THIS PLUS a $1.3 Trillion Deficit = Impressive

[coyotes_geek]

What are those things? Who's in the best position to decide as correctly as possible what are those things?

If the goal is to stimulate the economy then those things need to be things that require somebody to perform some kind of task, also known as a job. That's different than just handing out money. Most of the people who I see that have become trendy Keynsians over the last year or so seem to think that as long as the government has a big defecit then they must be stimulating the economy. That's not true. How the money gets spent makes a difference.

I'm extremely sceptical about the ability of a few politicians and bureaucrats to make that decision. Not because they're dumb, but because it's a problem way too complicated for centralized decisionmaking to solve it.

I'm skeptical about the ability of politicians to do anything other than worry about getting re-elected.

Yes, they are. More people should do philanthropy.

Agreed.

[Winehole23]

It's been a long time since I've been this amused with politics.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/warni...0205-nil2.html

[Winehole23]

How funny that you think it's funny.

[MannyIsGod]

Krugman >>>>>>> Powder puff girls villain.

I see Mojo ranting about how wrong he is but I don't see a why.


Also, true deficit hawks better come to love taxes because anyone planning to shrink the debt needs to under stand it manes higher taxes.

[Winehole23]

Makes?

[mogrovejo]

As Lady Thatcher put it, "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money".

[Winehole23]

Epigrammatic.

[Winehole23]

You are studded with epigrams, Maestro.

[Winehole23]

Krugman >>>>>>> Powder puff girls villain.

If you agree with Krugman, I can see that. My own beef with mogrovejo was more aesthetic than technical.

[ChumpDumper]

If you're running large defecits to spend money on things that will actually put people to work, then that's one thing. But not all spending falls into that category. So much of the stimulus bill went to things like extending health coverage for the unemployed, food stamps, and other welfare programs. Now I'm not saying those aren't worthy causes, but they're not things that are going to stimulate the economy.

How are food stamps and unemployment benefits not stimulative?

[TeyshaBlue]

How are food stamps and unemployment benefits not stimulative?

Seems to me like those programs are designed to be more palliative rather than stimulative.

I know you didn't ask me. Sue me.

[ChumpDumper]

Seems to me like those programs are designed to be more palliative rather than stimulative.

If a goal is increased economic activity, those benefits are spent almost immediately.

[TeyshaBlue]

If a goal is increased economic activity, those benefits are spent almost immediately.

Ok. In a strict sense, I suppose that would qualify.

[MannyIsGod]

As Lady Thatcher put it, "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money".

But of course, yet capitalism never does.

[Nbadan]

...especially when you can just print more...

[Nbadan]

that said, gas prices are on the decline because the dollar is strengthening against foreign currencies, given the current state of emergency in foreign debt..