| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Where's the stimulus?
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:16:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Do 5 seconds worth of research before you make silly statements. What I said is accurate, even if you "can't believe it." |
Where's the stimulus?
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings and maybe a little of it ends up as stim. |
Where's the stimulus?
wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings and maybe a little of it ends up as stim. You are leaving out the real purpose of a true "stimulus" package. Economic growth. Extending unemployment benefits may be a necessary thing to do to prevent people from falling off a cliff but it does nothing to generate growth in the economy. The families of people who have lost jobs are getting by on a percentage of their former income. For them it's a time of belt tightening and controlled spending. The problem (as I see it) is the ramifications of a global economy and competitive manufacturing. It's convenient to simply blame business for outsourcing jobs but in reality they *have* to in order to stay in business. Here's what is going on ... and it ain't pretty folks. With the emergence of China as a major global manufacturer (along with Mexico and a few other nations) the USA can no longer compete. Our pay scales and benefit packages, established over decades, are simply too high to compete with those of places like China. Many point fingers of blame at China citing worker abuse and slave labor, etc., but the fact is that the Chinese worker never had it so good. 20 years ago he and his family pedaled around on bicycles. They have traded them in for their first car. People tend to compare working conditions, pay and benefits relative to what would be expected here in the USA. That's a mistake. Factory workers in China are making more money now and are enjoying a standard of living that they never dreamed of 20-25 years ago. In time Chinese workers may follow the same path as those here in the USA and start demanding higher pay, better working conditions and benefit packages and the cost of Chinese produced goods will begin to rise. But that's a long way off. Meanwhile, the Chinese government is financing the USA in order to maintain a market for their manufactured goods. The USA is the largest importer of their products .... for now. Once the Chinese establish significant markets elsewhere in the world, the financing of the US economy will end. That's when the **** will hit the fan big time. And it's not 5 or 10 years away. It's happening right now. The whole relative pay scale and benefit expectations in the USA is going to have to be completely revamped. This will affect the values of homes, property and everything else that makes up an economy and standard of living. Those who are living in the past, with expectations of payscales and benefits of the 80's 90's and early 2000's are living in a dreamland. Stand by for heavy rolls. (boating content) Eisboch |
Where's the stimulus?
I have to agree... we'll have the same problem up here when we lose the US as a major market when you can't afford or don't need our exports anymore. I suppose we'll send a lot of the exports to China etc... but they'll probably want to pay less when competition for our resources lessens. Things have gotten out of whack... especially in the elite world of CEOs professional sports figures, politicians etc. Up here a provincial politician (MLA) can start collecting a life long pension at age 45 if they have served 5 years in our legislature. How screwed up is that? The trouble with this new re-adjustment is that the working people on the lower end of the scale will suffer the most... as usual. How old were you when you were pensioned out? |
Where's the stimulus?
|
Where's the stimulus?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 03:32:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings and maybe a little of it ends up as stim. You are leaving out the real purpose of a true "stimulus" package. Economic growth. Extending unemployment benefits may be a necessary thing to do to prevent people from falling off a cliff but it does nothing to generate growth in the economy. The families of people who have lost jobs are getting by on a percentage of their former income. For them it's a time of belt tightening and controlled spending. The problem (as I see it) is the ramifications of a global economy and competitive manufacturing. It's convenient to simply blame business for outsourcing jobs but in reality they *have* to in order to stay in business. Here's what is going on ... and it ain't pretty folks. With the emergence of China as a major global manufacturer (along with Mexico and a few other nations) the USA can no longer compete. Our pay scales and benefit packages, established over decades, are simply too high to compete with those of places like China. Many point fingers of blame at China citing worker abuse and slave labor, etc., but the fact is that the Chinese worker never had it so good. 20 years ago he and his family pedaled around on bicycles. They have traded them in for their first car. People tend to compare working conditions, pay and benefits relative to what would be expected here in the USA. That's a mistake. Factory workers in China are making more money now and are enjoying a standard of living that they never dreamed of 20-25 years ago. In time Chinese workers may follow the same path as those here in the USA and start demanding higher pay, better working conditions and benefit packages and the cost of Chinese produced goods will begin to rise. But that's a long way off. Meanwhile, the Chinese government is financing the USA in order to maintain a market for their manufactured goods. The USA is the largest importer of their products .... for now. Once the Chinese establish significant markets elsewhere in the world, the financing of the US economy will end. That's when the **** will hit the fan big time. And it's not 5 or 10 years away. It's happening right now. The whole relative pay scale and benefit expectations in the USA is going to have to be completely revamped. This will affect the values of homes, property and everything else that makes up an economy and standard of living. Those who are living in the past, with expectations of payscales and benefits of the 80's 90's and early 2000's are living in a dreamland. Stand by for heavy rolls. (boating content) Eisboch Every man for himself. The next to suffer will be the undereducated American who've just been getting by. The urban undereducated are already suffering. Walmart will have a harder time finding buyers for its Chinese goods when our country is even further divided by haves and have nots. China has its own problems. |
Where's the stimulus?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 03:32:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings and maybe a little of it ends up as stim. You are leaving out the real purpose of a true "stimulus" package. Economic growth. Extending unemployment benefits may be a necessary thing to do to prevent people from falling off a cliff but it does nothing to generate growth in the economy. The families of people who have lost jobs are getting by on a percentage of their former income. For them it's a time of belt tightening and controlled spending. The problem (as I see it) is the ramifications of a global economy and competitive manufacturing. It's convenient to simply blame business for outsourcing jobs but in reality they *have* to in order to stay in business. Here's what is going on ... and it ain't pretty folks. With the emergence of China as a major global manufacturer (along with Mexico and a few other nations) the USA can no longer compete. Our pay scales and benefit packages, established over decades, are simply too high to compete with those of places like China. Many point fingers of blame at China citing worker abuse and slave labor, etc., but the fact is that the Chinese worker never had it so good. 20 years ago he and his family pedaled around on bicycles. They have traded them in for their first car. People tend to compare working conditions, pay and benefits relative to what would be expected here in the USA. That's a mistake. Factory workers in China are making more money now and are enjoying a standard of living that they never dreamed of 20-25 years ago. In time Chinese workers may follow the same path as those here in the USA and start demanding higher pay, better working conditions and benefit packages and the cost of Chinese produced goods will begin to rise. But that's a long way off. Meanwhile, the Chinese government is financing the USA in order to maintain a market for their manufactured goods. The USA is the largest importer of their products .... for now. Once the Chinese establish significant markets elsewhere in the world, the financing of the US economy will end. That's when the **** will hit the fan big time. And it's not 5 or 10 years away. It's happening right now. The whole relative pay scale and benefit expectations in the USA is going to have to be completely revamped. This will affect the values of homes, property and everything else that makes up an economy and standard of living. Those who are living in the past, with expectations of payscales and benefits of the 80's 90's and early 2000's are living in a dreamland. Stand by for heavy rolls. (boating content) Eisboch Nice argument, but poor conclusions... there's no crisis on the scale you're arguing for. It's just fear-based. Most of China is very, very poor. They will remain that way for a very long time. |
Where's the stimulus?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:35:53 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:12:27 -0800, wrote: most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. No argument that it is spent immediately. The question is whether or not it provides any long term benefit to the economy which is what "stimulus" is supposed to do. If it doesn't create jobs and/or create useful new infrastructure, there is no long term benefit. It's not about "long term benefit." Stimulating the economy isn't a long term solution. The economy should run without stimulation by things like gov't payments to individual. It's not a long term solution and nobody is claiming it is (except people - like you? - who don't understand how it works). It's strictly short term. It does create jobs in the short term. Useful new infrastructure is/was part of the stimulus plan... fix roads, etc. But, yet again, that kind of stimulus doesn't really create long term jobs. It's short term that we need to concentrate on. After the economy really gets moving, then long term solutions (e.g., deficit/debt/SSI/MC) need to be phased in. |
Where's the stimulus?
