[quote]Paste42 wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Paste42 wrote:
Im very new to the investing thing and this was advice from a friend.
If you are new to investing, do not take advice from “friends”.
So then head to a place like ‘Scottrade’?[/quote]
No. Read. This is where I started reading in 1993:
Read the WSJ, Financial Times, and, lately, blogs.
And blogs about blogs:
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You make the assupmtion that the money will do nothing. A curious assumption to make, when the broad consensus is that these measures (perhaps not these precise measures, but that’s debatable) are needed. I am curious as to what your suggested course of action is, if not to spend money on something.
There is no broad consensus that this spending will do more short term good than long term damage. You just need to think a little bit.[/quote]
Not among congressional republicans, but they’re about the only ones who disagree.
To be honest, about the only one I’ve read completely through is Thomas Sowell’s Applied Economics. I’m a science major, so unfortunately I don’t have time to read a lot of non-major-related things, but I have read smatterings to significant portions of many books. I’m certainly not claiming to be an expert, but I’m doing about the best I can.
Irrelevant. The purpose of the stimulus package, as you should know, is to get people working. What you spend the money on is a secondary concern. And actually, seeing as a fairly significant portion of it was aid to states and individuals, yes, they are spending it on what they would ordinarily buy.
You’re right, they failed. The problem is, if they lose, we lose. They lost a bet with the American public’s money. They deserve to fail, but we don’t.
Legitimate criticism, however it is not at all relevant to my earlier comment. Also, one of the problems with these things is that they are hard to value, so it’s difficult to know what they’re worth.
I didn’t say anything about a “normal” credit flow, as in some number we’re shooting for. However, it does need to be available. What is your point here? Credit is bad? Living on cheap credit for a long time is certainly bad, but I don’t think I endorsed that anywhere.
[quote]Now I would like to address a contradiction. First you say that we need to consumer spending to return to some magical number that will right the economy. You then say we need credit to flow from banks like the Red River this week.
In order for banks to lend they need people to make deposits, ie save. Do you not see how these two contend for the same resourses? What about the stock market. Stock price don’t rise unless people buy stocks. How can they do this if they are spending all thier money on either saving to allow banks to borrow, or spending to make retailers happy?[/quote]
Wrong, I never said anything about a “magical” number. I said demand needs to be sustained. Which is true. Neither did I say we need the abundance of credit that we’ve had for the past decade or so. So you’re just making stuff up.
Now to address the “contradiction.” People do need to make deposits, so that banks can lend, among other things. Government needs to spend, so that people don’t have to.
In order for the stock market to recover, investors must regain confidence in it. The stabilization of the financial sector would go a long way towards that.
[/quote]
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
pat wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Bush threw away trillions of dollars that got us nothing. At least the money Obama is spending is for some purpose.
I still think it’s funny that people like pat and hedo think they know better than people like Stiglitz what’s best for the economy. Especially when their criticism boils down to, “Well, I mean, that’s a LOT of money!” As well as the association of “socialism” with “spending lots of money.” The laughs never cease.
You avatar reminds me of this…They are strikingly similar as the clinched fist was also a popular symbol of the Communist party in the U.S.S.R…Somehow, I am not suprised
That bow and arrow would never shoot correctly.[/quote]
It’s a crescent, not a bow.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Bush threw away trillions of dollars that got us nothing. At least the money Obama is spending is for some purpose.
I still think it’s funny that people like pat and hedo think they know better than people like Stiglitz what’s best for the economy. Especially when their criticism boils down to, “Well, I mean, that’s a LOT of money!” As well as the association of “socialism” with “spending lots of money.” The laughs never cease.[/quote]
It’s simple common sense since I actually work and participate in the economy. Not only that support for the massive spending bill is not universal. In fact most businessmen oppose it. So yes I guess I do know more about how the economy works since I have principles. Your attempt to paraphrase what I think is comical at best and highlights how naive you are. Keep laughing though, it’s a good outlet.
If it was a true stimulus bill I might give it some support but it is a spending bill on a massive scale wrapped in double speak. Of course it is beloved by Democrats.
