Stimulative Spending
Tweet
Yesterday on Hardball I saw one of the Republican bots attack a provision to spend (according to him, I haven’t checked) $650 million on government computers as not stimulative. That’s so stupid. Do those computers just appear out of the air? At any given moment in the average computer, there are components from 20-30 companies. Then there’s the company charged with assembling and packaging the computer. Then there’s the IT staff required in the government to deploy and maintain the machines. Unless the government has made significant advances in cybernetics and we have a robot army, these activities are all done by human beings employed to work.
Which is kind of the freaking point.
108 Responses to “Stimulative Spending”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Norquistians are allergic to logic
Stimulus Plan Caters to the Privileged Public Sector
by Joel Kotkin, Democrat.
Describes the stimulus package as “a massive bailout and expansion of the public-sector workforce as well as quasi-government workers in fields like health and education. Not so well-rewarded – except for expanded unemployment benefits – will be those suffering the brunt of the downturn, such as construction and manufacturing workers, whose unemployment is now heading north of 10%”…..
[snip]
…Of course, public-sector unions and their supporters will argue that they constitute an important part of the nation’s middle class and that their benefits are therefore sacrosanct. Yet it’s increasingly evident that this strata of middle-class workers live in a different reality than typical private sector shmoes. As George Orwell suggested in Animal Farm, it seems some animals are more equal than others.
Maybe in a public sector bailout, their salaries and bonuses should be looked at too.
Then it is similarly “stimulative” for Wall St. bankers to redecorate their offices and for corporate CEO’s to lease, own, and fly private jets.
By your logic, anything the government spends money on is stimulative then, no? How would something not be stimulative?
You know what a government bureaucracy gets when it spends $650 million on computers?
Here’s a micro-comparison:
Suppose there was a hole in the White House fence that needed to be repaired. Three contractors show up to bid on the job – one from Minnesota, one from Tennessee and one from Chicago. In the company of a White House staffer, they go out to inspect the problem.
The Minnesota contractor looks over the hole, take some measurements, scratches out some calculations, makes a phone call, and says “I can do this job for $900. $400 for materials, $400 for my crew, and $100 profit for me.”
The Tennessee contractor checks out the hole, takes some measurements, scratches out some calculations, and says, “I can do this job for $700. $300 for materials, 300 for my crew, and $100 profit for me.”
The Chicago contractor strolls over to the White House staffer, and says quietly into his ear, “$2700.”
The White House staffer is incredulous. “What?! How is your bid so high? That more than paying both of these others to do it!”
The Chicago contractor whispers, “$1000 for you, $1000 for me, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to do the job.”
The staffer shouts, “Done!”
So, back to the question: You know what a government bureaucracy gets when it spends $650 million on computers?
About $100 million worth of computers.
Heckuva job, Baracky!
By your logic, anything the government spends money on is stimulative then, no? How would something not be stimulative? Haplo9
If you didn’t know better, you could almost detect a hint of an advocacy of trickle-down economics in the commentary, couldn’t you, Haplo?
So, back to the question: You know what a government bureaucracy gets when it spends $650 million on computers?–steno
You know it, I know it, everyone here knows it. Only some of us look the other way.
BEST post of the week, steno. Well done, sir.
Haplo9 said – By your logic, anything the government spends money on is stimulative then, no? How would something not be stimulative?
Answer: If it was a loan proposed by a Conservative to help a legitimate business.
The numbers I can find are $345 million for the Dept. of Ag. With just over 100K employees, that translates to about $3200 a machine. When anyone with an internet connection can jump on Dell’s website and pick up comparable machines for about 67% less.
Government spending at it’s finest!!
At any given moment in the average computer, there are components from 20-30 companies.
And if you’re luckly, 7 or 8 of them will be American! And one of them is Microsoft. I thought Liberals were of the mindset that Bill Gates had enough money already.
Thanks, steno, for that succinct description of the Bush-Cheney no-bid contract system so prevalently used to satisfy all our Iraq War boondoggle needs!
Of course, this discussion has glossed over the real twofer-ness of Republicans’ denial of funds for improved computers and things for federal service agencies…
In the short term, they score cheap political points by pretending to be “fiscal conservatives”.
In the long term, they reap the benefit of federal agencies not being able to process documents in a timely fashion, or being unable to share documents because of incompatible systems, by being able to propagandize, “Look, the government can’t do the job, it’s so slow and inefficient! This would be so much better if we privatize everything and the magic free market do it!”
It’s a win-win! All Republicans have to do is make sure the public suffers as long as possible, and sooner or later we’ll be able to have all these services in the private sector at twice the price!
Microsoft has been laying off folks this year, so apparently not.
As for the $/Machine, it would matter greatly what software was bundled with it, what amount of the $ was for training, maintenance, support, SERVERS, networking equipment, etc.
