Instead of giving the $700 BLN to the morons that screwed this all up in the first place, how about a simpler solution?
Out of the 300+ million or so people in the US, 200 million are over 18 (estimated)
Divide the cash out to each US citizen over the age of 18 (tax it, of course), and let us decide how we are going to stimulate the economy…pay down mortgages, credit card debt, invest, etc…don’t you think that would be a GREAT way to solve this crisis?
$210 Billion would be taxed immediately and sent back to Washington (even though it is really OUR tax dollars)
Is my math off, or would that equate to $2450 (after 30% taxes) for each man and woman over the age of 18? I think I could find plenty to do with that kind of dough! Cut me a check, Uncle Sam…I know how it will best solve my problems…and I bet most of you know how the money would solve your problems, too!
Also, perhaps things would have been worse without the economic stimulus package, a similar idea to the proposal you’re putting out, but it seems not to have been a huge success. Unemployment and inflation are up and retail sales are still down.
Not serious…but I still think personal responsibility plays an important role in all this. If you take a mortgage that is a stupid deal, it is your own fault…you can get up and walk away from the table.
Housing will not appreciate over 10% per year…not historically true.
Historically, inflation-adjusted U.S. home prices increased 0.4% per year from 1890–2004, and 0.7% per year from 1940–2004.
Just as with the dot com bust…people got greedy, and EXPECTED the increases to keep happening, and not opt out, and find a safer way to invest. It got corporate…with banking, and mortgage lenders tryng to keep it afloat with special deals, etc, when they knew it would certainly bust at the seams.
You have done to my comment exactly what you accused, Jeff (ThisGuyIKnow) of doing to yours elsewhere. In his case you accused him of distracting from the issue at hand by bringing up another matter. In your case you are picking at one small aspect of my comment and treating me in a condescending and patronizing manner in order to avoid the larger issue.
And your own quote includes the fact that there was a 0.3% drop in retail sales from July to August, so by some measure my comment was not inaccurate. And by your own admission other areas of the economy are doing quite poorly, so the question raised still remains.
…wow, sensitive, aren’t we? Sorry I tread where you have a soft spot…I really didn’t mean to hurt your feelings…just trying to get a handle on what you were trying to say…that retail sales are down, when they are actually better than last year (up to the end of August)…I fully admit there are other challenges with the economy, as you pointed out…I agreed with you…
…I think accuracy is important…and to make a statement that you want other’s to believe should be based on fact, not that you just want someone to believe it…
…and this whole thread was inteneded to be a bit more lighthearted, anyway…
I like your seriousness, though.
I guess when I am discussing apples, I like to stick to discussing apples…and not that Bill Clinton was impeached…or that there were gaps in Nixon’s tapes…apples are the topic…
Because then it would have to trickle up. Fat cats are much more comfortable with the idea of starting with everything and telling us it’ll trickle down.
Other than that, assuming we actually had such money to give away, it might fix up our economy really quick, like a shot of adrenaline!
It’s VERY possible that people are spending more…but getting less. So technically, spending might still be up, but to use that to argue that consumer spending is strong is misleading.
Yeah, really quick. Everyone would be racing to the store to buy anything they could before it crashes and they can’t buy anything with it anymore.
I was kinda trying to lead to the point that the government has no money and it’s be stupid to just give handouts. Instead if they want to stimulate the economy, they need to reduce their spending.
You lose the efficiency of pricing when the state is the one that hires everyone and determines the price. Can’t say that what we have now, corporatism, is better at it though. Both cases suffer in efficiency.
The public sector can’t guarantee a rate of economic productivity. If the state hires a widgetmaker and they guarantee the production of so many widgets, but demand for those widgets are very low, it’s not productive at all. In fact it harms the economy more. The state is wasting resources first by having this widgetmaker do something unproductive, and then second by confiscating resources from others who had more productive uses for those resources. In a free market, the widgetmaker, seeing that the demand isn’t there for his widgets, is going to adapt his knowlege and skills into producing something else that has more demand.
First we need to merge Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into one country, open up our borders, and let their be free movement between all countries in that group.
Then I would create a new currency. Since this seems like an amazing idea with how bad our economy is. Everyone will invest, or force everyone to invest, therefore strengthen our dollar (amero) and pulling us out of this depression.
I agree. A complete lack of indicators would harm efficiency in the widget market.
The idea in promoting productivity through the public sector (in a recession) isn’t to create efficiency in the market, it’s to maintain a rate of economic activity that feeds growth. Once economic activity drops below a certain point, the co-dependency of industries approaches a critical failure which becomes increasingly difficult to prevent when there is no spending, public or otherwise.
As a way to bring the banks down, it is counter intuitive, but I see it as making the credit problem much worse. If people deposit the money, banks already at their capital/asset ratio max will not be able to loan it out. If people cash them, banks already on the ropes won’t be able to do that either, nor will other banks loan them the funds.
At least it will show the common man something about what the problem is.
The funny part would be 200 million people opening envelops and shouting “all right” ! , and then finding unless they got their early, the banks will all have closed their doors.
I suppose, with some planning, it could be done. It would stimulate the economy. I don’t see it helping banks though.
Maybe a better idea would be to start new banks with the 700 B , and give every citizen , including children (heck, they are paying for it ! ) 2000 $ worth of bank shares. This will give us new solvent banks, that can make new loans, and every citizen a small income, and the shares could be sold.
I am not saying I think that is a good idea, just that it has a better chance of freeing up some credit in the bank industry.
