Foreign Country Maybe?

[Narcotized]

---

Members do not see this ad.

.

 

[vector2]

How can you possibly be this friggin stupid and be elected to Congress?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ernment-to-hire-all-unemployed-americans-for/

This is right up there with Pelosi saying Food Stamps strengthen the economy (she really said that).

"If you want to create jobs, the quickest way to do it is to provide more funding for food stamps and have unemployment insurance for people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own...It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance."

So who here has researched what foreign countries are most livable and most open to US citizens/grads? Can't say I'm ready to board a plane, but can't say I wouldn't seriously consider a great opportunity either. This ship be sinking and I don't think there is a damn thing you can do at this point to stop it.

Job creation is another matter, but food stamps, unemployment, and other "handouts" spur some of the highest short-term GDP returns when consumer spending is this stagnant.

 

[Yo GabbaPentin]

Wow, right now 1 in 7 Americans is using food stamps. If we could just get 1 in 2 on them then we could REALLY fix the economy. And by fix the economy I mean ensure democratic rule forever. Show me your graphs that include the LONG TERM implications of indefinite unemployment and increased food stamp reliance.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[vector2]

I could give you the long winded response with detailed explanation, but instead I'll keep it short and to the point; what you posted is pretty much a total pile of crap.

Heh, it doesn't really surprise me after I heard Herman Cain's response at the last debate when the moderator questioned the actual math of 999: "The problem with your analysis is that it's incorrect."

Either Moody's Analytics' numbers regarding GDP growth in regard to certain types of stimulus is wrong....or it isn't. If you've got conflicting economic evidence, feel free to share.

 

[Quirk11]

America has a chance to do well if the following happen:

1) We Drill for OUR LNG (natural gas) and sell it to pay off the debt (hint the Texas miracle would come to your state)

2) Stop the wars

3) No more population growth

Some of my MBA friends are optimistic...

Heh, it doesn't really surprise me after I heard Herman Cain's response at the last debate when the moderator questioned the actual math of 999: "The problem with your analysis is that it's incorrect."

Either Moody's Analytics' numbers regarding GDP growth in regard to certain types of stimulus is wrong....or it isn't. If you've got conflicting economic evidence, feel free to share.

 

[cleansocks]

Heh, it doesn't really surprise me after I heard Herman Cain's response at the last debate when the moderator questioned the actual math of 999: "The problem with your analysis is that it's incorrect."

Either Moody's Analytics' numbers regarding GDP growth in regard to certain types of stimulus is wrong....or it isn't. If you've got conflicting economic evidence, feel free to share.

Food stamps are ethical, but they simply cannot be the best stimulators of the economy - at least an economy that supports growth and development long term. It's like telling Darwin "Natural selection is nonsense. Here's the REAL way to create the fittest species: We'll take the species that perform the best and have them spend a large portion of their energy defending the weak ones so the weak can procreate just as much as the strong." Does that make sense? I don't think so. But it's probably more ethical than letting the weak ones die off in an alley somewhere.

Unfortunately it's difficult to measure opportunity cost. And I don't have numbers regarding the transaction cost of using the government as a middleman. Nonetheless, food stamps create transaction costs associated with an initial sum of spending money (pay government fees to distribute food stamps), incentivize people to remain poor, and remove moneys that may have been used by tax paying, hard working citizens to stimulate the economy by either hiring people or paying for something with more money than is available after it is laundered through the government in the form of taxes.

Laundered is an appropriate description of what happens to taxed money because it is impossible to reverse the process to see where the taxed dollars came from and how it would have been spent, thus very difficult to create a study for direct comparison. Kind of reminds me of our current dilemma of impossible studies in anesthesia!

 

[geogil]

America has a chance to do well if the following happen:

1) We Drill for OUR LNG (natural gas) and sell it to pay off the debt (hint the Texas miracle would come to your state)

2) Stop the wars

3) No more population growth

Some of my MBA friends are optimistic...

That's your key, right there. We're literally burning, blowing up, then re-building, re-blowing up billions every month. How's about we stop getting into no-clear-endgame conflicts? Sinking somali pirates? fine. nebulous land wars in central asia? no bueno.

