Gaming World Forums
General Category => General Talk => Topic started by: Feldschlacht IV on January 21, 2008, 09:33:48 pm
-
Recently, the news, internet, and other media outlets have highly publicized the deep water that the US economy is facing. A growing national debt, a failing dollar, and falling stocks are all over the newspapers as everyone worries that the US economy, and even other national economies are in major danger of a recession. Recently, a 'financial aid' package has been proposed by President Bush to help repair the situation, but many foreign markets are skeptical about it. The fact that the stock market is priming itself for a depressingly low opening on Tuesday morning doesn't help matters either.
Global economic crisis 'serious': IMF Chief (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/21/news/international/europe_econcrisis.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008012114)
Global markets plunge on U.S. recession fears
(http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/21/news/international/world_markets.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008012115)
So, what's your take on all this? As an American citizen, I'm rather worried. I know that my family and I are financially secure enough to not be hit really hard by this, but still, out economy tanking isn't good for any American citizen, and I'm honestly worried about a depression coming. Our national debt is skyrocketing, and while I'm willing to give this package by President Bush a fair chance (free money), I'm still rather fearful of our financial future.
-
As a non american this is really great news for me, because I tend to order DVDs, CDs etc from there anyways (because it's so much cheaper even with shipping). Kinda sucks I ain't buying much toys anymore because the dollar:pound ratio is really good, and would save me a fortune.
-
ugh it's annoying as a canadian that our economies are sort of linked, also i just set up a mutual fund like a month ago and americas economy has been raping it, it seems like throwing money into a black hole right now :(
-
Does this mean I'll be able to buy cheaper import things from USA?
I mean how can this affect my or anyone else's lives? What are the positive/negatives effects of this so called recession if it happens?
If you think this is not a honest question and are going to post "inri cheetos is a troll LOL" then please ignore this post, pretend it doesn't exist
-
I mean how can this affect my or anyone else's lives? What are the positive/negatives effects of this so called recession if it happens?
Is this a joke...?
-
rexxz he is either a blatant troll or a huge idiot (no one is entirely sure yet) so just ignore him
I guess we can thank President Bush for taking the best economy we've had in decades and reversing it to this in just 8 years. It is literally going to take decades to repair all of the damage Bush has done.
-
I was pretty sure we've been in a recession for a couple years now????? I don't know, everything has been ridiculously expensive (more expensive than just inflation can explain) due to constantly rising oil prices, college gets more fucking expensive every year, I can't afford a car, etc etc
Only one man can save us.................... his name?????
....
Barack Obama
-
Only one man can save us.................... his name?????
....
Barack Obama
well, Mike Huckabee supports FairTax and while I don't necessarily want the guy to win the presidency or even the nomination, what is everyone's opinion here about FairTax? From what I've read, it seems like a good idea. Are there deeper effects I should be worried about?
-
well the only way this really affects me is that paying for college will be harder
but since I plan on staying in academia I dont really see there being a huge issue (people will always need to go to college... however grant money will start to run dry and doing research will kinda suck (so I will probably relocate to europe))
-
We're always discussing this in my history class. My teacher says that he thinks the economy will defiently get worse but never to the point of a Depression. The economy should bounce back soon enough after that.
-
well, Mike Huckabee supports FairTax and while I don't necessarily want the guy to win the presidency or even the nomination, what is everyone's opinion here about FairTax? From what I've read, it seems like a good idea. Are there deeper effects I should be worried about?
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
basically it's good if you are incredibly rich.
-
FairTax is a ridiculously shitty idea promoted by conservatives who are adherents of the largely disproven supply-side economics school. It is basically an excuse to hand money to the rich, in the supposed hope that it will trickle down to the masses! However, it's been proven again and again the best way to stimulate the economy is high taxes on the rich and give the savings to the middle class, who by FAR purchase the most per capita.
You can still lower taxes all around and get economic growth but only if you cut out a lot of pork barrel projects, which tend to be wastes anyhow.
