The Prez makes a speech about reforming earmarks 24 hours after signing a bill that had 8000+ earmarks in it. *sigh* I put too much faith in this guy. Figures.
I didn't think you had any faith in this guy.
The bill put him in a difficult position. We have time-critical legislation, and the politicians chose to load it up with their own interests. He recognizes the problem, but he's not about to sacrifice our economy just for the sake of stopping what has been going on since long before he came into office. You saying the bills Bush signed had no earmarks?
THIS is why we need to lower corporate tax rates in the US...
Nah.. just boost their tariffs.. if they want to get the oil to the biggest consumer base, they're gonna have to pay for the priviledge, one way or another
As we have said on here before, Corporations don't pay those fees, tariffs, or taxes. They pass them on to the consumer. So all that is going to do is push more of our money over seas. It would in the end hurt us and just incease the amount of exports we consume.
But a smart competitor could come back and be able to offer a lower price without being subjected to those tariffs
but they dont want to because those tarrifs arent there now and there is no incentive to come here because taxes are lower there. so your solution is to tax and punish those for attracting more business? to keep them from moving overseas (and keep you caring about there profit) we should lower the taxes here. they will have more profit then. there will be more jobs here then. putting a US tariff on them wont impact them globally, just with the US. it is still cheaper to so business there.
The Prez makes a speech about reforming earmarks 24 hours after signing a bill that had 8000+ earmarks in it. *sigh* I put too much faith in this guy. Figures.
I didn't think you had any faith in this guy.
The bill put him in a difficult position. We have time-critical legislation, and the politicians chose to load it up with their own interests. He recognizes the problem, but he's not about to sacrifice our economy just for the sake of stopping what has been going on since long before he came into office. You saying the bills Bush signed had no earmarks?
if it would sacrifice the economy or not is up to debate. but he would have some credibility if he grew a pair and lived up to his promise of no earmarks AND put it up for review for 5 days before signing anything.
The Prez makes a speech about reforming earmarks 24 hours after signing a bill that had 8000+ earmarks in it. *sigh* I put too much faith in this guy. Figures.
I didn't think you had any faith in this guy.
The bill put him in a difficult position. We have time-critical legislation, and the politicians chose to load it up with their own interests. He recognizes the problem, but he's not about to sacrifice our economy just for the sake of stopping what has been going on since long before he came into office. You saying the bills Bush signed had no earmarks?
if it would sacrifice the economy or not is up to debate. but he would have some credibility if he grew a pair and lived up to his promise of no earmarks AND put it up for review for 5 days before signing anything.
I believe he stated his position with respect to the bill's criticality for our economy. Given that as his position, I can understand his actions.
The Prez makes a speech about reforming earmarks 24 hours after signing a bill that had 8000+ earmarks in it. *sigh* I put too much faith in this guy. Figures.
I didn't think you had any faith in this guy.
The bill put him in a difficult position. We have time-critical legislation, and the politicians chose to load it up with their own interests. He recognizes the problem, but he's not about to sacrifice our economy just for the sake of stopping what has been going on since long before he came into office. You saying the bills Bush signed had no earmarks?
if it would sacrifice the economy or not is up to debate. but he would have some credibility if he grew a pair and lived up to his promise of no earmarks AND put it up for review for 5 days before signing anything.
I believe he stated his position with respect to the bill's criticality for our economy. Given that as his position, I can understand his actions.
I understand his actions completely. He says what he thinks the people want to hear at the time. His statements aren't really lies, they just have an expiration date. Wait long enough and he will make a new statement once his old one has passed its prime.
His statement was the same way. It was what people wanted to hear at the time. He is a politician... No different. I disagreed with that just like I do now. I don't follow party lines. If someone from either party does something I don't agree with, I call them on it. There are several things both G.W. Bush and G. H. Bush did that I think were very wrong. I have no problem admiting that.
I agree.. I'm just hoping we can get on with our argument accepting that we're dealing with a bunch of politicians, and that we all understand how they operate. Nobody here is going to claim that Barack Obama is not a good politician. (good in the sense that he achieves his objectives in advancing his career in politics.. not necessarily good in the sense that he produces the results that make people happy... there is no such politician)
I agree he is a good politician partially. He also has the media on his side so that helps a lot. I do not believe his policies will work and I do believe he will prolong our current ecconomic problems rather than correct them.
