heckler73
Well-Known Member
You mean they spent it into the economy?
Kuwait gave almost $4,000 to every citizen in 2011, what were the results?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Well yeah if you want to use Economic/ P.C. terms, sure, you are correct sir.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Was this a bad thing for the people to do? That is, were there persistent negative consequences or externalities as a result of the Kuwaitis individually getting a lump sum to spend into the economy?
Not BAd per say, but the money would have been better spent on productive assets/wealth producing ventures or debt reduction than new TV's and DVD players.
I'm not saying everyone squandered it, but I am sure many did.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
What are "productive assets"? Camels and oil pumps?
Wealth producing ventures? So someone isn't receiving that money being spent into the economy?
The fact is, you accept the results of the Kuwaiti example. So the only question that needs answering is why you think a GIS scheme would not work in the western world. The midget tennis-pro standing on whale dick thought it was a good idea back when there was still some semblance of a gold standard.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry man, I'm having trouble taking you seriously.
Just the fact that you think taking less from me in taxes is the same as giving me money... I don't even know where to start.
I will never understand that type of mindset.
Quote where I said it wouldn't work.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Short term there was a bump, we won't know long term for awhile.
If you are of the economic side that thinks spending 10K on hookers and blow has the same boost to the economy as spending 10K to open a widget factory, then this is exactly the right move. It's why Bush came on the TV telling us to spend our stimulus check and not pay bills or save it. Bush (should probably say his advisers, I can't see the man thinking of this on his own) believed in a credit economy.
If you are on the economic side that thinks aggregate spending is short term thinking and simplistic in nature then you are probably not a fan and think the money could have been better spent.
Personally? I'm all about someone giving me free money. I think it's a good idea all the time.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Same place it's going.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Fine...if someone is on that side, they will have to start coughing up some reasons in the face of mounting contrary evidence. Can you think of some more, other than "we don't know long term", because I can immediately turn that around and ask the same of what we have at present.
Furthermore, the only argument I can see against it is the real factor of inflation. It is possible, especially considering localized consequences of the spending. Yet according to the theories of capitalism, higher price imbalances attract competition. This in turn (outside of collusion...tsk tsk oligopolies) will cause prices to come back down again as orthodox or traditional market effects take hold.
So examples along those lines (but from different perspectives) are equally welcomed.
Actually, I imagine the amount of burger flippers will go down. Pizza deliveries will go up. It's a basic result of the substitution effect on preferences.
When people are not creatively repressed** by necessity (which is what poverty is in part), they will be more likely to experiment (and in many cases, succeed) with cottage industries, i.e. entreprenuerialism. I can think of one I'd like to tinker with myself...
There is no future in macro-manufacturing. The future is micro (think, 3D printing). The future is short-term contracts. The future is niche and "globally-local". Just look at the box you are reading my words on, and consider the ~30 years of social and economic changes which have occurred because of it and around it.
But now I risk digressing into old banter about technological displacement of labour, etc...
Dead horse, it is, yes.
And they're more unemployed per capita than humans.
** by creatively repressed, I am loosely referencing Schumpeter's cyclic ideas of creative destruction which are prevented from optimally manifesting due to this unseen--or ignored--inefficiency introduced by poverty in open-market societies.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
An example of the long term effect is Japan's lost decade(s). The RBJ is way more involved than our Fed used to be, but we are following in those tracks.Fine...if someone is on that side, they will have to start coughing up some reasons in the face of mounting contrary evidence. Can you think of some more, other than "we don't know long term", because I can immediately turn that around and ask the same of what we have at present.
Furthermore, the only argument I can see against it is the real factor of inflation. It is possible, especially considering localized consequences of the spending. Yet according to the theories of capitalism, higher price imbalances attract competition. This in turn (outside of collusion...tsk tsk oligopolies) will cause prices to come back down again as orthodox or traditional market effects take hold.
So examples along those lines (but from different perspectives) are equally welcomed.
Actually, I imagine the amount of burger flippers will go down. Pizza deliveries will go up. It's a basic result of the substitution effect on preferences.
When people are not creatively repressed** by necessity (which is what poverty is in part), they will be more likely to experiment (and in many cases, succeed) with cottage industries, i.e. entreprenuerialism. I can think of one I'd like to tinker with myself...
There is no future in macro-manufacturing. The future is micro (think, 3D printing). The future is short-term contracts. The future is niche and "globally-local". Just look at the box you are reading my words on, and consider the ~30 years of social and economic changes which have occurred because of it and around it.
But now I risk digressing into old banter about technological displacement of labour, etc...
Dead horse, it is, yes.
And they're more unemployed per capita than humans.
** by creatively repressed, I am loosely referencing Schumpeter's cyclic ideas of creative destruction which are prevented from optimally manifesting due to this unseen--or ignored--inefficiency introduced by poverty in open-market societies.
An economy that relies manipulated rates will have to continually manipulate those, sometimes getting right, sometimes getting it wrong, sometimes building cities that no one can afford to live in.
A look at China's ghost cities is another example of temporary short term gain with long term implications.
If you favor manipulated bubble economies, you will love this.
Hard to tell when you are being facetious.
Inflation is going to be a hard sell as long as Japan keeps exporting deflation to us. China has pegged their currency to ours, so they are no help in this matter either.
IMO the American consumer is not going to pay more for a product when a cheaper import of similar quality is available. Hence it is hard to get inflation started on anything other than locally sourced items like food and energy. Low interest rates force people to mis-allocate resources and invest in high risk ventures that because of the low interest rates, have been mistakenly presented as low risk, so there is inflation in those types of equities as of late.
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
Overall conclcusion?
Great way to funnel money to charities and businesses who support terrorists organizations and their bullshit ideals.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
An interesting subject, but completely unrelated.
And that is a subtle point, which unfortunately reveals some of the underlying problems of modern economies; over-specialization, in particular.
To which, Smith and Ricardo can be blamed for bringing the ideas of mass production and comparative advantage for us to equally triumph and languish in. It's too bad they didn't look at the limits of their theories. Things like, at what points will specialization create diminishing returns in a developed market, not just a company? How many "products"** does a nation need to benefit from comparative advantage practically in a modern, global market? After all, a society can't survive on wool and wine alone.
** products include services, in this case.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so the jews are faking holocausts, every single muslim is a terrorist, who's left to trust?
is that why you joined a white supremacy group, echelon?
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
Does stupidity come naturally for you or do you actually have to try?
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/05/12/Kuwait-minister-accused-by-U-S-of-terrorism-funding-quits-.html
C U Next Tuesday...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
kinda reminds me of how australia exports so many pedophiles, yet you claim to not be one of them.
Does stupidity come naturally for you or do you actually have to try?
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/05/12/Kuwait-minister-accused-by-U-S-of-terrorism-funding-quits-.html
C U Next Tuesday...
sure thing, white supremacist.
see you, auntie.
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
Way to stay on topic. By the way did you rape any kids on your trip to new york?
Seems jews go there to buttrape little boys.
And you said you were only there for a weekend - in the same room as a rabbi...
http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/the-child-rape-assembly-line-0000141-v20n11
The alleged abusers are schoolteachers, rabbis, fathers, uncles—figures of male authority. The victims, like those of Catholic priests, are mostly boys. Rabbi Rosenberg believes around half of young males in Brooklyn’s Hasidic community—the largest in the United States and one of the largest in the world—have been victims of sexual assault perpetrated by their elders. Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is higher. “From anecdotal evidence, we’re looking at over 50 percent. It has almost become a rite of passage.”