Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 98 of 98
  1. #76
    Independent DMX7's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    21,198
    That's quite the assertion. Do you have anything to back up that idea?
    What specifically is quite an assertion? That we don't have unlimited taxpayer dollars?

    It does seem the deficit doomcasting is back in Vogue now but deficit spending over the last 40 years doesn't led to any economic catastrophe in and of itself that I've seen
    Whether we should have deficit spending at all is a separate point. I support deficit spending in general, but that is different from deliberately spending on highly ineffective and inefficient programs like stimulus checks, where only a fraction of them really go to people who need it with the rest often going towards ridiculous things like inflating the stock market.

    CNBC: Trading stocks was among the most common uses for the government stimulus checks in nearly every income bracket

    The total federal debt never exceeded our entire national GDP in the last 40 years but it's about to. The last time it actually did was during WWII, and the U.S. benefitted from an economic boom for the ages that followed with the extraordinary cir stances of returning GIs and a Europe and Japan that were in shambles and taking economic aid (a lot of it directly from us in the form of U.S. exports). We can't count on that this go around. Sooner or later interest rates will rise if we maintain this pace of spending because those who loan to our government will realize how irresponsible we have become and because there may be no miracle economic boom that mitigates the effects of the debt (e.g., inflation).

    We need stimulus now given the cir stances but we don't "need" more stimulus checks IMO.

  2. #77
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    What specifically is quite an assertion? That we don't have unlimited taxpayer dollars?



    Whether we should have deficit spending at all is a separate point. I support deficit spending in general, but that is different from deliberately spending on highly ineffective and inefficient programs like stimulus checks, where only a fraction of them really go to people who need it with the rest often going towards ridiculous things like inflating the stock market.

    CNBC: Trading stocks was among the most common uses for the government stimulus checks in nearly every income bracket

    The total federal debt never exceeded our entire national GDP in the last 40 years but it's about to. The last time it actually did was during WWII, and the U.S. benefitted from an economic boom for the ages that followed with the extraordinary cir stances of returning GIs and a Europe and Japan that were in shambles and taking economic aid (a lot of it directly from us in the form of U.S. exports). We can't count on that this go around. Sooner or later interest rates will rise if we maintain this pace of spending because those who loan to our government will realize how irresponsible we have become and because there may be no miracle economic boom that mitigates the effects of the debt (e.g., inflation).

    We need stimulus now given the cir stances but we don't "need" more stimulus checks IMO.
    It seemed that you were implying that deficit spending in this case would cause some real problem. If not then I fail to see your problem.

    That article headline is misleading. "Among the most common uses" It doesn't state what the actual usage breakdown was.

    Here is another take:

    How Are They Spending It?
    In households that spent their stimulus checks, respondents reported using the money for a variety of expenses, and many reported spending it on more than one thing: About 80% of these respondents reported using it on food, and 77.9% on rent, mortgage and/or utilities, including gas, electricity, cable, internet and cellphone.

    More than half (58.2%) of such respondents reported spending stimulus payments on household supplies and personal care products. About a fifth (20.5%) reported spending the money on clothing.

    A smaller share (8.1%) said they spent or would spend the stimulus on household goods like TVs, electronics, furniture, and appliances or on recreational goods like fitness equipment, toys and games.

    These reports indicate the importance of the stimulus payments to help cover basic expenses such as housing and food.
    https://www.census.gov/library/stori...internet%20and

    Ineffective? The CARES Act correlated with a bump in the economy. It accomplished what it was supposed to. When it ran out it correlated with a decline.

    And there is no historical analog to what we are dealing with now. In my view, the issue is Trump's tax cuts and not the stimulus that is sorely needed until the vaccine can get us to herd immunity.

  3. #78
    Independent DMX7's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    21,198
    It seemed that you were implying that deficit spending in this case would cause some real problem. If not then I fail to see your problem.
    I'm not really sure how you fail to see my problem here. If we're going to deficit spend then we should do it effectively and efficiently or it eventually will cause a problem... Do you actually disagree with that?

    The original CARES Act was a lot more than just a one time stimulus check. In my opinion, the enhanced unemployment benefits were a more effective feature of it that I support. I'm highly skeptical of what some people may have self-reported what they used the stimulus check money on especially given how easy it is the fudge the numbers (e.g., one might say "I spent the stimulus check on essentials" but then leave out that he used the money he had originally budgeted for those essentials on the stock market or on a new gadget from Best Buy). And so yes, there are some people who genuinely need the stimulus but we should target those people most effected by COVID such as those unemployed as result of COVID and maximize the benefit to them. There is no perfect solution but blanket stimulus checks are the worst IMO.

