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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (64503)	5/6/2009 6:38:49 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224755

"Attempting to stimulate the economy with monetary and fiscal policy is hubris." Well I didn't get past the first sentence. I'm not arguing that we do this to stimulate the economy. Your pushing it as a job creator which is pretty much the same thing. Remember all this TARP stuff was started under Paulson/Bush. My issues in this debate aren't partisan, to the extent I'm speaking out against Obama now its because he's the one doing it (and also because he took it further than Bush), but I don't support the what Paulson and Bush did in the later part of Bush's time in office either. If that doesn't work for you think of the conservative response to 9-11. Huge huge HUGE expense and debt as we went into Iraq. 1 - A much smaller increase in spending and debt than what we've had recently. 2 - War spending is more temporary than civilian spending. Defense spending was over a third of GDP in WWII, then it crashed until Korea (which increased it to a much lower peak than in WWII), it had similar if smaller declines after Korea and Vietnam and other wars. 3 - With a war the issue is the war. Just about no one pushes the idea that we should have a war to stimulate the economy? Many realize that wars are net negatives economically and even those who don't and think their beneficial don't call for one for that reason. Sooo, back to my argument. Not trying to be stimulative but trying to get the best bang for my buck - my tax payer buck. Expanding the extent that investment decisions are controlled by politics isn't the way to get bang for your buck. but the jobs are still disappearing at an almost unbelieveable rate. No they aren't. Well "unbelievable rate" is rather poorly defined, but job losses as a percentage of totally employment are consistent with many other recessions, and the unemployment rate is lower than in many past recessions. Not in housing. Not in commercial construction. Not in autos. Most the rest of the stuff is made in China. Not true. Whether or not you include comercial construction and autos produced in both countries the US manufactures more than China does. Were are they getting jobs Tim? WHERE? The same place people get jobs as we recover from every other recession. No good way to be sure where that is before hand, or to try to determine it politically, but people will get jobs, and unemployment will decline.