-
well, Mike Huckabee supports FairTax and while I don't necessarily want the guy to win the presidency or even the nomination, what is everyone's opinion here about FairTax? From what I've read, it seems like a good idea. Are there deeper effects I should be worried about?
The flat tax is a much better idea, too bad it hasn't really been advocated by anyone post the Bush Sr presidency.
-
except the flat tax is based on the Laffer curve, an outdated and terribly inaccurate model of economics. also the british tried something like a "real" flat tax and they had riots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Charge
basically tax the fuck out of the rich imho because if you're still rich after taxes eat a dick.
-
basically tax the fuck out of the rich imho because if you're still rich after taxes eat a dick.
Uh, except the rich own the corporations and will just increase the cost of items to compensate for increased taxes on them. Normally competition would prevent this but because it would be universally applied to all rich people, and rich people are obviously not stupid since they are generally competent at least in business enough to make the money they have made, so they will likely all come up with this idea at the same time and raise the price of goods, which will increase the cost of living in the middle class. Tax breaking the middle class would likely not compensate them for that increase. Also since the graduated income tax scale still affects the rich more than the poor, the middle class is already suffering even with a lower tax burden. The other issue is that as convoluted as our tax system is right now with these general funds and the like, the odds of extra tax revenue gained from taxing the rich actually reaching the middle class is not likely, and since both major parties are guilty of these financial oversights (though I would say republicans a bit more so only because they are in charge of most of the programs at this point) it is not likely a shift in politics would fix it at this point.
Honestly, I don't know the answer. Bush's idea to cut checks to everyone is a rash policy and COULD have been good had he not already put us into debt and weakened our dollar, however, I still expect it to stave off the possibly oncoming depression a bit longer. It is clear that the tax system needs a reform, though I support FairTax, I am not so sure it is the best idea. The main reason I am in favor of it is because it is drastic. A conversion to FairTax (at least in Huckabee's plans) would constitute a complete rework of the tax system, which we desperately need. Hopefully whoever decides to reform the tax system, which will likely be anyone who gets elected and knows what they are doing (Obama, Edwards, Huckabee, McCain), will also reform the social security system since they are tied together.
My suggestion is shifting the burden of social security onto the businesses over a period of time and after maybe 20 years or so, eliminating the government handling of it altogether by simply passing legislation to force businesses to expand their retirement benefits for the amount they used to pay for employee social security I believe this would make it more effective since the businesses already have the framework and handle it more efficiently than the government. Increased legislation and personnel to observe the correct handling of this by businesses will still cost vastly less and need significantly less staff than the current program requires in government and it will also translate to a direct benefit to citizens who will see their government caring what happens to them more than HEY YOU PAID THIS IN BUT WE SPENT IT SORRY.
In some ways I am happy to see this threat of depression because maybe it will wake some people up (namely republicans who are stagnant in their ideologies ignorantly believing that the US is already in great shape) and obviously I want to see the party I belong to actually care about people instead of businesses, though I still believe that the citizens are made better off by strong economy and business.
-
the following sentences are wrong:
Uh, except the rich own the corporations and will just increase the cost of items to compensate for increased taxes on them.
rich people are obviously not stupid since they are generally competent at least in business enough to make the money they have made, so they will likely all come up with this idea at the same time and raise the price of goods, which will increase the cost of living in the middle class
since the graduated income tax scale still affects the rich more than the poor
Hopefully whoever decides to reform the tax system, which will likely be anyone who gets elected and knows what they are doing (Obama, Edwards, Huckabee, McCain)
businesses already have the framework and handle it more efficiently than the government.
In some ways I am happy to see this threat of depression because maybe it will wake some people up (namely republicans who are stagnant in their ideologies ignorantly believing that the US is already in great shape)
jeff do i really need to elaborate on these :(
-
Uh, except the rich own the corporations and will just increase the cost of items to compensate for increased taxes on them.
