The Stimulus Didn't Work

[Heracles 417]

Go try to find a job in this Ovomit stimulated economy Gene, and let us know how it goes?

What chance would there be of getting a job if no stimulus was delivered and another 1 to 2 million Americans lost their jobs?

Not to mention the hundreds more companies that would have already failed and never to return. Actually, this recession has set the perfect storm up where only a few monopolies will survive. Hertz, Sprint and Macys announced yesterday that they are on the verge of going under. As a consumer we are screwed. We are going to be left with a handful of monopolies, which totally goes against the free-market economy. Walmart is getting bigger and bigger as other other monopolies. We only have one electronics / entertainment chain left, Best buy. Only one of those home goods stores left Bed Bath and Beyond. You think this is good for the consumer? Wait until the recession is over and we are left when even more monopolies. It's going to be fun times for the American consumer over the next 10 years.

[zqt3344 21]

The cold hard reality of the matter is, even with this stimulus, very damn few Americans are benefiting from this and more are losing jobs than are finding them, fact of matter.

Go try to find a job in this Ovomit stimulated economy Gene, and let us know how it goes?

What chance would there be of getting a job if no stimulus was delivered and another 1 to 2 million Americans lost their jobs?

Not to mention the hundreds more companies that would have already failed and never to return. Actually, this recession has set the perfect storm up where only a few monopolies will survive. Hertz, Sprint and Macys announced yesterday that they are on the verge of going under. As a consumer we are screwed. We are going to be left with a handful of monopolies, which totally goes against the free-market economy. Walmart is getting bigger and bigger as other other monopolies. We only have one electronics / entertainment chain left, Best buy. Only one of those home goods stores left Bed Bath and Beyond. You think this is good for the consumer? Wait until the recession is over and we are left when even more monopolies. It's going to be fun times for the American consumer over the next 10 years.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The markets were tanking for months before the effects of that hit the real economy.

[Heracles 417]

Contrary to the media propaganda machine, no company is too big to fail; but they're all definitely too big to be kept on government life support. The truth is, not only can they fail, but they must fail. The profit/loss mechanism is invaluable in ensuring that scarce resources are controlled by the most capable individuals or groups.

As mawilson pointed out, Lehman Brothers is a good example of what happens when a company fails. The assets do not disappear, the employees aren't genocided, and the Earth doesn't break away from it's solar orbit.

Another good example is WaMu. They were the largest savings and loan bank in the US. They're failure resulted in their solvent assets being sold to Chase Manhatten Bank, a more capable bank.

You seriously live in a fantasy land. What you're proposing is that America go back to the elitist King and Queen days, when only as few people had the wealth and the rest where dirt poor. Jungle rule / survival of the fittest; basically you want America to become a third world country. You also support the notion of mega corporations, which inevitably become monopolies, and falsely act as if this is somehow good for the American consumer. Monopolies actually go against the principal of the free-market. The ideal free-market promotes a healthy range of competition; certainly not a single walmart calling the shots.

As it is, businesses are getting more in more into politics and dictating the fate of the country for 303,000,000 people. Yet these corporations are what have sold out Americans and American ingenuity to foreign countries. If China decided to nationalize all of the US factories there, America would be screwed. The executive or shareholders couldn't care less about this as long as they are profiteering from it. Yet it's the average American who will have to go fight a war with China to defend such assets.

I am still waiting on the Australian property to crash, as you said it would.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you're in a situation where you have to choose between a 15% or a 25% unemployment rate, what are you going to do?

[Heracles 417]

The cold hard reality of the matter is, even with this stimulus, very damn few Americans are benefiting from this and more are losing jobs than are finding them, fact of matter.

Come on zqt, it's called a recession. You think Obama is to blame for this. You directly benefited from him yet you still hate on the guy. I would like to see a car dealer push a lug nut let alone a car without a stimulus.