    Trump's tax cuts are one issue for the deficit; however it's the ulative effect of many decisions that have us where we are on the fiscal side of things. Not making the most of our deficit stimulus spending will just add to that.

  4. #79
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I'm not really sure how you fail to see my problem here. If we're going to deficit spend then we should do it effectively and efficiently or it eventually will cause a problem... Do you actually disagree with that?

    The original CARES Act was a lot more than just a one time stimulus check. In my opinion, the enhanced unemployment benefits were a more effective feature of it that I support. I'm highly skeptical of what some people may have self-reported what they used the stimulus check money on especially given how easy it is the fudge the numbers (e.g., one might say "I spent the stimulus check on essentials" but then leave out that he used the money he had originally budgeted for those essentials on the stock market or on a new gadget from Best Buy). And so yes, there are some people who genuinely need the stimulus but we should target those people most effected by COVID such as those unemployed as result of COVID and maximize the benefit to them. There is no perfect solution but blanket stimulus checks are the worst IMO.

    Trump's tax cuts are one issue for the deficit; however it's the ulative effect of many decisions that have us where we are on the fiscal side of things. Not making the most of our deficit stimulus spending will just add to that.
    My problem has to do with your assertion of efficiency. It should be quite evident I do not agree with you. In a vacuum efficiency is better but i don't see it here.

    Do you have anything to support your claim of which component of CARES was more effective than another?

    The quote I gave showed only 8% of people spent the money on electronics or the like. We have zero idea what percentage spent money on stocks. the link I gave also points out that few people making under $75k spent money on stocks or 401k.

    As for efficiency in general, UBI is arguably more efficient than means based programs.
    Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 12-04-2020 at 09:29 PM.

  5. #80
    Independent DMX7's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    21,198
    My problem has to do with your assertion of efficiency. It should be quite evident I do not agree with you.
    If you don't agree about it being effective/efficient then we simply have to agree to disagree at this point.

    Do you have anything to support your claim of which component of CARES was more effective than another?
    It seems self-evident to me that sending enhanced continuous support directly to people who are unemployed is a more effective and more efficient than sending a one time checks to people who are both unemployed and employed, with most people being the latter. I haven't seen anything that makes me think otherwise.

    The quote I gave showed only 8% of people spent the money on electronics or the like.
    Is any of that data verifiable (meaning we know with absolute certainty what it was spent on)? You can say you spent it on whatever you want if it's self-reporting, and if the government asked you what you spent it on you would probably be more inclined to say it was spent on essentials especially if you support another round of stimulus checks.

  6. #81
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    If you don't agree about it being effective/efficient then we simply have to agree to disagree at this point.



    It seems self-evident to me that sending enhanced continuous support directly to people who are unemployed is a more effective and more efficient than sending a one time checks to people who are both unemployed and employed, with most people being the latter. I haven't seen anything that makes me think otherwise.



    Is any of that data verifiable (meaning we know with absolute certainty what it was spent on)? You can say you spent it on whatever you want if it's self-reporting, and if the government asked you what you spent it on you would probably be more inclined to say it was spent on essentials especially if you support another round of stimulus checks.
    The link was from the census. If you do not have something to contradict that then it is what we have. There is no basis for your claim of what people's motivations for their answers. There is no certainty in pretty much anything.

    And the unemployment means test leaves a whole lot of people falling through the cracks.

    What we know is that a UBI approach leaves no one behind. We know that it took us out of the free fall we were in that Spring. We know that it will be limited in timeframe given the AZ and Pfizer vaccines otw.

  7. #82
    Independent DMX7's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    21,198
    The link was from the census. If you do not have something to contradict that then it is what we have. There is no basis for your claim of what people's motivations for their answers. There is no certainty in pretty much anything.

    And the unemployment means test leaves a whole lot of people falling through the cracks.

    What we know is that a UBI approach leaves no one behind. We know that it took us out of the free fall we were in that Spring. We know that it will be limited in timeframe given the AZ and Pfizer vaccines otw.
    I don’t find this particular data reliable at all based on how easily it can be fudged and it seems obvious to me that just about everyone wants a “free” stimulus check -- "free money", right?