Ok, so I know absolutely nothing about economics, but this struck me as odd. If the corporations just increased the cost of items wouldn't people just stop buying them in favour of cheaper alternatives which would inevitably rise out of demand? Correct me if I'm wrong! Again, I know NOTHING.
-
jeff do i really need to elaborate on these :(
Well if you are just going to be like that, go right ahead. I won't respond now anyway if you can't be civil. YOU ARE WRONG (insert no reasons) HOW DARE YOU STATE YOUR OPINION. Yeah sorry I don't do those kinds of conversations, thanks. Kinds of posts like the one you made have nothing to do with intelligent conversation, all they are doing is capitalizing on the fact that most of GW is left wing to attack anything I say by virtue of popular opinion. So if you are faulting me with the fact GW is left wing, then I ADMIT, IT IS ALL MY FAULT, but I am not going to continue conversations along those lines.
-
Ok, so I know absolutely nothing about economics, but this struck me as odd. If the corporations just increased the cost of items wouldn't people just stop buying them in favour of cheaper alternatives which would inevitably rise out of demand? Correct me if I'm wrong! Again, I know NOTHING.
nope, you are 100% correct. if the consumer's goods that are not NECESSARY (ie, food) raise in price, consumers will not buy them, and this will harm the corporations.
therefore they are not going to raise taxes because they will lose more money.
Well if you are just going to be like that, go right ahead. I won't respond now anyway if you can't be civil. YOU ARE WRONG (insert no reasons) HOW DARE YOU STATE YOUR OPINION. Yeah sorry I don't do those kinds of conversations, thanks.
well since you refused to debate me, I felt I should point out parts of your argument that were seriously flawed and watch the rest of GW debate you.
edit: and I don't mean some Steel bandwagonning puppetmaster shit, what you typed is seriously seriously flawed.
-
We won't go into a depression because depressions are caused mostly by economies getting too huge too fast and exploding (at least this is my understanding of it).
Also I don't see why we don't have a system where everyone just pays X% of their income in taxes. I don't see how anyone could complain that way.
-
Also I don't see why we don't have a system where everyone just pays X% of their income in taxes. I don't see how anyone could complain that way.
Uh, you don't see how people might complain when they are in the middle class yet their taxes go up while the people who can most afford to pay taxes get reduced taxes?
edit: and I don't mean some Steel bandwagonning puppetmaster shit, what you typed is seriously seriously flawed.
Thats fine if it is but you definitely still mean that, you just admitted you were trying to get the rest of GW to debate me, I don't see how that is not bandwagoning.
-
People will complain no matter what you do, but I guess what I really mean is that seems most fair.
Edit: My only economic knowledge comes from a paper I did on Keynes, so you know...
-
Also I don't see why we don't have a system where everyone just pays X% of their income in taxes. I don't see how anyone could complain that way.
how much is 10% of a low income family?
how much is 10% of Paris Hilton's family?
which will have the most difficulty making rent if 10% is taxed right out of their sales, considering the poor buy more than the rich?
-
which will have the most difficulty making rent if 10% is taxed right out of their sales, considering the poor buy more than the rich?
I agree with your first statement but what. Do you mean that rich people buy less in proportion to their income or what because I was under the impression that middle class people do not buy 12 cars or mansions, or jets.
-
Does this mean I'll be able to buy cheaper import things from USA?
I mean how can this affect my or anyone else's lives? What are the positive/negatives effects of this so called recession if it happens?
If you think this is not a honest question and are going to post "inri cheetos is a troll LOL" then please ignore this post, pretend it doesn't exist
it means i'm illegally immigrating to your more fortunate country and mugging your dumb ass.
