Ecuador Chooses Stimulus over Austerity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Can’t wait to hear the conservative economists make excuses to why this worked.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9704#.USEcDb-cQbp[/quote]

Equador recovered due to massive new oil finds and a high price of oil.

http://www.worldfinance.com/markets/energy/natural-resources-propel-ecuadorian-recovery

“Ecuadorâ??s economy is almost entirely dependent on the countryâ??s oil supply. Petroleum production is the largest industry in the nation, followed distantly by exports of various fruits, and automobile manufacturing. Over half of the national export earnings are derived from the export of oil and petroleum products for agriculture, domestic use, and commerce. These exports also account for nearly 20 percent of GDP, and nearly 40 percent of government revenue.”

Same reason Norway is doing OK and Russia is doing OK and Texas is doing spectacular.[/quote]

x2.

22

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Comparing Ecuador’s stimulus to what the Obama administration is doing is not comparing apples and oranges. Much of the US stimulus has been wasted on pork barrel giveaways or ideologically driven bullshit that we don’t need and are not helping anyone. ie Spending millions of federal stimulus dollars to put solar panels on public buildings in Seattle Washington, where they get about fifty sunny days a year, is a complete waste if we are trying to generate energy and get a return on investment. If they really needed the electricity they would have put the solar panels in San Diego where it is sunny.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17944

The reality of course is they did this purely for ideological reasons where the actual usefulness of the project or return on investment was not a consideration.

Ecuador on the other hand spent money on things that truly are investments that will pay off in the short term and in the future. For example the roads in the op video were third world dangerous. Replacing them with modern paved roads creates jobs on the road building but also pays huge dividends when the roads are completed. They make travel easier and more efficient which boosts the economy. They are safer so vehicles aren’t being damaged or destroyed which represents a savings and less people are getting injured or killed by bad roads.

To sum up, the Ecuadorian stimulus is money well spent because they don’t have money to waste on bullshit. While the US stimulus has been good money after bad because most of it is going to ideologically driven bullshit that never could get funding in the past until it was dressed up as “stimulus” in order to deal with a “crisis” which is something that never should go to waste. [/quote]

Not to mention that the stimulus in the U.S. wasn’t nearly big enough considering the crisis. [/quote]

So we should put even more money on the credit card, to build, to do, to give to…what again?

23

Here is a breakdown of ARRA by the Washington Post. I’m assuming it’s accurate (awful ballys of me I know).

1.) Why was $2.8 million spent on increasing broadband in rural areas. What a waste of money in a time of crisis.

2.) Why was $5.9 million given to Defense and Homeland Security, they already had their budget. They didn’t need more.

3.) $18.5 million to energy efficiency and renawble energy programs. Really, that’s what matters during a recession? What a waste.

4.) $6.2 m to improve national parks, waste.

These are just a couple examples of why a stimulus isn’t effective in America. We spend where it doesn’t need to be spent. If we actually followed Keynesian economics maybe our stimulus efforts would have worked better, but that will never happen.

24

Have any of us been to Ecuador? I have, and we stayed on a military base, because the rest of the country was crap. What a 3rd world country. Any amount of money put into that economy is a good thing. The roads were dirt except for one main highway from Quito to the town we stayed in. That main highway was a toll road paid for by a German Company. Everything else was bad gravel or dirt roads.

The native people were even worse off than our Native Americans here. There the natives would come down from the mountains to sell their wears and the people would beat them up, take their wears, and send them back up the mountain. What a great country, Ecuador, that we should emulate. It had promise, but the socialist government kept the people down.

The government tried to take credit for the mission work we were doing there. That is the main reason we stayed on the military base. The Government wanted to show us Americans that they were good to their people. We broke away from the Government plan and went to a village that had nothing but natives. Obviously the Government did not take care of those people.

25

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Have any of us been to Ecuador? I have, and we stayed on a military base, because the rest of the country was crap. What a 3rd world country. Any amount of money put into that economy is a good thing. The roads were dirt except for one main highway from Quito to the town we stayed in. That main highway was a toll road paid for by a German Company. Everything else was bad gravel or dirt roads.

