More demand is not the whole answer

[Wiseacre]

First of all, your assertions are irrelevant to my statement.

you forgot to say what statement??? I quote your statement exactly!!!

Second of all, neither statement is true, assuming that the 2nd one is about more demand being counter productive to the economy.

dear you forgot to say way the are not true???? Why bother?????

There were many factors involved in the housing bubble and the resultant credit crisis, not least of which was poor governance over the previous couple of decades by both political parties.

yes poor governance that organized much of the Federal and State governments to get people into homes that the free market said they could not afford. Why did you think the government was so involved?? For sport???

The demand for housing has always been strong, you could claim that policies that made it easier to get an ARM, but then saying that caused the whole thing to collapse is a bit of a stretch.

dear no one said that?? Are you drunk today??[/QUOTE]


Dear? Really? I can't decide if you gay, a sexist pig, or a total idiot. Most likely all 3.

What you've written is incoherent as hell, I have no idea where to begin. Maybe if you spell it out in a little more detail I could figure what you're talking about.

 

[Rshermr]

NGDP level targeting.

This is essentially a stupid liberal concept since an economy progresses from the stone age to here because of supply side innovations, not demand side communist manipulation. The USSR didn't work out too well did it?

Ed, you are, as usual, simply quoting tea party dogma. Rational folks know that supply side economics does not work. For two reasons: 1. As I have told you many times, in order for me to believe supply side economics works, you need to show me where a bad economy has been helped by an increase in federal income taxes. You never do answer that question, though, do you ed. Because you can not. 2. It is quite possible to show that demand side economics DOES help a bad economy.
Finaly, ed me boy, you can use your withering brain. Why would any company produce more of what they make when there is more demand??? Do you think they just like to increase inventory??? So, when you provide tax breaks to corporations during a period of poor demand, nothing much happens. You could see that this was true if you would consider anything other than what you hear at your tea party meetings, or fox, or any of a number of right wing sites.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Increased demand is obviously necessary;

This is especially true given that increased demand for housing caused the current depression!!

Also, it is especially true that the way to cure a drug addict is with more drugs

Your second point has absolutely nothing to do with economics. Therefore it is a false analogy fallacy.
False analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to your first point. Its about balance. Before there was too much demand, driven by perpetualy too low of interest rates, which made cheaper payments. Obviously this is not the only problem with the whole bust, but I'm not going to go into all of that.

That doesn't mean there is too much demand now, there obviously isn't. Housing sales are at record lows, meaning there is incredibly low demand. Its obviously not a supply problem, because there is massive supply right now.

Before there was too much demand, which led to the current situation of not enough demand, and too much supply.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As to your first point. Its about balance. Before there was too much demand, driven by perpetualy too low of interest rates, which made cheaper payments.

Let's keep in mind that middle of the road means you're slow and probably lack backbone too. But, you do at least admit that liberal manipulation of demand caused too much demand for houses and the current depression. Good for you.

That doesn't mean there is too much demand now, there obviously isn't. Housing sales are at record lows, meaning there is incredibly low demand. Its obviously not a supply problem, because there is massive supply right now.

Before there was too much demand, which led to the current situation of not enough demand, and too much supply.

dear, what are you saying??? Do you have a proposal or just spinning your wheels for the fun of it? Even Krugman is not proposing new incentives to buy more houses , he is proposing building bridges and hiring teachers even when there is bubble in teachers now.

 

[onecut39]

Supply side economics:

Build it and they will come.................but just to look because they cannot afford to buy it.

 

[tjvh]

Examples of government "demand creation"...

1) The Savings and Loan crises
2) The mortgage crises
3) Cash for Clunkers
4) The soon to be arriving "tuition crises"

Any questions?

Cash for Clunkers was a great idea. Worked far beyond expectations.
The first two were disasters brought about by Republican "deregulation". Recent history that can't be denied.
The forth is when Republicans try to squeeze every cent they can out of the young thereby compromising their futures. Currently, Republicans are working to double college loan interest rates. They just don't give up. Every middle class American is a "target".

Let me know if you need more detail. I will be glad to help. Although, you could try Google. Not every site is a right wing lie.

All cash for clunkers did was destroy the supply of low priced automobiles and in doing so discriminated against the poor.

 

[Katzndogz]

Cash for Clunkers was a major fail. For the most part, it helped wealthy people trade in BMWs for brand new Merceden-Benz.

 

[ccravens]

Anyone who claims Cash-for-clunkers was a "great idea" shows the level of their economic intelligence to be low, and therfore not to have their arguments considered in a serious light.

Let me know if you need more detail. I'd be glad to help.

 

[uscitizen]

I wonder how hard the auto industry had to lobby for "cash for clunkers"?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Anyone who claims Cash-for-clunkers was a "great idea" shows the level of their economic intelligence to be low, and therfore not to have their arguments considered in a serious light.

Let me know if you need more detail. I'd be glad to help.

Yes, I recall BO describing it as a little stimulus that would provide the final boost needed to jump start the economy! He and his advisors had no idea whatsoever what was going on with the economy.

 

[Wiseacre]

Anyone who claims Cash-for-clunkers was a "great idea" shows the level of their economic intelligence to be low, and therfore not to have their arguments considered in a serious light.

Let me know if you need more detail. I'd be glad to help.

Yes, I recall BO describing it as a little stimulus that would provide the final boost needed to jump start the economy! He and his advisors had no idea whatsoever what was going on with the economy.

Still don't.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Was that the problem with the Great Depression? Not enough supply?

who's talking about the Great Depression

It and the current depression are very close analogues. Not in depth, obviously. Thankfully this time around we didn't have Hoover's idiotic industrial labour program or a New Deal.

Analogues? The Great Depression ended with a huge Republican capitalist stimulus: FDR dead, new Republican Congress, New Deal
socialist bureaucrats driven out of government by war, taxes cut, economy privatized, business confidence skyrockets.

This depression won't end until BO and his anti-business liberalism are gone!!