By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Welcome to the United States of the Goldman Sachs

Armads said:
Kasz216 said:
Armads said:

 

 

And the Fed hasn't been wrong about everything it's done.  The stimulus created lots of jobs, just not nearly enough, largely because it was half as big as it was designed to be... http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

 

Now I don't have much education in the area of economics but the from what I can tell we've been on an economic recovery for sometime now, most people are just complaining because the job growth is too slow (jobs have always been the hardest part of the economy to boost growth in from what I've read.)

 

Also it seems like a lot of other countries are criticizing this move because it would impact their economies.  But if it improves ours in the long run I don't know if we as Americans should really care if we are no longer the money sink hole of the world. 


3 million jobs.

With.... trillions spent?  It would of been more effective to just give those trillions to 3 million people.


Overall 8 million jobs were lost during the recession.  So a bill which was cut almost in half in the amount spent created 2.5 to 3.6 million.  Optimistically speaking that means that nearly half of all jobs lost were compensated for.  Pessimistically over a quarter.  If the bill had been passed it might have saved nearly all the jobs lost, but we'll never know.  I'm assuming that what the democrats allowed to be stripped out of the bill were the projects that would create the least amount of jobs, ie the weakest parts of the bill. 

 

But let's see $785 billion divided by 313 million equals $2507.99 per american citizen.  That's not really that much dough to throw around.  You could argue it would have stimulated the economy more but at the least I think it would have simply prolonged the oncoming forclosures for many families.

Bush tried a similar approach in which he gave anyone above eighteen years old a check for 500 dollars.  I believe you also had to have been employed though so it was much less money spent, but it had no stimulating effect on the economy.  Granted it's one fifth of the size of Obamas bill, but do you really think it would have made much of a difference?


Why are you dividing it per American citizen?

I said divide it among the 3 million jobs created.

Because said jobs no doubt pay less.

Unless the average pay per job was $262,000.

 

My point isn't that the bill had no effect.  It's that for the amount of money spent... the effect was pitiful... and pointless and damaging in the longrun.

Also the FED using QE had nothing to do with the stimulus money to my knowledge.  The FED doesn't require congressional support.  So really, it's more like $500,000 per person.

They're planning yet another 500B of quantitive easing for november. 

Spending Trillions of dollars to save millions of jobs... is just a bad idea.



Around the Network

Oh, FYI we aren't really in economic recovery.  If you look at the last GDP report, it was a larger then expected growth due to invetory aquistitions.

So, unless consumer purchasing ramps up more then your average X-mas, invetory aqusitions will be a drag on future quarters. (Because nobody will be buying more.)

Which means we'll double dip into recession again.

Why?  All the government money is doing is replacing consumer spending.

The consumers however aren't really gaining back any of their spending power.

So all government money does is put the economy into a holding patern until it goes away, and the markets crash and double dip due to the fact that the underlying problem isn't fixed. 

Then all those jobs propped up by government money disapear... and we're right back where we started.  It hasn't created or saved jobs.  Only prolonged their descent... and in doing so prolonged the recovery.



Kasz216 said:

Oh, FYI we aren't really in economic recovery.  If you look at the last GDP report, it was a larger then expected growth due to invetory aquistitions.

So, unless consumer purchasing ramps up more then your average X-mas, invetory aqusitions will be a drag on future quarters. (Because nobody will be buying more.)

Which means we'll double dip into recession again.

Why?  All the government money is doing is replacing consumer spending.

The consumers however aren't really gaining back any of their spending power.

So all government money does is put the economy into a holding patern until it goes away, and the markets crash and double dip due to the fact that the underlying problem isn't fixed. 

Then all those jobs propped up by government money disapear... and we're right back where we started.  It hasn't created or saved jobs.  Only prolonged their descent... and in doing so prolonged the recovery.

Where are you getting this info?  The WSJ reports that retail sales were at their highest level since august 08 (the month before the collapse of lehman bros.) last october with a 1.2% rise over the previous monthand four straight months of increased consumer spending.  This retail sales report apparently did not have data from walmart and home depot though so we'll have to wait to see how that effects the situation.  I expect postive news from both though as Lowes reported a 17% rise in third quarter sales.  A company whose business was greatly effected by the mortgage prices, people hardly renovate when they can't afford to live their anymore.



The fed should be abolished.  Printing more money and causing the dollar to erode into nothing is the dumbest idea ever.  The only thing the fed is doing is probably speeding up the USA revolution.  First thing people do is to go and burn their building down once it happens.  We are turning into Germany pre WW2.  We need to abolish the fed, balance the budget (get some surplus going), pay off the debt (or declare all debt null, a la Germany pre WW2), increase manufacturing (decent paying jobs rather than my manufacturing job, jobs that actually pay 15-20$ a hour).....

 

Anyways, nice video showing how much bs is involved.



Kasz216 said:


Why are you dividing it per American citizen?

I said divide it among the 3 million jobs created.

Because said jobs no doubt pay less.

Unless the average pay per job was $262,000.

 

My point isn't that the bill had no effect.  It's that for the amount of money spent... the effect was pitiful... and pointless and damaging in the longrun.

Also the FED using QE had nothing to do with the stimulus money to my knowledge.  The FED doesn't require congressional support.  So really, it's more like $500,000 per person.

They're planning yet another 500B of quantitive easing for november. 

Spending Trillions of dollars to save millions of jobs... is just a bad idea.


In this case you're the one who is looking short term. Keeping people in employement has long term effects on their employement. Also the stimulus wasn't only aimed at creating jobs - it had other positive effects on the economy as well.

Finally you're looking at the stimulus as a pure loss, which it isn't. Quite a proportion of the money will eventually find its way back into the governments coffers.



Around the Network
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
 


Why are you dividing it per American citizen?

I said divide it among the 3 million jobs created.

Because said jobs no doubt pay less.

Unless the average pay per job was $262,000.

 

My point isn't that the bill had no effect.  It's that for the amount of money spent... the effect was pitiful... and pointless and damaging in the longrun.

Also the FED using QE had nothing to do with the stimulus money to my knowledge.  The FED doesn't require congressional support.  So really, it's more like $500,000 per person.

They're planning yet another 500B of quantitive easing for november. 

Spending Trillions of dollars to save millions of jobs... is just a bad idea.


In this case you're the one who is looking short term. Keeping people in employement has long term effects on their employement. Also the stimulus wasn't only aimed at creating jobs - it had other positive effects on the economy as well.

Finally you're looking at the stimulus as a pure loss, which it isn't. Quite a proportion of the money will eventually find its way back into the governments coffers.

Just keep spending that money like it is worth something... Oh wait it isn't...



sethnintendo said:

The fed should be abolished.  Printing more money and causing the dollar to erode into nothing is the dumbest idea ever.  The only thing the fed is doing is probably speeding up the USA revolution.  First thing people do is to go and burn their building down once it happens.  We are turning into Germany pre WW2.  We need to abolish the fed, balance the budget (get some surplus going), pay off the debt (or declare all debt null, a la Germany pre WW2), increase manufacturing (decent paying jobs rather than my manufacturing job, jobs that actually pay 15-20$ a hour).....

 

Anyways, nice video showing how much bs is involved.

Firstly declaring all debt null would utterly ruin not only America but the entire world economy, at the same time as kicking up tension to being on the edge of war. Severely bad idea and one that's not going to happen.

Also 'increase manufacturing and pay people more' would be great, but that's not how the world works. I mean, how do you propose that those things occur?



Rath said:
sethnintendo said:

The fed should be abolished.  Printing more money and causing the dollar to erode into nothing is the dumbest idea ever.  The only thing the fed is doing is probably speeding up the USA revolution.  First thing people do is to go and burn their building down once it happens.  We are turning into Germany pre WW2.  We need to abolish the fed, balance the budget (get some surplus going), pay off the debt (or declare all debt null, a la Germany pre WW2), increase manufacturing (decent paying jobs rather than my manufacturing job, jobs that actually pay 15-20$ a hour).....

 

Anyways, nice video showing how much bs is involved.

Firstly declaring all debt null would utterly ruin not only America but the entire world economy, at the same time as kicking up tension to being on the edge of war. Severely bad idea and one that's not going to happen.

Also 'increase manufacturing and pay people more' would be great, but that's not how the world works. I mean, how do you propose that those things occur?


Manufacturing pay and jobs is just the way I feel.  A service income is shit.  You have to manufacture something (sure USA does have some manufacturing but it has leagues of improvement).  Just like USA did during WW2 they worked hard and made semi decent pay.  On the all debt null that was my fascist ideals taking over.  I believe USA is on the same path as Germany before WW2.  You can run up a shitload of debt but eventually it will catch up to you.



sethnintendo said:
Rath said:
sethnintendo said:

The fed should be abolished.  Printing more money and causing the dollar to erode into nothing is the dumbest idea ever.  The only thing the fed is doing is probably speeding up the USA revolution.  First thing people do is to go and burn their building down once it happens.  We are turning into Germany pre WW2.  We need to abolish the fed, balance the budget (get some surplus going), pay off the debt (or declare all debt null, a la Germany pre WW2), increase manufacturing (decent paying jobs rather than my manufacturing job, jobs that actually pay 15-20$ a hour).....

 

Anyways, nice video showing how much bs is involved.

Firstly declaring all debt null would utterly ruin not only America but the entire world economy, at the same time as kicking up tension to being on the edge of war. Severely bad idea and one that's not going to happen.

Also 'increase manufacturing and pay people more' would be great, but that's not how the world works. I mean, how do you propose that those things occur?


Manufacturing pay and jobs is just the way I feel.  A service income is shit.  You have to manufacture something (sure USA does have some manufacturing but it has leagues of improvement).  Just like USA did during WW2 they worked hard and made semi decent pay.  On the all debt null that was my fascist ideals taking over.  I believe USA is on the same path as Germany before WW2.  You can run up a shitload of debt but eventually it will catch up to you.

Oh I completely agree that Western nations are drowning in debt - thankfully Europe noticed during the recession and huge austerity drives are in place over there. Writing of the debt isn't the way to go about it though, austerity is - reduce or get rid of the deficit.

Also the reason America has much less manufacturing is because of the amount that workers get paid, which the West can't compete with. Really the West is much more succesful at doing things that don't require unskilled labour because we have a more skilled workforce than developing countries.

Also during WW2 there was a necessity for large scale government funded manufacturing of munitions, that's the reason why the manufacturing boomed at that point in time.



Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
 


Why are you dividing it per American citizen?

I said divide it among the 3 million jobs created.

Because said jobs no doubt pay less.

Unless the average pay per job was $262,000.

 

My point isn't that the bill had no effect.  It's that for the amount of money spent... the effect was pitiful... and pointless and damaging in the longrun.

Also the FED using QE had nothing to do with the stimulus money to my knowledge.  The FED doesn't require congressional support.  So really, it's more like $500,000 per person.

They're planning yet another 500B of quantitive easing for november. 

Spending Trillions of dollars to save millions of jobs... is just a bad idea.


In this case you're the one who is looking short term. Keeping people in employement has long term effects on their employement. Also the stimulus wasn't only aimed at creating jobs - it had other positive effects on the economy as well.

Finally you're looking at the stimulus as a pure loss, which it isn't. Quite a proportion of the money will eventually find its way back into the governments coffers.

Keeping people in employment for a couple months has long term effects in their eployment?  How?

VS say, having the economy already fixed.

Have you looked at the American Stimulus and where the money went? 

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx

I'm not looking at it as a "total losss"

I'm looking at it as a waste of time that ultimatly is increasing the length of the recovery.