I agree he is a good politician partially. He also has the media on his side so that helps a lot. I do not believe his policies will work and I do believe he will prolong our current ecconomic problems rather than correct them.
But part of being a good politician is getting the media on your side. If his policies won't work, then he'll only make a bad situation worse. If it gets worse, we'll utterly collapse. Let's measure on that.
I agree he is a good politician partially. He also has the media on his side so that helps a lot. I do not believe his policies will work and I do believe he will prolong our current ecconomic problems rather than correct them.
But part of being a good politician is getting the media on your side. If his policies won't work, then he'll only make a bad situation worse. If it gets worse, we'll utterly collapse. Let's measure on that.
Actually, getting the media on your side doesn't mean you are a good politician, it just means you are a liberal... that is just the way it is in today's mainstream media.
I agree he is a good politician partially. He also has the media on his side so that helps a lot. I do not believe his policies will work and I do believe he will prolong our current ecconomic problems rather than correct them.
But part of being a good politician is getting the media on your side. If his policies won't work, then he'll only make a bad situation worse. If it gets worse, we'll utterly collapse. Let's measure on that.
Actually, getting the media on your side doesn't mean you are a good politician, it just means you are a liberal... that is just the way it is in today's mainstream media.
I agree he is a good politician partially. He also has the media on his side so that helps a lot. I do not believe his policies will work and I do believe he will prolong our current ecconomic problems rather than correct them.
But part of being a good politician is getting the media on your side. If his policies won't work, then he'll only make a bad situation worse. If it gets worse, we'll utterly collapse. Let's measure on that.
Actually, getting the media on your side doesn't mean you are a good politician, it just means you are a liberal... that is just the way it is in today's mainstream media.
Well, then the liberals are better politicians
No, most of the media is bias and do not report the news the way they claim to report the news.
I agree he is a good politician partially. He also has the media on his side so that helps a lot. I do not believe his policies will work and I do believe he will prolong our current ecconomic problems rather than correct them.
But part of being a good politician is getting the media on your side. If his policies won't work, then he'll only make a bad situation worse. If it gets worse, we'll utterly collapse. Let's measure on that.
Actually, getting the media on your side doesn't mean you are a good politician, it just means you are a liberal... that is just the way it is in today's mainstream media.
Well, then the liberals are better politicians
No, most of the media is bias and do not report the news the way they claim to report the news.
But who convinced the media to be biased in favor of the liberals?
The Prez makes a speech about reforming earmarks 24 hours after signing a bill that had 8000+ earmarks in it. *sigh* I put too much faith in this guy. Figures.
I didn't think you had any faith in this guy.
But I did. I want to believe everything he means to do, and I don't want him fall into the same political holes as past Presidents, but to say we need earmark reform less than 24 hours after signing a bill that have 8,000+ earmarks is BS.
It's the other idiots on Capitol Hill with which I have zero faith.
That's a very eloquent piece of writing by a renowned fictional author (aka non-economist). I presume this is from Atlas Shrugged.
.
first off, you arew not an economist. does this make all of your arguments wrong? by your logic it does.
second: she is a fiction author. part of her point (the part that i wanted you so see) was that everything is connected. EVERYTHING. Politics. macroeconomics, micro economics, individual liberties, taxes, inflation, the price of goods, war, crime, social programs, etc... you cannot pick and chose. saying that we will solve the economic problems we now have with a purely macro view is ignorant at best. If you change one thing you surely cannot believe that it will not impact everything else down the road. when you talk about taxes it influences everything around it- not just the macroeconomic view of the economy. it will influence the way people think of their money. it will influence the way people think of the current elected officials. it will influence the things people can do with their money (individual liberties). I will influence inflation. It will influence everything. you cannot isolate "taxes"
i was just thinking about that one all day.
another thought on my mind was this: i think that we will see a bit of a surge (that has already started) in the markets for the next 2 to 4 months. this may seem all well and good, but i fear that it is only based on the hope that the Obama plan will work. then the tax increases will start to be felt. the inflation will start to kick in due to all the newly printed money and the stock market will again tumble to where it has been for the past few days or lower ( 6500ish) if you still have money in the market at the point where it peaks, (considering this is all true) i would recommend getting it out then.