TCO, baby. (Total Cost of Ownership.)
—
As for the kickback angle, that happens in the Private Sector as well, not just the public.
I worked at a Cable Box Software company, where the sales staff effectively gave money (stock warrants) to customers to do deals before the end of quarter so they would meet their quota, and get bonuses. Lost the shareholders hundreds of millions for a shiny bauble.
—
for efficiency, it’s always better – if we can do some part of the stimulus for less money, it means another part getting cut didn’t have to get cut.
One more bridge that gets retrofitted.
Let’s assume steno’s fantasy scenario is even half-way plausible (and, quite frankly it’s conservative bunkum), it’s still preferable to giving Paris Hilton another tax cut (the GOP alternative, such as it is). But no, not all spending is stimulus, but in this case the government is spending to upgrade computers. As I said in the post, that spending employs people.
Follow Oliver’s logic here – according to him, the important thing is that money spent by the government is used to do things that end up employing people. If thats what you think, then why do you care about efficiently spending money, or even graft by pulic officials? Even graft will end up getting spent by said public officials to buy things. What is the difference?
>But no, not all spending is stimulus
Do you have an example of spending that isn’t stimulus under your definition? What kind of spending won’t result in employment of people in some way?
Haplo9: If thats what you think, then why do you care about efficiently spending money, or even graft by pulic officials? Even graft will end up getting spent by said public officials to buy things. What is the difference?
I’m pretty sure much of the taxpayer money going to large corporations and the rich folks who run them doesn’t end up getting spent at K-Mart.
If thats what you think, then why do you care about efficiently spending money, or even graft by pulic officials?
All that’s straw and you’ll build your own farm. Your argument is to shut it all off because there’s the possibility for corruption. I say spend it and spend it wisely to aid the problem. Is all government spending good? No. But this Mr. Potter strategy is fail.
The next time a Republican politician says gubmint doesn’t create jobs I wish someone would ask them if they cash their gubmint paychecks.
Or more pointedly, ask the Republican why they hate the American troops whose gubmint JOB is to keep US safe.
>Your argument is to shut it all off because there’s the possibility for corruption.
Wrong. I’m trying to get you to clarify your position. You said that spending which results in employment is good for the economy. I ask, ok, what kind of spending doesn’t result in employment? The example of corruption is just to illustrate the point – even public officials that steal money are probably going to use it to buy things, which employs people. How, in your world, is that bad for the economy?
Wow. It’s like these right-wingers have never taken an econimcs course in university.
I’m not surprised Dennis is in that group, he can’t even count.
Buying new computers will help service, therefore it is good. We don’t know what computers they have, nor what software, so we can’t say if they are overpriced.
Any complaints from the right about possibly inflated prices, or corruption is bidding, should be met with one simple word…
Hypocrite.
“Is all government spending good? No. But this Mr. Potter strategy is fail.”
That’s all the Republicans have. Stall recovery till 2010, and use the economic troubles as a campaign platform.
That is all they fucking have.
And yes, I am accusing the Republicans of putting their party ahead of their country. As Rush said, “I hope Obama fails.”
Because crime is bad. Although why I’m even answering straw man questions I don’t even know.
>Because crime is bad. Although why I’m even answering straw man questions I don’t even know.
No, you aren’t answering the question. Why is it bad *for the economy*? All I’m asking is for you to define the difference between bad spending and good spending. Corruption is morally wrong, yes, but by your own definition, corruption that results in employment is good for the economy. True or false? Simple question.
Here Oliver I’ll help you: “Yes, under my own definition of what is good for the economy, corruption that results in employment is good for the economy. So what?”
That isn’t some kind of gotcha question. It’s just stating the obvious conclusion of your own assertion at the start of this post – that employment, regardless of from whence it comes, is a good thing for the economy. Thus, (because it is too easy to rathole on corruption) the question is simply – under your definition, what kind of spending doesn’t produce employment and thus isn’t good for the economy?
Pretty awesome to read non-economist wingnuts pretend to know something about economics. They are the same people who brought you “…agree with several tenets of the Laffer Curve…” then acted like they didn’t write that.
These are the same non-scientists who claim that Global Warming is a hoax and that evolution is only a theory.
They are the same non-military types who cheerled the Iraq Invasion and eagerly told other people they’d be out of Iraq in a jiffy and that it wouldn’t cost anything.
They are the same non-civil libertarians who parrot Rush Limbaugh and Lee Atwater talking points then accuse liberals of racism and don’t want equal rights for gay people (as they didn’t for blacks in the 1960s).
They are…your modern Republican party (i.e., since Nixon’s Southern Strategy).
Heh. ed, do you ever say anything on topic, or do you just kind of fling poo from the sidelines, patting yourself on the back all the while?
