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

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (36814)	9/8/2009 9:12:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

I, of course, refer to "stimulus" as "that which has a stimulative economic effect". That definition is so wide as to not be very meaningful. Cuts in regulation could stimulate the economy. A small nation winning the World Cup could stimulate its economy. Better weather in an area can stimulate the local economy. None of these things would normally be referred to as "the stimulus". And nothing like any of these things has been meant by almost anyone talking about "the stimulus" in terms of the current economic, fiscal, and political debate across the country. Firstly, there just wasn't much of that 'other countries funneling cash to the US to buy our goods' happening! Countries where going in to greater and greater levels of debt to buy weapons, support equipment, and vital resources from the US leading up to, and during the early parts of WWII. We were at war with half the world (so no buying from them)... We where not at war yet. We did impose sanctions on Japan, but not in their most severe form during the early part of the period in question. and our allies were busted so much of the war goods we supplied and our allies were busted so much of the war goods we supplied Thank you for supporting my point. They where going broke, in part because they bought things from us. That's a lot of money, not reasonably described as something there "wasn't much of". went on lend-lease (or other credit terms) Lend-lease had not started yet at the beginning of the period in question. This is in the period before the US joined the war (to an extent even before the war started except for Japan's mainland military adventures), and then shortly after we where thrust in to it. Lend Lease didn't start until almost a year and a half after the European war started, and didn't immediately totally take over from sales. "Cash and Carry" started in 1939 (and non weapons sales where allowed before that time). Also you don't need any special new factor, the economy will tend to resume its growth if there isn't anything getting in the way of that growth. And growth during WWII was itself exaggerated in some ways. Personal income and esp. personal spending did not grow dramatically. Price controls and rationing distorted economic statistics. And finally I said the stimulus effect of WWII was exaggerated, not non-existent, or even small.