The clincher for me is the question "what if we're wrong?" If I assume that there is no global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong? If I assume that there is global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong. Do I want to gamble the future of my descendants in order to line my pockets today? Or do I want to stop for a second, do more research, and allow that to help me make a better decision?
turn it around
what if we assume there IS global warming when there isnt and we waste billions of dollars on things we dont need and destroy the lives of people living in the coal, oil, and other "non-green" industry. their families may never recover.
and the doctor analogy is imperfect... no matter what a doctor does, his patient will ALWAYS die. all the other planets in the solar system have warmed as well (incidentally, with similar percentages to our planet in relation to the sun). we must have left some SUVs running on those planets too. the sun and the natural cycle of the earth have nothing to do with it at all....
but i digress... this is SUPPOSED TO BE a discussion on taxes not global warming.... except its all connected.... taxes are being forced on use because of global warming.
I want a nice clean environment, but i dont want to give up individual liberties to obtain it. it can be achieved by other, less intrusive means.
ok seriously though.... its getting late and i need to stop dwelling. i want to continue this at a later date but right now its heading into friday and i need to relax a bit.
i fear that it is only based on the hope that the Obama plan will work. then the tax increases will start to be felt. the inflation will start to kick in due to all the newly printed money and the stock market will again tumble to where it has been for the past few days or lower
In my best Jim Mora voice: inflation? Inflation?! You're worried about inflation?
Dude. Inflation is the very opposite of our problem right now. The problem we're facing is massive deflation. That's the disaster that has to be headed off. Inflation can be controlled through monetary policy; Volcker proved that in the early 80s. It's not pleasant, but it works. Deflation cannot be fixed via monetary policy, because once the Fed has lowered interest rates effectively to zero, it can't lower them any more. Zero is zero.
That's where we are right now. The FOMC lowered the rates to zero, and still nobody's willing to lend (except to the U.S. gov't). That causes, among other things, a contraction in the money supply: deflation. Deflation is what turns a recession into a depression. And since monetary policy can't control deflation, the only effective tool we have is fiscal policy. Spend more money.
Worrying about inflation right now is like a man who's starving to death worrying about his cholesterol.
i fear that it is only based on the hope that the Obama plan will work. then the tax increases will start to be felt. the inflation will start to kick in due to all the newly printed money and the stock market will again tumble to where it has been for the past few days or lower
In my best Jim Mora voice: inflation? Inflation?! You're worried about inflation?
Dude. Inflation is the very opposite of our problem right now. The problem we're facing is massive deflation. That's the disaster that has to be headed off. Inflation can be controlled through monetary policy; Volcker proved that in the early 80s. It's not pleasant, but it works. Deflation cannot be fixed via monetary policy, because once the Fed has lowered interest rates effectively to zero, it can't lower them any more. Zero is zero.
That's where we are right now. The FOMC lowered the rates to zero, and still nobody's willing to lend (except to the U.S. gov't). That causes, among other things, a contraction in the money supply: deflation. Deflation is what turns a recession into a depression. And since monetary policy can't control deflation, the only effective tool we have is fiscal policy. Spend more money.
Worrying about inflation right now is like a man who's starving to death worrying about his cholesterol.
I agree that money needs to be spent. But the real difference is WHO is going to spend the money. I don't think the government should be the one doing the spending. With tax cuts it will put more money into the hands of the people that need it to pay bills, buy food, buy a new car... It is how money moves best, and most efficiently.
That's a very eloquent piece of writing by a renowned fictional author (aka non-economist). I presume this is from Atlas Shrugged.
.
first off, you arew not an economist. does this make all of your arguments wrong? by your logic it does.