The native people were even worse off than our Native Americans here. There the natives would come down from the mountains to sell their wears and the people would beat them up, take their wears, and send them back up the mountain. What a great country, Ecuador, that we should emulate. It had promise, but the socialist government kept the people down.

The government tried to take credit for the mission work we were doing there. That is the main reason we stayed on the military base. The Government wanted to show us Americans that they were good to their people. We broke away from the Government plan and went to a village that had nothing but natives. Obviously the Government did not take care of those people. [/quote]

Zepplin does not care for your first hand accounts or logic.

Sorry.

26

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Zepplin does not care for your first hand accounts or logic.

Sorry.[/quote]

lol

27

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Stimulus works, if you want to force growth, or prevent recession/depression

But this comes at a price

Like if I were to lose my job. Then credit card debt would work to pay the bills. For a while. If I have a large credit limit, could work for a long while. It’s not a “sustainable” system tho

There is always some kind of tradeoff, just people miss it sometimes

Why not run stimulus at all times?

[quote] Stimulus is the best way to revive an economy after a recession.[/quote]Stimulus itself is just throwing money at a deeper problem. It could possibly happen that the money will be thrown well and hit the target, but if it were easy there might not be no problem.

I wouldn’t trust the President nor Congress to do this, but it could possibly work. Again, with costs

Debt is the supposed problem, and austerity is the supposed solution

I myself agree that debt is a problem, but austerity I can’t roll with. Couldn’t trust the President or Congress with that neither

So - are you saying that debt is the solution? It is humanly possible to use debt wisely, but it’s not a good thing in and of itself. I prefer regular old lowly citizens make these decisions themselves. If you have a good plan then you get into debt and do it. If you don’t like the risks/odds, then why should I?

(not talking about YOU - just saying in general)

Its as simple as that. In “free market” you pay the price and act more carefully with your money than with gov’t situations, they gamble with others money

But if the President of Ecuador did it right, then I never said its impossible

That’s my understanding anyways[/quote]

It’s not that the debt isn’t a problem but it’s not he primary one they want you to believe it is. All those folks that perpetuate this myth are the rich or those (economists and think tanks included) sponsored by the rich. Austerity is a failing theory to help an ailing economy. Just look at Europe’s decision and the outcome so far.[/quote]
Austerity is not supposed to ail the economy in the short term, not as I have understood. It is supposedly good in the long term. I say this because then you can’t look at Europe today to disprove it.

I have already said that debt [b]can[/b] be used wisely, so then I would also have to say that austerity is not the end all be all economic theory

Stimulus is basically increasing debt / spending, and austerity is basically decreasing debt / spending. Funny how debt and spending are considered the same. Let me go back to my credit card analogy…

So I lose my job and use my credit card to get through until I find another job. Cool, debt worked this time. So I pay it back and it happens again in a few years. Process repeats. “Sustainable system”

Now imagine the same thing except I get a job and then DO NOT pay off my credit card. And I do this several times. “unsustainable system”, theoretically anyways. If your credit limit increases to infinity then its a different story I guess. But gov’ts do not have infinite credit limit, they just act like it sometimes

“Austerity” or its equivalent of zero debt would not get me a job tho, so I can agree with a part of what you’re saying

I guess what I’m saying to you is that giving an instance of someone (Ecuador’s President) using stimulus / debt and “getting away with it” doesn’t make it like, the actual solution or nothing

When you say “the stimulus wasn’t big enough” it sounds to me like you are subconsciously thinking gov’ts do have infinite credit limits. What do you think the extra “stimulus” money should have been spent on? Why is stimulus even needed - as opposed to other funding methods? Why couldn’t people implement those things (whatever you are about to name) without gov’t money? Why not risk there own money / debt? Again, if they don’t like the odds, why should I?

(these are not rhetorical questions by the way - if you can answer, I would appreciate)

28

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
As Louis Brandeis would say “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
[/quote]

Phew, good thing America isn’t a democracy or he would actually have half a point. [/quote]

Wow you just demolished Louis Brandeis point with your quip remark. Since this is a democratic republic. You are such a top rated debater. Lucky for him you weren’t around during his time to make him look so stupid.
[/quote]

Um no, constitional republic. Nice try though.