-
I agree with your first statement but what. Do you mean that rich people buy less in proportion to their income or what because I was under the impression that middle class people do not buy 12 cars or mansions, or jets.
the poor and middle class have always been the market. the rich might buy their exclusive overpriced shit but that does not pay any corporation's bills, other than a few that exclusively cater to the upper class (and they see very little in revenue compared to something mass marketed). since the poor are more likely to even buy shit that needs to be replaced (shitty cars on shitty cars idk insert w/e) they will end up getting more fucked by sales taxes than the rich. there's a graph in one of my links that showed this.
-
Oh I get it now. I thought you meant per person in real dollars, but you were referring to the fact that the middle class accounts for more real dollars in the economy. Yeah I get you now.
-
As a non american this is really great news for me, because I tend to order DVDs, CDs etc from there anyways (because it's so much cheaper even with shipping). Kinda sucks I ain't buying much toys anymore because the dollar:pound ratio is really good, and would save me a fortune.
No, it isn't.
When a major world power like the US is having its economy faltering, that is NEVER great news for anybody.
You know the Great Depression? When the USA fell into the slump, it pulled all the other countries into it since back then (and we still do) the USA trades with all these people etc.
We're all interconnected man, and I think it's kind of weird / horrible that there is a possibility of a fuckton of countries getting fucked over a bit by this and possibly another Great Depression-like deal happening and you just go GREAT NEWS CHEAP CDS FUCK YEAH!!
-
No, it isn't.
When a major world power like the US is having its economy faltering, that is NEVER great news for anybody.
You know the Great Depression? When the USA fell into the slump, it pulled all the other countries into it since back then (and we still do) the USA trades with all these people etc.
We're all interconnected man, and I think it's kind of weird / horrible that there is a possibility of a fuckton of countries getting fucked over a bit by this and possibly another Great Depression-like deal happening and you just go GREAT NEWS CHEAP CDS FUCK YEAH!!
I agree completely. The US is so intertwined with the world's economy, everyone will be fucked in some way.
I am actually personally offended that you, kaworu would rejoice at my own misfortune, for the mere prospect of a few cheaper goods. You do realize such a thing would entail millions of people, possibly my own family, going hungry and/or homeless?
-
I agree completely. The US is so intertwined with the world's economy, everyone will be fucked in some way.
I am actually personally offended that you, kaworu would rejoice at my own misfortune, for the mere prospect of a few cheaper goods. You do realize such a thing would entail millions of people, possibly my own family, going hungry and/or homeless?
but.... the dvds........
-
We're not going to go into a Depression. I know, I know, never say never, but it's highly unlikely and considering we still haven't reached the recession stage I wouldn't jump that far in my thinking.
The market has reached a low point and the dollar's tanked, and while I am by no means saying "Everything's fine, la di da di da," I don't think things have sunk far enough that we can say we're in a recession, although the danger's certainly there. Remember, however, that it takes 9 months to realize that a recession has taken place. It's a bit premature to be talking about a recession at this point. Newspapers enjoy taking some facts and running with them, and things are not nearly as bad as the media says they are, although the market is taking something of a hit.
Also realize that a recession doesn't mean the end of the US as we know it or whatever. These things happen, and it's one of the costs of having a free market system. Sometimes the market is up, sometimes it's down. Right now it's down. One of the problems with the media is that when things are up they expect them to keep going up, and when they're down they expect them to keep going down. Consider that in the last six months we've had to deal with:
1) Subprime crisis
2) Falling dollar
3) Rising oil prices (and the corresponding rising gas prices)
4) Large write downs (mostly related to the subprime crisis in ways which I don't feel like explaining)
5) The federal funds rate, the federal discount rate and the discount window have all been dropped by the Federal Reserve.
Among other things.
Personally I think it may last long enough to start hitting some people's pocketbooks, but as far as crippling the economy or whatever, I doubt it. We have foreigners rushing in to buy large slices of failing American businesses, and that's a good sign that the market doesn't have that much further down to go. The main thing that happened which really screwed the market was that through a network of derivatives, indexes, collateralized debt obligations, ABXs, securitization of subprime mortgages and so on and so forth, almost every institutional portfolio had a larger than rational stake in securities tied one way or another to subprime loans. Hopefully the market will right itself in a few months and we can all laugh at the newspapers for doing what they do. Or not. In the end, the truth of the matter is that no one knows what's going to happen until it happens, and until then you have a bunch of economists interpreting the information in every way possible.
