The Economist: Food Stamps & UnEmp Benies Best Stimulus!?!? Better than Tax Cuts!

Discussion in 'Economy' started by IndependntLogic, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. IndependntLogic
    Offline

    IndependntLogic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,997
    Thanks Received:
    399
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +399
    That's what they say. And The Economist is not a publication anyone would call Liberal or Progressive.

    Food stamps: The struggle to eat | The Economist

    "When Moody’s Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less. All the talk in Washington these days, however, is of cutbacks—even for the hungry."

    Okay Moody's is not what anyone would call a "Left Wing" organization either. Both sources here are solidly Conservative (one of the reason I like The Economist - they lean slightly Right but they ARE objective).

    When I first saw the title, I thought "Uh oh, The Magazine's
    on crack!". But then I realized that the article was
    titled "Stimulus" and not "Spending" and therefore, HAS to be right.
    We give money to foriegn countries. What does that do for our
    citizens? Shit.
    We give it to companies that steal our jobs and ship them to poverty
    states like China (where over 200,000,000 people live on a dollar a
    day or less). What does that do for our citizens? Shit.
    We give it to banks? Didn't exactly come back into the US market did it? Some nice
    mergers & bonuses for the banks, not so much for our citizens.
    So on and so forth.
    But food stamps are not something that someone invests in foreign
    ventures. Unemployment benefits are not used to build 401K's or
    whatever. Both are by necessity, put immediately and 100% back into
    the US economy and ONLY the US economy. So that makes sense - in
    regards to stimulus.

    And besides, I just don't have it in me to say "So you
    worked for a utility all your life and they went under, taking your
    pension and everything with them? Who cares? You don't eat!"
    Which is pretty much exactly what happened to our neighbor in
    Sugar Land, TX when Enron went under.
     
  2. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    The Economist carries both 'liberal' and 'conservative' biased articles but also employs - and insists upon - non-partisan, solid, factually accurate articles.

    Personally, I think it's one of the best 'media' sources available... and employs some very gifted writers.
     
  3. IndependntLogic
    Offline

    IndependntLogic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,997
    Thanks Received:
    399
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +399
    I agree. Like I said, if anything, it leans Right but it is consistently objective. Sometimes (like in this case) surprisingly so!
     
  4. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    The thing with that particular publication, is that they run both left and right views in equal measure... and both are founded in solid fact. I have never seen them take a quote out of context, their writers use accepted, non partisan economic and financial data. Probably one of the best sources for anyone who wants to actually learn accurate information.

    Also, they tend to avoid the usual media bullshit and hype.
     
  5. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,564
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,053
    wow man that's like magic man. You give the liberal $1.00 they spend it and it turns into $1.73. What happens if you let the guy who earned the dollar spend it himself? Only a liberal can spend magically?
     
  6. IndependntLogic
    Offline

    IndependntLogic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,997
    Thanks Received:
    399
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +399
    So you think Moody's is Liberal eh? One of those highly sophisticated and knowledgable Conservs are you? Tell ya what. Go ask one of them thar "Liberal Elitist" about the difference between government stimulated economc activity and currency value. Actually, CaliGirl could probably explain it to you too.
    I would but honestly, I'm finding you kinda entertaining. :eusa_angel:
    Tell ya what. If you ask reeeeally nicely, I'll explain it.

    BTW, based on your understanding, we should never cut taxes at all.
     
  7. GHook93
    Offline

    GHook93 Aristotle

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    17,921
    Thanks Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +4,931
    The article could have been written by Adam Smith. Anyone with a brain could tell you that food stamps and Unemployment benefits help the individual receiving them while he is down, but they are a drain on society and cost more than they bring in.

    That said both are vital programs that should not go away!
     
  8. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,564
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,053
    why be so afraid to explain how a dollar become magical when a liberal spends it. You fool no one by trying to change the subject. Do you fool yourself?
     
  9. IndependntLogic
    Offline

    IndependntLogic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,997
    Thanks Received:
    399
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +399
    Went to the George W Bush School of Grammar & Speaking Good English? :lol:

    Okay, dumb it the heck down for Gomer time:

    A dollar is a form of currency!
    Economic activity is a measure of how much currency is used in relation to other factors (like, saving for example!).
    Economic activity is not the name as currency!
    So if I give a company a tax break of $100 and as a result, they spend $50 more on supplies etc... and then the company they bought their supplies from spends an extra $10, that would be an economic activity of $50 + $10 on that $100 of stimulus (tax break) for a total of .60 on every dollar.
    However, if I spend $100 in unemployment benefits and the receiver spends all $100 of it and as a result, the grocery stores, phone companies etc... spend $74 more than they would have, if no one had the money to spend, the "economic activity" of that $100 becomes the $100 dollars that was spent directly plus the $74 spent as a result of that, equalling an economic activity (how much the money moved, not what it is worth) of $1.74 for every dollar.
    Seriously, if you still don't understand, go to the library. Look for a book called "Beginning Economics". It will help.
     
  10. IndependntLogic
    Offline

    IndependntLogic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,997
    Thanks Received:
    399
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +399
    You're right. But the article never claims we get a return on those dollars, just that they provide greater economic activity than tax breaks, bailouts, subsidies etc...
     

Share This Page