[Heracles 417]

Australia used a stimulus and their unemployment rate is 5.8%. Of course they don't have Matt types running the government, as they ran them out in the early part of 20th century, so business and lending practices were kept in check but nonetheless the stimulus still worked. Actually the reason it worked so well is because the federal and state governments had been stimulating the economy, for a good 15 years now; hence their huge and steady growth. Something totally against Matts ideals in running a country. Actually Matt should also take note of this so he realizes the difference between what he is proposing to what actually works. At least in Aus everyone grew and shared the progress, rather than just a handful of mega rich. Over here, the top 1% significantly increased their wealth, over the last decade, while everyone else pretty much flat-lined.

The one thing that is evident here is that the country is a little short on common sense but sure as hell has a lot of conspiracy freaks or those with pie in the sky ideas. Then you have a situation with the libs trying to kill the conservatives and vice versa. Therefore, nothing is ever achieved and the country falls down the international rankings yet again.

We have the governor race on here and the dems are trying to use their opponents 20 year old paper against him, regarding his old view on women's rights. ####### is wrong with a party to even be discussing that in the worst crisis since the depression? I don't know what happened post 60's but the country is plagued with idiots.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Booyah!

[mRx 16]

I'm gonna dissect your post, Pike.

Well companies shouldn't be allowed to grow so big...

This common misconception completely blinds itself to only real cause that any company grows--the consumer. No company would exist without the faithful contribution of dollars by consumers and investors. Think of it as a constantly evolving market democracy--only instead of ballots and voting machines, we use dollars. Any artificial interference with this "voting" only hurts us consumers.

The anti-trust fallacy that companies shouldn't be allowed to grow beyond a certain size is just another load of garbage originally purported by Marx--It's viability has long expired.

...that they are so heavily relied upon that...

Reliance in the economic sense isn't the same as say, how a child would rely on his mother. I don't think there is a word that can succintly define the relationship between a consumer and a company, but I think the word confidence is more apt than reliance, as confidence can grow or diminish instantaneously whereas reliance cannot.

...they cannot be allowed to fail.

Contrary to the media propaganda machine, no company is too big to fail; but they're all definitely too big to be kept on government life support. The truth is, not only can they fail, but they must fail. The profit/loss mechanism is invaluable in ensuring that scarce resources are controlled by the most capable individuals or groups.

As mawilson pointed out, Lehman Brothers is a good example of what happens when a company fails. The assets do not disappear, the employees aren't genocided, and the Earth doesn't break away from it's solar orbit.

Another good example is WaMu. They were the largest savings and loan bank in the US. They're failure resulted in their solvent assets being sold to Chase Manhatten Bank, a more capable bank.

No offence, but I think I trust the folks with the economic background over you.

I really don't care for another "lesson" in economics 101 that ignores, sidelines or downplays the practical realities of the situation.

None taken. I trust the folks with an economic background also. I just don't trust the "folks" that claimed the housing bubble was not a bubble, that there would be no recession, and the problems were "largely contained" (Ben Bernanke May, 2007). Too bad these are the folks who spout all the economic misinformation, and their word is largely considered dogmatic.

What practical realities are missing, Pike? Was WaMu not reality? Was Lehman not reality?

[mawilson 2,133]

No offence, but I think I trust the folks with the economic background over you.

I don't. You think they are looking out for your best interests?

Congress didn't even blink before sending a trillion dollars to the shareholders of Wall Street banks

and now they can't find a trillion dollars to fund healthcare?

[mRx 16]

Contrary to the media propaganda machine, no company is too big to fail; but they're all definitely too big to be kept on government life support. The truth is, not only can they fail, but they must fail. The profit/loss mechanism is invaluable in ensuring that scarce resources are controlled by the most capable individuals or groups.

As mawilson pointed out, Lehman Brothers is a good example of what happens when a company fails. The assets do not disappear, the employees aren't genocided, and the Earth doesn't break away from it's solar orbit.

Another good example is WaMu. They were the largest savings and loan bank in the US. They're failure resulted in their solvent assets being sold to Chase Manhatten Bank, a more capable bank.

You seriously live in a fantasy land. What you're proposing is that America go back to the elitist King and Queen days, when only as few people had the wealth and the rest where dirt poor. Jungle rule / survival of the fittest; basically you want America to become a third world country. You also support the notion of mega corporations, which inevitably become monopolies, and falsely act as if this is somehow good for the American consumer. Monopolies actually go against the principal of the free-market. The ideal free-market promotes a healthy range of competition; certainly not a single walmart calling the shots.

