SI
SI
discoversearch

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: HPilot who wrote (679459)10/17/2012 4:28:39 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573351
 
Unless the spending increases infrastructure or does some other thing to directly increase industry, there is no gain.
While that sort of spending is more desirable in so many ways, it isn't true that there is no gain. You are increasing the money supply. It goes into someone's pocket, and when they spend it, it improves the economy. The downside is if too much money is dumped too fast you can get inflation. That was what happened during the 1970s. The death blow was two events. The first was the collapse of the anchoveta fisheries off of Peru due to overfishing and a strong el Nino in 1972. The catch went from around 10 million tons per year down to around 4 million. The bulk of the fish wet into fish meal. Which was used for anything that need a protein supplement or even fertilizer. The only real substitute at the time was soybeans. But soybeans were, and still are, used for a variety of other products. This caused all sort of production disruptions leading to widespread shortages. The final blow was the Oil Embargo in 1973. That jacked up transportation costs enormously and quickly. . That led to a panicked atmosphere about shortages in general. Heck, Johnny Carson caused a toilet paper shortage with a joke in his monologue.

When the economy started to slowdown, the deficits from the Vietnam war started to drive up inflation which was already starting to be a problem. Under Nixon, we increased our spending, which made the problems worse.The lack of investments during the previous couple of decades meant that many industries were inefficient compared to their foreign competitors. That didn't help matters much either. Under Carter, Paul Volcker raised interest rates to bring the inflation under control. And that put the economy into a tailspin with rising unemployment. Which also helped bring inflation under control. And that set the stage for the Reagan recovery.

I was there and followed the situation very closely.