Please do not pass go, do not collect $200. [/quote]
Pretty sure its both dawg

I get that some people are confused and think only of democracy / mob rule, and forget about limited government. You probably don’t like that - but there are components of democracy within this constitutional republic

Democratic republic is proper terminology - it just doesn’t tell the full story. Democracy and constitution are not mutually exclusive

I’m still not sure that he had half a point tho…

Can you explain this further Zepp?

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
As Louis Brandeis would say “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
[/quote]Is it so simple as the ‘mob rule’ would prevent/rob people from economically rising beyond a certain point?

29

Yes America is a democracy, the constitution is a living document and Hollywood is an accurate historian.

I’m done.

30

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes America is a democracy, the constitution is a living document and Hollywood is an accurate historian.

I’m done. [/quote]
No, no - you were right.

I mean the concept of voting is itself completely undemocratic

There is not any democratic components to the American system of gov’t at all whatsoever

Completely not a democratic republic - I was just being silly

Pleeeez don’t go!

haha - just playin. Peace out dawg

31

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Stimulus works, if you want to force growth, or prevent recession/depression

But this comes at a price

Like if I were to lose my job. Then credit card debt would work to pay the bills. For a while. If I have a large credit limit, could work for a long while. It’s not a “sustainable” system tho

There is always some kind of tradeoff, just people miss it sometimes

Why not run stimulus at all times?

[quote] Stimulus is the best way to revive an economy after a recession.[/quote]Stimulus itself is just throwing money at a deeper problem. It could possibly happen that the money will be thrown well and hit the target, but if it were easy there might not be no problem.

I wouldn’t trust the President nor Congress to do this, but it could possibly work. Again, with costs

Debt is the supposed problem, and austerity is the supposed solution

I myself agree that debt is a problem, but austerity I can’t roll with. Couldn’t trust the President or Congress with that neither

So - are you saying that debt is the solution? It is humanly possible to use debt wisely, but it’s not a good thing in and of itself. I prefer regular old lowly citizens make these decisions themselves. If you have a good plan then you get into debt and do it. If you don’t like the risks/odds, then why should I?

(not talking about YOU - just saying in general)

Its as simple as that. In “free market” you pay the price and act more carefully with your money than with gov’t situations, they gamble with others money

But if the President of Ecuador did it right, then I never said its impossible

That’s my understanding anyways[/quote]

It’s not that the debt isn’t a problem but it’s not he primary one they want you to believe it is. All those folks that perpetuate this myth are the rich or those (economists and think tanks included) sponsored by the rich. Austerity is a failing theory to help an ailing economy. Just look at Europe’s decision and the outcome so far.[/quote]
Austerity is not supposed to ail the economy in the short term, not as I have understood. It is supposedly good in the long term. I say this because then you can’t look at Europe today to disprove it.

I have already said that debt [b]can[/b] be used wisely, so then I would also have to say that austerity is not the end all be all economic theory

Stimulus is basically increasing debt / spending, and austerity is basically decreasing debt / spending. Funny how debt and spending are considered the same. Let me go back to my credit card analogy…

So I lose my job and use my credit card to get through until I find another job. Cool, debt worked this time. So I pay it back and it happens again in a few years. Process repeats. “Sustainable system”

Now imagine the same thing except I get a job and then DO NOT pay off my credit card. And I do this several times. “unsustainable system”, theoretically anyways. If your credit limit increases to infinity then its a different story I guess. But gov’ts do not have infinite credit limit, they just act like it sometimes

“Austerity” or its equivalent of zero debt would not get me a job tho, so I can agree with a part of what you’re saying

I guess what I’m saying to you is that giving an instance of someone (Ecuador’s President) using stimulus / debt and “getting away with it” doesn’t make it like, the actual solution or nothing

When you say “the stimulus wasn’t big enough” it sounds to me like you are subconsciously thinking gov’ts do have infinite credit limits. What do you think the extra “stimulus” money should have been spent on? Why is stimulus even needed - as opposed to other funding methods? Why couldn’t people implement those things (whatever you are about to name) without gov’t money? Why not risk there own money / debt? Again, if they don’t like the odds, why should I?

