11
   

If and when do you think this stimulus plan will work?

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:39 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert -- I didn't mean to brush you off. If I came across that way, I'm sorry.

Keynes is an excellent source for the economic rationale the stimulus is based on. There's nothing wrong with citing him in a thread on economic policy, except for political tactics: Conservatives, especially in America, have somehow developed an allergic reaction to the mere mentioning of Keynes's name. The won't accept him as an economic authority no matter how good his arguments are. That's why I added textbooks by conservative economists to your recommendation. It's the only reason I did. No snubbing or anything like that intended.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
we still must retain capitalism as our primary economic system


no we don't....the best interests of humans trumps the best interests of the systems that we create. Capitalism may or may not remain useful to us. If we replace it I don't know what will follow. It will be replaced sooner or later, nothing is useful forever. I am a socialist so obviously I personally think it is time for capitalism to be tossed upon the trash heap of history, but until the majority is formed around that opinion it will not be. What concerns me most is the lack of conversation about the way forward, the apparent lack of awareness of the nature of the problems that humans face, not that my argument has not won the day.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
I disagree 100% with your thesis; no economic system can survive by taking away the incentives and motivations under capitalism.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:46 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Robert -- I didn't mean to brush you off. If I came across that way, I'm sorry.


No worries, you didn't come across that way at all and I found the additional recommendations personally useful.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
A semi-autonomous robotized one might!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:49 pm
@Chumly,
But who's gonna make them robots - and maintain them? LOL
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:52 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
Exactly. Find me some economists who were able to acurately predict the housing bubble back in 2005/6 and let me know what they are saying now. You can start with Peter Schiff.


Ok, then what Peter Schiff says to do is buy guns and ammo and move out of cities because he says the total economic collapse is desirable and inevitable and he expects food shortages, wars, rolling blackouts and... well if you really want to take his advice move to the wilderness and play survivalist and hope that the collapse comes instead of fearing it.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I disagree 100% with your thesis; no economic system can survive by taking away the incentives and motivations under capitalism.


capitalism primarily incentizes personal greed over all else, this has not worked out very well for the best interests of the human race long term. We are destroying the planet, we are argumentative, short sighted, work together poorly, weakened the social bonds than hold individuals together, don't know or care about prioritizing the important over the trivial, spend huge amounts of resources with little return (American health care for example), miss allocate resources increasingly often (all of the market bubbles we now experience).....

You are letting your love for a pet theory get in the way of the facts.

0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:58 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Over the next one to two years, unemployment will increase less than it would without a plan, but it will increase.


How is this possible?
I thought Obama and the dems were selling the plan because it would CREATE jobs, not cost them.

Are you saying that it wont create jobs?
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 03:00 pm
@mysteryman,
Those aren't mutually exclusive scenarios.

The stimulus can still create jobs even if more than the number it's creating are being lost. The effect therefore would be that less are lost than would have been while unemployment continues to increase (just more slowly).
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 03:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Think ahead as per self-replicating machines and Von Neumann. As to the time-line, technological progress in rather unpredictable but often has been much faster than so-called "experts" predictions.

You're driving by looking in the rear view mirror.

I am OK with capitalism (at this time) as long as the true total costs are factored in, alas with respect to the environment this is hardly the case. We are buying on the cheap and deferring the true costs forward, that's not capitalism per se, thats irresponsible leverage.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 03:03 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
How is this possible?
I thought Obama and the dems were selling the plan because it would CREATE jobs, not cost them


thus demonstrating how hard people find it to resist partisan mud throwing.....we have serious problems to address and many would rather play around...

it is time for the adults to take charge
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 03:07 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
How is this possible?
I thought Obama and the dems were selling the plan because it would CREATE jobs, not cost them.

Are you saying that it wont create jobs?

No. I am saying the private sector will shed three times more jobs than the stimulus plan creates, for a net loss of two times as many jobs as the plan creates. Consequently, I am also saying that this enough -- that the plan should have been three times larger than it is.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 03:47 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly, That's unrealistic; all capitalist countries do not survive on 100% capitalism, but capitalism is what provides the wealth.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 04:28 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Chumly, That's unrealistic; all capitalist countries do not survive on 100% capitalism, but capitalism is what provides the wealth.


we are done being slaves to wealth creation, we are going to go holistic and will work to create quality of life. Much of what makes life worth living is not dependent upon wealth creation, consumption, titillating the nerve endings....Capitalism's claim that we can not live without it are not going to work any more.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 04:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
a) What do you mean by "unrealistic" in the context given?
b) What specifically do you claim is so-called "unrealistic"?
c) What is the rationale for your claim?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 04:31 pm
@hawkeye10,
"Holistic" is an ideal we will never achieve in life. The world's wealth is held by just a few at the top, and that's not going to change no matter what happens to all the economies of the world.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 04:34 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly, You wrote:
Quote:
I am OK with capitalism (at this time) as long as the true total costs are factored in, alas with respect to the environment this is hardly the case. We are buying on the cheap and deferring the true costs forward, that's not capitalism per se, thats irresponsible leverage.


We are never going to achieve "true total costs." Human nature as it is will always live for "today," and leave future worries to the future. To expect otherwise is "unrealistic."
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 04:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
a) Where did I make the claim that we will "achieve true total costs."? (Hint: I did not)

b) Irrespective of whether we will or will not "achieve true total costs" how does that affect the underlying problem of irresponsible leverage? (Hint: it does not)

c) Even if your claim is true that we will never "achieve true total costs" by what measure would you dismiss the consideration that ecological suicide is a fair price to pay?

d) You appear to be preoccupied with driving using the rear view mirror! So-called "Human nature" is not fixed, it's malleable given upcoming and even present technologies.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 05:25 pm
@Chumly,
You wrote:
Quote:
"I am OK with capitalism (at this time) as long as the true total costs are factored in..."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Where is the US economy headed? - Discussion by au1929
The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/16/2021 at 12:18:51