Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...

[El Kabong]

What do you think will help the economy Lyle?

Having the government step back and allow businessmen to do business....I don't think we should let them (and by them I mean both business AND government) go around all willy nilly like Clinton and W did. I think there should be not new laws and regulations but more oversight and more transparency in business and government.

Sure our infastructure could use a bit of a tune up but looking at the rest of the bill, I really don't think that crap does anything but say "Thank You" to all the liberals that support Obama. $6 BILLION for University rebuilding....have you looked at how much it costs to go to college lately? Do you think they really need that? If there is price gouging anywhere it's in higher education.

We're eventually going to have to pay some of this back I would just hope that the government guys would be a little bit more cautious with that kind of money instead of yelling and screaming about getting this bill passed.

[killersheep]

What do you think will help the economy Lyle?

Having the government step back and allow businessmen to do business....I don't think we should let them (and by them I mean both business AND government) go around all willy nilly like Clinton and W did. I think there should be not new laws and regulations but more oversight and more transparency in business and government.

Sure our infastructure could use a bit of a tune up but looking at the rest of the bill, I really don't think that crap does anything but say "Thank You" to all the liberals that support Obama. $6 BILLION for University rebuilding....have you looked at how much it costs to go to college lately? Do you think they really need that? If there is price gouging anywhere it's in higher education.

We're eventually going to have to pay some of this back I would just hope that the government guys would be a little bit more cautious with that kind of money instead of yelling and screaming about getting this bill passed.

So you are making the assumption that big business operates in a more ethical way than the government is that correct? or are you saying it it the role of government to regulate business?

Shit I have to go to class, I was looking forward to this one too.

[Kirkland Laing]

What do you think will help the economy Lyle?

Having the government step back and allow businessmen to do business....I don't think we should let them (and by them I mean both business AND government) go around all willy nilly like Clinton and W did. I think there should be not new laws and regulations but more oversight and more transparency in business and government.

Sure our infastructure could use a bit of a tune up but looking at the rest of the bill, I really don't think that crap does anything but say "Thank You" to all the liberals that support Obama. $6 BILLION for University rebuilding....have you looked at how much it costs to go to college lately? Do you think they really need that? If there is price gouging anywhere it's in higher education.

We're eventually going to have to pay some of this back I would just hope that the government guys would be a little bit more cautious with that kind of money instead of yelling and screaming about getting this bill passed.

How is the government preventing businessmen doing business? Businesmen are currently slashing payrolls and have ceased investing, so business isn't going to dig the economy out of its tailspin. The only entity with money to spend is government, if they don't do it nobody else will and you'll get Depressed. But how is government preventing businessmen doing business?


Everybody agrees that the financial industry needs to be regulated. If the derivatives markets had been regulated the banks wouldn't have lost trillions in bad derivatives bets, the cause of the current financial crisis. If securities ratings agencies, mortgage lenders etc. had been regulated it would have prevented the crisis too. Would you seriously like the banks to be allowed to continue to be unregulated? If they're not regulated they'll only melt the financial system down again in the future you know. What's the difference between oversight and regulation?

Can you think of any better infrastructure spending for the future benefit of America than education? I can't.

Bush already put you on the hook for about ten trillion bailing the banks out. Obama will put you on the hook for trillions more. If the stimulus fails the Depression will cost untold trillions in lost growth and more spending to dig the economy out of it. Again, the private sector is slashing payrolls and has ended investment. The only entity that can stimulate the economy is the government.


• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion
TOTAL: $3.92 trillion

PLUS


World War II: Original Cost: $288 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $3.6 trillion

Total cost : $7.52 trillion.








Nov. 24 2008 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.





The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis.





When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in.





Bloomberg.com: Exclusive

[El Kabong]

I don't know if this is just me but I find it a bit scary that if the government owns the banks then whoever gets elected owns the banks and then we have a whole new level of fear..."If the Republicans run the banks the X is going to happen"...."If the Democrats run the banks then Y willl happen" etc etc etc.

The idea behind our economy is that eventually we have to pay for goods and services and the faster we just let things be the faster we get back to people getting back to normal which means spending like normal and maybe we have to wait a while before the lending comes back to normal but I would rather the economic environment adapt than the government just go in and start running things.

[Kirkland Laing]

I don't know if this is just me but I find it a bit scary that if the government owns the banks then whoever gets elected owns the banks and then we have a whole new level of fear..."If the Republicans run the banks the X is going to happen"...."If the Democrats run the banks then Y willl happen" etc etc etc.

