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

[IndependntLogic]

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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.

I agree. Like I said, if anything, it leans Right but it is consistently objective. Sometimes (like in this case) surprisingly so!

 

[California Girl]

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.

I agree. Like I said, if anything, it leans Right but it is consistently objective. Sometimes (like in this case) surprisingly so!

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.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"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. .

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?

 

[IndependntLogic]

"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. .

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?

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.
Tell ya what. If you ask reeeeally nicely, I'll explain it.

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

 

[GHook93]

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!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"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. .

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?

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.
Tell ya what. If you ask reeeeally nicely, I'll explain it.

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

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?

 

[IndependntLogic]

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?

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.
Tell ya what. If you ask reeeeally nicely, I'll explain it.

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

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?

Went to the George W Bush School of Grammar & Speaking Good English?

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.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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!

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...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So if I give a company a tax break of $100 and as a result, they spend $50 more on supplies etc....

you forgot to account for the other $50 not spent on supplies???

 

[Jroc]

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!

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...

Food stamps and unemployment are subsidies, they subsidize people to stay unemployed let the econmomy create jobs this is stupidity

 

[IndependntLogic]

So if I give a company a tax break of $100 and as a result, they spend $50 more on supplies etc....

you forgot to account for the other $50 not spent on supplies???

Well let's take Shell Oil for example. They are just as likely to take that other $50 that we give them in tax breaks and spend it in Kenya or India - or pay themselves some nice fat bonuses ..... in Ireland. In which case, it creates zero economic activity in America from that point forward.

This is why giving breaks to MNE's (Multi-National Entities) is NOT the answer to our economic woes. We GIVE them money (in the form of tax breaks that you and me don't get, or subsidies etc...) and they don't even put it back into the American economy, in the form of jobs, taxes or even spending. I would much rather see all those breaks taken from them and restructured to benefit only small to medium sized business that pay their taxes here in the good ol' USA.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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!

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...

Food stamps and unemployment are subsidies, they subsidize people to stay unemployed let the econmomy create jobs this is stupidity

Tell ya what there Gomer. Go down to your local VA. One in three homeless men are veterans. You look at these guys with no legs or sight and tell them that they are not legitimately entitled to some help. To some food.
Then go back if see if regurgitating the stupid bs out of your Little Book of FOX Replies makes as much sense to you.

 

[Jroc]

So if I give a company a tax break of $100 and as a result, they spend $50 more on supplies etc....

you forgot to account for the other $50 not spent on supplies???

Well let's take Shell Oil for example. They are just as likely to take that other $50 that we give them in tax breaks and spend it in Kenya or India - or pay themselves some nice fat bonuses ..... in Ireland. In which case, it creates zero economic activity in America from that point forward.

This is why giving breaks to MNE's (Multi-National Entities) is NOT the answer to our economic woes. We GIVE them money (in the form of tax breaks that you and me don't get, or subsidies etc...) and they don't even put it back into the American economy, in the form of jobs, taxes or even spending. I would much rather see all those breaks taken from them and restructured to benefit only small to medium sized business that pay their taxes here in the good ol' USA.

Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans


Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.

Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”

“It’s driving investment and production overseas,” said Alaska’s DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan. “That doesn’t help the United States in any way, shape or form.”

Energy In America: EPA Rules Force Shell To Abandon Oil Drilling Plans | Fox News

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well let's take Shell Oil for example. They are just as likely to take that other $50 that we give them in tax breaks and spend it in Kenya or India - or pay themselves some nice fat bonuses ..... in Ireland. In which case, it creates zero economic activity in America from that point forward.

actually in Econ 101 you learn that if before you can spend money abroad you must convert it to the local currency. THe guy who gets the US dollar in Keyna has no use for it until he exchanges it with a guy in the USA who wants to spend it in the USA. Sorry.

 

[Jroc]

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...

Food stamps and unemployment are subsidies, they subsidize people to stay unemployed let the econmomy create jobs this is stupidity

Tell ya what there Gomer. Go down to your local VA. One in three homeless men are veterans. You look at these guys with no legs or sight and tell them that they are not legitimately entitled to some help. To some food.
Then go back if see if regurgitating the stupid bs out of your Little Book of FOX Replies makes as much sense to you.

I'll tell you what idiot, Vets are vets deadbeats are deadbeats, there is a difference. I’m from Detroit, I do business in Detroit, people are getting on food stamps because they can, not because they have to, wake up man

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Tell ya what there Gomer. Go down to your local VA.

ah it didn't take long for the liberal to show is moral superiority did it? This is why we say liberals are morality bigots. Liberals give less to charity but are sure they are morally superior.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Well let's take Shell Oil for example. They are just as likely to take that other $50 that we give them in tax breaks and spend it in Kenya or India - or pay themselves some nice fat bonuses ..... in Ireland. In which case, it creates zero economic activity in America from that point forward.

actually in Econ 101 you learn that if before you can spend money abroad you must convert it to the local currency. THe guy who gets the US dollar in Keyna has no use for it until he exchanges it with a guy in the USA who wants to spend it in the USA. Sorry.

LOL! OMG the idiot who doesn't know how a dollar can "magically become $1.74" is now trying to explain economic activity???

Okay look junior. I tried to explain it to ya but obviously, you're a slingshot in a land of Glocks.
Economic activity has to do with the activity that currency is engaged in, in whatever form. I know, I know. Too complex for you to grasp. You think if I take a million bucks to Russia and spend it in the form of rubles, it hasn't created economic activity because those dollars aren't dollars anymore. Got it.

Anyone else here want to try dumbing it down enough for Forrest Gump here to get it? I gave it my best shot. Really I did folks...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I’m from Detroit I do business in Detroit people are getting on food stamps because they can, not because they have to, wake up man

true enough. Even Krugman cites studies which show that unemployment compensation creates unemployment.

Unemployment comp. and food stamps are fine but they should largely be from private accounts and have provisions to avoid moral hazard.


What does textbook economics have to say about this question? Here is a passage from a textbook called "Macroeconomics":
Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.