(these are not rhetorical questions by the way - if you can answer, I would appreciate)[/quote]

Comparing one’s own personal economic world and comparing it to that of a country are not the same. The theories work differently in these situations.

Ahh… the amount of stimulus spent was not nearly enough considering the depth of the crisis. Look at the levels spent during the Great Depression. Stimulus money could be spent on this country’s deteriorating infrastructure for example. It creates jobs, which gives people money to spend which creates demand which creates more jobs. In addition the country benefits as America’s crumbling infrastructure gets a much needed overhaul. Explain to me why the private sector is not rising to the occasion? And how are people supposed to risk money on state roads and bridges and the sort?

32

I like it, thanks for the reply. Thought you were about to quit on me

[quote]Comparing one’s own personal economic world and comparing it to that of a country are not the same. The theories work differently in these situations.[/quote]Maybe, maybe not - I’m not so sure
My main point works the same tho
Debt is not the answer. Anti debt is not the answer. This isn’t the true issue. Saying it isn’t the issue is one thing, showing it is something else

[quote]Stimulus money could be spent on this country’s deteriorating infrastructure for example.[/quote]Cool, but check this here. That’s not what the stimulus was spent on anyways. If more money was thrown into the stimulus, it would still not have gone here. How can I say this? I’m saying that if they could have gotten trillions instead of 700$ billion, then they would have - and it wouldn’t go nowhere useful. Oh snap - [i]trillions[/i] by the way - and that has already come to pass, so I’m not talking theory on that bit.

Your stimulus money isn’t spent by people who care about your money since they prefer it when your money is theirs

[quote]It creates jobs, which gives people money to spend which creates demand which creates more jobs. [/quote]Even so noble a thing as creating jobs isn’t always so great. Try this example from Henry Hazlitt

[quote]Why should freight be carried from Chicago to New York by railroad when we could employ enormously more men, for example, to carry it all on their backs?[/quote]And that type of crap is analogously similar to exactly what you can expect when people want to spend other people’s money on things they don’t feel like spending themselves, imo anyways

“Jobs” sounds great, as long as you’re not the one paying for them. But so long as they are getting paid, the money comes from somewhere. Debt. Which has been stacking and stacking over the decades in all times good and bad as if the credit limit were infinite. And so nowadays there is something of a rebellion against the madness of decades past and you’d best to respect that because there is a sort of logic there

But I agree austerity isn’t the short term solution today and I’ll even go so far as to say its a trap. With more and more stimulus you wind up with collapse and I don’t know what happens after. With austerity you wind up with austerity, and I know what that means and it could actually be the worst

[quote]In addition the country benefits as America’s crumbling infrastructure gets a much needed overhaul. Explain to me why the private sector is not rising to the occasion?[/quote]Because the “crumbling infrastructure” is not possessed by the private sector. That would be like you expecting me to repair your car. If the car were mine - maybe I would?

The toll roads in my area are not crumbling

[quote]And how are people supposed to risk money on state roads and bridges and the sort?[/quote]exactly. How are people supposed to risk my money wisely when they can act wiser and keep it for their cronies and themselves

But I can trust people to do the best with their own money - that’s why I’m a free market type

Public roads is a tough one tho, I can see some benefit to it if you’re careful. Even with a thing like that its dangerous because tricky people see a way to sneak bullshit and inefficiency through, but I still ponder this since I can see some benefit. And your example of roads and bridges is far different than saying “the stimulus wasn’t big enough”, that’s practically backtracking. Backtracking would be a good thing in this case cuz you were pointing wrong to begin with.

33

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I like it, thanks for the reply. Thought you were about to quit on me

[quote]Comparing one’s own personal economic world and comparing it to that of a country are not the same. The theories work differently in these situations.[/quote]Maybe, maybe not - I’m not so sure
My main point works the same tho
Debt is not the answer. Anti debt is not the answer. This isn’t the true issue. Saying it isn’t the issue is one thing, showing it is something else

[quote]Stimulus money could be spent on this country’s deteriorating infrastructure for example.[/quote]Cool, but check this here. That’s not what the stimulus was spent on anyways. If more money was thrown into the stimulus, it would still not have gone here. How can I say this? I’m saying that if they could have gotten trillions instead of 700$ billion, then they would have - and it wouldn’t go nowhere useful. Oh snap - [i]trillions[/i] by the way - and that has already come to pass, so I’m not talking theory on that bit.