The idea behind our economy is that eventually we have to pay for goods and services and the faster we just let things be the faster we get back to people getting back to normal which means spending like normal and maybe we have to wait a while before the lending comes back to normal but I would rather the economic environment adapt than the government just go in and start running things.

If you "let things be" the entire financial system will collapse. If government hadn't stepped in to bail out the banks with the KLGFSRP we'd already be back to the barter system. It may well work perfectly well in North Carolina but in the rest of the world we prefer using hard currency to settle our transactions. I don't want to have to carry round half a pig or a bushel of whatever it is you people make bushels out of to buy something I want.

Bank lending and business investment have come to a standstill. Consumer spending is dropping off a cliff and as more businesses are unable to get credit from the non-lending banks they'll lay more people off, which obviously cuts consumer spending. Business then slashes payroll even more and generally cuts costs so they can cut their prices to attract spending, but as they keep cutting prices consumers wait to spend as they know prices will fall further. We call this "deflation" and it's what happened from 1930 onwards to cause the Great Depression. That's why the government is spending money right now -- nobody else is, and if somebody doesn't keep spending the economy will fall into a deflationary death spiral.

So taking all this into account do you still want the government to just back off and let the market sort itself out? Or would you support at least making an attempt to avoid Depression?

[AdamGB]

I don't know if this is just me but I find it a bit scary that if the government owns the banks then whoever gets elected owns the banks and then we have a whole new level of fear..."If the Republicans run the banks the X is going to happen"...."If the Democrats run the banks then Y willl happen" etc etc etc.

The idea behind our economy is that eventually we have to pay for goods and services and the faster we just let things be the faster we get back to people getting back to normal which means spending like normal and maybe we have to wait a while before the lending comes back to normal but I would rather the economic environment adapt than the government just go in and start running things.

If you "let things be" the entire financial system will collapse. If government hadn't stepped in to bail out the banks with the KLGFSRP we'd already be back to the barter system. It may well work perfectly well in North Carolina but in the rest of the world we prefer using hard currency to settle our transactions. I don't want to have to carry round half a pig or a bushel of whatever it is you people make bushels out of to buy something I want.

lol... buuuuuuuuuuuuuurned

[El Kabong]

If you "let things be" the entire financial system will collapse. If government hadn't stepped in to bail out the banks with the KLGFSRP we'd already be back to the barter system. It may well work perfectly well in North Carolina but in the rest of the world we prefer using hard currency to settle our transactions. I don't want to have to carry round half a pig or a bushel of whatever it is you people make bushels out of to buy something I want.

Bank lending and business investment have come to a standstill. Consumer spending is dropping off a cliff and as more businesses are unable to get credit from the non-lending banks they'll lay more people off, which obviously cuts consumer spending. Business then slashes payroll even more and generally cuts costs so they can cut their prices to attract spending, but as they keep cutting prices consumers wait to spend as they know prices will fall further. We call this "deflation" and it's what happened from 1930 onwards to cause the Great Depression. That's why the government is spending money right now -- nobody else is, and if somebody doesn't keep spending the economy will fall into a deflationary death spiral.

So taking all this into account do you still want the government to just back off and let the market sort itself out? Or would you support at least making an attempt to avoid Depression?

The actions taken in this bill won't do a GOD DAMN THING! The nonpartisan CBO even said so, they said this bill will HURT us in the long run.

How do you get people to SPEND? You cut taxes....simple stuff. The first stimulus bill didn't work why the hell should this one? The market didn't have such a rosey view of the bill.

But you're always right and you're always annoying......well one of the two is 100% true

[killersheep]

If you "let things be" the entire financial system will collapse. If government hadn't stepped in to bail out the banks with the KLGFSRP we'd already be back to the barter system. It may well work perfectly well in North Carolina but in the rest of the world we prefer using hard currency to settle our transactions. I don't want to have to carry round half a pig or a bushel of whatever it is you people make bushels out of to buy something I want.

Bank lending and business investment have come to a standstill. Consumer spending is dropping off a cliff and as more businesses are unable to get credit from the non-lending banks they'll lay more people off, which obviously cuts consumer spending. Business then slashes payroll even more and generally cuts costs so they can cut their prices to attract spending, but as they keep cutting prices consumers wait to spend as they know prices will fall further. We call this "deflation" and it's what happened from 1930 onwards to cause the Great Depression. That's why the government is spending money right now -- nobody else is, and if somebody doesn't keep spending the economy will fall into a deflationary death spiral.

So taking all this into account do you still want the government to just back off and let the market sort itself out? Or would you support at least making an attempt to avoid Depression?

The actions taken in this bill won't do a GOD DAMN THING! The nonpartisan CBO even said so, they said this bill will HURT us in the long run.