"If you laid all economists end to end, they would never reach a conclusion."
-George Bernard Shaw
-
tbh a depression isn't DESTINED to happen, Analysts are staying pretty steady on the mark and are claiming that this PANIC will look silly in 12 months time, infact predictions tend to show that it'll still even out better than a few years ago. Talks amongst Europe's financial ministers have them saying we can go through this with minimal loss. Perhaps the worst hit by these recession fears is Asia (it seems to be falling quicker than the US in places, like Japan, but they ain't exactly jumping out of windows yet so relax and wait things out), where stocks are really falling. But luckily essentials such as oil and metal are finally falling in price (after a fairly steady increase in recent years) to counter this. Will it be enough to even out the global economy? maybe not but it'll surely lessen it's impact. Economies are pretty damn random, if a politician says one bad thing or lays out a not so good plan, their economy can tumble. George Bush laid out tax cuts... not enough... america fumbles, and everywhere starts panic buying for no reason. This won't be another "great depression", the global economy has changed so much since then.
All this worrying is making the situation worse, and it's what is fuelling the decline, panic.
And also yes people, I exactly meant you guys, I should have named that I want to see you poor and homeless specifically. It's what I enjoy, I can't help it that I personally want to see you and your families living on the street.
-
tbh a depression isn't DESTINED to happen, Analysts are staying pretty steady on the mark and are claiming that this PANIC will look silly in 12 months time, infact predictions tend to show that it'll still even out better than a few years ago. Talks amongst Europe's financial ministers have them saying we can go through this with minimal loss. Perhaps the worst hit by these recession fears is Asia (it seems to be falling quicker than the US in places, like Japan, but they ain't exactly jumping out of windows yet so relax and wait things out), where stocks are really falling. But luckily essentials such as oil and metal are finally falling in price (after a fairly steady increase in recent years) to counter this. Will it be enough to even out the global economy? maybe not but it'll surely lessen it's impact. Economies are pretty damn random, if a politician says one bad thing or lays out a not so good plan, their economy can tumble. George Bush laid out tax cuts... not enough... america fumbles, and everywhere starts panic buying for no reason. This won't be another "great depression", the global economy has changed so much since then.
All this worrying is making the situation worse, and it's what is fuelling the decline, panic.
And also yes people, I exactly meant you guys, I should have named that I want to see you poor and homeless specifically. It's what I enjoy, I can't help it that I personally want to see you and your families living on the street.
not worrying at all and taking advantage of the situation when it is a serious problem isn't the right thing to do either
-
isn't it? I would think that people deciding to put money into the US economy is exactly what's needed (since it is because what really causes recession is when people decide to take their money OUT of the us economy).
Worrying causes you to panic and do crap that fails, it is these very situations where you cannot worry, you need a level head to think about what's needed.
-
Some sick bastard told me that the best way for the US to get back on track would be a huge war and he hopes that a major US city gets bombed. When I tried to explain to him that that was insane he told me I was a pussy liberal and the world is alot harder than my deluded childhood upbringing has led me to believe.
I think we'll pull out of it soon. And maybe the upcoming elections mixed in with our growing economic difficulties will lead to some promising changes.
But I fucking love how WE NEED DEATHE 2 MAKE MONEYS STUPID YUNGUN makes more sense to some people than economic reform...
-
QUICK! Everybody panic! Sell all your stock and cash out your bank accounts!
I think a shift to a different fuel source for transportation would help a lot. The oil companies would never have it, but if a new fuel or energy source were to replace gasoline, and it was universally adopted -inexpensively- then the push to switch over would stimulate the economy. People would need to buy cars, old cars would need to be disposed of, gas stations would need to be converted. All this = transfer of currency = economic growth/activity.
