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: Victor Lazlo who wrote (157057)	5/8/2003 12:45:44 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Recent history doesn't support that. vic, i don't even understand this comment. are you saying a hungry family won't buy food with extra money? how does recent history support this belief of yours? also, what in recent history tells you that a marginal dollar in the hands of the wealthy will create more jobs in an over supply condition as now exists - and please be specific about EXACTLY what it is that gives you this impression. Consumer spending has been perhaps the most recent bubble to burst, funded by spending underwritten by home equity borrowing. Consumer spending has been way over the top, yet the economy is still stagnant. this proves my point. more spending i needed, not more supply. we have enough - and not enough BUYERS. give the dough to people that will spend it rather than invest and save it - which is fundamental to bush's theory of job creation. need a part-time job at walmart? not yet. -lol- Saving and investing is almost neglible in our society. "society" isn't under discussion. saving is RAMPANT among the most wealthy people in america. that's who we are talking about, not "society." We need more saving and investing. i agree there. but then we have to take the hard economic medicine and high unemployment for an extended period of time to reset the economic clock. no politician will sell that. so they try and spur the economy now. my point was simple, if that si one's goal, put money in the hands of the spenders, not the elite rich who ALREADY can buy anything they want. Spending rules. Giving a low income family $300 in a year is meaningless to our economy. It will not create any jobs or boost gdp. yes, it will. if 20 million people spend $300 a pop (actually, the average will be like $600 b/c kids are included) the economy will get almost $6 billion injected into it. that won't creat jobs to handle that demand? of course it will. much more than if a couple steve forbes types write a few checks to their broker for $6 billion. which is my point and i don't see where recent history shows that wrong at all, ASSUMING one's agenda is to jump start the economy now.