|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 106 of 536:
| 
Oct 1 15:37 UTC 2003 |
Re #93: His tax cut was not very well tailored to improve the economy.
This is hardly surprising, considering he pitched it for other reasons
originally, then later switched to calling it an economic stimulus
package when that seemed politically expedient.
Normally in a recession you cut taxes for low income and middle class
consumers, since they're the most likely to pump that money back into
the economy. You also generally provide aid to the states, so they
don't have to raise taxes and cancel out the effect. Bush hasn't done
either of these things to any significant extent, and the result has
been the slowest economic recovery in decades.
Re #103:
> The surplus was a fiction based on the continuation of the bubble
> economy; when the bubble burst, the surplus disappeared with it.
> Bush had nothing to do with that.
I'd say he aggravated it with an expensive tax cut for the rich. We
would have a deficit now anyway, even if he hadn't cut taxes, but the
deficit would be smaller. Also, he's cut taxes so far that we will now
have a deficit even after the economy recovers. This only makes sense
if you follow the neoconservative "deficits don't matter" philosophy.
|
klg
|
|
response 107 of 536:
|
Oct 1 16:18 UTC 2003 |
Thank you, Mr. Keynes. But you ought really to more carefully examine
the extent to which the tax reductions (via the creation of the new 10%
bracket, elimination of the marriage penalty, and expansion of the
child care credit - for examples) have drastically reduced the tax
burden upon the tax-paying lower & middle income groups.
(Additionally, you may wish to consider the facts that (1) the tax
changes had to be negotiated with anti-tax reduction Democrats who had
significant input on the final version and (2) the tax reductions have
actually increased the burden upon the "rich" in terms of the
percentage of tax revenues taken in by the federal government.)
As for Mr. rcurl's lesson in economics (a.k.a., a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing), increasing the money supply does not necessarily
result in inflation, if, for example, output expands at an equal or
greater rate.
|
klg
|
|
response 108 of 536:
|
Oct 1 16:34 UTC 2003 |
I am sorry, but I don't know where else to put this gem from
yesterday's opinionjournal.com
"(G)et a load of this report from Wired magazine, on a Clark campaign
appearance in New Hampshire, where he boldly went where no candidate
has gone before:
"'I still believe in e=mc2, but I can't believe that in all of human
history, we'll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to
reach where we want to go,' said Clark. 'I happen to believe that
mankind can do it.'"
(I may be switching from How-weird to Clark-weird.)
|
slynne
|
|
response 109 of 536:
|
Oct 1 19:47 UTC 2003 |
resp:98 - When the Fed buys treasury bonds, where do they get the money
to do that? Think about it. If they were buying bonds from you, they
would write you a check for the amount the bonds are worth. Do you
think that money comes out of some "Fed checking account"? Trust me,
it doesnt. When the Fed writes a check for some bonds, they have just
increased the money supply by the amount of the check. And since the
Fed is part of the government, it is fair to say that the government
has an effect on the money supply.
resp:99 - You might consider the government debt as something that
increases the money supply but I cant think of any economists who would
agree with you. I see what you are getting at. But if the government
werent spending that money, the people they are borrowing from probably
would be. There is no change in the money supply from government
spending. This doesnt mean that the tax cuts and deficit spending that
is going on right now is OK. In fact, it is probably going to cause
some long range economic damage. But the damage is different from the
damage that could be caused by a huge increase in the money supply that
you suggest has happened.
resp:105 - Increases to the money supply do cause inflation. But I
think that even the Bush folks know that inflation without growth is
meaningless. I dont think the tax cuts were designed to cause inflation
nor was the war. I mean, if that was the goal, they could get to it in
much easier ways. Frankly, simply printing more money would do it but
they could also put some pressure on the Fed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 110 of 536:
|
Oct 1 20:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 111 of 536:
|
Oct 1 20:13 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
goose
|
|
response 112 of 536:
|
Oct 1 20:43 UTC 2003 |
RE#111 -- I don't think you mean to, but the way you just described it makes
it sound like a Ponzi Scheme.
|
slynne
|
|
response 113 of 536:
|
Oct 1 22:13 UTC 2003 |
resp:111 I never said that the Fed buys Treasury bonds from the
government. They buy them on the bond market. Hence the name the "open
market" committee. And yes, the Fed writes a check on itself which
increases the money supply. And the Fed *is* a part of the government.
