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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nasdaqian who wrote (14078)	5/10/2001 1:26:10 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

>>Why? Does that "extra" money just disappear when the gov. takes it? I would argue that ultimately that action would be more inflationary than not.<< nas, the concept is actually quite extraordinary and i don't think anyone would know how it would play out. i'm sure it would be ugly, though. my guess is that under the circumstances the govt would be forced to pay down the debt and then hoard money. even if they spent it, everything over $100k in wages would be returned right back to them. keep in mind the govt basket of goods is different than joe 6 pack's. j6p could care less if star wars went up in cost another $6 billion b/c it isn't on his grocery list. ;-) >>Government doesn't produce anything.<< license plates don't count? ;-) it does, to some extent, produce value. lawlessness and disorder can be extremely ugly. >>It redistributes it (we can argue about the places it sends it) and takes a big cut for itself.<< but you pointed out it doesn't keep the money it disperses it to people. those people are typically quite privileged. >>That money would be distributed with no corresponding creation of goods resulting in more money chasing less goods. Certainly, individuals and businesses can employ that money more productively.<< again, i'm not arguing that system would be good. it would be horrible, imho. can i assume we agree that many people other than welfare recipients are the beneficiaries of govt subsidies? i noticed you didn't debate this point even though it was most of the note. >>So? I would argue that the gov. is involved in way too many subsidies. It's spending money in ways it deems more appropriate than we might.<< with govt official self interest as the guide to the disposition the wealth. >>I'm not interested in bashing welfare. As a way of life it is not a good thing.<< which is why i try to avoid it ;-) >>Many folks expect to get something for no effort at the expense of someone else.<< so why doesn't america spend equally on education in poor neighborhoods to reduce this dependence attitude? >>As they grow in number they continue to vote for pol's who effectively buy their votes. It's a vicious cycle.<< all pol's are whores. their johns just come from different neighborhoods.

To: nasdaqian who wrote (14078)	5/10/2001 2:13:33 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 42834

>>Why? Does that "extra" money just disappear when the gov. takes it? I would argue that ultimately that action would be more inflationary than not.<< nas, the concept is actually quite extraordinary and i don't think anyone would know how it would play out. i'm sure it would be ugly, though. my guess is that under the circumstances the govt would be forced to pay down the debt and then hoard money. even if they spent it, everything over $100k in wages would be returned right back to them. keep in mind the govt basket of goods is different than joe 6 packs. j6p could care less if star wars went up in cost another $6 billion b/c it isn't on his grocery list. ;-) >>Government doesn't produce anything.<< license plates don't count? ;-) it does, to some extent, produce value. lawlessness and disorder can be extremely ugly. >>It redistributes it (we can argue about the places it sends it) and takes a big cut for itself.<< but you pointed out it doesn't keep the money it disperses it to people. >>That money would be distributed with no corresponding creation of goods resulting in more money chasing less goods. Certainly, individuals and businesses can employ that money more productively.<< again, i'm not arguing that system would be good. it would be horrible, imho. can i assume we agree that many people other than welfare recipients are the beneficiaries of govt subsidies? i noticed you didn't debate this point even though it was most of the note. >>So? I would argue that the gov. is involved in way too many subsidies. It's spending money in ways it deems more appropriate than we might.<< with govt official self interest as the guide to disposition the wealth. >>I'm not interested in bashing welfare. As a way of life it is not a good thing.<< which is why i try to avoid it ;-) >>Many folks expect to get something for no effort at the expense of someone else.<< so why doesn't america spend eually on education in poor neighborhoods to reeduce this dependence? >>As they grow in number they continue to vote for pol's who effectively buy their votes. It's a vicious cycle.<< all pol's are whores. their johns just come from different neighborhoods.