10
   

$13.00 a Week. Is everyone Happy?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:15 pm
@BigTexN,
You haven't made the case that a concentrated event is more stimulative than non-concentrated ones. Can you do that, with data or examples to back your argument up?

Cycloptichorn
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Simple...which would be more effective in your opinion...$400 billion to the banks to keep them from collapsing due to the credit crisis versus $400 billion spread amongst everyone with a line of credit....

My take is the first saves the banks, the second does nothing for the banks.
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:39 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

Look at your argument carefully and you will see that you answered your own argument...rice moving up in price would be a single, concentrated event...a single commodity moving up dramatically would be a single, concentrated event...

I'm glad to see that you are finally starting to grasp what I've been saying!

$13 a week per person being used to purchase only rice would have a huge effect on the rice economy...

But just handing out $13 a week to be used for millions/billions of miniscule expenditures will have no concentrated effect.


You really are just jerking our chains, aren't you?

Rice going up would have a single concentrated effect if every person had to go out and buy rice at that time.

How many times a year do you buy rice? Once? Twice?

The effect of rice going up did not effect everyone, and the ones it did effect it did not effect equally.

You're just not one for looking at the big picture.

The cost of everything goes up a little, it's an overall effect produced by a few cents here and there.

Conversely, why wouldn't a few cents being spent here or there have the opposite effect?
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:42 pm
@chai2,
Quote:
You really are just jerking our chains, aren't you?


I'm surprised it has taken this long to figure that out.

0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:43 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

Simple...which would be more effective in your opinion...$400 billion to the banks to keep them from collapsing due to the credit crisis versus $400 billion spread amongst everyone with a line of credit....

My take is the first saves the banks, the second does nothing for the banks.


The point of the second one isn't to do something for the banks. That's the part that you seem to be confused about.

Cycloptichorn
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I just spent another buck on a Coke...did you feel that jolt?

The Dow didn't...still down 32 points...
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:59 pm
@BigTexN,
You're waterboy's brother, aren't you?
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 03:02 pm
@old europe,
I spent a week and a half's worth of stimulous all in one day and the market closed down 83 points...DAMN THAT OBAMA AND HIS SILVER TONGUE!
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 03:07 pm
@BigTexN,
Here's a question for you economy experts.

If, as some argue, the money concentrated in banks is more beneficial to the economy than spreading it amongst the masses to trickle up through the supply and demand channels and eventually into the pockets of shareholders and banks, what kind of effect would there be if people were to take that same $52 a month and put it into a savings account? Each savings institution would have the benefit of using those assets to earn interest for themselves in the form of loans to other banks or consumers while the money still remains accessible to the individual as emergency funs.

Seems to me it would make a whole lot of sense for banks to be increasing the interest rates on their savings accounts as a way to attract that $52 a month if it was so desperately needed to shore up the stability of the banks so they can make loans and earn interest on them.

Why has that not been happening?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 03:08 pm
@BigTexN,
Is that a "yes"?
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 03:14 pm
@BigTexN,
Wow, that's a lot of money to spend on sugar-flavored water, BigTex. Drinking so many in a day isn't so healthy for you either. I'd advise you to cut down on the intake of those, but we need your help in stimulating the economy.

0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 03:21 pm
@old europe,
I doubt it. Waterboy isn't nearly as articulate (which isn't saying much) and BigTex doesn't spice up all his posts with cartoons.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 04:11 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

I just spent another buck on a Coke...did you feel that jolt?

The Dow didn't...still down 32 points...


Was it a Jolt Cola?

I like the way you retreat from your arguments once they start going south, it's cute.

Cycloptichorn
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 05:50 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Hey, guess what?

My stock portfolio went up 2.5% today.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/21/2022 at 09:02:43