If done correctly, it would crush the oil industry, creating a shift of economic power to the people.
-
It would be so hard to build a new infrastructure for a new fuel source (other than say electricity from a plug in your garage or something) and keep it sustained until it can be effectively incorporated in the economy and can stand on its own. amirite? probably not.
-
It would be so hard to build a new infrastructure for a new fuel source (other than say electricity from a plug in your garage or something) and keep it sustained until it can be effectively incorporated in the economy and can stand on its own. amirite? probably not.
It will be difficult, but at the current consumption rate we'll absolutely have to build new or modify the existing infrastructure in something like 50 years, when it is projected that we will officially be out of oil.
-
We will not be out of oil in 50 years. What will happen is that easily-extracted oil will be depleted, forcing us to look for more difficult (and more expensive) oil. In fact, that is already happening (see Alberta Oil Sands project or the Bakken Oil field of North Dakota and Saskatchewan).
Anywho, the US and Canadian markets have recovered somewhat today, thanks to prime rate cuts. They won't fix the economy, but they ease the burden.
-
basically tax the fuck out of the rich imho because if you're still rich after taxes eat a dick.
Yeah, the ones that deserve to be taxes the most are the rich, of course. Taxing the poor more than the rich is kind of unthinkable in the Netherlands. As far as I know, no serious political party advocates this, not even the most right-wing ones.
-
did you all never have a trickle-down econ stage?
-
Yeah, the ones that deserve to be taxes the most are the rich, of course. Taxing the poor more than the rich is kind of unthinkable in the Netherlands. As far as I know, no serious political party advocates this, not even the most right-wing ones.
From what I understand, part of the reason the government tends not to tax the rich as much is because they tend to own businesses, which is beneficial for the economy. This is why the Hilton family gets taxed as little as 5% on dividend income when a normal person would be getting over 15%.
QUICK! Everybody panic! Sell all your stock and cash out your bank accounts!
Now's the time to be bearish. If we are in for a recession, going short on specific stocks would be pretty kickass right about now. If you knew enough about futures, you could probably make an assload of money, but it'd be harder since futures deal with huge sums of cash/goods.
-
hmm while still in risky grounds the stocks are starting to even out once more, and europe/asia stocks are rising again.
-
Yeah, the ones that deserve to be taxes the most are the rich, of course. Taxing the poor more than the rich is kind of unthinkable in the Netherlands. As far as I know, no serious political party advocates this, not even the most right-wing ones.
The rich will flee to tax paradises such as Monacoo if they're taxed "too hard" so it's better for the country to have low tax on the really rich because even the minimal tax will give a lot of money. In Sweden we tax the ones with higher income a bit more but we've reduced that tax and even removed a "rich people tax" to keep the rich in the country. It might not fit in you ideology but it's probably the best way to go.
-
The economy is probably going to get a sizable boost thanks to the republicans (who always do this kind of thing before they come crashing down). (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/24/economic.stimulus/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
I wish we'd get refunds more often as it's a pretty smart move. Most people (I'm talking 99% of all tax paying Americans) instantly spend their refund plus a little bit more so it's not like the money is wasted.
-
are you jokeposting
checks are such a dumb idea.
they even did a futurama episode on this remember!!!
-
The money goes right back to the economy. Nobody saves their tax refunds.
Shit, I'm probably going to buy 600 cups of coffee.
-
i wish i made 3,000 a year
does my graduation money count
-
The money goes right back to the economy. Nobody saves their tax refunds.
This. Almost anything will stimulate the economy, except for doing absolutely nothing with it. Even putting it into a savings account would help the economy (although much less than just going out and spending it) because banks lend that money to other firms, which use the money to finance their projects. Granted, the government wants people to just go out and spend the money right away, but almost everything you do will have a beneficial effect. I'm still not sure if it'll boost the economy that much though. My guess is, it'll help out a bit, but not enough to make a drastic change.
