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."

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.

On 2/19/2011 11:12 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.
Spent on what Jessica? booze cigarettes drugs gambling whores Walmart.
What did you do with your 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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.