Wrong? No. But a lot less relevant than the views of a professional economist. However, isn't she dead? When was that written? My comments were here and now in the context of the current economic situation. I've got one up on her there. Also, I at least work at a bank and have been a student of the economy since I was in college. She wasn't. We'll call that a tie.
kuzi16:
second: she is a fiction author. part of her point (the part that i wanted you so see) was that everything is connected. EVERYTHING. Politics. macroeconomics, micro economics, individual liberties, taxes, inflation, the price of goods, war, crime, social programs, etc... you cannot pick and chose. saying that we will solve the economic problems we now have with a purely macro view is ignorant at best. If you change one thing you surely cannot believe that it will not impact everything else down the road. when you talk about taxes it influences everything around it- not just the macroeconomic view of the economy. it will influence the way people think of their money. it will influence the way people think of the current elected officials. it will influence the things people can do with their money (individual liberties). I will influence inflation. It will influence everything. you cannot isolate "taxes"
That is exactly my point whenever you bring up isolated examples in a micro-econ world. Silly one-off anecdotes that assume a dollar only exists from the time it magically appears in someone's hand until it is taxed away do not look at the whole picture.
kuzi16:
another thought on my mind was this: i think that we will see a bit of a surge (that has already started) in the markets for the next 2 to 4 months. this may seem all well and good, but i fear that it is only based on the hope that the Obama plan will work. then the tax increases will start to be felt. the inflation will start to kick in due to all the newly printed money and the stock market will again tumble to where it has been for the past few days or lower ( 6500ish) if you still have money in the market at the point where it peaks, (considering this is all true) i would recommend getting it out then.
who knows, I could be wrong. Im not an economist.
3-13-09 @ about 2am
How will an expert economist reliably tell me what the market is going to do? There's nothing invalid about your laying out a theory. I think you're attributing too much fluctuation in the market to the influence of a president's policies. I think the market will be extremely volatile for a lot simpler reasons which exist entirely within the market itself. The recent downturn has been exaggerated because of short-sellers taking advantage of a dropping market. They are looking for the first good sign (positive news from large banks, which is on the horizon, or technically already happened with Citi). Then they will cover their shorts because that was their "bottom" indicator. This immediately removes the downward pressure and you see a spike (which we just had).
Now, seeing that spike, the short-sellers pat themselves on the back for successfully finding the bottom, and immediately begin buying up stock. This, of course, will further exaggerate the upward spike. Then the speculators who drove the market down, and are driving the market up, will get nervous about how quickly everything went up. So they'll sell, creating the downturn that they had both predicted and created.
This will continue for quite some time. Meanwhile, all the violent up-and-down shaking in the market will shake all the change out of the average American's pockets.
The clincher for me is the question "what if we're wrong?" If I assume that there is no global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong? If I assume that there is global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong. Do I want to gamble the future of my descendants in order to line my pockets today? Or do I want to stop for a second, do more research, and allow that to help me make a better decision?
turn it around
what if we assume there IS global warming when there isnt and we waste billions of dollars on things we dont need and destroy the lives of people living in the coal, oil, and other "non-green" industry. their families may never recover.
I thought you were a capitalist. They can go get jobs in another industry. Think of all the jobs that were create researching and funding these alternative energy initiatives. I don't want those bums living off my dime just because they can't burn coal.
kuzi16:
and the doctor analogy is imperfect... no matter what a doctor does, his patient will ALWAYS die. all the other planets in the solar system have warmed as well (incidentally, with similar percentages to our planet in relation to the sun). we must have left some SUVs running on those planets too. the sun and the natural cycle of the earth have nothing to do with it at all....
but i digress... this is SUPPOSED TO BE a discussion on taxes not global warming....
you brought it up
kuzi16:
except its all connected.... taxes are being forced on use because of global warming.
I want a nice clean environment, but i dont want to give up individual liberties to obtain it. it can be achieved by other, less intrusive means.
ok seriously though.... its getting late and i need to stop dwelling. i want to continue this at a later date but right now its heading into friday and i need to relax a bit.
less intrusive means like hoping people quit polluting? uh, that never works. If hoping people did the right thing would actually work, we wouldn't need any laws.
The clincher for me is the question "what if we're wrong?" If I assume that there is no global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong? If I assume that there is global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong. Do I want to gamble the future of my descendants in order to line my pockets today? Or do I want to stop for a second, do more research, and allow that to help me make a better decision?
turn it around
what if we assume there IS global warming when there isnt and we waste billions of dollars on things we dont need and destroy the lives of people living in the coal, oil, and other "non-green" industry. their families may never recover.
I thought you were a capitalist. They can go get jobs in another industry. Think of all the jobs that were create researching and funding these alternative energy initiatives. I don't want those bums living off my dime just because they can't burn coal.