I plan on buying into an Index Fund over the summer so I have to save $3,000 by then. When I heard this news, it made me pretty happy cause it's a minimum of 10% of what I need to save. Oh, and although I'm putting this money away into a mutual fund, it's still helping the economy because the mutual fund goes out and buys shares of stock. There's very little you can do (short of keeping the money in your pocket)
-
the problem is 600 bucks does fuckall for the economy. it also weakens the government's fiscal position pretty much for very small benefit.
so basically yeah:
I'm still not sure if it'll boost the economy
it pretty much won't, by all the current political and economic thought I've read.
edit: the reason is because people will use this money to pay bills not to buy ipods or whatever.
edit edit: I just read this hahahhaahha
As you may recall, the checks were part of a major tax-cutting effort in the first year of the Bush administration.
Part of those tax cuts was a reduction in rates, including a drop from 15 percent to 10 percent on the first $6,000 of income for singles and $12,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly.
That equaled a cut of $300 and $600. But instead of implementing the cut in the tax tables that accompanied the 2001 1040s in April 2002, Congress and the Bush administration sent out the checks early, then delayed changing the rates until the tables in the April 2003 1040s.
The forms for the 2001 tax year could have included a line at the end of the 1040 for taxpayers to take the amount of the check and reduce their refunds - or add the figure to the amount owed. But the IRS didn't do that, wanting to reduce the number of calculations necessary.
so a tax cut that was going to happen.
edit edit edit: here's cool link
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/economy/article/winners-losers-stimulus-package_450854_3.html
“Most analysts agree that the 2001 rebate stimulated the economy,” CBO said, “although there is some debate about the magnitude of the effect.” Households, according to one study, spent between 20% and 40% of their rebate amount in the quarter in which the rebate was received.
Other researchers, using credit card data, found spending increased by about 40% of the rebate on average. The study also found that consumption rose the most for consumers who had credit problems but those with strong credit responded to the rebate by paying down their debt.
so basically the poor will go ahead and blow their money in short term shit and then be FURTHER in debt where the others will pay debt, and nobody wins w00t.
-
so basically the poor will go ahead and blow their money in short term shit and then be FURTHER in debt where the others will pay debt, and nobody wins w00t.
That doesn't matter to the government. They don't care how you spend it or whether you get yourself further into debt, as long as you do spend it and stimulate the economy. The purpose of the checks isn't to make life easier for the poor but to have them spend that money to boost the economy.
-
...
did you read the quote?
first off only the poor are the ones who will probably spend it by the quarter, and then that was 20 to 40% of the rebate. then these poor people go into debt, which helps the economy but at a negligible amount (unless it's incredible debt which is ethically problematic and also just a fucked up way to solve the economy) the middle and upper classes will SAVE the money, which does not help the economy by any measure since it's not getting spent.
debt can also long term hurt an economy because of bankruptcy etc. this is not good fiscal policy, it will have little effect on the US economy, and it's essentially the Bush presidency attempting to half bribe/half convince the American people that they "at least tried".
-
Hey Steel/anyone else who would know: Do you know when we're getting this money? When are we getting it and what is the procedure to get it?
-
Well so that's why peso here has been increasing lately..
-
Hey Steel/anyone else who would know: Do you know when we're getting this money? When are we getting it and what is the procedure to get it?
US Treasury Bonds, so giving more money to japan/china.
-
...
did you read the quote?
first off only the poor are the ones who will probably spend it by the quarter, and then that was 20 to 40% of the rebate. then these poor people go into debt, which helps the economy but at a negligible amount (unless it's incredible debt which is ethically problematic and also just a fucked up way to solve the economy) the middle and upper classes will SAVE the money, which does not help the economy by any measure since it's not getting spent.
debt can also long term hurt an economy because of bankruptcy etc. this is not good fiscal policy, it will have little effect on the US economy, and it's essentially the Bush presidency attempting to half bribe/half convince the American people that they "at least tried".
