Tracking the Stimulus

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Well, you gotta ask yourself Orion, why is it that every country in the industrialized world thinks differently than you do.
[/quote]
Because people in government have learned they can steal our money from us by tryin to convince us that it is only in our best interest that they do so.

You should instead ask your self why people in government want that much control over our lives. The answer seems obvious to me.

Besides “countries” do not “think”. Individuals think. Stop the collectivist thinking.

22

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I work with Government agencies who are tapping into these funds. They are pure Government self serving stimulus and nothing else. They are projects for city government and infrastructure. While it may help boost some spending in building materials purchases and contractors, it’s TEMPORARY work for these folks.

Build a museum glorifying the Mob Bosses in Vegas. Yes it’s true. A technology official in the City of Vegas told me about this as they are involved in providing the video and audio and network…

Save some wildlife with stimulus money

Repave some roads

Build that pipeline or Dam.

Provide funding for SOCIAL SERVICES.

This does nothing to bosst an economy. It bumps it up a hill, only to fall back where it was.

I see little to no investment into private companies to fund R&D in technology or anything else unless it has to do with abortion or social service tools. Shovel ready pertains to construction on governmnert facilites and social services ONLY.

This is a Government Stimulus. It’s exactly what it says…

A Government Stimulus …in other words by the government …for the Government

Yes, Government is stimulating itself plain and simple…expanding…

2010 is all I can say. It’s all we can really do. And continue to remind your rep…not in e-mail or call… but a certified fucking letter. Then vote em out.[/quote]

Vote them out…

23

[quote]pat wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
I work with Government agencies who are tapping into these funds. They are pure Government self serving stimulus and nothing else. They are projects for city government and infrastructure. While it may help boost some spending in building materials purchases and contractors, it’s TEMPORARY work for these folks.

Build a museum glorifying the Mob Bosses in Vegas. Yes it’s true. A technology official in the City of Vegas told me about this as they are involved in providing the video and audio and network…

Save some wildlife with stimulus money

Repave some roads

Build that pipeline or Dam.

Provide funding for SOCIAL SERVICES.

This does nothing to bosst an economy. It bumps it up a hill, only to fall back where it was.

I see little to no investment into private companies to fund R&D in technology or anything else unless it has to do with abortion or social service tools. Shovel ready pertains to construction on governmnert facilites and social services ONLY.

This is a Government Stimulus. It’s exactly what it says…

A Government Stimulus …in other words by the government …for the Government

Yes, Government is stimulating itself plain and simple…expanding…

2010 is all I can say. It’s all we can really do. And continue to remind your rep…not in e-mail or call… but a certified fucking letter. Then vote em out.

Vote them out…[/quote]

how does that work if they are replaced by the same ideology?

24

Alright TB, I tried getting through that monster post of yours. I should give you some credit, after all, you are trying. This is a complected issue and you are making an effort.

Some quick points:
Infrustructure spending: You believe that these have no place in a stimulus package. That’s fine, ideologically speaking, however you should take note that many if not most economists disagree with you. You can dis-agree with them, as Orion does, but to claim they don’t exist is a bit silly. for example, the IMF: “[quote]Infrastructure spending is expected to have the largest impact on growth, although it also has the longest implementation lags[/quote]” http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/POL020709A.htm
I agree with you if you are arguing you wanted more short-term immediate spending. But I disagree in ONLY short term spending. I believe that infrastructure spending should have been a part as well as tax cuts (as they were). This is fairly mainstream thinking, most argue about percentages, you seem to be denying this debate existed, is that true?

You don’t believe there has been any GDP movement. This belief is strange given friday’s numbers (linked to above). It is also strange because most economists say there has been improvement in the economy. Again, you’re standing outside the mainstream, nothing wrong with that, but you should make a stronger argument than “I say so” and probably list some sources. Remember, you’re not arguing “against gambit” here, you’re arguing against the economist, IMF, OECD, McCain, and Obama. Obama and McCain give the stimulus some credit, why don’t you?

Unemployment numbers. Unemployment is higher than ANYONE predicted given the third quarter numbers from last year. You seem to be giving all the blame to one side, that’s fine, they were moving into power. Will you admit the 4th quarter numbers from last year were surprising? If you do admit this, then will you admit that figures and expectations should change given those surprising numbers? Finally, you should take note that unemployment is a lagging indicator. In short, regardless of what previous reports said, we should expect unemployment to continue to increase for the third, and perhaps fourth quarter. I sincerely doubt any changes to the stimulus would have changed this, save, perhaps, if the stimulus would have been much larger.