On 19/02/2011 6:49 AM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 19, 4:49 am, wrote: “Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” (Chinese Proverb boating content) Eisboch Rich, that woks great in theory bur in practice it may be different. Around here it's "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and all he'll what to do is drink beer and fish" Done that lots, beer and fishing go together. Trouble with giving a fish, is they will be back the next day for more. And the day you don't give them a fish, the buggers will bite your hands and roll you over like rude people. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Where's the stimulus?
On 19/02/2011 12:20 PM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. Correct. Government can only confiscate it and inefficiently redistribute it. 100% of government si consumption based. What makes real money is like a cotton grower. Makes cotton where no cotton previously existed before. That is a wealth producing job. Trouble is too many consumers and not enough producers. We pay far too many to be government and bankers, not enough pay for producers like growers, miners, etc. Same problem when Rome fell, too many academics, politicians and parasites on the governments behind. Not enough producers to support the size of the system. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Where's the stimulus?
On 19/02/2011 9:12 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings and maybe a little of it ends up as stim. Real stimulation would not cost much at all. Get government downsized and off of peoples backs, especially the producers of wealth, people who make real stuff and grow society need more, parasites, lawyers, politicians and government freeloaders need less. But today, government is supporting parasites on a credit card. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Where's the stimulus?
|
Where's the stimulus?
On 17/02/2011 6:28 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it. more paranoia. the amount of money obama put into the economy was the same amount local govts cut. the balance is zero Last I check Obama was on the brink of $14.5 trillion of debt, 5 of which has been added since he was elected. And better get more in March or he be broke (again). Man has no concept of money, just how to **** it away. Yep, Obama, the largest debt-spender the world has ever seen. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Where's the stimulus?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:21:41 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 19/02/2011 9:12 PM, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings and maybe a little of it ends up as stim. Real stimulation would not cost much at all. Get government downsized and off of peoples backs, especially the producers of wealth, people who make real stuff and grow society need more, parasites, lawyers, politicians and government freeloaders need less. But today, government is supporting parasites on a credit card. It's truly shocking how small-minded and how much of a simpleton you are. You don't have a clue about how economics work, and you foam at the mouth when someone wants to help those who are worse off. You're really a despicable person. Please don't even try to enter this great country. We don't need people like you here. |
Where's the stimulus?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:19:05 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 19/02/2011 12:20 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. Correct. Government can only confiscate it and inefficiently redistribute it. 100% of government si consumption based. What makes real money is like a cotton grower. Makes cotton where no cotton previously existed before. That is a wealth producing job. Trouble is too many consumers and not enough producers. We pay far too many to be government and bankers, not enough pay for producers like growers, miners, etc. Same problem when Rome fell, too many academics, politicians and parasites on the governments behind. Not enough producers to support the size of the system. Incorrect. You don't know how an economy functions. You're an idiot, and you're worse, you're an uneducated idiot. |
Where's the stimulus?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:30:47 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 17/02/2011 6:28 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it. more paranoia. the amount of money obama put into the economy was the same amount local govts cut. the balance is zero Last I check Obama was on the brink of $14.5 trillion of debt, 5 of which has been added since he was elected. And better get more in March or he be broke (again). Man has no concept of money, just how to **** it away. Yep, Obama, the largest debt-spender the world has ever seen. Last you checked there might be another beer in your fridge. That's about the extent of your ability to think about being on the brink of anything. |
Where's the stimulus?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:24:04 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 18/02/2011 4:47 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:24:04 -0700, wrote: On 17/02/2011 11:35 AM, Frogwatch wrote: Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it. I don't think anyone in DC has the guts to ask that question. I agree. They would be involuntarily committed. Or dead, maybe like Ashley Turton or John Wheeler. The Ashley Turton case sure stinks of cover-up. Everything is a conspiracy for you.. you're one paranoid guy... in a stupefying way. |
Where's the stimulus?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:30:47 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 17/02/2011 6:28 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it. more paranoia. the amount of money obama put into the economy was the same amount local govts cut. the balance is zero Last I check Obama was on the brink of $14.5 trillion of debt, 5 of which has been added since he was elected. And better get more in March or he be broke (again). Man has no concept of money, just how to **** it away. gee. and how much have local govts cut? you just dont follow the news. you have glen beck and he gives you the party line Yep, Obama, the largest debt-spender the world has ever seen. except for george bush but, then, bush was white... |
Where's the stimulus?
