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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (353520)	10/3/2007 6:56:24 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1587743

A lot of companies beyond dot coms either went bust or dropped to a tiny portion of their previous value. Ok. Then if we take your thesis, then they didn't contribute to the recovery at all. Well it didn't fully take effect until 2004, there was some effect before that, after the first part of the tax cut was passed in 2002, or to a very limited extent even in anticipation of it. But I do think that for the most part government's effort in stimulating or improving the economy through tax policy are overrated as a source of economic growth. As I mentioned in my last post, the effect I'm really looking for is long term, and tax policy is rarely stable for the long term. And even the stimulus effect is less predictable than many people seem to think, and by the time it takes effect conditions can change so its no longer needed. I'm not a fan of trying to fine tune the economic cycle with tax changes. Simple, low, and stable over at least several presidential terms would be my ideal, but I don't think its likely to happen There still was the stimulus of the deficit. Which is basically the equivalent of a tax cut, economically speaking. In terms of a stimulus yes. In terms of reducing the distortion the tax code, and providing a long term supply side boost? No. But then over the course of an presidential term the stimulus effect is likely to be the predominate one. As for other disasters. The 1906 quake was huge, but something like that doesn't occur in most economic cycles. The same goes for the larger crop disasters. 9/11's worst effects were local, but it had larger effects from the grounding of air traffic (and later additional delays at airports that might continue indefinitely), to a reduction in tourism (esp. to, but not limited to New York), to the stock market closing for a week, to large additional expenditures for security and terrorism response, to a reduction in economic confidence that was larger than the effect a similar sized non-terrorism related disaster would likely have caused. Also the local effects where large. The damage claim from the attacks was over $20bil., and in purely economic terms the indirect effects where much larger.