Also, I just want to point out here, most of the “stimulating” aspects from tax cuts seem to have not materialized. Instead, people saved more. The savings rate went from near zero percent to close to 7 percent currently. I’d expect this rate to continue to increase (to perhaps 10% maybe). You might remember “which side” only wanted tax cuts.

25

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
gambit_lost wrote:
orion wrote:

To claim that the stimulus was a failure right after it came out was in no way premature, “biases” or “sophomoric”. You could say that about every stimulus package even before it comes out.

The argument is pretty simple:

If what the government was doing would be creating the optimal amount of utility the market would already be doing it.

Since it does not, the government automatically destroys utility because it takes money away from people and directs it to less than optimal investments.

So, even before we have factored in pork spending, nepotism and general incompetence, the sheer act of diverting money from more useful ventures destroys future value.

Unfortunately government apologists can point at the projects finished with looted money, like the Hoover Dam, whereas free marketeers cannot you show the wealth that never name to be instead of it.

At least your argument is ideologically consistent. If you’ll notice, that’s not at all what TB was arguing.

I hope that my argument is not only ideological but logically consistent.

Because if that was the case and if you accept the premise that governments cannot create net value, which you must if you accept Pareto ordinal utility concept, which most economist do, then it would automatically follow that my conclusions are correct.

Well, you gotta ask yourself Orion, why is it that every country in the industrialized world thinks differently than you do. I’m sure there are individuals within each country that agree, but I believe every single OECD country used a stimulus this time around (was there one that didn’t? I don’t feel like looking it up right now).

So you find yourself on the outside of the mainstream, nothing wrong with that per se. But you also want to abolish central banks, right? Does that mean you don’t see a smoothing of the boom-bust cycle over the last few decades, do you believe that that was “natural,” or, perhaps, do you believe this smoothing was not the right thing to do for the economy?

Then, of course, you have to look at the mixed results from previous stimulus packages. Cuz it sure seemed like some of them had some effect. You are arguing, if I’m not misunderstanding you, that all of the evidence that these had some effect is inconclusive or wrong, and that in fact, just letting things ride would be better, right?

So, in short, I think your argument is mostly ideological. And, in truth, there’s little wrong with your theory from what I can see, it’s just that once you make it to policy the real world realities step in and we find ourselves “muddling through” (to borrow a phrase). In this “muddled” world, we don’t live in an ideal and must make do with what is available for us. There’s nothing wrong with Utopians, and theorists like yourself provide a hell of a lot for society, so I appreciate the insights, but don’t always buy the ideology.

[/quote]

Well to answer your question it has a lot to do with democratic systems. Politicians must be seen as doing something in a crisis even if it actually hurts the economy.

This is not about what is true but about political expectations.

Now, why do economists recommend such courses of actions?

Do you know who employs almost all economists?

Central banks, government run or subsidized universities and other big banks.

Do you have any problem imagining why they recommend stimulus packages?

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2009/db20090127_702149_page_2.htm

Maybe this article will interest you.

26

More information:

Stocks in July: Bloomberg: U.S. Stock Market Recovers - Bloomberg - YouTube

The economist: [i]
MORE evidence of the state of health of America’s economy will become available on Friday August 7th, when monthly unemployment figures are published. The housing market has started to show some encouraging signs of life and rallies of various stockmarkets around the world have given optimists cause to cheer. President Barack Obama has suggested that the recession in America is nearing an end. However unemployment typically continues to rise for a period even after a recession has ended. A rapid increase in unemployment would not only be bad news for the jobless but could indicate a greater risk of a weak recovery or a double-dip recession. The week ahead | The Economist

27

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
gambit_lost wrote:
orion wrote:

To claim that the stimulus was a failure right after it came out was in no way premature, “biases” or “sophomoric”. You could say that about every stimulus package even before it comes out.

The argument is pretty simple:

If what the government was doing would be creating the optimal amount of utility the market would already be doing it.

Since it does not, the government automatically destroys utility because it takes money away from people and directs it to less than optimal investments.

So, even before we have factored in pork spending, nepotism and general incompetence, the sheer act of diverting money from more useful ventures destroys future value.

Unfortunately government apologists can point at the projects finished with looted money, like the Hoover Dam, whereas free marketeers cannot you show the wealth that never name to be instead of it.

At least your argument is ideologically consistent. If you’ll notice, that’s not at all what TB was arguing.

