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: TimF who wrote (40902)	2/4/2010 12:25:35 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 71588

Like I pointed out... it ALL comes down to the MATH. And, while SPENDING PROGRAMS are in one category, not-spending-alternatives are clearly a horse of another color entirely! Not to say that the "multiplier effects" of the two disparate policy choices cannot be compared/contrasted! (For they surely can be compared, it just takes a little more work.) But, there are additional steps you must first take in preparing the calculation of the eventual multiplier effect. (For example, if you 'leave money in some people's pockets' you CANNOT THEN ASSUME that they will immediately go out and spend 100% of it --- for they clearly will not. Some portion of it is likely to go into savings, some portion into paying down existing debts, etc. These choices will result in lower immediate multiplier effects, at least for those portions that are so allocated.) When comparing the "economic multiplier effects" from "spending choice A" to "spending choice B" (for example: spending X amount on road construction vs. spending the same X amount on a new fighter-bomber or on electrical grid for example) the comparison becomes much more straight forward.