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: combjelly who wrote (679442)	10/17/2012 3:19:37 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573214

It just isn't possible to claim that the economy would not recover from those things for your thesis to work. Of course the economy would have recovered -- eventually. The Clinton recession was big. But 9/11 was a body slam -- had it not been for the Bush tax cuts, there would have been zero growth throughout those years, followed by the real estate crash which would have been unrecoverable, even with TARP, which ultimately saved the economy. If nothing else, the massive increase in the deficits and the debt were very stimulative. Nonsense. Debts and deficits are not stimulative. When has arbitrarily running a deficit "stimulated" an economy? Never. Not once. It just doesn't work that way. This pseudo-Keynesianism has been disproved totally.

To: combjelly who wrote (679442)	10/17/2012 3:49:12 PM
From: HPilot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573214

The idea that government spending stimulates the economy is not quite correct. Unless the spending increases infrastructure or does some other thing to directly increase industry, there is no gain. This has a huge lag that causes people to put the blame on current action when actually it was done well in the past. For example the space race and Vietnam spending caused the poor economy in the 70's. The spending and debt in WWII is often attributed to the great economy in the 50's but actually it was a lack of foreign competition. All of Europe and Japan were literally bombed out. The US made money on exports as well as building plants overseas. The govenment in the 19th century spent a lot of money helping to build and protect the railroads, but that gave a huge infrastructure that greatly improved industry.