Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (121581)	3/25/2001 1:04:58 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>> Infrastructure cost money and it has to be financed and it needs to yield positive cash flow or it is wasteful. GST, I am puzzled by the conclusions you draw. So I would like to understand your point of view. I had read that a legitimate method of keeping the economy going might be for the government to bury money in the ground, and wait for people to be employed to dig them out and then buy their daily needs with them. That was in some famous treatise on fiscal stimulus. Maybe by Keynes (sp?). And as long as there is adequate supply of material goods, that seems reasonable. In the US, certainly there is plenty of supply. So why all the hand wringing? If we were in Ethiopia, where food is scarce, no amount of printed money would feed the hungry. But we're in the USA where millions of bushels of potatoes are dumped in the desert to keep the price up. And in Europe, millions of farm animals are wasted, and as far as I read, there is not any shortage of meat. Should we talk about houses ? The enclosed area of new house is increasing every year. It used to be that a 3000 sq foot house was considered large. Now it's double that. So there is no need to fret over the $4 trillion that evaporated. There is plenty more where it came from. The only important issue is whether the economy produces enough goods and services to support the aggregate standard of living. After that, it is just the details of distribution. By the way, is there a name for this brilliant insight? Is this what was known as voodoo economics ?