Actually he is speaking a capitalist view because without government interference they wouldn't NEED to get jobs in ofther industries. They would still have the jobs that the government is trying to take away. Yes creating jobs by investing in alternative energy would be great, if done in the private sector and not paid for by the government.
The clincher for me is the question "what if we're wrong?" If I assume that there is no global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong? If I assume that there is global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong. Do I want to gamble the future of my descendants in order to line my pockets today? Or do I want to stop for a second, do more research, and allow that to help me make a better decision?
turn it around
what if we assume there IS global warming when there isnt and we waste billions of dollars on things we dont need and destroy the lives of people living in the coal, oil, and other "non-green" industry. their families may never recover.
I thought you were a capitalist. They can go get jobs in another industry. Think of all the jobs that were create researching and funding these alternative energy initiatives. I don't want those bums living off my dime just because they can't burn coal.
Actually he is speaking a capitalist view because without government interference they wouldn't NEED to get jobs in ofther industries. They would still have the jobs that the government is trying to take away. Yes creating jobs by investing in alternative energy would be great, if done in the private sector and not paid for by the government.
Nice job ruining Kuzi's point. If they still have those jobs, then we haven't done the right thing that we are sitting around hoping other people will do.
The clincher for me is the question "what if we're wrong?" If I assume that there is no global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong? If I assume that there is global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong. Do I want to gamble the future of my descendants in order to line my pockets today? Or do I want to stop for a second, do more research, and allow that to help me make a better decision?
turn it around
what if we assume there IS global warming when there isnt and we waste billions of dollars on things we dont need and destroy the lives of people living in the coal, oil, and other "non-green" industry. their families may never recover.
I thought you were a capitalist. They can go get jobs in another industry. Think of all the jobs that were create researching and funding these alternative energy initiatives. I don't want those bums living off my dime just because they can't burn coal.
Actually he is speaking a capitalist view because without government interference they wouldn't NEED to get jobs in ofther industries. They would still have the jobs that the government is trying to take away. Yes creating jobs by investing in alternative energy would be great, if done in the private sector and not paid for by the government.
Nice job ruining Kuzi's point. If they still have those jobs, then we haven't done the right thing that we are sitting around hoping other people will do.
No, I won't attempt to speak for him because he has a mind of his own, but I took his point as that the government should not step in and take those jobs away from people who are productive members of our economy in the first place because they aren't sure Global Warming is man made at all and they aren't sure we can even do anything to slow or stop it. If you look at history the Earth has been warming up since the Ice Age. But it has to be man's fault after all. I'm sure those damn cave men weren't smart enough to car pool...
You also are missing another thought. Many of those people that would lose jobs due to "Green" legislation against the oil and coal industry are older people who wouldn't be considered for jobs in alternative energy fields because they aren't as "tech savy" as younger college educated applicants. Without government interference these people will still have jobs and still be creating wealth and spending to help the economy...
less intrusive means like hoping people quit polluting? uh, that never works. If hoping people did the right thing would actually work, we wouldn't need any laws.
less intrusive means not looking at the solution for everything to be higher taxes. if you wanted to institute a new fuel source here is a plan:
first, the government could go to the carl companies. they could say, "hey big auto, we like you. you have been keeping the world moving for a century. the only problem is, your cars are kinda dirty. we need you (the big three) to get together and come up with an alternative fuel source that is clean and renewable that you all agree on. once you do that we will give you a 25% tax break for five years. then once you start producing cars that run on that fuel we will give you more tax cuts in proportion to the percentage of your fleet that run on that fuel up to the a total of another 25% in tax breaks. this means, that in five years time (from the time the fuel is agreed on) you could have a tax burden that is half of what it is now. then you go to big oil and you tell them "hey big oil, we like you. you have been giving The world energy for generations. we have been working with the car companies to make a new fuel that is clean and renewable. they came up with "Fuel X". we would like you to start to switch over to that fuel as fast as you can. For incentive we will give you a tax break based on the number of fueling stations that carry that fuel as well up to 50% of your tax burden for the next 5 years. If you dont have filling stations of your own then your tax cut will be based on what percentage of your output is fuel X" then you go to the american public and you say "People of the USA. We like you. your spending, industry, and ingenuity have been the backbone of the world economy and what makes this nation great. this has come at a cost to the environment. we have developed a new fuel that will pollute less. If you buy cars that run on this fuel we will make sure that you can wright off 1/2 of the cost of that car as untaxable income. so if you make $40K a year and buy a $20K car you will be taxed as if you were only making $30K a year. this off er is only good for the next 5 years so you better jump on it!"