On 20/02/2011 7:05 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:30:47 -0700, wrote: On 17/02/2011 6:28 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it. more paranoia. the amount of money obama put into the economy was the same amount local govts cut. the balance is zero Last I check Obama was on the brink of $14.5 trillion of debt, 5 of which has been added since he was elected. And better get more in March or he be broke (again). Man has no concept of money, just how to **** it away. gee. and how much have local govts cut? Haven't a clue, just know some are out of money. Bond holders don't want to renew at 0.25% interest and want their money but the civics are broke. But since I stopped investing in debt related stuff back in 2004-06 I don't care. At 0.25% interest, I don't partake and don't loan money. Now if you have unchatteled capital and willing to pay triple inflation, I am interested. No one is interested in loaning delinquent debtors be they individuals or any level of government. So my debt burn was unmeasurable. you just dont follow the news. you have glen beck and he gives you the party line Can't get Glen Beck up here, I guess I could do the Internet though. Yep, Obama, the largest debt-spender the world has ever seen. except for george bush but, then, bush was white... Actually, Obama outspent Bush's 8 years of combined deficit some time ago. But Obama is in a debt spiral, and the longer your in that mode, the worse it will get. No one ever had financial success with trying to debt-spend their way out of a debt problem. GM tried and wiped out over $200 billion... Greece, Ireland....I hear Portugal and Spain are now on the Euro list for the next hit. J CU PIIIGGGS in Debt. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Where's the stimulus?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:26:35 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 20/02/2011 7:05 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:30:47 -0700, wrote: On 17/02/2011 6:28 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it. more paranoia. the amount of money obama put into the economy was the same amount local govts cut. the balance is zero Last I check Obama was on the brink of $14.5 trillion of debt, 5 of which has been added since he was elected. And better get more in March or he be broke (again). Man has no concept of money, just how to **** it away. gee. and how much have local govts cut? Haven't a clue That pretty much sums you up. |
Where's the stimulus?
On Feb 20, 8:44*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:26:35 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: On 20/02/2011 7:05 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:30:47 -0700, wrote: On 17/02/2011 6:28 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch * wrote: Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus money cuz most went to Obama cronies. *I have been talking to two very large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of stimulus money. *I just though people would like to know who got it. more paranoia. the amount of money obama put into the economy was the same amount local govts cut. the balance is zero Last I check Obama was on the brink of $14.5 trillion of debt, 5 of which has been added since he was elected. *And better get more in March or he be broke (again). *Man has no concept of money, just how to **** it away. gee. and how much have local govts cut? Haven't a clue That pretty much sums you up. "It's truly shocking how small-minded and how much of a simpleton you are. You don't have a clue about how economics work, and you foam at the mouth when someone wants to help those who are worse off. You're really a despicable person. " [ guote by ND'P] |
Where's the stimulus?
On 2/20/2011 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:21:41 -0700, wrote: On 19/02/2011 9:12 PM, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings and maybe a little of it ends up as stim. Real stimulation would not cost much at all. Get government downsized and off of peoples backs, especially the producers of wealth, people who make real stuff and grow society need more, parasites, lawyers, politicians and government freeloaders need less. But today, government is supporting parasites on a credit card. It's truly shocking how small-minded and how much of a simpleton you are. You don't have a clue about how economics work, and you foam at the mouth when someone wants to help those who are worse off. You're really a despicable person. Please don't even try to enter this great country. We don't need people like you here. Jessie DE Plume, you certainly are making a fool of yourself tonight. |
Where's the stimulus?
