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: RetiredNow who wrote (531296)	11/21/2009 11:35:25 AM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574854

Again, you assume that the entire $800B was a waste of money. I know it was not. I'll give you an example. Out of the $800B, $80B went to investments in renewable energy and loans for renewable energy companies. You really need to get away from this idea that government spending is "investment". It isn't. It is spending. An "investment" is money put up that will be returned plus some earnings premium. These expenditures will not be returned to our government in any way, shape or form. They're money spent. Also, I accept that you believe "renewable energy" is a big deal. I've clearly expressed that I have no problem with independent business pursuing it; it is a great thing. I'll try to explain this in a way in which you can understand it. If the government borrows a billion dollars at interest of, say, 5% annually, then gives that money to, for example, buyers of hybrid vehicles as an incentive to buy, we have done a couple things -- helped a guy buy a car, and put a billion dollars in debt and $50 Million/year in interest expense on the backs of our children. And the return on that "investment" is ZERO. So, it isn't an investment at all -- there is no anticipation of earnings at all from this expenditure. It is wasted government money. What if, instead, that money were spend to "invest" in electricity infrastructure? It is the same thing. There is no return on that "investment" -- unless you just lend the money at a rate higher than 5% to utility companies. This is an EXPENDITURE, not an INVESTMENT. I did the research and came up with a figure of about 80% of the stimulus was money that would likely have a positive return on investment. A ridiculous statement. You haven't any clue how this money is being wasted and what kind of "return" one might anticipate from ANY of it. You're totally full of shit with this statement.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (531296)	11/23/2009 12:44:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574854

$80B went to investments in renewable energy and loans for renewable energy companies. I consider that an investment with a very high return. There is always a chance that this time may be different, but historically that has not been the case. A couple of hundred billion went to tax cuts for companies and small businesses. If done right that's a good idea, but temporary and politically targeted tax cuts aren't the way to go. Durable cuts in rates are much better.