As it is, businesses are getting more in more into politics and dictating the fate of the country for 303,000,000 people. Yet these corporations are what have sold out Americans and American ingenuity to foreign countries. If China decided to nationalize all of the US factories there, America would be screwed. The executive or shareholders couldn't care less about this as long as they are profiteering from it. Yet it's the average American who will have to go fight a war with China to defend such assets.

You're views are becoming increasingly Marxist, Booyah, and I'm pretty sure I've busted most of these myths already. But, what the hell.

First, you seem to be blurring the line between market power and social power. Economist Richard Salsman said it best:

They [anti-trust proponents] insist, against all evidence, that productive giants such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Henry Ford, Mike Milken and Bill Gates are every bit as "powerful," especially if left free to reign, as Europe's kings and feudal land barons; that these business creators are every bit is dangerous as tyrants like Napoleon and Hitler. Big government is bad, but so is big business, they claim. Both can "oppress" us all the same.

If you're assuming that politicians can be bought off by big business, therefore they can influence politics, then I'd agree with you--But is that really inherently a problem of big business or of politics? Basically, in an effort to keep business dollars away from easily corruptable DC suits, is it wise to restrict business's ability to earn dollars? See how ridiculous that sounds? It's nonsense, Booyah. Any problems of corrupt government are rooted in corrupt government, not business.

And you're silly views on monopoly are the same ones taught in 7th grade, by the same teacher that taught the entire social science block in addition to being the softball coach.

First, be clear on your definition of monopoly: exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition, so that those controlling the field are able to set arbitrary production policies and charge arbitrary prices, independent of the market, immune from the law of supply and demand

If free-markets naturally generated such coercive monopolies, then why don't we all drive Ford Model T's? Ford owned the automobile market. So what happened? Did our good government friends tell Henry Ford to lose some of his market share? Or did Chevrolet come into to existence to compete with Ford's market share?

So, basically the only way the conditions of a coercive monopoly can be met, are by law. Therefore, only governments can create coercive monopoly, because only governments can restrict or eliminate competition.

I am still waiting on the Australian property to crash, as you said it would.

It's coming, my friend.

And when the Australian Egalitarian wetdream is over, and the Aussies are upside-down on their 6.0+ multiplier mortgages, I'll be smiling...

[Heracles 417]

You're views are becoming increasingly Marxist, Booyah, and I'm pretty sure I've busted most of these myths already. But, what the hell.

First, you seem to be blurring the line between market power and social power. Economist Richard Salsman said it best:

They [anti-trust proponents] insist, against all evidence, that productive giants such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Henry Ford, Mike Milken and Bill Gates are every bit as "powerful," especially if left free to reign, as Europe's kings and feudal land barons; that these business creators are every bit is dangerous as tyrants like Napoleon and Hitler. Big government is bad, but so is big business, they claim. Both can "oppress" us all the same.

If you're assuming that politicians can be bought off by big business, therefore they can influence politics, then I'd agree with you--But is that really inherently a problem of big business or of politics? Basically, in an effort to keep business dollars away from easily corruptable DC suits, is it wise to restrict business's ability to earn dollars? See how ridiculous that sounds? It's nonsense, Booyah. Any problems of corrupt government are rooted in corrupt government, not business.

And you're silly views on monopoly are the same ones taught in 7th grade, by the same teacher that taught the entire social science block in addition to being the softball coach.

First, be clear on your definition of monopoly: exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition, so that those controlling the field are able to set arbitrary production policies and charge arbitrary prices, independent of the market, immune from the law of supply and demand

If free-markets naturally generated such coercive monopolies, then why don't we all drive Ford Model T's? Ford owned the automobile market. So what happened? Did our good government friends tell Henry Ford to lose some of his market share? Or did Chevrolet come into to existence to compete with Ford's market share?

So, basically the only way the conditions of a coercive monopoly can be met, are by law. Therefore, only governments can create coercive monopoly, because only governments can restrict or eliminate competition.