now I know that there are some fairly large flaws in this. many of these flaws are because i was pulling numbers out of my ass. however the spirit is that you can intice people to do what you want by making it profitable for them, as apposed to forcing one business out of business in order to create a niche that needs to be filled by a technology that isnt ready to use yet.
i really am gunna stop posting on this thread today. I need a day to relax. its friday. lets all lighten up a bit. we can continue this (and i hope we do) on another day. lets collect our thoughts, come up with a new set of well thought about theories and ideas and have at it on monday. in the meantime, lets have a cigar and relax.
If we keep enticing people by lowering their taxes, how are we going to pay for anything any more? That money has to come from somewhere. That was one of the central arguments about S-CHIP.
Many of those people that would lose jobs due to "Green" legislation against the oil and coal industry are older people who wouldn't be considered for jobs in alternative energy fields because they aren't as "tech savy" as younger college educated applicants.
Comments
The bill put him in a difficult position. We have time-critical legislation, and the politicians chose to load it up with their own interests. He recognizes the problem, but he's not about to sacrifice our economy just for the sake of stopping what has been going on since long before he came into office. You saying the bills Bush signed had no earmarks?
yet another TAX is not the answer.
i must be out to work. It is always great to fill my day with debate with good friends. thank you for taking part.
It's the other idiots on Capitol Hill with which I have zero faith.
second:
she is a fiction author. part of her point (the part that i wanted you so see) was that everything is connected. EVERYTHING. Politics. macroeconomics, micro economics, individual liberties, taxes, inflation, the price of goods, war, crime, social programs, etc...
you cannot pick and chose. saying that we will solve the economic problems we now have with a purely macro view is ignorant at best. If you change one thing you surely cannot believe that it will not impact everything else down the road. when you talk about taxes it influences everything around it- not just the macroeconomic view of the economy. it will influence the way people think of their money. it will influence the way people think of the current elected officials. it will influence the things people can do with their money (individual liberties). I will influence inflation. It will influence everything. you cannot isolate "taxes"
i was just thinking about that one all day.
another thought on my mind was this:
i think that we will see a bit of a surge (that has already started) in the markets for the next 2 to 4 months. this may seem all well and good, but i fear that it is only based on the hope that the Obama plan will work.
then the tax increases will start to be felt. the inflation will start to kick in due to all the newly printed money and the stock market will again tumble to where it has been for the past few days or lower ( 6500ish) if you still have money in the market at the point where it peaks, (considering this is all true) i would recommend getting it out then.
who knows, I could be wrong. Im not an economist.
3-13-09 @ about 2am
what if we assume there IS global warming when there isnt and we waste billions of dollars on things we dont need and destroy the lives of people living in the coal, oil, and other "non-green" industry. their families may never recover.
and the doctor analogy is imperfect... no matter what a doctor does, his patient will ALWAYS die. all the other planets in the solar system have warmed as well (incidentally, with similar percentages to our planet in relation to the sun). we must have left some SUVs running on those planets too. the sun and the natural cycle of the earth have nothing to do with it at all....
but i digress... this is SUPPOSED TO BE a discussion on taxes not global warming.... except its all connected.... taxes are being forced on use because of global warming.
I want a nice clean environment, but i dont want to give up individual liberties to obtain it. it can be achieved by other, less intrusive means.
ok seriously though.... its getting late and i need to stop dwelling. i want to continue this at a later date but right now its heading into friday and i need to relax a bit.
Dude. Inflation is the very opposite of our problem right now. The problem we're facing is massive deflation. That's the disaster that has to be headed off. Inflation can be controlled through monetary policy; Volcker proved that in the early 80s. It's not pleasant, but it works. Deflation cannot be fixed via monetary policy, because once the Fed has lowered interest rates effectively to zero, it can't lower them any more. Zero is zero.