Maybe you dont know what is considered "the money supply" but I am
talking about your typical demand deposits, saving accounts, currency,
etc (I guess I tend to think in M2 but what I have been saying applies
well to M1 and M3). Here is a link where you might be able to learn
something - http://www.ny.frb.org/pihome/fedpoint/fed49.html
|
tod
|
|
response 114 of 536:
|
Oct 1 22:43 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 115 of 536:
|
Oct 1 23:13 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 116 of 536:
|
Oct 1 23:20 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 117 of 536:
|
Oct 2 02:07 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 118 of 536:
|
Oct 2 02:14 UTC 2003 |
Jamie, you seem to have no idea how the Fed adjusts interest rates.
They do it by buying and selling treasury bonds. The money *does* come
from nowhere. The money that the Fed has is for lending to banks. The
money used to buy bonds is not part of M2 (or even M3).
Your comment that the FRS is privately owned is a common
misconception. It is, in fact, part of the U.S. governent. See
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faq.htm#frsq3 if you dont believe me.
|
jp2
|
|
response 119 of 536:
|
Oct 2 02:43 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
dah
|
|
response 120 of 536:
|
Oct 2 02:52 UTC 2003 |
fine so I laughed.
|
asddsa
|
|
response 121 of 536:
|
Oct 2 02:53 UTC 2003 |
OH, SO YOU DO COME DIRECTLY FROM WORK SOMETIMES AND NOT JUST MONKEYHOST
|
asddsa
|
|
response 122 of 536:
|
Oct 2 02:53 UTC 2003 |
slip
|
jp2
|
|
response 123 of 536:
|
Oct 2 02:56 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
dah
|
|
response 124 of 536:
|
Oct 2 02:58 UTC 2003 |
;)
|
jp2
|
|
response 125 of 536:
|
Oct 2 03:05 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 126 of 536:
|
Oct 2 04:36 UTC 2003 |
Damn! Jamie, you must be the smartest guy the Fed has ever had as a
janitor!
|
happyboy
|
|
response 127 of 536:
|
Oct 2 04:58 UTC 2003 |
*ahem* you mean "gay coffee boy", i think.
|
tsty
|
|
response 128 of 536:
|
Oct 2 07:54 UTC 2003 |
_The FED_, by martin mayer (c) 2001 - "the insie story of how the
world;s most power financial institution drives the markets."
eye-popp0mg, chin-dropping amazing read!
isbn 0-684-84740-X (in case youa re intersted)
the fed is a creature of congress - teh federal reserve act of 1913.
as for clark, he is wayyyy too brittle for politics; and as teh
valedictorian of his west point class, far to used to being a damn
general rather than a politician.
besides, he is on record as seeing the supreme court's role as 'implementing
his agenda' for the country .. BZZZT!! wrong! thankxx for playing, next?
dean may con enough poeple to get nominated, but i hope not, dubb-ya needs
some competent competition.
teh wmd 'problem' also bothers me, jep, and i havne't quite resolved
it to my own satisfaction yet. at least, as thigs stand now.
on one hand, teh *greatest* wmd was the saddam regime itself - now gone, phew!
and quoting, "Those who argue that deposing Saddam was wrong are the
equivalent of apologists for Hitler. One has increasing difficulty
telling the difference between Gov. Dean and Prime Minister Chamberlain,
between Gen. Clark and his role model, Marshal Petain," Ralph Peters,
author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
remember, please, hitler never attacked us either - and fdr went for
him first.
gassing jews and gassing kurds and iranians are too similar to let the
parallel go un-noticed.
of coures, clark was leading teh salvation of bosnia, et al., so he at
least has cred for unprovoked intervention. but wait, oh, that was
clinton as prez so it's alright.
(and to repeat my conversion, clinton was *right* to goto bosnia.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 129 of 536:
|
Oct 2 10:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 130 of 536:
|
Oct 2 13:32 UTC 2003 |
It's shocking that someone can work for the Fed and still be so
clueless. SHOCKING! You should tell them that even the coffee boys
should have a chance to know how things work. ;)
|
