Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<FWIW, I have indeed put my money where my mouth is in my investment strategy. If the economy doesn't take a dramatic downturn from here, I'm going to lose a big chunk of my life savings. So feel free to make all the fun you want in 16 months.>> Tell you what. Send me whatever spare dollars you have now, and I'll send them back in 18 months when your investments tank and you really need them.
Originally Posted By mawnck >> Send me whatever spare dollars you have now, and I'll send them back in 18 months when your investments tank and you really need them.<< I appreciate the offer, but all my spare dollars are being used defensively. Seriously, watch the video. You didn't watch the video, did you.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Fine. I watched the video. I think its hokum. Yes, over the last decade consumers were way over-spending. But in the last few months, because of the gloom and doomers and the way the press loves jumping on the scare bandwagon, people have gone to the opposite extreme by way under-spending. If something is not done to bring things back to a happy medium, the economy will continue to spiral downward into an extended depression. We need something to make a positive change in consumer confidence. Doing nothing will not accomplish that. The stimulus package must might. Wall Street seems to think so.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Yes, over the last decade consumers were way over-spending. >> That oversimplifies the problem. Consumer spending was being manipulated with economic activity that was a complete fantasy. Money was being invented out of assets like real estate that weren't worth half the value being advertised. We created an entire economy out of falsely inflated asset prices. You just don't get that back by boosting consumer confidence. You have to create real economic activity to replace the phony activity that caused the bubble. We invested way too much money in real estate during the past 2 decades. Once built, real estate produces nothing for the economy. All it does is consume resources. There is no economic output from suburban tract homes and strip malls. Real estate consumes far more resources than it contributes economic gain to a community. We have to seriously figure out how to develop economic activity that produces things of real value if we are ever to get things going again.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub Ok to put this in simpler terms...Let's each list one local company that is not outsourcing and is profitable and hopefully hiring in the future perhaps. So to get this started I just read in the local newspaper about a call center that does not outsource and plans to expand with locations in Kansas City and Chicago. It is called USA 800 Inc. www.usa-800.com. Perhaps our government should give incentives to all corporations to return these call centers to the United States. That would be a start. The only other suggestion I have - would be for every taxpayer to refuse to pay taxes until the government halts all pork. Just one year.That would get some attention.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I actually think the best thing the President could have done is say, "I'm not going to raise taxes, and I'm not going to increase spending now so that we'll have to raise taxes in the future." But that boat has sailed. If there has to be a stimulus bill, then the best way to structure is to give consumers immediate incentives to buy, and businesses an immediate incentive to hire, and that's best done by tax cuts, such as a credit for purchasing a home or a car might have worked, or a temporary cut in the payroll tax. I don't think short term spending on social programs is a good idea. Sure it gets money into the economy now, but greatly increses the cost in the future. If we hire someone to teach about the dangers of smoking, what's going to happen in two years when that money runs out? Most likely, we'll end up extending the programs forever, and the federal government will bloat exponentially, and become a greater drag on our economy. The worse thing we can do is have the government give a bunch of money for favoring one type of product over another. This is inefficient, and destroys as many jobs as it creates. We need to be doing things that put people to work. Did you know that the Obama administration just cancelled a bunch of oil leases? Instead of employing people here to create energy, we'll have to buy foreign energy. Putting restrictions and further burdens on American businesses is the absolute wrong way to go.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Thanks, Douglas. That's really good food for thought, and the kind of thing I was hoping for in this thread.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Did you know that the Obama administration just cancelled a bunch of oil leases? Instead of employing people here to create energy, we'll have to buy foreign energy. >> Did you know that the oil companies that held those leases for decades haven't employed a single person to cultivate those resources since the time the leases were granted?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Thanks, Douglas. That's really good food for thought, and the kind of thing I was hoping for in this thread.>> I agree. Good, well thought-out ideas.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Fine. I watched the video. I think its hokum. Yes, over the last decade consumers were way over-spending. But in the last few months, because of the gloom and doomers and the way the press loves jumping on the scare bandwagon, people have gone to the opposite extreme by way under-spending. If something is not done to bring things back to a happy medium, the economy will continue to spiral downward into an extended depression. We need something to make a positive change in consumer confidence. Doing nothing will not accomplish that. The stimulus package must might. Wall Street seems to think so. < very tough when every month another 750,000 are without jobs
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Did you know that the oil companies that held those leases for decades haven't employed a single person to cultivate those resources since the time the leases were granted?> How could I? It's not true. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29017638/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29017638/</a>
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy According to your article, no oil is being drilled in these areas. Your article also states that the amount of oil that could be produced from these lands would be the equivalent of 1.5 hours of our total energy requirements for an entire year.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <According to your article, no oil is being drilled in these areas.> And now, no oil will be drilled for quite some time. No oil, no jobs, higher energy costs, no stimulus.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ What makes you think the oil coming out of Utah will be cheaper. I happened to have made the acquaintance of an engineer on the west coast who was working on one of the Utah oil projects. The cost of extracting the oil there was about 4 times as expensive as any other oil source around. Maybe that's why they aren't producing oil there.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What makes you think the oil coming out of Utah will be cheaper.> The law of supply and demand. <Maybe that's why they aren't producing oil there.> Somebody thought it was worth it, because they were willing to pay us to do so. But the Obama administration won't let them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Re: #46. Here's a chart put together by Mark Zandi (economic adviser to John McCain, no less), that shows the effect on the economy of various types of stimulus. The best long-term would be infrastructure spending (and I'm disappointed that what's being proposed isn't more infrastructure-focused) - with $1.59 of "bang for the buck" for every dollar spent. A payroll tax holiday comes in at $1.29 (not bad - primarily because the people to whom the payroll tax is a significant percentage of pay are most likely to spend any cut they get). Best of all are extended unemployment benefits and increasing food stamps, at $1.64 and $1.73 respectively, for similar reasons. On the other hand, making the Bush tax cuts permanent comes in at a paltry 29 cents, and cutting the corporate tax rates at 30 cents. The article explains the numbers. <a href="http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/pocketfull_of_m.html" target="_blank">http://www.econbrowser.com/arc...f_m.html</a> The bills being considered now are too light on infrastructure, too heavy on tax cuts and non-stimulative spending (some of the proposed spending is for good things, but they should be considered separately from a stimulus package IMO).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Many economists disagree with Mr Zandi. <a href="http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cato.org/special/st...ulus.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Cato economists? There's a shock. Nor did they dispute his numbers or show alternate numbers. That ad simply disagrees with Keynesian stimulus in theory; it doesn't speak to whether tax cuts or food stamps, say, provide more bang for the stimulus buck, let alone provide research.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy The ad also doesn't state whether the people listed are actually economists. They could be political scientists at the universities listed for all we know.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Cato economists?> What does that mean? Are you claiming they're paid by Cato? <That ad simply disagrees with Keynesian stimulus in theory; it doesn't speak to whether tax cuts or food stamps, say, provide more bang for the stimulus buck, let alone provide research.> It says, "To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth." If their research actually showed that food stamps provided more boost than tax cuts, I doubt they'd say the opposite.