On 2/20/2011 8:50 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:19:05 -0700, wrote: On 19/02/2011 12:20 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. Correct. Government can only confiscate it and inefficiently redistribute it. 100% of government si consumption based. What makes real money is like a cotton grower. Makes cotton where no cotton previously existed before. That is a wealth producing job. Trouble is too many consumers and not enough producers. We pay far too many to be government and bankers, not enough pay for producers like growers, miners, etc. Same problem when Rome fell, too many academics, politicians and parasites on the governments behind. Not enough producers to support the size of the system. Incorrect. You don't know how an economy functions. You're an idiot, and you're worse, you're an uneducated idiot. Jessie DE Plume, you certainly are making a fool of yourself tonight. |
Where's the stimulus?
On 2/20/2011 8:50 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:19:05 -0700, wrote: On 19/02/2011 12:20 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. Correct. Government can only confiscate it and inefficiently redistribute it. 100% of government si consumption based. What makes real money is like a cotton grower. Makes cotton where no cotton previously existed before. That is a wealth producing job. Trouble is too many consumers and not enough producers. We pay far too many to be government and bankers, not enough pay for producers like growers, miners, etc. Same problem when Rome fell, too many academics, politicians and parasites on the governments behind. Not enough producers to support the size of the system. Incorrect. You don't know how an economy functions. You're an idiot, and you're worse, you're an uneducated idiot. Jessie DE Plume, you certainly are making a fool of yourself tonight. |
Where's the stimulus?
|
Where's the stimulus?
On 2/20/2011 8:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:24:04 -0700, wrote: On 18/02/2011 4:47 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:24:04 -0700, wrote: On 17/02/2011 11:35 AM, Frogwatch wrote: Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it. I don't think anyone in DC has the guts to ask that question. I agree. They would be involuntarily committed. Or dead, maybe like Ashley Turton or John Wheeler. The Ashley Turton case sure stinks of cover-up. Everything is a conspiracy for you.. you're one paranoid guy... in a stupefying way. Jessie DE Plume, you certainly are making a fool of yourself tonight. |
Where's the stimulus?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:26:35 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 20/02/2011 7:05 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:30:47 -0700, wrote: gee. and how much have local govts cut? Haven't a clue, just know some are out of money. they cut almost as much as the stimulus spent. there's been almost no growth in govt across state, federal and local spending you just dont follow the news. you have glen beck and he gives you the party line Can't get Glen Beck up here, I guess I could do the Internet though. Yep, Obama, the largest debt-spender the world has ever seen. except for george bush but, then, bush was white... Actually, Obama outspent Bush's 8 years of combined deficit some time ago. actually he didn't. bush's last budget was about 1.2 trillion in debt. obama's is 1.4 not a large difference. but, bush is white... But Obama is in a debt spiral, and the longer your in that mode, the worse it will get. No one ever had financial success with trying to debt-spend their way out of a debt problem. really? how did we get out of the 29 depression? oh. we spent our way out in ww2 sux to be you! |
Where's the stimulus?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:56:33 -0500, L G wrote:
jps wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 03:32:06 -0500, wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings and maybe a little of it ends up as stim. You are leaving out the real purpose of a true "stimulus" package. Economic growth. Extending unemployment benefits may be a necessary thing to do to prevent people from falling off a cliff but it does nothing to generate growth in the economy. The families of people who have lost jobs are getting by on a percentage of their former income. For them it's a time of belt tightening and controlled spending. The problem (as I see it) is the ramifications of a global economy and competitive manufacturing. It's convenient to simply blame business for outsourcing jobs but in reality they *have* to in order to stay in business. Here's what is going on ... and it ain't pretty folks. With the emergence of China as a major global manufacturer (along with Mexico and a few other nations) the USA can no longer compete. Our pay scales and benefit packages, established over decades, are simply too high to compete with those of places like China. Many point fingers of blame at China citing worker abuse and slave labor, etc., but the fact is that the Chinese worker never had it so good. 20 years ago he and his family pedaled around on bicycles. They have traded them in for their first car. People tend to compare working conditions, pay and benefits relative to what would be expected here in the USA. That's a mistake. Factory workers in China are making more