Your stimulus money isn’t spent by people who care about your money since they prefer it when your money is theirs

[quote]It creates jobs, which gives people money to spend which creates demand which creates more jobs. [/quote]Even so noble a thing as creating jobs isn’t always so great. Try this example from Henry Hazlitt

[quote]Why should freight be carried from Chicago to New York by railroad when we could employ enormously more men, for example, to carry it all on their backs?[/quote]And that type of crap is analogously similar to exactly what you can expect when people want to spend other people’s money on things they don’t feel like spending themselves, imo anyways

“Jobs” sounds great, as long as you’re not the one paying for them. But so long as they are getting paid, the money comes from somewhere. Debt. Which has been stacking and stacking over the decades in all times good and bad as if the credit limit were infinite. And so nowadays there is something of a rebellion against the madness of decades past and you’d best to respect that because there is a sort of logic there

But I agree austerity isn’t the short term solution today and I’ll even go so far as to say its a trap. With more and more stimulus you wind up with collapse and I don’t know what happens after. With austerity you wind up with austerity, and I know what that means and it could actually be the worst

[quote]In addition the country benefits as America’s crumbling infrastructure gets a much needed overhaul. Explain to me why the private sector is not rising to the occasion?[/quote]Because the “crumbling infrastructure” is not possessed by the private sector. That would be like you expecting me to repair your car. If the car were mine - maybe I would?

The toll roads in my area are not crumbling

[quote]And how are people supposed to risk money on state roads and bridges and the sort?[/quote]exactly. How are people supposed to risk my money wisely when they can act wiser and keep it for their cronies and themselves

But I can trust people to do the best with their own money - that’s why I’m a free market type

Public roads is a tough one tho, I can see some benefit to it if you’re careful. Even with a thing like that its dangerous because tricky people see a way to sneak bullshit and inefficiency through, but I still ponder this since I can see some benefit. And your example of roads and bridges is far different than saying “the stimulus wasn’t big enough”, that’s practically backtracking. Backtracking would be a good thing in this case cuz you were pointing wrong to begin with. [/quote]

I don’t quit but only have so much time to devote to this forum.

Henry Hazlett also said the only way a workers wage ought to rise is if productivity rises. Well that has happened and the wage rate has stagnated. What do you think Henry would say about that?

Saying that the stimulus wasn’t spent the right way is not proof that it doesn’t work.

I’m originally from Pa. and we are consistently known for having some of the worst roads. And yes a lot of these roads are toll roads. I know cause I have travelled them frequently.

I understand your caution about pork barrel bullshit as there is always some level of corruption when money is involved. However, what do you have to say about private sector corruption like the finance sector?

There has to be a cap on the level of stimulus but it has the ability to bring us out of the recession, austerity only has the ability to sink us deeper. Look at what is going on in Europe compared to Ecuador. Perfect real world current example.

34

Why should the private sector ‘rise to the occasion’ when it would then only be asked to shoulder an even greater portion of the load? There’s a point at which the producers will stop making efforts to expand, expanding within this country, etc.

35

[quote]Henry Hazlett also said the only way a workers wage ought to rise is if productivity rises. Well that has happened and the wage rate has stagnated. What do you think Henry would say about that? [/quote]I’m really not sure man, I don’t know much about him actually.

I just really love that quote - do you have an idea on what he might say?

[quote]Saying that the stimulus wasn’t spent the right way is not proof that it doesn’t work. [/quote]I began this whole thing with you from an angle which did allow that “stimuli” can in particular times ‘work’. There are costs of course, but I’m not the type to ignore benefits

“A stimulus” might be able to work, but the problem with the one we had was not that it was too small.