By the way Bush didn’t throw away trillions. Obama in 60 days quadrupled the deficit and will bankrupt the country in 4 years. By comparison Bush was a tightwad who left a far smaller deficit, which I also opposed. Get your facts straight. Your out of your depth here.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Bush threw away trillions of dollars that got us nothing. At least the money Obama is spending is for some purpose.
I still think it’s funny that people like pat and hedo think they know better than people like Stiglitz what’s best for the economy. Especially when their criticism boils down to, “Well, I mean, that’s a LOT of money!” As well as the association of “socialism” with “spending lots of money.” The laughs never cease.[/quote]
There was a purpose that many thought was necessary, it was just a purpose you didn’t agree with.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You make the assupmtion that the money will do nothing.
[/quote]
No. I am making the assumption about what happens with ALL government theft and spending. It redirects resources away from where they might might have been used had actual consumers decided how to spend their own money.
You will never know if what the gov’t decides to spend money on is a good investment or not because they do not care about profit or loss.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pat wrote:I suppose you one those who think you can negotiate with the taliban too?
What exactly is the 6.3 trillion dollars getting us other than a greatly expanded government and a utterly crippling debt? It Bush years to spend that much money. Obama the clown, has it done in less than six months, if his excessively stupid and over bloated “budget” passes as is. Which I doubt because he is even managing to scare off democrats from it with it’s size.
You’ve made not point other than looking utterly uninformed.
Maybe you can explain to me how the fuck giving ACORN 4.2 Billion dollars and changing light bulbs stimulate the economy? We are dying to know.
We did back in the 70s, when we were giving the Taliban money and weapons. The enemy of our enemy is our friend, you know, but I digress…
[/quote]
We assisted the muhajadeen, who weren’t our enemy back then and the U.S.S.R was a scary opponent. Had it been know they would turn on us and assist in acts of terror against us, we would have likely fed them to the Russians and put our own boots on the ground. Hind sight is 20/20 as they say.
The spending policies of this administration are simply this administration taking advantage of a bad situation to grow the government by growing the power and influence of government run social programs. Giving money to ACORN and “green” energy does nothing to stimulate the economy. Creating shovel ready projects creates temporary work, not jobs. Those poor bastards, (those who are legal U.S. residents) will be back on the street when the project is finished. Creating temporary jobs does not “put America back to work”. Third, creating a “stimulus” with so much pork in it creates another inevitable problem, which is oversight. The oversight of the money it self will cost millions. It would have done more to stimulate the economy just to cut every tax paying American a check from the stimulus.
Historically, throwing a shit load of money in to social programs and manual labor projects (that are simply not needed) not only has never, ever, EVER worked, it reeks of the behavior of the Soviet Union, which we “Liberty or Death” types find flat scary. It did not work for FDR in the '30’s (as a mater of fact it deepened and sustained the recession) and will not work now. All it does is make the government fucking huge. As AIG is a good example of, when things become to big for their own good they become unsustainable.
This administration, in 60 days has spent 2.3 Trillion dollars! And his proposed budget would sky rocket this to 5.3 trillion plus. That is just astounding and he is starting to scare the shit out of the global economy and even congressional democrats. That’s how ridiculous it is, people of his own party are starting to turn on him.
Bush was an irresponsible spender, but obama is like “Brewster’s Millions”
[quote]hedo wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Bush threw away trillions of dollars that got us nothing. At least the money Obama is spending is for some purpose.
I still think it’s funny that people like pat and hedo think they know better than people like Stiglitz what’s best for the economy. Especially when their criticism boils down to, “Well, I mean, that’s a LOT of money!” As well as the association of “socialism” with “spending lots of money.” The laughs never cease.
It’s simple common sense since I actually work and participate in the economy. Not only that support for the massive spending bill is not universal. In fact most businessmen oppose it. So yes I guess I do know more about how the economy works since I have principles. Your attempt to paraphrase what I think is comical at best and highlights how naive you are. Keep laughing though, it’s a good outlet.
If it was a true stimulus bill I might give it some support but it is a spending bill on a massive scale wrapped in double speak. Of course it is beloved by Democrats.
