Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=17309:date=Feb 11 2009, 12:17 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Feb 11 2009, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Actually, that isn't true about the notion that rebates that go directly into the bank and aren't spent immediately doing nothing for the economy. Money deposited in banks is multiplied many times over by banks lending that money out (the whole point of the banking system), under normal credit circumstances of course. That's banking 101.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rok, stop being so literal with me dude. I realize that the money doesn't disappear. The point is that:
A) Once the rebates go out we have no control over what happens with them. They could go under you mattress.
B-) Even assuming that money in the bank is multiplied many times over, there is no advantage to that money being immediately in the bank, over money being spent on a project. Money spent on a project will create jobs, AND at worst, be put in a bank to offer the same advantage of a rebate check going straight to a bank.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=17310:date=Feb 11 2009, 12:17 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Feb 11 2009, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17305:date=Feb 11 2009, 12:05 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Feb 11 2009, 12:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Let me just add a few points. This notion of $1.73 of output per $1 of govt spending vs $1.02 of output per $1 tax cut is misleading, and I'm not sure I can buy it without seeing the studies. This would imply that all govt spending is created equal or that all tax cuts are created equal. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Infrastructure spending is more stimulative than education spending or welfare spending. Capital gains tax and corporate tax cuts are more stimulative than income tax cuts. Etc etc. I think the jury is still out on a lot of these issues, especially when you consider the burden on the US taxpayer in terms of deficit spending and debt servicing as a result. The size of the current govt is unprecedented, even by the New Deal standards, so I think we need to refrain from assuming what has been proven and what has not until we see this current situation play out and see what the govt and corresponding economy looks like in another 10 years. Again, I'm not advocating doing nothing, but these blanket statements that this will work and that will not, bother me a bit. We are in uncharted territory. Politicians admit this. Economists admit this. I just hope our govt doesn't do anything that is irreversible, because in the end it won't simply be the current generation that ends up paying for this, but our children and grandchildren.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is the Moody study. And it does differentiate between types of tax cuts and types of spending. It's just easier to throw out one number than create a chart when we are arguing this stuff. Regardless of the tax cut, and regardless of the spending, the lowest spending creates more stimulus than the highest tax cut
Moody
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is referring to the short-term bang for the buck though, not necessarily whether they provide the best long-term remedy, which I find odd considering that most of the infrastructure projects would take several years to take hold. I guess I'd have to see the raw data first. Also, do you know that economy.com is run by a left-of-center think tank? I'm not saying that the numbers are doctored, I've seen other studies that draw different conclusions.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Also, do you know that economy.com is run by a left-of-center think tank? I'm not saying that the numbers are doctored, I've seen other studies that draw different conclusions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought the CBO, which is non-partisan, essentially came up with the same conclusions?
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->That is referring to the short-term bang for the buck though, not necessarily whether they provide the best long-term remedy,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't that exactly what they are looking for?
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=17317:date=Feb 11 2009, 12:36 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Feb 11 2009, 12:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->That is referring to the short-term bang for the buck though, not necessarily whether they provide the best long-term remedy,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't that exactly what they are looking for?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but is 2-3 years down the road really instant stimulus? I'm not necessarily advocating one plan over another. I'm saying that they are all pretty suspect. Getting the TARP and banking regulations right are what will have the most immediate impact on the current crisis. It just seems to me that the stimulus, recovery or whatever it's called is more about long-term economic arguments (right and left) and is not going to get us out of the current mess we're in. I just have a problem with a lot of the rhetoric lately, and I'm not saying the President is alone. The Right is guilty of the same thing, just under the guise of different ideas.
Posts: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=17316:date=Feb 11 2009, 12:35 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Feb 11 2009, 12:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Also, do you know that economy.com is run by a left-of-center think tank? I'm not saying that the numbers are doctored, I've seen other studies that draw different conclusions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought the CBO, which is non-partisan, essentially came up with the same conclusions?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And they were wrong for 8 years as well with other estimates of growth. It isn't difficult to data mine is all I'm saying.
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 63
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
I shouldn't have done the "go fuck yourself" thing on this issue...
Thing is...it is the alternative agenda which has pushed us into this hole.
No one WANTS to spend this money...but, if we were to simply stand and watch the economy stand or fall...and it fell into an even more devastating circumstance, what THEN would we do?