That's where we are right now. The FOMC lowered the rates to zero, and still nobody's willing to lend (except to the U.S. gov't). That causes, among other things, a contraction in the money supply: deflation. Deflation is what turns a recession into a depression. And since monetary policy can't control deflation, the only effective tool we have is fiscal policy. Spend more money.
Worrying about inflation right now is like a man who's starving to death worrying about his cholesterol.
Wrong? No. But a lot less relevant than the views of a professional economist. However, isn't she dead? When was that written? My comments were here and now in the context of the current economic situation. I've got one up on her there. Also, I at least work at a bank and have been a student of the economy since I was in college. She wasn't. We'll call that a tie.
That is exactly my point whenever you bring up isolated examples in a micro-econ world. Silly one-off anecdotes that assume a dollar only exists from the time it magically appears in someone's hand until it is taxed away do not look at the whole picture.
How will an expert economist reliably tell me what the market is going to do? There's nothing invalid about your laying out a theory. I think you're attributing too much fluctuation in the market to the influence of a president's policies. I think the market will be extremely volatile for a lot simpler reasons which exist entirely within the market itself. The recent downturn has been exaggerated because of short-sellers taking advantage of a dropping market. They are looking for the first good sign (positive news from large banks, which is on the horizon, or technically already happened with Citi). Then they will cover their shorts because that was their "bottom" indicator. This immediately removes the downward pressure and you see a spike (which we just had).
Now, seeing that spike, the short-sellers pat themselves on the back for successfully finding the bottom, and immediately begin buying up stock. This, of course, will further exaggerate the upward spike. Then the speculators who drove the market down, and are driving the market up, will get nervous about how quickly everything went up. So they'll sell, creating the downturn that they had both predicted and created.
This will continue for quite some time. Meanwhile, all the violent up-and-down shaking in the market will shake all the change out of the average American's pockets.
You also are missing another thought. Many of those people that would lose jobs due to "Green" legislation against the oil and coal industry are older people who wouldn't be considered for jobs in alternative energy fields because they aren't as "tech savy" as younger college educated applicants. Without government interference these people will still have jobs and still be creating wealth and spending to help the economy...
if you wanted to institute a new fuel source here is a plan:
first, the government could go to the carl companies. they could say,
"hey big auto, we like you. you have been keeping the world moving for a century. the only problem is, your cars are kinda dirty. we need you (the big three) to get together and come up with an alternative fuel source that is clean and renewable that you all agree on. once you do that we will give you a 25% tax break for five years. then once you start producing cars that run on that fuel we will give you more tax cuts in proportion to the percentage of your fleet that run on that fuel up to the a total of another 25% in tax breaks. this means, that in five years time (from the time the fuel is agreed on) you could have a tax burden that is half of what it is now.
then you go to big oil and you tell them "hey big oil, we like you. you have been giving The world energy for generations. we have been working with the car companies to make a new fuel that is clean and renewable. they came up with "Fuel X". we would like you to start to switch over to that fuel as fast as you can. For incentive we will give you a tax break based on the number of fueling stations that carry that fuel as well up to 50% of your tax burden for the next 5 years. If you dont have filling stations of your own then your tax cut will be based on what percentage of your output is fuel X"
then you go to the american public and you say "People of the USA. We like you. your spending, industry, and ingenuity have been the backbone of the world economy and what makes this nation great. this has come at a cost to the environment. we have developed a new fuel that will pollute less. If you buy cars that run on this fuel we will make sure that you can wright off 1/2 of the cost of that car as untaxable income. so if you make $40K a year and buy a $20K car you will be taxed as if you were only making $30K a year. this off er is only good for the next 5 years so you better jump on it!"
now I know that there are some fairly large flaws in this. many of these flaws are because i was pulling numbers out of my ass. however the spirit is that you can intice people to do what you want by making it profitable for them, as apposed to forcing one business out of business in order to create a niche that needs to be filled by a technology that isnt ready to use yet.
einstein is dead and his ideas are still valid
on that note...
i really am gunna stop posting on this thread today. I need a day to relax. its friday. lets all lighten up a bit. we can continue this (and i hope we do) on another day. lets collect our thoughts, come up with a new set of well thought about theories and ideas and have at it on monday.
in the meantime, lets have a cigar and relax.