How do you get people to SPEND? You cut taxes....simple stuff. The first stimulus bill didn't work why the hell should this one? The market didn't have such a rosey view of the bill.

But you're always right and you're always annoying......well one of the two is 100% true

Were you around during Reagan's or Dubya's administration? There is a precident for this already. What good does cutting taxes do to someone that is unemployed?

[El Kabong]

Were you around during Reagan's or Dubya's administration? There is a precident for this already. What good does cutting taxes do to someone that is unemployed?

If you cut corporate taxes then the jobs come to you.

[Kirkland Laing]

If you "let things be" the entire financial system will collapse. If government hadn't stepped in to bail out the banks with the KLGFSRP we'd already be back to the barter system. It may well work perfectly well in North Carolina but in the rest of the world we prefer using hard currency to settle our transactions. I don't want to have to carry round half a pig or a bushel of whatever it is you people make bushels out of to buy something I want.

Bank lending and business investment have come to a standstill. Consumer spending is dropping off a cliff and as more businesses are unable to get credit from the non-lending banks they'll lay more people off, which obviously cuts consumer spending. Business then slashes payroll even more and generally cuts costs so they can cut their prices to attract spending, but as they keep cutting prices consumers wait to spend as they know prices will fall further. We call this "deflation" and it's what happened from 1930 onwards to cause the Great Depression. That's why the government is spending money right now -- nobody else is, and if somebody doesn't keep spending the economy will fall into a deflationary death spiral.

So taking all this into account do you still want the government to just back off and let the market sort itself out? Or would you support at least making an attempt to avoid Depression?

The actions taken in this bill won't do a GOD DAMN THING! The nonpartisan CBO even said so, they said this bill will HURT us in the long run.

How do you get people to SPEND? You cut taxes....simple stuff. The first stimulus bill didn't work why the hell should this one? The market didn't have such a rosey view of the bill.

But you're always right and you're always annoying......well one of the two is 100% true

The nonpartisan CBO said that if the stimulus works it'll cut future GDP growth by a fraction of one percent in a couple of years for a period of a couple of years. But if the stimulus fails or if the government does nothing then GDP will drop by up to 25%. What happened here was that the GOP and the media took the one remotely negative thing the CBO had to say about the stimulus and created a bs narrative about it, how the stimulus would hurt the economy. Anybody who's done Econ 101 knows how ridiculous this is but apparently most of the congressmen and senators in Washington never took Econ 101. Or they're just grandstanding for political purposes.

When you cut taxes, even in normal times, a big chunk of that money is saved and not spent. And the GOP only want to cut taxes significantly for people earning $10 000 a week/day (see above.) Economists, crucially Lyle, people who know what they're talking about, estimate that about 30% of every tax cut is spent. And that's in normal times. In times like this even less. However government spending in infrastructure/unemployment benefits/food stamps etc. is spent and then spent again, creating economic growth. Here's the bang-for-a-stimulus-buck table again, try reading it :




What part of this don't you understand?

I think you just can't bring yourself to accept that anything the other side do could be the right thing. You didn't blink an eyelid while George Bush handed ten trillion in welfare cheques to the socialist bankers but when Obama spends 10% of this to try and save the economy Bush screwed from going into meltdown you suddenly find fault with what he's doing.

Never mind, Obama fucked up the bank bailout today. His new plan is doomed to failure and will eventually have to be scrapped and the banks nationalised. I'll post about this when I know the full story which will take a day or three. But Obama screwed up big time today. It'' now cost trillions more to right the system than it otherwise would have, abd that's the best-case scenario.

[Kirkland Laing]

Here's what the CBO actually had to say re. the stimulus :

I touched on three key points this morning:

1. The economy is currently weathering a recession that started more than a year ago, and absent a change in fiscal policy, CBO projects that the shortfall in the nation’s output relative to potential levels will be the largest– in duration and depth– since the Depression of the 1930s.
2. Most economists agree that both significant fiscal stimulus and additional financial and monetary policy approaches are needed.
3. H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, would, in CBO’s judgment, provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without the legislation. (For the CBO cost estimate of H.R. 1, click here)

As the possibility of another round of fiscal stimulus is debated, it is not a surprise that employment effects of stimulus have emerged as a key measuring stick. According to CBO’s estimates, with enactment of H.R. 1, the number of jobs would be between 0.8 million and 2.1 million higher at the end of this year, 1.2 million to 3.6 million higher at the end of next year, and 0.7 million to 2.1 million higher at the end of 2011 than under current law.





Director’s Blog Blog Archive Testimony on the Economy and Stimulus