Most Washington conservatives believe we have to spend money, but they want it spent in EXACTLY the same method which left us bankrupt.
This is not a plan anyone wants...but, it absolutely appears to be our best alternative.
Posts: 3
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=17309:date=Feb 11 2009, 12:17 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Feb 11 2009, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Actually, that isn't true about the notion that rebates that go directly into the bank and aren't spent immediately doing nothing for the economy. Money deposited in banks is multiplied many times over by banks lending that money out (the whole point of the banking system), under normal credit circumstances of course. That's banking 101.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't this also assume the banks are lending readily between each other? Something they haven't been doing much of recently?
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=17332:date=Feb 11 2009, 12:55 PM:name=Rappster)-->QUOTE (Rappster @ Feb 11 2009, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I shouldn't have done the "go fuck yourself" thing on this issue...
Thing is...it is the alternative agenda which has pushed us into this hole.
No one WANTS to spend this money...but, if we were to simply stand and watch the economy stand or fall...and it fell into an even more devastating circumstance, what THEN would we do?
Most Washington conservatives believe we have to spend money, but they want it spent in EXACTLY the same method which left us bankrupt.
This is not a plan anyone wants...but, it absolutely appears to be our best alternative.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"go fuck yourself" is your answer for everything. if i were to do a "best of rapp" thread, all i'd have to do is post "go fuck yourself" and cut and paste a couple thousand times. thats all you have. you're a one trick jiggle pop. rarely do you contribute anything to a conversation other than "go fuck yourself", "go to fuck", and "god i'm fucking hungry." sorry, flabs, just calling it the way it is.
Wang.
Posts: 52
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=17305:date=Feb 11 2009, 12:05 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Feb 11 2009, 12:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Let me just add a few points. This notion of $1.73 of output per $1 of govt spending vs $1.02 of output per $1 tax cut is misleading, and I'm not sure I can buy it without seeing the studies. This would imply that all govt spending is created equal or that all tax cuts are created equal. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Infrastructure spending is more stimulative than education spending or welfare spending. Capital gains tax and corporate tax cuts are more stimulative than income tax cuts. Etc etc. I think the jury is still out on a lot of these issues, especially when you consider the burden on the US taxpayer in terms of deficit spending and debt servicing as a result. The size of the current govt is unprecedented, even by the New Deal standards, so I think we need to refrain from assuming what has been proven and what has not until we see this current situation play out and see what the govt and corresponding economy looks like in another 10 years. Again, I'm not advocating doing nothing, but these blanket statements that this will work and that will not, bother me a bit. We are in uncharted territory. Politicians admit this. Economists admit this. I just hope our govt doesn't do anything that is irreversible, because in the end it won't simply be the current generation that ends up paying for this, but our children and grandchildren.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Excellent points.
Posts: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=17337:date=Feb 11 2009, 12:59 PM:name=woyaokafei)-->QUOTE (woyaokafei @ Feb 11 2009, 12:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17309:date=Feb 11 2009, 12:17 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Feb 11 2009, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Actually, that isn't true about the notion that rebates that go directly into the bank and aren't spent immediately doing nothing for the economy. Money deposited in banks is multiplied many times over by banks lending that money out (the whole point of the banking system), under normal credit circumstances of course. That's banking 101.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't this also assume the banks are lending readily between each other? Something they haven't been doing much of recently?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why I said "under normal credit circumstances of course" and why I've been saying that TARP and new banking and lending/mortgage regulations are the way to really get the economy going. I'm trying to be fair here, as I don't particularly care for the GOP's ideas at the moment either. I do like the notion of a mix of ideas though, and can get on board with widespread infrastructure spending, some targeted tax cuts, and even a serious emphasis on fixing health care (which is a real tax on the economy and isn't even on the table with this plan). Too bad that last point is taking a back seat to other pet projects disguised as necessary stimulus spending.
Posts: 1,238
Threads: 11
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
I'm just glad everyone has given President Obama ample time to determine whether he is a good president or not.
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 63
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=17392:date=Feb 11 2009, 03:46 PM:name=dk123)-->QUOTE (dk123 @ Feb 11 2009, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm just glad everyone has given President Obama ample time to determine whether he is a good president or not.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo. Exactly. Right on.
Posts: 647
Threads: 38
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Posts: 1,276
Threads: 24
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
|
