Stimulate That! [Could Squared]
"Economists from across the political spectrum agree that if we don't act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment and the American dream slipping further and further out of reach," Obama said.
"could see" and "could lead"... [edit: I call this Could Squared, weakly weak scare talk] What other plausible scenarios and considerations are recognized more or less across the spectrum?
This "stimulus" just looks like more of the same old scare talk to push an agenda of dubious net merit. Tax cuts without spending cuts are like unemployment benefits without looking for a job. The economy is not a welfare queen or sacred cow. It needs work.
Advertisement
I wonder which wise man in the room is whispering on BHO's ear on this one. And I wonder whether humanity is capable of coming together in scenarios not involving Armageddon.
January 3, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not the same scare card. This money is not going to go the the capitalist bastards that caused this trouble.
This new package will put people to work for wages that will put them back in the middle class. This new package will go to develop a 'greener' America. This new package will go to develop alternative energy. This new package will work on infrastructures including the internet, the roads and bridges, the electrical grids,and the medical informational structure.
WATCH AND BEHOLD.
January 3, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that you've combined wishful thinking with an obvious mistake, if you're thinking I think this stimulus plan is another Paulson-style bailout, uh, rescue plan. I don't think it is. I'm concerned that it, now, is worse.
January 5, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Silly you. Some tax cuts won't put people to work. Any "infrastructure" etc. projects are likely to be run by big business, thus merely extending the "trickle down" notion, where the business owners get rich and workers get tolerated.
My view is that government spending and tax cuts/rebates are NOT economic stimuli, they substitute for private spending and common sense, at huge cost.
Anyway, the point is Obama's language which tells us if taken literally that the future of our economy might be fine without his proposal being implemented. Thus my interest in the other plausible paths his economic adviser SHOULD have been considering along with this so-called "consensus" approach.
I'm not an Austrian Economics fan, but Keynsians don't necessarily have a direct line to God. What are the other minority views, and what are the odds that the picture Obama is painting is THE way things will go if we don't follow this gambit?
January 4, 2009 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of asking the questions why don't you look for the answers, post them and then start a discussion. Wouldn't be too hard to find other minority views and people who think the economy will bounce back on its own. Put some work in your criticism and don't assume that Obama just slapped this package together without consultation, research or thought of the American people.
January 4, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, well, there are various styles of blogging. I'm sure I could do more leg work at some point. Are you unable to offer pointers?
There are two issues here for me:
1) Where the economy is truly headed (as opposed to could-squared); after having the supposed authorities flock the wrong way too many times, I'm a skeptic and I don't trust weasel-word language. If the economy could drop, it also could rise, stay level, or drop then rise.
2) The stimulus plan itself may be weak or misguided. Today: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/is-obama-relying-too-much-on-tax-cuts/
I also object to the rhetoric of "stimulus". Government spending and tax cuts aren't necessarily stimuli, esp. when they rely on borrowing (which can take money out of the private economy). However: Borrowing at close to 0% interest rate can make sense to me. Why do tax cuts at that point, why not borrow for free and then cut taxes when interest rates start to rise? (On the flip side, the Fed is currently and apparently insanely lending money almost for free to private enterprises)
Spending money isn't necessarily a stimulus. The idea of a stimulus is to amplify, to get leverage. But big government programs are merely added spending, they contribute to the economy like other spending does, and they can temporarily replace private spending to some extent (as if the economy were a sacred cow).
A stimulus would generate the needed conditions for economic recovery and spark that. What are those conditions? Confidence and corrected trade balances, domestic and foreign, are some things I can think of right away.
I'm not against government spending, but I am against inflating government spending wrongly.
January 5, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...are likely to be run by big business, thus merely extending the "trickle down" notion, where the business owners get rich and workers get tolerated."
Not simply "big business", but the special interest big business which are in bed with the very politicians who decide which "big business" the contracts are awarded. Plenty of politicians get rich in this scheme, too.
January 4, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink