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: i-node who wrote (679445)	10/17/2012 3:53:03 PM
From: HPilot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573330

But 9/11 was a body slam. No it wasn't though it did have a negative impact. The body slam was the banks and other financial institutions that were about to go under. That and the huge bailout spending. It was all the fault of Frank and Dodd.

To: i-node who wrote (679445)	10/17/2012 4:07:35 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573330

The Clinton recession was big. But 9/11 was a body slam Not even close to a body slam. Now the 2008, yes. But the aftermath of 9/11? That is stretching the available history in so many ways. You better be able to scare up some proof. Nonsense. Debts and deficits are not stimulative. Money is money. If you have extra spending coming into the economy it doesn't really matter if the source is the government, consumers dipping into savings or Martians. The money supply has been increased. Now you can argue about the relative efficiencies of the spending, but to claim it has no effect is, well, bullshit. This isn't Keynesian economics, pseudo or otherwise. It is economics, period. To claim otherwise is delusional.