Matt this is not the 1900's or 1800's, therefore, quoting from that time period is ridiculous. I do not know what college you went to, but your referencing skills would be a straight F at my college. You have not busted squat. If anything, your ‘pie in the sky’ libertarian views are what have been busted. I'm still waiting on an example of a 1900 text book Libertarian ideology working in the real world.

Every day I see abuse of market power by big business here; abuse that simply do not happen in Aus and for a good reason. The government and in particular the independent consumer protection group (ACCC) have the power to prevent it. They also promote competition and punish unfair monopolistic activities, let alone any activities that involve a company abusing their market power. You falsely assume that companies and individuals always consider what is in the best interest of the people or nation, they do not. Somehow in your mind, a single walmart is good for America. If a company decided to export all of their nuclear research to China or Iran, do you think this is a great idea and it should not be stopped? Since, after all, this is what the company decided. That is just ridiculous by any stretch.

Once again, this is not the 1900's, as such; you cannot just start-up your own car company. Same way you cannot just start up your own apple to compete with them or your own Verizon to compete with them.

Governments can restrict and eliminate competition but they can also promote and encourage it. They can also break up monopolies. The federal government has just announced they are breaking up Australia's main telecommunications carrier n a similar fashion that the UK government did to BT; Furthermore, they are building their own nation broadband network; which will allow numerous other individual providers to sell high speed broadband using, rather than just one carrier.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Booyah!

[mRx 16]

I love it how you attack weak positions that I don't even hold. I never said business cares about the collective people, nor do I care if they don't--Their purpose is production, not the Marxist pie in the sky "Business should care" doctrine you subscribe to.

[Heracles 417]

I love it how you attack weak positions that I don't even hold. I never said business cares about the collective people, nor do I care if they don't--Their purpose is production, not the Marxist pie in the sky "Business should care" doctrine you subscribe to.

What production? Most things are produced overseas.

Maybe I should have sent my bill to the Libertarian party when it took concast nearly two months to transfer my phone number. A government mandated four hour process in AUS. They would have actually had to pay my monthly line rental each day they were late in AUS; also government mandated.

As I have said many times before, if I was to list my grievances since moving here, nine out of ten times they involved private companies and their utter incompetence. The Matt approach, deregulate them even more; yeah that will work really well.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Booyah!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm gonna dissect your post, Pike.

Well companies shouldn't be allowed to grow so big...

This common misconception completely blinds itself to only real cause that any company grows--the consumer. No company would exist without the faithful contribution of dollars by consumers and investors. Think of it as a constantly evolving market democracy--only instead of ballots and voting machines, we use dollars. Any artificial interference with this "voting" only hurts us consumers.

The anti-trust fallacy that companies shouldn't be allowed to grow beyond a certain size is just another load of garbage originally purported by Marx--It's viability has long expired.

Matt, it's not really accurate that it is the consumer who is in the driver's seat when it comes to company growth. For one, a company grows through investors, who are different from consumers. A corporation can also grow through mergers, even hostile takeovers. And on the extreme of that - suppose Microsoft, for example, had enough capital to completely take over the software market - thereby eliminating all competition...how do free markets principals work when one of the key principals - competition does not exist?

[Heracles 417]

Matt, it's not really accurate that it is the consumer who is in the driver's seat when it comes to company growth. For one, a company grows through investors, who are different from consumers. A corporation can also grow through mergers, even hostile takeovers. And on the extreme of that - suppose Microsoft, for example, had enough capital to completely take over the software market - thereby eliminating all competition...how do free markets principals work when one of the key principals - competition does not exist?

Hence, why Microsoft has been heavily punished in Europe for anti-competitive practices. Matt obviously believes that even if Microsoft became the only software company, this is a good thing since it's a case of survival of the fittest. Yeah good for Microsoft but extremely bad for the consumer. Abuse of market power is why windows has had a garbage OS for so many years. Only now that apple and google are gaining speed, is Microsoft actually bringing out a decent OS, Windows 7. If the government had not put the brakes on Microsoft, they would have owned goggle and Apple by now.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Booyah!