By the way Bush didn’t throw away trillions. Obama in 60 days quadrupled the deficit and will bankrupt the country in 4 years. By comparison Bush was a tightwad who left a far smaller deficit, which I also opposed. Get your facts straight. Your out of your depth here.
[/quote]
Blah blah blah, rationalizing, Bush-apologetics. Same old.
We knew they were a brutal group of thugs. Underestimating their strength was the least of our mistakes.
[quote]The spending policies of this administration are simply this administration taking advantage of a bad situation to grow the government by growing the power and influence of government run social programs. Giving money to ACORN and “green” energy does nothing to stimulate the economy. Creating shovel ready projects creates temporary work, not jobs. Those poor bastards, (those who are legal U.S. residents) will be back on the street when the project is finished. Creating temporary jobs does not “put America back to work”. Third, creating a “stimulus” with so much pork in it creates another inevitable problem, which is oversight. The oversight of the money it self will cost millions. It would have done more to stimulate the economy just to cut every tax paying American a check from the stimulus.
Historically, throwing a shit load of money in to social programs and manual labor projects (that are simply not needed) not only has never, ever, EVER worked, it reeks of the behavior of the Soviet Union, which we “Liberty or Death” types find flat scary. It did not work for FDR in the '30’s (as a mater of fact it deepened and sustained the recession) and will not work now. All it does is make the government fucking huge. As AIG is a good example of, when things become to big for their own good they become unsustainable.[/quote]
You have got to be kidding me. These are fucking Rush Limbaugh talking points. If you hand out “stimulus” checks to individuals, they go in the bank, when they need to be spent. Did you really say “creating jobs doesn’t put America back to work”? So a job isn’t work? Saying “It’s only temporary” is a total misunderstanding of the situation. Lots of people get temporary positions in the summer and over the winter holidays. Is their productivity somehow lost because they only intend to keep the job for a few months?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You make the assupmtion that the money will do nothing.
No. I am making the assumption about what happens with ALL government theft and spending. It redirects resources away from where they might might have been used had actual consumers decided how to spend their own money.
You will never know if what the gov’t decides to spend money on is a good investment or not because they do not care about profit or loss.[/quote]
People AREN’T spending. That’s the problem. And actually, you CAN tell if the money is being spent to a good purpose. The multiplier effect has been studied and roughtly quanitified for many things. The government has chosen to spend the money on those things with high values.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
People AREN’T spending. That’s the problem. [/quote]
WRONG. JUST! PLAIN! WRONG! This is the fix. Individuals know better than some stupid fucking bureaucrat when it is ok to spend their money and when it isn’t. We need savings not more debt.
This is your incorrect thought process: “hmmm…I am $100K in debt you know what would help me? more fucking debt.”
You don’t know what you are talking about. Value is determined subjectively by individuals – the government doesn’t know what individuals value. And for that matter only entrepreneurs do because they rely on profits and losses.
I suggest you read this BASIC intro to economics before you try to argue with people more knowledgeable than yourself.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pat wrote:We assisted the muhajadeen, who weren’t our enemy back then and the U.S.S.R was a scary opponent. Had it been know they would turn on us and assist in acts of terror against us, we would have likely fed them to the Russians and put our own boots on the ground. Hind sight is 20/20 as they say.
We knew they were a brutal group of thugs. Underestimating their strength was the least of our mistakes.
The spending policies of this administration are simply this administration taking advantage of a bad situation to grow the government by growing the power and influence of government run social programs. Giving money to ACORN and “green” energy does nothing to stimulate the economy. Creating shovel ready projects creates temporary work, not jobs. Those poor bastards, (those who are legal U.S. residents) will be back on the street when the project is finished. Creating temporary jobs does not “put America back to work”. Third, creating a “stimulus” with so much pork in it creates another inevitable problem, which is oversight. The oversight of the money it self will cost millions. It would have done more to stimulate the economy just to cut every tax paying American a check from the stimulus.
