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: Peter Dierks who wrote (62003)	2/1/2013 10:40:34 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Long term yes... short term no... short term Economy would slow... wimps are scared of that. Check out these buffoons: <<The $16 trillion debt sounds like a terrible thing, but no one has been able to show how this high level of debt has had any negative impact on the economy or on the people so far. Has anyone come around looking for your share of it?>> finance.yahoo.com DAK

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (62003)	2/1/2013 10:00:08 PM
From: greatplains_guy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Public funds are removed from the private economy one way or another. If they are not collected directly in taxes they are removed by reducing capital from the market. ...Keynesians are most definitely not good economists. Indeed, the disciples of Lord Keynes only live in the short run. In fact, they show the main weakness of the GDP: it calculates economic activity regardless of whether it’s new wealth or just old being replaced. So when Keynes thinks that wasting towels is good for housekeeping work, or when Paul Krugman (almost) rejoiced on 9/11 or when a hurricane is creeping by because of all the construction that would ensue, they are merely perpetuating the Broken Window Fallacy exposed by Frédéric Bastiat over 160 years ago. This fallacy simply states that a broken window, while giving work to the window maker, does not create wealth; it merely displaces it. With an intact window, James B. could have bought a new suit or, if he had lived today, a new computer (which could actually augment his wealth, if it made him more productive). This short-term fetish can also be seen in the Keynesian solution to get out of a recession, i.e. raise public spending. It gives birth to herds of white elephants – costly projects with little real use – notably bridges to nowhere and the infamous trick for a rapid economic growth: dig a hole and fill it up. As for broken windows, these projects do “create” jobs, bringing about a supposed multiplier effect. However, Keynesians forget that this public spending had to be financed somewhere, usually by taxpayers. One dollar spent by a government is one less dollar spent by a person (via taxing), by an enterprise (via public loans) or simply a dollar lost in purchasing power (via inflation, and therefore through monetary expansion). And since the economy seems to tend toward a certain equilibrium in the long run, raising government spending will only raise prices, and sometimes even interest rates. Therefore, “laissez faire” is indeed the right solution when it comes to solving recessions. ... mises.ca I found this because of a post from Joe Btfsplk.