Guest viewing is limited

Capitalism: The real cure all

Sorry, its from History of the World Part I. I'm "surprised" you dind't know that. Read into THAT.


Make sure you clock out.

- The Forum Moderator
 
Sorry, its from History of the World Part I. I'm "surprised" you dind't know that. Read into THAT.


Make sure you clock out.

- The Forum Moderator
I normally clock out using emoticons, but I thought you knew that "forum" boss. Now go scribble on the wall and refer to it as a business plan. :)
 
I normally clock out using emoticons, but I thought you knew that "forum" boss. Now go scribble on the wall and refer to it as a business plan. :)


Oh nice edit....Seriously, take some time, think about what you are going to post then click reply. If you think long and hard enough, you'll come up with an insult that someone will think is funny.


- The Forum Moderator
 
Isn't it funny how this guy changes his tune depending on who he talks to? Even though I agree with his comments he just needs to shut up and go away.


Greenspan: Fiscal Stimulus Worked Far Less Than Expected
The former head of the Federal Reserve said fiscal stimulus efforts have fallen far short of expectations, and the government now needs to get out of the way and allow businesses and markets to power the recovery.

“We have to find a way to simmer down the extent of activism that is going on” with government stimulus spending “and allow the economy to heal” itself, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told a gathering held at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Wednesday.

At this point, “we’d probably be better off doing less than more” because “you’d be far better off to allow the normal market forces to operate here,” Greenspan said. That’s largely because stimulus spending is not proving as effective as many had hoped. “To the extent the evidence suggests very large deficits concurrently crowd out capital investment, there is a debit to the stimulus program that is somewhere between a third and a half of what the gross stimulus is,” he said.


Greenspan was Fed chairman from 1987 to 2006, and was succeeded by current central bank chief Ben Bernanke. Greenspan’s tenure at the Fed was defined by his opposition to government regulation and his confidence that markets would discipline themselves.

To many, the financial crisis was largely born of that ideology, and to some degree, Greenspan has himself said he overestimated the market’s willingness to understand and price for risk. Greenspan has also been widely accused of running an overly easy monetary policy during the early years of the last decade, in turn providing the fuel that powered the housing bubble, the rupturing of which drove the worst recession in generations.

Greenspan’s comments came in response to moderator and audience questions, and were accordingly wide-ranging. The former central banker noted that gold, the price of which has been surging, still represents the “ultimate means of payment.” What is happening in that market “is a signal there is a problem with respect to currency markets.” He reckons the problem is not a large one, but the jump in gold prices could be “the canary in the coal mine to keep an eye on.”

Greenspan, while worried about the outlook and what is happening with the housing market, said when it comes to a double-dip recession, “the probability of that is going down.” Given all the ground the economy has lost, “the tinder for a double-dip is not readily available,” although he added if housing goes down “all bets are off.”

Greenspan said that the U.S. needs to do something now to deal with budget deficits and it must do something very soon. He explained his anxiety is so high that “I’m coming out in the first time in my memory” in support of higher taxes in addition to reduced spending, including allowing the so-called Bush tax cuts to expire.

“Our choice is not between good and bad; it’s between terrible and worse,” Greenspan said. The nation has “a level of commitment … which I don’t think we can psychically meet,” absent huge changes in how the government finances itself.
 
I agree with you to a certain extent. A lot of people took out loans which they could not afford, or did not fully understand at the time. Unfortunately our economy subsists off of revolving credit.

Incorrect. The game of letting the rich and politically connected fleece the middle and lower classes subsists off of revolving credit. Our economy, and every economy whether the afore mentioned game is being played or not and to whatever degree, subsists off savings and capital investment per head of labor, pure and simple. If an economy subisted off of spending then how can an economy ever grow when all economies start out with little or nothing to consume? Production precedes consumption in all economies. You can not consume what you have not already produced. With revolving credit however, you can fool a lot of people into thinking they are wealthier than they really are so they keep tranfering their real and imagined wealth to banksters and politically connected contractors. Artificially stimulated credit has one purpose: transfer wealth from the rest of the economy to the rich and politically connected.

There is a lot of blame to go around. The majority of those who took out loans were first time home buyers, many of whom didn't fully understand how credit works or what they were getting themselves into. Were they victims or just uninformed? I think it's a combination of both. It's a complicated issue. You can employ many different strategies in order to stimulate the economy, one of which is spending, or enhancing existing infrastructure with up to date technologies.

You can't stimulate an economy, period. All you can do is redirect how people use resources by messing with market signals or by out and out fiat. And either approach will over the long term move resources away from those ends people feel are highest valued to those ends the government deams worthy. Which means as soon as the government won't or can't keep the redirection going, the economy collapses and people have to rediscover the right balance of spending and savings.

EDIT: And Greenspan, for all his education, is a damn idiot. Free market my ass, he is a central manager of the exact sort Marx himself wanted. If you read the latter's writings, as well as the final chapter of Keynes' General Theory, they both call for a socialization of capital investment, a centralization of investing decisions. Greenspan works for a central bank, The Fed, and there is no, repeat no, incentive for a central bank to do anything but force interest rates lower than where they would otherwise be which leads to more investment and more spending by the first receivers of the easy money and credit, which leads to more investment and more consumer spending, but this all occurs upon a base of real resources that can't support an increase in both for any length of time. In an unscrewed with economy current spending has to come at the expense of savings, and saving has to come at the expense of current spending. Which is why you get inevitable collapses when the government tries to fool people into doing both via The Fed and its policies. When the government stooges talk about 'stimulating' the economy they are ignoring the basic fact that they are constantly 'stimulating' the economy. What they're really saying is, "We can't subtly steal your money and give it to our friends anymore, so we will do it blatantly now throuh taxes and call it a 'bail out'."
 
Back
Top