I hope that my argument is not only ideological but logically consistent.

Because if that was the case and if you accept the premise that governments cannot create net value, which you must if you accept Pareto ordinal utility concept, which most economist do, then it would automatically follow that my conclusions are correct.

Well, you gotta ask yourself Orion, why is it that every country in the industrialized world thinks differently than you do. I’m sure there are individuals within each country that agree, but I believe every single OECD country used a stimulus this time around (was there one that didn’t? I don’t feel like looking it up right now).

So you find yourself on the outside of the mainstream, nothing wrong with that per se. But you also want to abolish central banks, right? Does that mean you don’t see a smoothing of the boom-bust cycle over the last few decades, do you believe that that was “natural,” or, perhaps, do you believe this smoothing was not the right thing to do for the economy?

Then, of course, you have to look at the mixed results from previous stimulus packages. Cuz it sure seemed like some of them had some effect. You are arguing, if I’m not misunderstanding you, that all of the evidence that these had some effect is inconclusive or wrong, and that in fact, just letting things ride would be better, right?

So, in short, I think your argument is mostly ideological. And, in truth, there’s little wrong with your theory from what I can see, it’s just that once you make it to policy the real world realities step in and we find ourselves “muddling through” (to borrow a phrase). In this “muddled” world, we don’t live in an ideal and must make do with what is available for us. There’s nothing wrong with Utopians, and theorists like yourself provide a hell of a lot for society, so I appreciate the insights, but don’t always buy the ideology.

Well to answer your question it has a lot to do with democratic systems. Politicians must be seen as doing something in a crisis even if it actually hurts the economy.

This is not about what is true but about political expectations.

Now, why do economists recommend such courses of actions?

Do you know who employs almost all economists?

Central banks, government run or subsidized universities and other big banks.

Do you have any problem imagining why they recommend stimulus packages?

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2009/db20090127_702149_page_2.htm

Maybe this article will interest you. [/quote]

Yeah, I’m familiar with the debate. Some points (that I tried to bring up with my questions): 1) Monetary stimulus seems to be agreed upon. But many libertarians want to abolish central banks. What are your thoughts?

…sorry, somethings come up, I’ll try to get back to this in a bit…

28

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
But many libertarians want to abolish central banks.[/quote]

First let us just abolish the monopoly on money creation by legalizing competition with the Fed. The Fed can still create all the money it wants but now we get to decide if we want to use their artificial money or not.

This is at least a free market solution to the Fed. If the Fed goes away because it cannot compete what is the problem?

This would mean that there is no real demand (outside of the politically connected class) for central banking.

29

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
More information:

Stocks in July: Bloomberg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnhKElkWm7c&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnews%3Fq%3DJuly%2BStocks%26oe%3Dutf-8%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26um%3D1%26ie%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den%26ei%3DMOx2Sv&feature=player_embedded

The economist: [i]
MORE evidence of the state of health of America’s economy will become available on Friday August 7th, when monthly unemployment figures are published. The housing market has started to show some encouraging signs of life and rallies of various stockmarkets around the world have given optimists cause to cheer. President Barack Obama has suggested that the recession in America is nearing an end. However unemployment typically continues to rise for a period even after a recession has ended. A rapid increase in unemployment would not only be bad news for the jobless but could indicate a greater risk of a weak recovery or a double-dip recession. The week ahead

[/quote]

A guess a lot of people really are just hapless, uncritical regurgitators of the conventional wisdom spewed out by the “experts” at CNBC, the Economist - the same people who were telling us everything was fine in 2006.

What we’ve basically had is a few bear market rallies, nothing more:
http://market-ticker.org/archives/866-So-Whats-This-Market-About.html

The fact is that revenues are down by about 30% across the board, and stock prices are based on profits:
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1242-Another-30%25-Club-Member-CAT-Also-KO-UTX.html

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1241-More-30%25-Trouble.html
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1216-Intel-Too-Much,-Too-Far,-Too-Fast.html
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1227-The-Thesis-Continues-To-Validate-GE.html
20-30% drop in consumer spending:
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1197-Retail-Sales-And-Unemployment.html

Yep, that bull market is just around the corner.

Again, I kind of have to snicker at the Economist. They’re now trying to pump us up with economic forecasting from attorney-by-trade Barack Obama. What business has he ever run, again? The Economist’s hedge was probably wise on their part, though:

30

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
But many libertarians want to abolish central banks.