Historically, throwing a shit load of money in to social programs and manual labor projects (that are simply not needed) not only has never, ever, EVER worked, it reeks of the behavior of the Soviet Union, which we “Liberty or Death” types find flat scary. It did not work for FDR in the '30’s (as a mater of fact it deepened and sustained the recession) and will not work now. All it does is make the government fucking huge. As AIG is a good example of, when things become to big for their own good they become unsustainable.
You have got to be kidding me. These are fucking Rush Limbaugh talking points. If you hand out “stimulus” checks to individuals, they go in the bank, when they need to be spent. Did you really say “creating jobs doesn’t put America back to work”? So a job isn’t work? Saying “It’s only temporary” is a total misunderstanding of the situation. Lots of people get temporary positions in the summer and over the winter holidays. Is their productivity somehow lost because they only intend to keep the job for a few months?
[/quote]
Some people would put their checks in the bank, most would spend, but I agree with you spending 3/4 of a billion for a stimulus is pure, sheer stupidity. Bubble up economics’ inherent flaw is that it reward money for nothing. It kills productivity and ingenuity and creates dependency as is better off not done. It’s gives a fish rather than teaching to fish.
I am surprised you listen to Rush Limbaugh…I am surprised my points matched his.
Can you honestly say that college students and house wives working over the holidays make enough contribution to create a recovery? I think not!
Creating temporary work creates a temporary bubble, that’s all it does. Which, if you allow a little thing like logic to dictate, will lead to yet another drop…The only thing that has been proposed that will sustain is the crippling debt. We are dangerously close to not even being able to create enough capital to cover the interest. If that happens, we are bankrupt. The little positiveness that the stimulus will cause will be temporary, then what? Another stimulus?
[quote]pat wrote: We are dangerously close to not even being able to create enough capital to cover the interest. If that happens, we are bankrupt. The little positiveness that the stimulus will cause will be temporary, then what? Another stimulus?
[/quote]
And in all actuality capital consumption without productivity is what will really mess people up. This will cause massive price increases as entrepreneurs go to spend inflated currency on capital goods that do not exist.
Imagine a small island with a population of 100 people and 20 pigs. Pig prices are thru the roof, people are going hungry, and the King decides there is a problem so he calls up Ben Bernanke for some advice.
Ben tells him the solution to his problem is simple: just consume more and to help everyone along print up some new money and the rest will work itself out. So the King decides to print up 100 new Simoleons (the local currency named after the King) for every citizen on the island. Every family of 4 then rushes out to buy some pigs with their newly found wealth but the problem remains...there are still only 20 pigs for 100 people. As the bidding begins prices rise ever more until they become so expensive that even the King himself cannot afford one.
Luckily, one of the King's staff is an intelligent person and tells the King he ought to open up his own coffers to the public and give back the pigs that he initially taxed. As a result 50 new pigs find their way to the market and prices come down to pre-inflation prices.
The king decides this can never happen again so he makes a decree that he will no longer take pigs from the farmers as payment for taxes but rather will now allow his own lands to be used for pig farming, too.
The island lives happily ever after forgetting the name Ben Bernanke.[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Paste42 wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Paste42 wrote:
Im very new to the investing thing and this was advice from a friend.
If you are new to investing, do not take advice from “friends”.
So then head to a place like ‘Scottrade’?
No. Read. This is where I started reading in 1993:
Read the WSJ, Financial Times, and, lately, blogs.
And blogs about blogs:
[/quote]
Paste42, you want something to read? Read this article in Rolling Stone about the current financial crisis and the bailout, and then think whether you have confidence in your “friend’s” advice.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover
[quote]Paste42 wrote:
I heard that stocks are supposedly going to be going up for the next 4-8 weeks consistently. I was thinking of just throwing in $1000 into S&P 500 index. Any thoughts?[/quote]
Do it!! Your sources must be right!
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You make the assupmtion that the money will do nothing.
No. I am making the assumption about what happens with ALL government theft and spending. It redirects resources away from where they might might have been used had actual consumers decided how to spend their own money.
You will never know if what the gov’t decides to spend money on is a good investment or not because they do not care about profit or loss.