money now and are enjoying a standard of living that they never dreamed of 20-25 years ago. In time Chinese workers may follow the same path as those here in the USA and start demanding higher pay, better working conditions and benefit packages and the cost of Chinese produced goods will begin to rise. But that's a long way off. Meanwhile, the Chinese government is financing the USA in order to maintain a market for their manufactured goods. The USA is the largest importer of their products .... for now. Once the Chinese establish significant markets elsewhere in the world, the financing of the US economy will end. That's when the **** will hit the fan big time. And it's not 5 or 10 years away. It's happening right now. The whole relative pay scale and benefit expectations in the USA is going to have to be completely revamped. This will affect the values of homes, property and everything else that makes up an economy and standard of living. Those who are living in the past, with expectations of payscales and benefits of the 80's 90's and early 2000's are living in a dreamland. Stand by for heavy rolls. (boating content) Eisboch Every man for himself. The next to suffer will be the undereducated American who've just been getting by. The urban undereducated are already suffering. Walmart will have a harder time finding buyers for its Chinese goods when our country is even further divided by haves and have nots. China has its own problems. It's unfortunate that many of the have nots breed a disproportionate amount of future have nots. There are much nicer ways to say that. For example...In Washington D.C. about 20% of the babies are born to *married* mothers. Or...Almost 20% of the prison population in 2008 was *not* African-American or Hispanic. Emphasize the positive, so to speak. |
Where's the stimulus?
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:36:07 -0500, John H
wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:56:33 -0500, L G wrote: jps wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 03:32:06 -0500, wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings and maybe a little of it ends up as stim. You are leaving out the real purpose of a true "stimulus" package. Economic growth. Extending unemployment benefits may be a necessary thing to do to prevent people from falling off a cliff but it does nothing to generate growth in the economy. The families of people who have lost jobs are getting by on a percentage of their former income. For them it's a time of belt tightening and controlled spending. The problem (as I see it) is the ramifications of a global economy and competitive manufacturing. It's convenient to simply blame business for outsourcing jobs but in reality they *have* to in order to stay in business. Here's what is going on ... and it ain't pretty folks. With the emergence of China as a major global manufacturer (along with Mexico and a few other nations) the USA can no longer compete. Our pay scales and benefit packages, established over decades, are simply too high to compete with those of places like China. Many point fingers of blame at China citing worker abuse and slave labor, etc., but the fact is that the Chinese worker never had it so good. 20 years ago he and his family pedaled around on bicycles. They have traded them in for their first car. People tend to compare working conditions, pay and benefits relative to what would be expected here in the USA. That's a mistake. Factory workers in China are making more money now and are enjoying a standard of living that they never dreamed of 20-25 years ago. In time Chinese workers may follow the same path as those here in the USA and start demanding higher pay, better working conditions and benefit packages and the cost of Chinese produced goods will begin to rise. But that's a long way off. Meanwhile, the Chinese government is financing the USA in order to maintain a market for their manufactured goods. The USA is the largest importer of their products .... for now. Once the Chinese establish significant markets elsewhere in the world, the financing of the US economy will end. That's when the **** will hit the fan big time. And it's not 5 or 10 years away. It's happening right now. The whole relative pay scale and benefit expectations in the USA is going to have to be completely revamped. This will affect the values of homes, property and everything else that makes up an economy and standard of living. Those who are living in the past, with expectations of payscales and benefits of the 80's 90's and early 2000's are living in a dreamland. Stand by for heavy rolls. (boating content) Eisboch Every man for himself. The next to suffer will be the undereducated American who've just been getting by. The urban undereducated are already suffering. Walmart will have a harder time finding buyers for its Chinese goods when our country is even further divided by haves and have nots. China has its own problems. It's unfortunate that many of the have nots breed a disproportionate amount of future have nots. There are much nicer ways to say that. For example...In Washington D.C. about 20% of the babies are born to *married* mothers. Or...Almost 20% of the prison population in 2008 was *not* African-American or Hispanic. Emphasize the positive, so to speak. In your case, emphasize the racism. |
Where's the stimulus?