First let us just abolish the monopoly on money creation by legalizing competition with the Fed. The Fed can still create all the money it wants but now we get to decide if we want to use their artificial money or not.[/quote]

Um, anyone in the US who wants to can already accept Euros, gold, stock certificates, or potato chips – whatever they desire – for payment.

There are also many localities in the US where a local paper currency exists and is accepted by very many merchants. Yes, the currency is generally or perhaps always bought in the first place with dollars, and is redeemable by merchants for dollars, but there would be nothing illegal about providing people with the currency for other reasons or for the local entity to have no obligation to redeem with dollars. If people wanted to accept that, they already can.

There’s also Itex dollars, or whatever they’re called.

You are mistaken to think that competing forms of money are banned. Or if you don’t think that, then that would be inconsistent with your monopoly claim. (Unless you use the word “monopoly” as many leftists do, meaning anything that achieves “too much” of a market share. But I suspect you don’t.)

It is correct that income received in other forms of money must be assigned US dollar value for tax purposes, but that differs from the dollar having a monopoly.

31

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
But many libertarians want to abolish central banks.

First let us just abolish the monopoly on money creation by legalizing competition with the Fed. The Fed can still create all the money it wants but now we get to decide if we want to use their artificial money or not.

Um, anyone in the US who wants to can already accept Euros, gold, stock certificates, or potato chips – whatever they desire – for payment.

There are also many localities in the US where a local paper currency exists and is accepted by very many merchants. Yes, the currency is generally or perhaps always bought in the first place with dollars, and is redeemable by merchants for dollars, but there would be nothing illegal about providing people with the currency for other reasons or for the local entity to have no obligation to redeem with dollars. If people wanted to accept that, they already can.

There’s also Itex dollars, or whatever they’re called.

You are mistaken to think that competing forms of money are banned. Or if you don’t think that, then that would be inconsistent with your monopoly claim. (Unless you use the word “monopoly” as many leftists do, meaning anything that achieves “too much” of a market share. But I suspect you don’t.)

It is correct that income received in other forms of money must be assigned US dollar value for tax purposes, but that differs from the dollar having a monopoly.[/quote]

The dollar has a monopoly in this country. I cannot legally use Euros to pay for anything in this country. I cannot create my own money backed by a potato chip commodity.

The whole reason competition is outlawed is precisely so the US government can steal from us easier. It is much harder to extract taxes in the form of potato chips, for example.

You also forget all the busts that have gone down against coinages for creating gold coins which the Fed insisted was counterfeit money. That is anti-competitive and proves my point.

You are wrong yet again.

32

You are flat wrong that if a seller wishes to accept Euros, it is illegal for you to pay him with them.

You really ought to actually know what you are talking about before you post things.

Either specify the law making that illegal, find the court decision, find it ever being reported paying an agreeable seller with Euros as having been found illegal in the US (as opposed to the seller failing to account for the then-equivalent dollar value as having been received with regard to his taxes) or just stop. Thanks.

But I know you won’t. However that does not obligate me to go back and forth with you on it. That would be pointless.

Are you a college student, by the way? No offense intended, but I definitely get the impression.

33

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You are flat wrong that if a seller wishes to accept Euros, it is illegal for you to pay him with them.
[/quote]

The seller cannot legally accept them because he owes sales taxes in US dollars.

This is besides the point though because people have been arrested for doing exactly what you claim to be legal.

34

This is not a back-and-forth but rather the end: Wrong, that does not make it illegal. All the seller has to do is pay the sales tax. If he does not the only law-breaking is not paying the taxes.

And you of course cannot provide the evidence for your claim of people being arrested for paying willing sellers in Euros, unless you come up with examples of people not paying the taxes they would have owed had the sale been in dollars, which – aside from the fact tax evasion usually doesn’t result in arrest – again is not because of the currency used for the transaction, but because of the tax evasion. Finis.

For your own education – not because I’m going to reply to you on this again, as undoubtedly there would be no point to that – why don’t you check out ITEX - Not Found and then send them some e-mails teaching them them how ITEX dollars are illegal, people will be arrested for using them, that the US dollar has a monopoly in the US and nothing else can be used for transactions between buyer and seller. Devote your efforts to them, as they actually do this, not to me. Thanks.

35

Uhhh…A store owner is required BY LAW to accept dollars if they are presented as payment. This means that said exchange cannot be voluntary if the store owner should decide he does not want to accept dollars any more.

This is anti-competitive. This is a monopoly.

Get over it.

