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: neolib who wrote (751691)	11/7/2013 6:18:25 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578046

It is pretty clear that none of the people arguing with you have lived in an area prone to hurricanes. I don't really recommend it as a way to pump up the economy, but it most certainly happens. The heart of the problem is that they are operating off of a very simplistic economic model and their intuition. Like one of i-node's favorites, 'you can't borrow your way to prosperity'. People do it all the time when they start businesses or expand an existing business. The broken window thing assumes people have neither insurance or savings. And so on. The point is that short term reallocation of resources can have longterm effects. Both positive and negative. Which is why you don't just do it blindly.

To: neolib who wrote (751691)	11/7/2013 6:20:49 PM
From: mel221	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578046

Do you remember making this statement? "In all cases, the function of the window is loss, and the effect on the economy of replacing it is identical. Worrying about what is going through the heads or motivating the actions of actually breaking the window are completely irrelevant, as is labeling some of them vandalism and others entertainment. " and then this " Do you agree that someone not just breaking my window, but in fact completely destroying my home, and in fact, stealing my land to boot might boost GDP?" We have been discussing hurricane loss and Keynesian economics where destroying things and rebuilding them is net beneficial to GDP. You are right that destroying and rebuilding is exactly a zero sum situation. All of you sudden you make this statement "If someone bulldozes my house and builds a factory there instead, its not a zero sum game. " Now you are talking about creative capitalism. I, and all of the conservatives here, support creative capitalism. Increases to productivity are what increases GDP in sustained and meaningful ways. I'm glad to see you pivot away from defending Keynesian economics.

To: neolib who wrote (751691)	11/7/2013 6:26:32 PM
From: mel221	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB steve harris Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578046

>> Its the same sort of arithmetic used to say that if the Government spends a tax dollar, the tax came from somewhere else and hence there was an offsetting reduction in spending somewhere else so the net effect of Government stimulus must be zero. I have a dollar and you don't. I spend the dollar and affect GDP. You take the dollar from me and spend it and affect GDP. Who affected GDP more? And please, feel free to show your math.

To: neolib who wrote (751691)	11/7/2013 6:36:08 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578046

Neolib, If someone bulldozes my house and builds a factory there instead, its not a zero sum game. If the factory made widgets that no one would ever buy, then that would be a negative sum game. Obviously the company building the factory values your property, or else they would build it elsewhere. That value is determined by you because that property happens to have your home on top of it. A so-called "Keynesian" might argue that your property isn't contributing to the GDP, so it would be better to just forcibly evict you, bulldoze your home, and build a factory there. (In fact, many abusers of eminent domain have made similar arguments, that land owned by private citizens ought to be taken over by the government and given to rich developers that would contribute more taxes.) But more often than not, such actions end up hurting society in general. Might as well just let central planning decide for all of us whether we can keep what we make, what we buy, and what we build for ourselves. Tenchusatsu