 

[vector2]

Food stamps are ethical, but they simply cannot be the best stimulators of the economy - at least an economy that supports growth and development long term. It's like telling Darwin "Natural selection is nonsense. Here's the REAL way to create the fittest species: We'll take the species that perform the best and have them spend a large portion of their energy defending the weak ones so the weak can procreate just as much as the strong." Does that make sense? I don't think so. But it's probably more ethical than letting the weak ones die off in an alley somewhere.

Unfortunately it's difficult to measure opportunity cost. And I don't have numbers regarding the transaction cost of using the government as a middleman. Nonetheless, food stamps create transaction costs associated with an initial sum of spending money (pay government fees to distribute food stamps), incentivize people to remain poor, and remove moneys that may have been used by tax paying, hard working citizens to stimulate the economy by either hiring people or paying for something with more money than is available after it is laundered through the government in the form of taxes.

Laundered is an appropriate description of what happens to taxed money because it is impossible to reverse the process to see where the taxed dollars came from and how it would have been spent, thus very difficult to create a study for direct comparison. Kind of reminds me of our current dilemma of impossible studies in anesthesia!

Notice I said "short-term GDP returns" in my original post, i.e. I wasn't trying to imply that the US's future path to success is a booming food stamp industry. What I am saying is that consumer spending is stagnant, and that unemployment and food stamps drive consumption much faster than general tax cuts since those folks are typically living paycheck to paycheck. Tax cuts for all brackets on the other hand will generally not be as effective since the majority of people will just save their funds since consumer demand in this current economy is so poor.

However, more generally speaking your "employment is a moral choice" argument (steeped in bunk social darwinism) is the exact kind of argument that has done wonders to convince the majority of people out there to vote against their own interests. Never we mind that there's 4 unemployed persons per 1 available job. It's much easier to just say that poors have been incentivized to remain poor rather than tackle the issues of education, generational poverty, regressive tax structures, loss of manufacturing/middle-class jobs to globalization, and the absurd rise of income inequality.

So-called tax paying, hard working job creators (corporations) were sitting on 2 trillion in cash as of June 2010 (WSJ link) and that's a number that has certainly grown since last year. This is exactly where "unlaundered" money has ended up- back in the coffers and not into the general economy. When there is no private sector money pouring in due to non-existent demand then money has to come from somewhere, namely public sector investment. This is sound economics and the reason massive government spending of WWII pulled us out of the depression. I can guarantee you that the austerity measures and deficit/debt alarmism currently being championed by the right will do nothing but cause another recession.

That's your key, right there. We're literally burning, blowing up, then re-building, re-blowing up billions every month. How's about we stop getting into no-clear-endgame conflicts? Sinking somali pirates? fine. nebulous land wars in central asia? no bueno.

Seriously....we're spending $6 billion a month in Afghanistan but it must be the food stamps that are bankrupting us.

 

[dhb]

What I am saying is that consumer spending is stagnant, and that unemployment and food stamps drive consumption much faster than general tax cuts since those folks are typically living paycheck to paycheck.

The country doesn't need more spending...

 

[GoodmanBrown]

I think this entire thread misses the point of the original post.

Narc, what country do you propose living in that's as nice as the US and doesn't have socialized medicine (& is more "socialized" in general)? If you're interested in moving to Asia or Africa, more power to ya...

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[vector2]

But that whole idea is a farce. If someone loans Joe Blow Broke Deadbeat a million dollars, his short term "GDP" looks amazing; nevermind the fact that all he did was dig his hole a million dollars deeper.

This is a nice stereotype but it's pretty much the exact opposite of what actually happens as evidenced by the Moody's graph you dismissed out of hand. Let's say you have a million dollars which you want to use to spur growth in this crappy economy, and let's suppose your two options are A) Give the million dollars to a multi-millionaire who has no current incentive to do anything but put the money in the bank, or B) Give $1000 dollars to 1000 people who live paycheck to paycheck and will spend it almost instantly on goods and services. When corporations are sitting on > two trillion in cash and unemployment has barely budged from 9-10% (so much for job creation), which route do you think is going to keep GDP growth in the black? It's really just a matter of marginal utility...