I get what you're saying, but my point was that the government's only agenda is to stimulate the economy. It might not work, but that's not the point. Really though, $300 dollars can't cause one individual that much damage unless they happen to be a complete moron.
Hey Steel/anyone else who would know: Do you know when we're getting this money? When are we getting it and what is the procedure to get it?
They said they'd start rolling out in May and they should be done by June/early July. I'm assuming it's going to be a mailed check, so there really isn't any procedure you have to do (other than maybe having to file your taxes).
-
I get what you're saying, but my point was that the government's only agenda is to stimulate the economy. It might not work, but that's not the point. Really though, $300 dollars can't cause one individual that much damage unless they happen to be a complete moron.
You could buy a Wii and Super Smash Bros Brawl, and then bask in it's entertainment value.
-
You could buy a Wii and Super Smash Bros Brawl, and then bask in it's entertainment value.
lol. That's exactly what I'd do had I not already paid both of them off.
-
I get what you're saying, but my point was that the government's only agenda is to stimulate the economy. It might not work, but that's not the point. Really though, $300 dollars can't cause one individual that much damage unless they happen to be a complete moron.
well uh, the quote from the article link says you are wrong; people got bad credit. part of it is because the poor tend to not have the most fiscal sense to begin with so they might not even think to pay off a debt with it or even know how, and then the poor are marketed to, and then there are various upkeep issues and basically this won't work at all and they shouldn't do it.
I mean, free money is money, but it's a dumb idea entirely.
-
This is only good for me as I am a canadian thus things i buy online are cheaper...
-
This is only good for me as I am a canadian thus things i buy online are cheaper...
no, it's not. a recession from the worlds leading economy would fuck your economy too.
ps try reading the topic next time this has already been addressed
-
Man, good thing economists are always correct in their predictions and always agree on things!
-
Steel : Won't any program that gives poor people money, by the logic given, increase their chances of going further into debt? Furthermore it can't be said that giving them money increases general poverty debt (you have given no such evidence) just that it is possible many of the households with bad credit spend it. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing because the money goes back into the economy and the poor are in the same state as before. It doesn't help poverty, but then again isn't the main impact going to be on middle class spending?
-
I'm calling my dad right now to tell him to take all my savings out of money market.
-
to be blunt do you really think everyone's gunna be pumping their $300 back into the US?
A large number will be keeping it for a rainy day, some will spend it on heap foreign goods on ebay or resubscribing to their swedish porn sites etc. It's somewhat naive to think that the US economy will be greatly boosted when there are now so many alternatives for people to spend the money on. Even if it's just a small amount who do this, it'll still be enough to bugger the plan up when added to the people who will save it.
If I was given £300 randomly, heck I'd save at least half of it :/
-
Steel : Won't any program that gives poor people money, by the logic given, increase their chances of going further into debt? Furthermore it can't be said that giving them money increases general poverty debt (you have given no such evidence) just that it is possible many of the households with bad credit spend it. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing because the money goes back into the economy and the poor are in the same state as before. It doesn't help poverty, but then again isn't the main impact going to be on middle class spending?
no, because welfare and foodstamps can't be used on frivolous things (unless you buy into the Reagan myth of the welfare queens) so they would only be able to PAY off debt.
just giving them money means they, like anyone, will be tempted to spend it on shit, and like I said, the poor tend to not have much fiscal responsibility!
I gave an article that found people with outstanding debts went FURTHER into debt, which seems to indicate to me that giving money and saying USE IT ON WHAT YOU WANT is a bad idea.
basically the issue is the majority of people will sit on their money, where a few ignorant poor folk will maybe buy an XBox, or pretty much:
to be blunt do you really think everyone's gunna be pumping their $300 back into the US?
-
Nowadays I'm hearing about how the collapse of American economy is imminent, and how there are dark times ahead for Americans...it's hearsay, but still, it's pretty depressing.