SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (36807)9/6/2009 2:08:18 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
I, of course, refer to "stimulus" as "that which has a stimulative economic effect".

(Which is --- I'm certain --- the definition used by every Economist.)

So... Central Bank injections of liquidity (through 'quantitative easing' by purchasing assets such as Treasury debt, or through reductions to capital requirements, or reductions to Fed Funds or Discount rates)... Tax or Tariff reductions by legislation... or spending increases by legislative action... ALL are classic stimulus.

(And, in this case, both here in the US and around the globe with other sovereigns, the stimulus provided by Central Bank actions has been VASTLY the greatest part of government-provided economic stimulus.)

Now, as far as your claim that the 'stimulative effect of WW II has been exaggerated', I find that HIGHLY unlikely.

Firstly, there just wasn't much of that 'other countries funneling cash to the US to buy our goods' happening!

We were at war with half the world (so no buying from them)... and our allies were busted so much of the war goods we supplied went on lend-lease (or other credit terms) and in fact often was never paid back even then. (How about that Soviet debt? The China loans? :-)

The economies of nearly *all* nations were seriously impacted in a negative way, trade fell off the cliff... so that assertion just doesn't pass the 'smell test'.