On Feb 17, 1:47*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus money cuz most went to Obama cronies. *I have been talking to two very large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of stimulus money. *I just though people would like to know who got it. As usual, you're full of it. Full of what, D'Plume? Also, when you received your stimulus package , did it have ribs or little pumps around the circumference? Were the batteries included as well? Evident;y JPS didn't get batteries with his. That's probably why he has such a sour attitude. |
Where's the stimulus?
John H wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:56:33 -0500, L wrote: jps wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 03:32:06 -0500, wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote: Unemployment benefits are one of the MOST stimulative things around. I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money flow which is a basic economic principle. Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes. No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation. There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It is all just slight of hand. No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings and maybe a little of it ends up as stim. You are leaving out the real purpose of a true "stimulus" package. Economic growth. Extending unemployment benefits may be a necessary thing to do to prevent people from falling off a cliff but it does nothing to generate growth in the economy. The families of people who have lost jobs are getting by on a percentage of their former income. For them it's a time of belt tightening and controlled spending. The problem (as I see it) is the ramifications of a global economy and competitive manufacturing. It's convenient to simply blame business for outsourcing jobs but in reality they *have* to in order to stay in business. Here's what is going on ... and it ain't pretty folks. With the emergence of China as a major global manufacturer (along with Mexico and a few other nations) the USA can no longer compete. Our pay scales and benefit packages, established over decades, are simply too high to compete with those of places like China. Many point fingers of blame at China citing worker abuse and slave labor, etc., but the fact is that the Chinese worker never had it so good. 20 years ago he and his family pedaled around on bicycles. They have traded them in for their first car. People tend to compare working conditions, pay and benefits relative to what would be expected here in the USA. That's a mistake. Factory workers in China are making more money now and are enjoying a standard of living that they never dreamed of 20-25 years ago. In time Chinese workers may follow the same path as those here in the USA and start demanding higher pay, better working conditions and benefit packages and the cost of Chinese produced goods will begin to rise. But that's a long way off. Meanwhile, the Chinese government is financing the USA in order to maintain a market for their manufactured goods. The USA is the largest importer of their products .... for now. Once the Chinese establish significant markets elsewhere in the world, the financing of the US economy will end. That's when the **** will hit the fan big time. And it's not 5 or 10 years away. It's happening right now. The whole relative pay scale and benefit expectations in the USA is going to have to be completely revamped. This will affect the values of homes, property and everything else that makes up an economy and standard of living. Those who are living in the past, with expectations of payscales and benefits of the 80's 90's and early 2000's are living in a dreamland. Stand by for heavy rolls. (boating content) Eisboch Every man for himself. The next to suffer will be the undereducated American who've just been getting by. The urban undereducated are already suffering. Walmart will have a harder time finding buyers for its Chinese goods when our country is even further divided by haves and have nots. China has its own problems. It's unfortunate that many of the have nots breed a disproportionate amount of future have nots. There are much nicer ways to say that. For example...In Washington D.C. about 20% of the babies are born to *married* mothers. Or...Almost 20% of the prison population in 2008 was *not* African-American or Hispanic. Emphasize the positive, so to speak. My comment had nothing to do with any race or religion. There are plenty of losers in all categories that breed more losers. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com