benefits. By nature that is severely skewed low, as it does not factor in most hourly employees, new employees, or a substantial number of construction/blue collar workers.
A challenge to all who would hate on the stimulus...no, two challenges- pick your favorite:
1) Give an alternate solution
2) Move to the US, get a new job, and live for at least a year without going into debt |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Forward Observer

Joined: 13 Jan 2009 Location: FOB Gloria
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't met any republicans or conservatives that have had any visceral or emotional dislike for the Obama the way liberals did with Bush.
I think the Onion had it right when it said: "America gives world's hardest job to black man". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Demonicat wrote: |
No, its more like a rich guy who after seeing lots of people with no work suffering says, "Y'know, I'm sure I have some yard work that needs doing". The goal is to make jobs. We may not need a ton of new roads, or new broadband, or this or that- but by making them we make jobs. By making jobs, we encourage spending, spending which constitutes 2/3's of the American economy. Letting it be without doing anything will just not work right now, hell we tried that and watched as the banks collapsed. Pure tax cuts do not work as they do relatively little for the 623,000 people out of work.
A note about the 623,000 number which was released today. That is the number of new people filing for unemployment benefits. By nature that is severely skewed low, as it does not factor in most hourly employees, new employees, or a substantial number of construction/blue collar workers.
A challenge to all who would hate on the stimulus...no, two challenges- pick your favorite:
1) Give an alternate solution
2) Move to the US, get a new job, and live for at least a year without going into debt |
Your grasp of basic economics is faulty at best my friend. Your reasoning is what's called "the Broken Windows Fallacy." BY your reckoning it would be a good idea to break a lot of windows in order to create jobs for glaziers and they would in turn create jobs for others. Unfortunately what you are really doing is destroying wealth as the guy that got his windows broken now can't buy the things he wanted.
All the stimulus will do is in most cases shuffle work around. Probably from productive to unproductive means of production. You should google "Economics in One Lesson." It's a book that was written in the 40s that I wish every politician and poster on Daves would read. It's free so I emplore you to educate yourself about the basic tenets of what markets are and how they work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Demonicat

Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Location: Suwon
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Friend, I have read that and while it is very well written it is not gospel. I understand and usually sympathize with the libertarian viewpoint (the glazier story outed you), and usually I find myself leaning towards it myself. At this time, however, I have to disagree with it. The window is already broken. We did not break it to create jobs, the window is broke. We can either leave it broken, or hire the people to fix it.
This was pointed out by Keynes who made it quite clear that even building meaningless pyramids would be beneficial if it created work. In addition, Bastiat himself said that the boy is in fact a benefactor, just not the best possible benefactor. Furthermore, in our modern society the issue is not that there is no money, so the cost of the window is passed on, but that the money is held withing banks and holdings. Therefore, the cost to repair the window is made liquid and allowed back into the economy.
Finally the book you suggest everyone read, in which the broken window theory is postulated, is in fact a short essay "That which is seen and that which is unseen", it was written in the 1850's not the 1940's. Have you read it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The goal is to make jobs. |
At what cost, to whom, and when?
| Quote: |
1) Give an alternate solution
2) Move to the US, get a new job, and live for at least a year without going into debt |
This is an issue of contracting demand. The preceding 20 or so years of economic growth have by in large been due not to added productivity, but increased access to credit. Economists call this the "consumption compromise" (instead of rising wages, workers get more credit, which gives the illusion of prosperity).
So, these jobs that are being lost cannot be stopped. There are structural changes happening that even Obama can not fight. Credit has peaked, and is now contracting. This can't be stopped. Ergo, the consumption and economic activity that depended upon this credit will contract. The economy is 72% consumption, and this is falling.
So, a "stimulus". This, from borrowed money. What this means is that the jobs of the future won't be created. Public borrowing will crowd out private investment (finite dollars on earth) and less investment = less economic growth. So, to "stimulate" a few jobs today, we kill untold jobs tomorrow.
The first rule of economics is to look beyond "what is seen" and search for what is "unseen".
From this, the appropriate action is to ensure that those who are unemployed have access to fair unemployment insurance. The economy is retrenching and unemployment is a consequence of this. The role of the state should be to help those who have fallen 1) not hit bottom and 2) get back | | |