Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no

[PubliusInfinitum]

To some people in this economy the 13 dollars a paycheck might just mean food on the table.

Well... that may be true... but to NONE of THOSE people will that $13 pay for much FOOD.

As usual, your 'feelings' belie the validity inherent your reasoning.

You're feelings is that 'this economy' is real bad... and your reasoning is that an additional $13 is better than NO additional dollars...

The problem is that no increase in production was produced in realizing the additional $13; thus the addition OF the $13, absent a correlating increase in production, undermines the currency, thus the $13 cannot correlate to an increase in value... BUT IT DOES CORRELATE TO A DECREASE IN VALUE OF THE CURRENCY and what's more, is that the decrease in value of the currency also undermines the dollars they already have or that which translate to a value in that currency, such as their home or other capital investments; investments such as their 401K, other other retirement vehicles, INCLUDING THE SACRED SOCIAL SECURITY... which means that those poor folks ARE WORSE OFF THAN THEY WERE BEFORE THE POLICY WHICH SEVERELY UNDERMINED THE VALUE OF WHAT THEY ALREADY HAD.

 

[driveby]

To some people in this economy the 13 dollars a paycheck might just mean food on the table.

 

[editec]

To some people in this economy the 13 dollars a paycheck might just mean food on the table.

True...that's about a gallon of milk, and two loaves of Pepperage Farm bread and a dozen extra large eggs.

 

[WillowTree]

With 13 dollars I could buy dried beans and rice and some canned tomatoes.. good eating.. I bet I could eat a whole week too..

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

With 13 dollars I could buy dried beans and rice and some canned tomatoes.. good eating.. I bet I could eat a whole week too..

The REALLY good news is that $13 only cost you $30 GRAND in additional debt liability... in effect what this bill stimulated was an increase in a $30,000 principle liability for a $13 cash advance...

OH... The lefties are SUCH generous folks... They're always looking out for the little guy.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Q: How many economists does it take to stimulate an economy?

A: Based on their current market value, no amount of them --- however cheaply they're sold -- will stimulate the economy.

However, they do make excellent firewood if they're cut, split and properly dried in time for home heating season.

Economics is a 'Social Science'... Meaning that it's subjective in nature and as such is not 'science' and stands as antithetic to the common good of the society... OKA: Anti-social

But how many people would be impressed if Social Scientists were referred to as "Anti-Social purveyors of subjective nonscience?

 

[editec]

Q: How many economists does it take to stimulate an economy?

A: Based on their current market value, no amount of them --- however cheaply they're sold -- will stimulate the economy.

However, they do make excellent firewood if they're cut, split and properly dried in time for home heating season.

Economics is a 'Social Science'... Meaning that it's subjective in nature

Right so far...

and as such is not 'science'

Absolutely true if one uses "science" in the modern way it's now used, that is exactly right.

and stands as antithetic to the common good of the society... OKA: Anti-social

Ya' lost me.

You mean if some academic dicipline isn't what we now call a hard science it's antisocial? That's a bit of stretch.

But how many people would be impressed if Social Scientists were referred to as "Anti-Social purveyors of subjective nonscience?

Not many would be patient enough to listen, I imagine.

But to the extent that you understand that social sciences must inevitably be both subjective and relative, you are onto something, without doubt.

Since the social sciences are the study of SOCIETY they would be hard pressed to offer us the same kind objectivity of the hard sciences, that's for damned sure.

After all an oxygen molecule is the same and will react the same under the same conditions now and forever.

But societies are constantly changing and infinitely more complex than most things studied in hard sciences.

Societies are much like Heienberg's electrons in that we can know they are there, but we can never know where they are.

When Sir Isaac Newton had lost a fortune on the South Sea Bubble, he is reported to have said:

"I can calculate the movement of the heavens, but I cannot calculate the madness of the people."

Social sciences are about the business of attempting to calculate the madness of the people

And not only do they face the impossible task of the calculation itself, but their definition of madness is ENTIRELY subjective.

 

[Skull Pilot]

it's our turn to be patriotic

According to Joe Biden, being patriotic means you want to pay higher taxes.

If that's the case I would be guilty of treason.

 

[driveby]

it's our turn to be patriotic

According to Joe Biden, being patriotic means you want to pay higher taxes.

If that's the case I would be guilty of treason.

No biggy, so is he ......

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Q: How many economists does it take to stimulate an economy?

A: Based on their current market value, no amount of them --- however cheaply they're sold -- will stimulate the economy.

However, they do make excellent firewood if they're cut, split and properly dried in time for home heating season.

Right so far...



Absolutely true if one uses "science" in the modern way it's now used, that is exactly right.



Ya' lost me.

You mean if some academic dicipline isn't what we now call a hard science it's antisocial? That's a bit of stretch.

But how many people would be impressed if Social Scientists were referred to as "Anti-Social purveyors of subjective nonscience?

Not many would be patient enough to listen, I imagine.

But to the extent that you understand that social sciences must inevitably be both subjective and relative, you are onto something, without doubt.

Since the social sciences are the study of SOCIETY they would be hard pressed to offer us the same kind objectivity of the hard sciences, that's for damned sure.

After all an oxygen molecule is the same and will react the same under the same conditions now and forever.

But societies are constantly changing and infinitely more complex than most things studied in hard sciences.

Societies are much like Heienberg's electrons in that we can know they are there, but we can never know where they are.

When Sir Isaac Newton had lost a fortune on the South Sea Bubble, he is reported to have said:

"I can calculate the movement of the heavens, but I cannot calculate the madness of the people."

Social sciences are about the business of attempting to calculate the madness of the people

And not only do they face the impossible task of the calculation itself, but their definition of madness is ENTIRELY subjective.

Indeed... But our new-found grand pu-bah has declared however that we must no longer ignore 'science' and we can be sure that the Social non-Sciences were front and present in his implication.

But such has always been the fatal flaw in left-think... going back to the 'Global Warming' of the early 20th century... "Eugenics" was the law of the land... The concensus "Science" was clear and those who oppossed it, were labeled cultural heretics...

The impact on the TWO TRILLION DOLLARS which the left JUST SPENT... between the Tarp 1 & 2 and the $pendulou$ bill was founded upon the authority of the ethereal "ECONOMISTS" which the left demanded were assuring us that if we didn't DO IT NOW that the economic 'sky would fall directly upon us'... this despite the total absence of sound reasoning to conclude that anything remotely close was true.