Im not sure that it could even work in this society tho. I don’t trust it and I don’t think its reasonable for anyone to do so. I have explained several times why

[quote]
I’m originally from Pa. and we are consistently known for having some of the worst roads. And yes a lot of these roads are toll roads. I know cause I have travelled them frequently.[/quote]I believe you. Like I said if a busted car were mine I might repair it.

only if I consider that it’s worth it. If I had infinite money, or access to other peoples money I might be more willing tho (see how that works?)

[quote]I understand your caution about pork barrel bullshit as there is always some level of corruption when money is involved. However, what do you have to say about private sector corruption like the finance sector? [/quote]There are straight up crooks in public or private these days. The public ones rob us all, the private ones do what they can. But they are intermingled anyways, so the question seems a bit off to me

People trust false financial institutions more when they trust the false governmental system(s) it operates within. FIDC, SEC, blah blah blah without these people have more healthy paranoia. The governmental protections have them as lambs to the slaughter (my opinion)

I disagree with the concept of there always being some level of corruption when money is involved.

[quote]There has to be a cap on the level of stimulus but it has the ability to bring us out of the recession, austerity only has the ability to sink us deeper. Look at what is going on in Europe compared to Ecuador. Perfect real world current example. [/quote]Austerity sucks in the short term. I think I’ve said this in every post yet. That doesn’t disprove it’s concept. I agree with you that austerity is most dangerous, because I’m probably even more paranoid than you and I believe it is designed to get us stuck with a crap economy, mega high taxes, with genuinely zero hope of ever rising. That’s why I’m asking you to show it some respect and address it a bit more honestly. Or don’t address it at all. Comparing Europe vs. Ecuador is bullshit, weak attacks like that only add fuel to the fire

[quote]Saying that the stimulus wasn’t spent the right way is not proof that it doesn’t work.[/quote]Correct. By logic it does not do this.

On the topic of stimulus having the ability to pull us out of this, if you could get pinpoint accuracy (in putting dollars where they really need to go), take profits AND THEN PAY OFF THE DEBT it would probably work. But you’re not gonna get pinpoint accuracy with these thieves, give them ammo and they are liable to turn it on you. I say let the little people keep the ammo for themselves and let them fire away. With their own money they will try harder for one thing, plus they are closer to the targets anyways

36

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]
I’m originally from Pa. and we are consistently known for having some of the worst roads. And yes a lot of these roads are toll roads. I know cause I have travelled them frequently.[/quote]I believe you. Like I said if a busted car were mine I might repair it.

only if I consider that it’s worth it. If I had infinite money, or access to other peoples money I might be more willing tho (see how that works?)[/quote]I should probably explain this deeper. This might be the key

I make a cost-benefit analysis when I spend. Everybody does this. Not everybody has the same tastes, values, etc. But everybody that uses logic is making either a cost/benefit and/or they make a risk-benefit analysis, depending on the situation

When it’s my money I make an accurate judgement. If I am able to buy a Ferrari under your credit line, my cost/benefit analysis kind of skews in a way and tells me to buy, and it does so very easily - a true no brainer

Cost = 0
Benefit = something

And you wanna know the kicker? Me taking out loans under your name to buy shit I don’t really need - dude - that totally stimulates the economy, no joke, no sarcasm. It really does. Again, at a cost tho

37

It could work tho if the guy borrowing your money :

is smarter than you, more knowledgeable, has a good idea, a solid plan that will pay, etc. something like this

AND

you can trust him / her

Stimulus is basically the gov’t declaring these to both be true, and then robbing everyone with a promise that it’s for our own good

Investing is basically yourself declaring these to both be true, and then putting your money where your mouth is, with the intention that it’s for your own good

I prefer that not only I have more money for investing - I prefer that others do as well. I can trust them to try and do something positive - after all - it is there own money and their own ass on the line. They cannot pull a profit unless someone else thinks they did something positive - someone else pays them because they believe it to be the best use of their money in exchange for _____ (whatever they are buying)

38

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

I mean the concept of voting is itself completely undemocratic

There is not any democratic components to the American system of gov’t at all whatsoever[/quote]

Not sure where you are going with this, I never said any such thing. However, electing representivies through democratic means does not a democracy make. Nor does, individually and under the power of their own constituions, states using democratic means to pass or deny laws a democracy in America make.