People AREN’T spending. That’s the problem. And actually, you CAN tell if the money is being spent to a good purpose. The multiplier effect has been studied and roughtly quanitified for many things. The government has chosen to spend the money on those things with high values.
[/quote]
There is no way you read that Thomas Sowell book. If you did, you need to re-read it.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Paste42 wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Paste42 wrote:
Im very new to the investing thing and this was advice from a friend.
If you are new to investing, do not take advice from “friends”.
So then head to a place like ‘Scottrade’?
No. Read. This is where I started reading in 1993:
Read the WSJ, Financial Times, and, lately, blogs.
And blogs about blogs:
Paste42, you want something to read? Read this article in Rolling Stone about the current financial crisis and the bailout, and then think whether you have confidence in your “friend’s” advice.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover[/quote]
Lol. holy crap. I’ve never thought about it like that.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
hedo wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Bush threw away trillions of dollars that got us nothing. At least the money Obama is spending is for some purpose.
I still think it’s funny that people like pat and hedo think they know better than people like Stiglitz what’s best for the economy. Especially when their criticism boils down to, “Well, I mean, that’s a LOT of money!” As well as the association of “socialism” with “spending lots of money.” The laughs never cease.
It’s simple common sense since I actually work and participate in the economy. Not only that support for the massive spending bill is not universal. In fact most businessmen oppose it. So yes I guess I do know more about how the economy works since I have principles. Your attempt to paraphrase what I think is comical at best and highlights how naive you are. Keep laughing though, it’s a good outlet.
If it was a true stimulus bill I might give it some support but it is a spending bill on a massive scale wrapped in double speak. Of course it is beloved by Democrats.
By the way Bush didn’t throw away trillions. Obama in 60 days quadrupled the deficit and will bankrupt the country in 4 years. By comparison Bush was a tightwad who left a far smaller deficit, which I also opposed. Get your facts straight. Your out of your depth here.
Blah blah blah, rationalizing, Bush-apologetics. Same old.
[/quote]
Same old facts. They haven’t changed.
Try adding something intelligent.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pat wrote:We assisted the muhajadeen, who weren’t our enemy back then and the U.S.S.R was a scary opponent. Had it been know they would turn on us and assist in acts of terror against us, we would have likely fed them to the Russians and put our own boots on the ground. Hind sight is 20/20 as they say.
We knew they were a brutal group of thugs. Underestimating their strength was the least of our mistakes.
The spending policies of this administration are simply this administration taking advantage of a bad situation to grow the government by growing the power and influence of government run social programs. Giving money to ACORN and “green” energy does nothing to stimulate the economy. Creating shovel ready projects creates temporary work, not jobs. Those poor bastards, (those who are legal U.S. residents) will be back on the street when the project is finished. Creating temporary jobs does not “put America back to work”. Third, creating a “stimulus” with so much pork in it creates another inevitable problem, which is oversight. The oversight of the money it self will cost millions. It would have done more to stimulate the economy just to cut every tax paying American a check from the stimulus.
Historically, throwing a shit load of money in to social programs and manual labor projects (that are simply not needed) not only has never, ever, EVER worked, it reeks of the behavior of the Soviet Union, which we “Liberty or Death” types find flat scary. It did not work for FDR in the '30’s (as a mater of fact it deepened and sustained the recession) and will not work now. All it does is make the government fucking huge. As AIG is a good example of, when things become to big for their own good they become unsustainable.
You have got to be kidding me. These are fucking Rush Limbaugh talking points. If you hand out “stimulus” checks to individuals, they go in the bank, when they need to be spent. Did you really say “creating jobs doesn’t put America back to work”? So a job isn’t work? Saying “It’s only temporary” is a total misunderstanding of the situation. Lots of people get temporary positions in the summer and over the winter holidays. Is their productivity somehow lost because they only intend to keep the job for a few months?
[/quote]
Kids in college get jobs over the summer and winter holidays. Adults have careers that they work at full time. You’ll see one day.
Jobs are created by the private sector not government.
Take an econ course next semester. Maybe they’ll explain it to you.