Question - what if we DIDN'T stimulate the economy???

[Landis82]

Quote from TraderZones:

Thesis: Instead of throwing $3 trillion at the economy just because we had "to do something", what if we did nothing and let capitalism and bankruptcy work? Short, terrible, would it be better or not than running up the federal deficit so much? Or should we spend a lot less or a lot more?

First of all, the $787 Billion Stimulus Package is only 5.5% of GDP. Feel free to contrast that with China's stimulus package that is 16% of GDP.

At the end of the day, it appears that the elitetraders of ET are casting their vote for a DEPRESSION.

For some bizarre reason, I guess these voters actually believed how pure Capitalism was on the way up, and how there were "free and FAIR" markets on the way up.

Go figure.

 

[GTS]

Quote from bugscoe:

Your problem is not in listening to those here, it's ignoring all the other Nobel Laureate economists who say the stimulus will not have any positive effect on our economy.

Its even worse than that - not only will it not have any positive effect but long term it will have negative effect.

Sometimes doing nothing is the right course. Of course since the public is clamoring for the gov't to do something, it must oblige.

 

[Landis82]

Quote from GTS:

Its even worse than that - not only will it not have any positive effect but long term it will have negative effect.

Sometimes doing nothing is the right course. Of course since the public is clamoring for the gov't to do something, it must oblige.

I don't even know why people on ET continue to argue about the pros/cons of the Stimulus Package.

It is strictly a sideshow.

The much more significant policy is what Geithner decides to do with the banking system . . . and given that Paulson sat there and did virtually nothing but "bail-out" his buddies on Wall Street with direct-investment in preferred's ( and no strings attached ) - - - essentially "punting" the problem on to the next Administration, I'd say that Geithner is in a most high pressure and complicated position.

The TARP 1 that came out of the Bush Administration has been a pure and utter failure. And unfortunately, it has put us another 5 months behind the "8" ball as the world economies collapse.

 

[bugscoe]

Quote from Landis82:

First of all, the $787 Billion Stimulus Package is only 5.5% of GDP.

It may be fine and dandy if it was true that this was the only "expense".

"All of the major news outlets are reporting that the stimulus bill voted out of conference committee last night has a meager $789 billion price tag. This number is pure fantasy. No one believes that the increased funding for programs the left loves like Head Start, Medicaid, COBRA, and the Earned Income Tax Credit is in anyway temporary. No Congress under control of the left will ever cut funding for these programs. So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? As you can see from the table below, the true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2.527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 trillion."

 

[Landis82]

Quote from bugscoe:

It may be fine and dandy if it was true that this was the only "expense".

I understand what you are saying, but at this point in the game I would suggest that it is not the REAL issue at hand.

 

[TradeWarrior310]

Quote from jamis359:

Hmmm, I have a choice to make. I can either

a. Listen to Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in economics, who says the stimulus is too small; or,

b. Listen to anonymous uncredentialed cynical crankpots on EliteTrader who grumble about the government no matter what it does.

I'll think I'll take "a."

So labels are more important to you than information?

If you were smart you would learn from history instead of taking gospel from a Nobel Laureate whom happens to be WRONG.

When it comes to the subject of the Stimulus Plan, Krugman is a Keynesian Nobel Nabob.

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from bugscoe:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? As you can see from the table below, the true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2.527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 trillion."

somehow, that seems like a more realistic assessment...

 

[TraderZones]

The results are very telling. This is one of the most lopsided votes I have seen on ET.

 

[trader3cnd]

Quote from jamis359:

Hmmm, I have a choice to make. I can either

a. Listen to Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in economics, who says the stimulus is too small; or,

b. Listen to anonymous uncredentialed cynical crankpots on EliteTrader who grumble about the government no matter what it does.

I'll think I'll take "a."

Why don't you take "c": Thomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy

 

[Kassz007]

I believe the government policy of "do nothing" contributed heavily to the prolonging of the great depression. While I do believe the stimulus package has flaws, I am under the firm belief that the stimulus package is better than doing nothing at all.

This is especially true because I live in Canada. I get to reap the benefits of the stimulus package (via increased exports to USA due to increased money supply) without myself or my children having to repay the debt in increased taxes.