    I fully realize UBI leaves no one behind. We’re circling back to my original point that checks to people who are mostly employed is not an efficient use of taxpayer funds with regard to COVID recovery, but we’re not going to agree on that so I’ll let it go.

    We don’t know that the one time stimulus checks took us out of the fall were in at all because the CARES Act included many things and we can make judgements about what worked best or barely worked at all, but we could only say for certain that “the stimulus checks” are what took us out of the fall we were in if that were the only stimulus measure we took at the federal, state and local level. There was a lot of de facto stimulus all around including from the federal reserve and our monetary policy.

  8. #83
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Post Count
    19,014
    Need a vax and a mask and a stimulus?

  9. #84
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    ^ gossip

  10. #85
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Nothing for the unemployed, that will ing teach them not to be predatory, extractive Capitalists

    What's in the $908 Billion Bipartisan Stimulus Proposal?

    http://www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-908-...mulus-proposal

    Biden approves, as do Chuckie and Nan, so it will pass.

    the fraud, cheating, lying, stealing is back on again.

  11. #86
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I don’t find this particular data reliable at all based on how easily it can be fudged and it seems obvious to me that just about everyone wants a “free” stimulus check -- "free money", right?

    I fully realize UBI leaves no one behind. We’re circling back to my original point that checks to people who are mostly employed is not an efficient use of taxpayer funds with regard to COVID recovery, but we’re not going to agree on that so I’ll let it go.

    We don’t know that the one time stimulus checks took us out of the fall were in at all because the CARES Act included many things and we can make judgements about what worked best or barely worked at all, but we could only say for certain that “the stimulus checks” are what took us out of the fall we were in if that were the only stimulus measure we took at the federal, state and local level. There was a lot of de facto stimulus all around including from the federal reserve and our monetary policy.
    You don't trust stated numbers from a poll with a known margin for error but you do trust an article that makes qualitative generalizations about how numbers rank?

    You definitely seem emotionally invested in your position.

    And I propose they do something of the scope of the CARES Act again because we known that works.

  12. #87
    Independent DMX7's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    21,198
    You don't trust stated numbers from a poll with a known margin for error but you do trust an article that makes qualitative generalizations about how numbers rank?

    You definitely seem emotionally invested in your position.

    And I propose they do something of the scope of the CARES Act again because we known that works.
    Accusing me of being emotionally invested in my position sounds to me like projection on your part.

    I'm 100% open to a compelling case for stimulus checks that addresses my concerns, but you haven't presented one that convinces me.

    And frankly, the burden of proof should be on you if you want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of our taxpayer money
    Last edited by DMX7; 12-05-2020 at 12:47 PM.

  13. #88
    Independent DMX7's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    21,198
    Need a vax and a mask and a stimulus?

  14. #89
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,160
    Nothing for the unemployed, that will ing teach them not to be predatory, extractive Capitalists

    What's in the $908 Billion Bipartisan Stimulus Proposal?

    http://www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-908-...mulus-proposal

    Biden approves, as do Chuckie and Nan, so it will pass.

    the fraud, cheating, lying, stealing is back on again.
    Another ing airline bailout. Ugh I hate how every piece of aid has to filtered through the oligarchs first. Why the don't we just give that $45 billion directly to the employees the airlines say they'll have to axe / furlough without a bailout? this country.

    Piece of Biden, Pelosi, and Shumer giving the greenlight to McConnell's liability shield without getting in return. America truly is ed and un able.


  15. #90
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,160
    Should have done at least another stimulus check as well as put money into infrastructure that way you have something awesome to show for all the money you spent. Like high speed rail so we'd have more choices to offset all the airline consolidation. But we don't make in America, we're in the Jordan on the Wizards phase of this nation.

  16. #91
    Independent DMX7's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    21,198
    Nothing for the unemployed, that will ing teach them not to be predatory, extractive Capitalists

    What's in the $908 Billion Bipartisan Stimulus Proposal?

    http://www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-908-...mulus-proposal

    Biden approves, as do Chuckie and Nan, so it will pass.

    the fraud, cheating, lying, stealing is back on again.
    Yes there is something for unemployed. It says enhanced UI benefits, rental assistance, food assistance, etc.

  17. #92
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    How much of a dummy you gotta be to take a $300 a week minimum wage job when you be making $900/week for doing nothing?
    Technically you're breaking the law if you do this. To collect unemployment you have to actively be looking for a job, and if you are offered a job and you turn it down, you can be reported and lose your unemployment benefits. As I understand it.

  18. #93
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    Technically you're breaking the law if you do this. To collect unemployment you have to actively be looking for a job, and if you are offered a job and you turn it down, you can be reported and lose your unemployment benefits. As I understand it.
    There have been varying requirements for job searches in Texas from what I've been told. It's been waived in times of stupid high COVID infections, for example. Couldn't tell you the exact criteria.

  19. #94
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,236
    Where the heck is Trump? He wrote that he wanted a stimulus deal larger than even Nancy and yet Mitch pretends that Trump won't sign anything other than a tiny bare bones bill.
    Don't forget, his fantastic new healthcare plan is coming soon. Many many people working on this fantastic plan.

  20. #95
    Independent DMX7's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    21,198
    Don't forget, his fantastic new healthcare plan is coming soon. Many many people working on this fantastic plan.
    It's two weeks away!

    And next week is Infrastructure Week at the White House. Can't wait!

  21. #96
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Accusing me of being emotionally invested in my position sounds to me like projection on your part.

    I'm 100% open to a compelling case for stimulus checks that addresses my concerns, but you haven't presented one that convinces me.

    And frankly, the burden of proof should be on you if you want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of our taxpayer money
    The proof is recent history. The CARES act caused a minor rebound out of a lesser downward trend. If anything we should be doing more not less than what was done with CARES if you were really interested in effectiveness and efficiency.

    And the reason why I say you are emotionally invested is because of how you are judging sources. Your MSNBC source was vague at best and offered no numbers. You trusted it full heartedly. OTOH, the census had specific numbers of what people were spending on and claim that you cannott rust said numbers. An impartial judgement would have applied said logic to your MSNBC source and been even more untrustworthy. instead you give it a pass and even moreso insist on it.

    The only explanation cannot be logical therefor it must be emotional.

  22. #97
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,427
    Noah Smith on "the new macro"


    The rest of the symposium is similar. There’s no theoretical discussion of whether fiscal stimulus is effective; everyone seems to be in tacit agreement that it is, even Ken Rogoff (1:19:50), who was a well-known deficit hawk last time around. Nor is there much theoretical discussion around debt sustainability — overwhelmingly, the consensus is that interest rates are low, and have been trending down for a while, so it’s safe to borrow more for now. There’s some minor concern about the possibility that rates might rise in the future, but theory is not brought to bear on the question of when and why this might happen.

    The “give people money” consensus will find a sympathetic ear in the Biden administration. Janet Yellen, who repeatedly worried in the past that the national debt was unsustainable in the past, now advocates for massive stimulus.

    In other words, at least as far as policy debates go, arguments about optimal fiscal policy based in formal macroeconomic models seem to be out, replaced by a consensus that giving people money is necessary and good (at least, for the forseeable future).

    Why did this change occur?

    The simple answer is that economists have learned their lesson. DSGE models proved frustratingly difficult to apply during the 2008-9 crisis, leading central bankers to fall back on a combination of simple heuristic models and intuition. Models that predicted rising real interest rates and/or rampant inflation were consistently proven wrong, as both quan ies stayed low in advanced economies.

    https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/th...e-people-money

  23. #98
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,427
    But by their nature, economic models are about finding an optimal middle ground between too much and too little (in econ jargon, modelers like to find interior solutions). That emphasis on tradeoffs means that nearly any macro model will come with a warning about how much stimulus is too much. So then if you use that model, you end up worrying about when to stop.


    But such worries have proven disastrous in practice since 2008. Blanchard himself prominently recanted his support for austerity in the Eurozone crisis, and now says that we’re “on the verge of a shift in fiscal paradigm”. The IMF, once a bastion of deficit hawkishness, has evolved substantially on the issue. The repeated failure of austerity since 2008 may mean less appe e for models that focus on telling policymakers that too much is too much.


    A third possibility is that macroeconomic thinkers are paying more attention to politics than before. Global unrest exploded in 2019, even before the pandemic. U.S. society seems to be coming apart at the seams, with massive unrest on the left and increasing authoritarianism and threats of violence on the right. Economists and policy advisors may conclude — probably correctly — that the need to mollify political tensions means that the government should err on the side of handing out cash. There’s no DSGE model that tells you how to balance public anger against the risk of a future rise in interest rates!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •