What's better for the economy?

[TequilaMockingbird69]

So I dropped in on a conversation, and it was about the economy.
My friends were setting rebuttals, and it became quite interesting.
There were two choices...
Do the people stop spending money?
Or does the government spend more money?
Take your pick and explain...

[Biscuit-head]

Either way, your argument makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

[TequilaMockingbird69]

Maybe its because you're a dumbass.

At 4/26/09 11:24 AM, TequilaMockingbird69 wrote: Take your pick and explain...

Well, I can't really "take my pick", because I think it's much more complex than that, especially considering I know very little about the technical "science" of economics. My views also ride on the principle that problems like this can't be fixed at the click of someone's fingers, and that positive change for everyone can really only happen over a long and slow period of time, during which time many people could lose a lot of things. Of course, I could pick one option and have that elongated over a period of time, but I don't think even that would be technically wise, given how things can change greatly when variables come into play.

This isn't much of an answer, I know... but I don't want to give myself to one side, and I also don't want to go off on a theoretical rant. I think I'd just like to throw the point out there that more of these aspects should be considered. The choice you outline does after all involve a certain amount of theory-based bickering, as far as I see it.

I'm an abstract kind of guy...

[Biscuit-head]

At 4/26/09 11:31 AM, TequilaMockingbird69 wrote: Maybe its because you're a dumbass.

And you didn't give any details on what it was you're arguing about. Except "Economy"

Hay guise, my friend and I were arguing over cookies.
so wich makes more sense, yes or no?

[Yeow]

Businesses need customers to survive so I don't see how stopping people from spending money would help the economy because all shops would have to close because of that.

The latter choice would be the only logical one since it helps both companies and the general public. The companies can offer a better product for a reasonable price and the general public has the choice when it comes to goods and services.

It helps money circulate around.

[HandsomePete]

At 4/26/09 11:25 AM, Biscuit-head wrote: Either way, your argument makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

I don't believe he made an argument, but the two choices he offered are near-sighted, barely scratch the surface of the issue, and are more symptoms than solutions. So much of it all depends on WHAT'S being spent and where the money goes next. The government injects money into the system, and in this case unfortunately, are putting it into the financial market. This forces us to focus on a sector dealing with credit, rather than assets, meaning the money flowing BACK into the economy is imaginary, with nothing to back it up. The rich guys on Wall Street can profit. Bankers profit. They siphon up all of the money to themselves and their company, and the last little bit trickles down to small business. For all of the bitching the GOP does about Obama being a Socialist, they're too fucking stubborn and ignorant to realize that their precious Reaganonomics are still in full swing. America needs to get back to producing goods and selling them at home and abroad, not jerking off a bunch of spoiled, rich, yuppie frat boy, asshats on Wall Street.

[NikeThanatos]

The 3 trillion dollars Obama gave to the banks would have been much more useful in the hands of American citizens.

[yugimt]

At 4/26/09 11:40 AM, NikeThanatos wrote: The 3 trillion dollars Obama gave to the banks would have been much more useful in the hands of American citizens.

Someone...like me.

[blackattackbitch]

At 4/26/09 11:38 AM, Proph wrote: Lurk more, faggot.

Go back to /b/, heterosexual male.

At 4/26/09 11:24 AM, TequilaMockingbird69 wrote: So I dropped in on a conversation, and it was about the economy.
My friends were setting rebuttals, and it became quite interesting.
There were two choices...
Do the people stop spending money?

No. No spending means business gets no money, which means that people don't get paid. If you wanna kill the economy, the above is a magnificent way to do so.

Or does the government spend more money?

Considering that we're in a FUCKING 10 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT AND A TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, I'm pretty sure that this is a surefire way to failure in the long run.

Besides, it's not about spending. I hate to use a word from Obama's playbook, but it's about the government investing in business, not spending just to spend.

Take your pick and explain...

I pick neither because, well, you fail at economics and politics. Come back when the economy is actually relevant to your life, tween.

[ragingfred]

number 2 because number 1 is what makes your economy bad.

[NikeThanatos]

At 4/26/09 11:46 AM, yugimt wrote: Someone...like me.

Someone like all of us. If that 3 trill was divided to the 600 million or so residents of America, thats $5000 US for each person.

Think of what that could do for the economy. Much more than it will keeping banks afloat.

[blackattackbitch]

I hate to return so soon, but I can only wonder what the eliminated choices were if these were the only choices that the OP could come up with.

I'm guessing....

eliminated #1: Sacrifice a goat to the great spidergod
#2: Kill all the jews
#3: Kill all the blacks
#4: Illegalize cigarettes and alchohol (because wall street was drunk according to bush)
#5: Sell all stock on Wall Street so there's more actual money in the hands of the investors.

I could go on with possible fail choices, but I won't.

[Vrael]

No one in this thread seems to understand how Macro Economics work

Economy is Currently is a recession

a basic look at Macro Economics would tell you that during a recessionIF Government Intervention is going to happen the following would be the actions they would take
Fiscal Policy (by Congress) Should

- Cut Taxes - This gives every citizen more disposable income therefore you assume we would spend more; The Problems that occur with this is that currently due to being financially scared many people would not take action and spend, and as we have seen with these Government handouts we've been getting recently, but we would save.

Also it takes a full year for the effect of cutting taxes to take effect and our Country and Government is far to impatient and currently democratic/liberal to perform this action

- Increase Government Spending - This is suppose to increase Aggregate Demand, however not enough of current government spending is in the area's that are weakest therefore it would have diminished effects, besides we have enough debt TYVM

or we have

Monetary Policy(The Fed)

Open Market Operations(OMO) - OMO is the Fed buying or Selling Governement bonds to increase/decrease the current Money Supply if you increase MS the Interest Rate (I%) should decrease making Loans more accessible, however consumers are slow to respond to this because the only Fed Action that is ever reported widely by the Media IS!!!!

Discount Rate - This is the national I% for all loans that come from the federal reserve, if it falls all I%'s will fall in accordance, however it has already been VERY low recently due to Bush Expansionary Policy, therefore decreasing does not have much of an effect in terms of getting consumers to buy more with loans due to current fear

Another term to know is Velocity that is the number of times a dollar is exchanged from one person to another, higher Velocity equals higher Output or GDP

In the end there is no easy solution to this issue, because any course of action has negatives attached to it whether it be Inflation(Que Collective Republican "GASP!!!!!") or Debt(we have enough already)

To be honest I'm a strong believer in a self-correcting economy particularly in this situation, we are not in a deep enough hole to need Big Brother to pull us out. Worst Economic Crisis since the Great Depression my ass, our Unemployment isn't even at 9% yet, during the great depression we had upwards of 40-50% and recessions since have had anywhere from 15-26% unemployment.....

The REAL answer is that Politicians should be forced to have a double major in all forms of Economics so they know WHAT THE FUCK their doing when they decide what's best for the American People which in this case is literally NOTHING, American Government is already big enough I thought we were Democratic not Democratic with Socialist futures...

sorry if this is a bump from awhile ago....life distracted me from my thoughts...

[TequilaMockingbird69]

Damn.

[Vrael]

At 4/26/09 01:09 PM, NikeThanatos wrote:

Someone like all of us. If that 3 trill was divided to the 600 million or so residents of America, thats $5000 US for each person.

P.S. There's only like 315 Million Americans Dude...I think...and also the money goes the banks because it will move more quickly than if in the form of currency of Americans who don't WANT to spend it, if in the banking system it has far more uses particularly Investment Loans

Also it wasn't really 3 trillion...that's just insane....

[blackattackbitch]

At 4/26/09 01:13 PM, Vrael wrote: smart shit.

Thank you for your input. It's nice to see someone intelligent on this thread.

At 4/26/09 01:17 PM, TequilaMockingbird69 wrote: Damn.

That's it? No spirited defense of your conclusions? Wow, debate has lost its flare these days.

[Vrael]

At 4/26/09 01:25 PM, blackattackbitch wrote:

At 4/26/09 01:13 PM, Vrael wrote: smart shit.

Thank you for your input. It's nice to see someone intelligent on this thread.

Why Thank You good sir! I apologize for the many grammatical errors...I was kinda angry while typing

At 4/26/09 01:17 PM, TequilaMockingbird69 wrote: Damn.

That's it? No spirited defense of your conclusions? Wow, debate has lost its flare these days.

Yes, it really has....

[Armissea]

At 4/26/09 11:25 AM, Biscuit-head wrote: Either way, your argument makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

Perhaps if he took a class hed understand more I can see he is trying to get the concept but not quite getting there you know?

[StationToStation]

Imperialism and conventional warfare.

[4Doctodragon]

Legalization of marijuana? I'm no smoker myself, but I do know that I would if I were helping the economy.

[blackattackbitch]

At 4/26/09 01:37 PM, ParadoxSaint wrote: Legalization of marijuana? I'm no smoker myself, but I do know that I would if I were helping the economy.

Well I am, and I can tell you that the economic effects would be limited at best.

But the tax money would help get rid of the deficit surely.

[TequilaMockingbird69]

Well this is strange, but have any of you seen the South Park episode "Margaritaville?"
Shit.
I think I answered my own question.
Remember?
Would you say that episode benefits my post on the BBS?

[HandsomePete]

At 4/26/09 01:22 PM, Vrael wrote:

P.S. There's only like 315 Million Americans Dude...

Just over 3 hundo.

[Lost-Chances]

Here's a plan: Stop loaning money.

It's an incredible idea, I know.

[blackattackbitch]

At 4/26/09 01:49 PM, TequilaMockingbird69 wrote: Well this is strange, but have any of you seen the South Park episode "Margaritaville?"
Shit.
I think I answered my own question.
Remember?
Would you say that episode benefits my post on the BBS?

You did not just refer to a fucking episode of southpark for economic advice, did you?

GTFO NAO!!!!!!

[HandsomePete]

At 4/26/09 02:09 PM, blackattackbitch wrote:

You did not just refer to a fucking episode of southpark for economic advice, did you?

GTFO NAO!!!!!!

That episode, I think more than any other I've seen, was way, way off.

[blackattackbitch]

At 4/26/09 02:17 PM, HandsomePete wrote:

At 4/26/09 02:09 PM, blackattackbitch wrote:

You did not just refer to a fucking episode of southpark for economic advice, did you?

GTFO NAO!!!!!!

That episode, I think more than any other I've seen, was way, way off.

Which is why I echo my command to the OP to GTFO NAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bolo]

At 4/26/09 11:40 AM, NikeThanatos wrote: The 3 trillion dollars Obama gave to the banks would have been much more useful in the hands of American citizens.

Which is probably why he created the TARP ... don't you think?

[TequilaMockingbird69]

OK. Whoa! I'm sorry for relating to South Park on this topic. Forgive me.