'Throw money at the job creators' is a great solution if this were 1999, but we have serious stagnant wages/consumer-side demand problem which is unequivocally going to be exacerbated by austerity measures.

I coined the term "reverse evolution" for exactly what you describe. We've become a welfare country with survival of the least fittest. You think the 96' Bulls would have won 72 games if they put so much effort into developing Will Purdue instead of putting 95% of their energy into getting the most out of Michael and Scottie??

Exception rather than the rule, bro, e.g. the 95% portion of energy that went into Lebron, Bosh, and Wade vs. the 100% that went into a cohesive Dallas Mavericks team. There is a certain point at which income inequality becomes bad even for those at the top.

 

[Per4mer8]

So I agree with your example that giving a million dollars to some rich guy is just going to lead to that money being banked I don't see how giving $1000 to 1000 people helps. Sure it will increase spending in the short term but again that really does us no good in the long run. All that means is the Government supplemented someones ability to buy a 42" Vizio. How is that different from the government just handing a few foreign companies some money? It just becomes more debt and wasteful spending on our part. Atleast with giving the money to "the job creators" there is the potential for job creation or at the very least interest that may be invested etc. I don't understand how people can say lets hand out cash to the low income individuals but at the same time say the bailouts to big business/banking was a travesty, atleast with those handouts it potentially saved jobs and created capital for future business.

But hey if we are going to just hand out money how do I get on the list? I'm a quarter-mil in debt and would be more than willing to stimulate the economy.

 

[vector2]

Again, I was talking about short-term GDP growth as Narcotized was in the OP. And again, the basic facts of what I originally posted re: the Moody's study have not been disputed. In analyses of stimulus it's pretty clear that that for every $1 spent in the foods stamps program $1.72 is generated throughout the economy. For every $1 spent on unemployment benefits $1.60 is generated throughout the economy. For every $1 spent on infrastructure development $1.57 is generated throughout the economy. This is the multiplier effect of targeted government spending and one of the main reasons spending helps the economy recover from any depression or recession. As for "...giving the money to "the job creators" there is the potential for job creation or at the very least interest that may be invested etc", that's precisely what's referenced in the figures for "Cut in corporate tax rate" and "Make dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent." There is some GDP stimulation with tax cuts but not as much as with the alternatives. You state that there might be some potential for job creation, but why should I believe you when consumer demand is so low? The economy is not a magic sort of zero-sum game where you can just massively cut both private and public sector spending in the presence of weak or no growth and not expect an implosion.

The Vizio 42" is a convenient way to strawman all those unwashed masses, but in reality the vast, vast majority of unemployed people are going to spend benefits on mortgages, rent, groceries, health care, car maintenance, bills etc. And even if they didn't, think for a second about the amount of GDP-growing US labor that's involved in getting that TV from a coastal warehouse into the hands of a consumer in a Des Moines Walmart...

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[pgg]

For every $1 spent on unemployment benefits $1.60 is generated throughout the economy.

For every window broken, the glazier sells a new one, and uses it to buy shoes from the cobbler, who uses his earnings to buy bread from the baker, who spends his profits at the local Jiffy-Lube to repair his wagon wheel. Look at all that economic activity being "generated" ... and all anyone had to do to kickstart it was break something.

Maybe the federal government should be handing out fist-sized rocks instead of unemployment checks.

 

[pgg]

OK, I'll pull myself together and be a little less facetious for a moment ...


vector2, the Moody's data isn't incorrect, it's just devoid of any meaningful context.

Yes, handing out money to poor people who will instantly spend it stimulates a consumer economy more than handing out money to rich people who likely won't spend it immediately.

The problem is that both actions require additional borrowing and deficit spending. Both actions are damaging. That giving the borrowed money to poor people might produce more economic activity than giving it to rich people simply makes it less damaging when the entire context of the action is considered. Because the additional debt (which Moody's nifty little bar charts don't even mention) is absolutely poisonous.

The phrase "less damaging" is not synonymous with "good idea" ...

Sometimes you just need to back away from the charts and data that were carefully compiled by people with their own agendas, and think in simpler macro terms.


Borrowing and printing can't fix a debt problem. It doesn't matter what the borrowed or printed dollars are spent on.

Propping up consumer spending can't fix an economy that is broken because of a trade deficit. That is why the economy is careening toward a depression - we've been exporting our wealth to the rest of the world for decades, now to the tune of $1 trillion per year (most of it oil). Borrowing money to continue or even accelerate the export of American wealth can not fix our economy.

Moody's $1.72 "return" per $1.00 "invested" in food stamps looks good because it's a very carefully chosen tiny corner of a larger (uglier) picture that must happen to make that "investment" possible.

 

[pgg]

So who here has researched what foreign countries are most livable and most open to US citizens/grads?

As I've said before, there could be zombies in the streets and I won't leave.


If the impending global depression can be avoided, mitigated, or resolved in this generation's lifetime, it'll be because of what the United States does or doesn't do. I don't have an ounce of faith that Europe will get its collective **** together and really solve any of these problems. China? India? Russia? Africa? Who's left? Brazil? Australia? Good luck.

Even if I wasn't already here, I think there would be no better place to ride out a global depression than a large, democratic, armed-to-the-teeth, natural-resource-rich, Bill-of-Rights-havin' country with a magnificent (though somewhat latent at the moment) capitalist heritage. The climate's nice too.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Quirk11]

As I have described before, the argument for success of America does exist. Some see this as another period of unneeded fear...

It essentially involves us drilling for resources (LNG), selling them to pay off the debt, etc etc..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...44646/World-power-swings-back-to-America.html

This is what really happens when you keep giving away something for nothing:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44969801

You eventually go broke, and the only multiplier effect is the number of freeloaders multiplied that violently keep demanding more free stuff.

Think Greece the next time Obama opens his "intelligent" mouth for another 450 billion dollar handout. Can't you just see Greece going to Germany and saying, "Look at the Moody's chart; if you bail us out and let us increase spending instead of austerity we would then be rich and pay you back!!!" Yeah, I don't see Germany falling for that one.

 

[pgg]

As I have described before, the argument for success of America does exist. Some see this as another period of unneeded fear...

It essentially involves us drilling for resources (LNG), selling them to pay off the debt, etc etc..

I thought LNG wasn't easy to export (absent a pipeline). Complex processing, large energy loss to compress it to liquid. Then cryogenic tanks on ships ... all for a liquid that has about 1/2 the energy density of gasoline. I know it's being done - Japan's been importing more LNG since their nuclear reactor woes, some of it all the way from Norway, and they're paying an obscene fortune for it. What they're doing now isn't sustainable though.

Assuming we crank up production - and that's hardly a sure thing given the opposition to fracking - who's going to buy our LNG? How's it going to get there?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...44646/World-power-swings-back-to-America.html

From that article:

The US already meets 72pc of its own oil needs, up from around 50pc a decade ago.

72% eh?

51% in 2010, actually, a huge improvement from the 35-40% we produced just a few years ago. But most sources say that the main reason our oil imports are down from their peak in 2005 is because of the recession - use is down ~10%.


The article notes that labor costs in China are rising. Why will manufacturing return to the United States, instead of just shifting to the next untapped well of cheap labor? Southeast Asia and India are ripe for exploiting.


Believe me, I'd love to believe we're on our way up again. I'm really not worried about China - they have some huge problems looming. Europe is a mess of finance, demographics, and energy. Russia, who knows. So maybe we'll be left as the least poorly run world power standing.

If you can reassure me that our rapidly growing > $14 trillion federal debt, which is temporarily bearable only because interest rates are near zero, doesn't inevitably end with either default or massive inflation, that'd take a load off my mind. I just don't see how it's possible to fix this problem without a sharp and harsh downward adjustment in the American standard of living.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

.