36

So after being shown wrong on what you said, rather than manning-up and admitting it, you pretend it’s a different question. Not whether dollars are the only thing that CAN be used – whether a competing currency cannot legally be used as you claimed to be so – which would be a monopoly, but now you make it on whether persons are required to be willing to accept them, even if as one of many accepted options, if they are going to make a sale, for their services, or debt obligations.

Congratulations, you won on a question that wasn’t what was being discussed and wasn’t what you were claiming. Of course the latter would never have been disputed – and equally of course, it has nothing to do with whether competing currencies cannot be used in the US as you had claimed. Have a good day.

37

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So after being shown wrong on what you said, rather than manning-up and admitting it, you pretend it’s a different question. Not whether dollars are the only thing that CAN be used, which would be a monopoly, but on whether persons are REQUIRED to accept them if they are going to make a sale.

Congratulations, you won on a question that wasn’t what was being discussed. Of course the latter would never have been disputed – and equally of course, it has nothing to do with whether competing currencies cannot be used in the US as you had claimed. Have a good day.[/quote]

No you are still wrong, but I though THIS example would be easier for you to understand.

All I need is one example to show you how there is no such thing as a voluntary contract when it comes to the dollar.

I don’t have time to go make you understand it, nor do I have the will power.

38

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Alright TB, I tried getting through that monster post of yours. I should give you some credit, after all, you are trying. This is a complected issue and you are making an effort. [/quote]

Heh. You really should let the haughty trash-talking go. No one is buying it.

[quote]Some quick points:
Infrustructure spending: You believe that these have no place in a stimulus package.[/quote]

Incorrect, yet again - in a given stimulus, I believe there can be a place for infrastructure spending, so long as that spending is targeted to “shovel ready” projects. Have said it over and over.

Incorrect, yet again - how many straw men do you plan on building? I have never claimed that economists that support infrastructure spending “don’t exist”. I disagree with them, and have from the outset, but I have never pretended the argument doesn’t exist. What I provided was a counterargument. Look into it.

Now, we are seeing the problem - you just make shit up.

Super. I never claimed that opinion didn’t exist.

Again - where the hell do you come up with this nonsense? I never denied the debate existed. Ridiculous. My main complaint is that wholesale infrastructure “investment” - with its tremendous outlays and commitments in money and its convoluted implementation - doesn’t need to be part of any “emergency” spending bill designed to give a shot of adrenaline to the economy. Such an infratsructure bill needs to be considered thoroughly as an appropriations bill due to the enormous commitment to them.

Such a bill isn’t really a “stimulus” - an infrastructure bill passed as part of a “stimulus” is the exact same as an infrastructure bill passed as an independent general government bill: cramming it into an “emergency” spending bill doesn’t suddenly make an identical generall appropriations bill “stimulative”.

It might be good policy, it might improve commerce - but it isn’t a legitimate part of a stimulus package.

I never said there had been any GDP movement - I said the stimulus didn’t have the effect on rescuing GDP that it was sold on. So there is little reason to “post sources” supporting an opinion I haven’t made.

You seem to think that because unemployment turned out worse than expected, the stimulus - as crafted - deserves a little more leeway in evaluating it. But this was common knowledge - everyone knows that unemployment numbers lag, including Obama’s team - and everyone knew that the numbers might be worse than expected. This fact is all the more reason they should have gotten it right out of the gate.

Instead, we got a bill that bought golf carts and didn’t even seriously evaluate the viability of “shovel ready” projects - by your own admission.

And no, the solution to unexpectedly higher unemployment numbers is not to simply up the money being thrown at it - the stimulus was and is a blunt instrument that we weren’t even sure would work, and this idea that “more money will fix it” is nothing but a lack of seriousness on the issue.

I haven’t made a single argument regarding tax cuts, so this a red herring.

Why does it matter “which side” only wanted tax cuts when I have already said I supported a stimulus? What point are you trying to make except taking an irrelevant potshot from a position of political hackery?

I supported a stimulus precisely because a tax cut would likely be used by recipients to pay down debt and hunker down and save - i.e., it would not produce a “demand-push”, so no stimulus.

Good Lord - when you aren’t inventing straw men, you’re just engaging in pointless partisan bickering with no one in particular. At what point do you cut bait and save face?

39

I’m going with the “you aint seen nothing yet” camp. Short term gain, long term pain.

40

Is this the GDP movement you were referring to?
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1280-GDP-In-Pictures-The-Truth.html