[quote]Completely not a democratic republic - I was just being silly

[/quote]

Correct.

39

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why should the private sector ‘rise to the occasion’ when it would then only be asked to shoulder an even greater portion of the load? There’s a point at which the producers will stop making efforts to expand, expanding within this country, etc.[/quote]

The “producers” have no reason to expand when there is no demand.

40

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]Henry Hazlett also said the only way a workers wage ought to rise is if productivity rises. Well that has happened and the wage rate has stagnated. What do you think Henry would say about that? [/quote]I’m really not sure man, I don’t know much about him actually.

I just really love that quote - do you have an idea on what he might say?

[quote]Saying that the stimulus wasn’t spent the right way is not proof that it doesn’t work. [/quote]I began this whole thing with you from an angle which did allow that “stimuli” can in particular times ‘work’. There are costs of course, but I’m not the type to ignore benefits

“A stimulus” might be able to work, but the problem with the one we had was not that it was too small.

Im not sure that it could even work in this society tho. I don’t trust it and I don’t think its reasonable for anyone to do so. I have explained several times why

[quote]
I’m originally from Pa. and we are consistently known for having some of the worst roads. And yes a lot of these roads are toll roads. I know cause I have travelled them frequently.[/quote]I believe you. Like I said if a busted car were mine I might repair it.

only if I consider that it’s worth it. If I had infinite money, or access to other peoples money I might be more willing tho (see how that works?)

[quote]I understand your caution about pork barrel bullshit as there is always some level of corruption when money is involved. However, what do you have to say about private sector corruption like the finance sector? [/quote]There are straight up crooks in public or private these days. The public ones rob us all, the private ones do what they can. But they are intermingled anyways, so the question seems a bit off to me

People trust false financial institutions more when they trust the false governmental system(s) it operates within. FIDC, SEC, blah blah blah without these people have more healthy paranoia. The governmental protections have them as lambs to the slaughter (my opinion)

I disagree with the concept of there always being some level of corruption when money is involved.

[quote]There has to be a cap on the level of stimulus but it has the ability to bring us out of the recession, austerity only has the ability to sink us deeper. Look at what is going on in Europe compared to Ecuador. Perfect real world current example. [/quote]Austerity sucks in the short term. I think I’ve said this in every post yet. That doesn’t disprove it’s concept. I agree with you that austerity is most dangerous, because I’m probably even more paranoid than you and I believe it is designed to get us stuck with a crap economy, mega high taxes, with genuinely zero hope of ever rising. That’s why I’m asking you to show it some respect and address it a bit more honestly. Or don’t address it at all. Comparing Europe vs. Ecuador is bullshit, weak attacks like that only add fuel to the fire

[quote]Saying that the stimulus wasn’t spent the right way is not proof that it doesn’t work.[/quote]Correct. By logic it does not do this.

On the topic of stimulus having the ability to pull us out of this, if you could get pinpoint accuracy (in putting dollars where they really need to go), take profits AND THEN PAY OFF THE DEBT it would probably work. But you’re not gonna get pinpoint accuracy with these thieves, give them ammo and they are liable to turn it on you. I say let the little people keep the ammo for themselves and let them fire away. With their own money they will try harder for one thing, plus they are closer to the targets anyways[/quote]
Hazlett actually thought that unions were legitimate. What would he say? Well if he was being consistent with his philosophy he would probably come to agree with those who are pissed that there wages are stagnating. His economic philosophy has more in common with the 99%.

Stimulus in infrastructure would create jobs, give more money to those who need it and would spend it which creates demand which creates more jobs. This also creates a wider tax base thus more taxes to pay down the debt. And helps this country’s ailing infrastructure problems.

I disagree with you when you claim that comparing Ecuador and Europe is bullshit. Here you have a live comparison of 2 macro-economic models going head to head with the results right before your eyes. Ecuador has been lifted out of a recession in 3 months while Europe is heading back into one.

When people talk about the collapse in the finance sector you are talking about corruption that has put us into a recession. It has brought the entire country down. The largest scale of corruption is always in the private sector. Enron, WorldCom and Goldman Sachs to name a few.