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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Smith who wrote (152224)	12/13/2010 4:54:27 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542970

If people have money to spend that is stimulative, and if it keeps going it continues to be stimulative. It doesn't matter that it is continuing- stimulation can be continuous. What you have, if you stop it, is destimulation. So of course people having money is stimulative, just as them not having money contibutes to a cycle of destimulation. The stimulation may not be incremental (although I think it might be, since if you have stimulation, and the economy begins to recover, and you continue to support it- that might actually make the recovery sturdier- which would mean you had incrementally supportive stimulation.)

To: Paul Smith who wrote (152224)	12/14/2010 4:36:13 AM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 542970

>>but you are not putting any more money in their hands than in November. It is a continuation of what was already happening in November -- the stimulative effect is not incremental to what was already in place in November.<< It would be incremental to the effect of not doing it, though. Nobody's claiming it will be more stimulative next year than it was this year. Look at it this way, if you stimulate for a month, that will have a certain effect. If you stimulate for a year, that will have a greater effect, even if you stimulate by the same amount each month.