Wow. It’s like these right-wingers have never taken an econimcs course in university. – C.S.Sturbridge
Shorter ‘Marvel-boy’ Sturbridge: “Everyone please ignore my spelling habits while I call other people dumm.”
—–
That’s all the Republicans have. Stall recovery till 2010, and use the economic troubles as a campaign platform. –Marvel-boy
Ok, so dissent is patriotic when Democrats do it, but not Republicans, is that it, not so bright one? Democrats go along with the Iraq War Resolution, many of them even very vocal in their unbridled support, still other Dems even hawkish about taking out Saddam for the WMD they were certain he possessed. Then when things go wrong and they see the political opportunity to speak out against it, they claim they were duped, and that they wish they’d been more skeptical beforehand based on the information they were fed.
So now when Republicans see the crap sandwich for what it is and don’t like the taste one bit, you call it stalling.
And Republicans “use the economic troubles as an economic platform”??? Democrats have been doing that non-stop for the last year and a half. No more so than right this very moment.
You’d probably never admit how hypocritical you are. How could you, you just couldn’t even comprehend it in yourself.
Hapless9: even public officials that steal money are probably going to use it to buy things, which employs people. How, in your world, is that bad for the economy?
So you are in favor of political corruption. Good to know.
We should just give it all to Haliburton.
Heh. ed, do you ever say anything on topic, or do you just kind of fling poo from the sidelines, patting yourself on the back all the while? –Haplo9
Mister ed is Aqualung, Haplo9.
Just got up off his park bench and decided to take a look around here.
“Grr,grr,gaah, Southern Strategy!”
“Buggrr, bugga, grmmbl, Global Warming!”
“Gol-dern, gubba growwwl, “Lee Atwater!”
“Arrghhh, ang-angg….Rush Limbaugh!!! Gay rights!!! Racism!!”
>So you are in favor of political corruption. Good to know.
Try to follow along Duros. You aren’t even close. Keep in mind the it is Oliver’s definition of what is good for the economy that implies that even corruption can be good for the economy, as long as it produces employment. I’m merely pointing out that that is one of the implications of his definition. I don’t otherwise suspect for a moment that Oliver favors political corruption, and nor do I.
Dennis – lol.
OK, nutters, I’ll play.
From a strictly theoretical standpoint, you’re correct. If all the stimulus money was corruptly spent by government officials (let’s say they all build mansions with swimming pools and hire servants), yes, that would also be stimulative.
On the other hand, if they steal the money and deposit it in their offshore bank accounts, that would NOT be stimulative.
So why not just hand the money over to corrupt officials to spend on themselves and their friends? The current administration promised change, didn’t they?
Keep in mind the it is Oliver’s definition of what is good for the economy that implies that even corruption can be good for the economy, as long as it produces employment.
Funny, I thought it was your straw-like interpretation of Oliver’s definition.
>On the other hand, if they steal the money and deposit it in their offshore bank accounts, that would NOT be stimulative.
Well, not immediately stimulative for the american economy anyway. Is that problem limited to corruption though? Seems like any type of outlays could end up in the coffers of a foreign bank.
I actually regret that I brought corruption into the discussion, because it just presented a rather large distraction for “nutters” like yourself and Duros to focus on. My intent was to try to get Oliver to clarify what types of spending don’t end up creating employment, and are thus bad by his definition. I can’t think of many, and the ones that I can think of (like yours) seem like they’d be a very small part of the total. The upshot of what he said is that just about any spending, any time, by the government, is a good thing for the economy. That is what I’ve been trying to get him to say – and if he would claim that that isn’t true, what criteria he uses to distinguish between “good” spending and “bad” spending.
>Funny, I thought it was your straw-like interpretation of Oliver’s definition.
Well then, this should be easy for you guys. All you have to do is tell me how you decide between “good” spending and “bad” spending by the government. Is there anything in the current stimulus bill that you would consider “bad”?
As we all sit here pontificating on this package’s
strengths andweaknesses the market is approaching new lows. What a complete clusterfuck of a situation we’re ALL in.That isn’t some kind of gotcha question.
You thought that asking Palin what newspapers she reads was a “gotcha” question. Why should we trust your judgement on what is and isn’t one?
When anyone with an internet connection can jump on Dell’s website and pick up comparable machines for about 67% less.
Except anyone who knows anything about computers knows that Dells are piles of crap.
Halpo, the problem with your argument is you make the premise that government bureaucracy is inherently inefficient & corrupt. What if it was proposed to have a committee to oversee the spending of computer and make sure that they’re spending enough money? You could then argue with your premise that the committee would be corrupt and inefficient. You could then do this recursively for any and all government spending.
$13 a week?
Hurray! We’re all saved! Happy days are here again!
It makes that $3.27 trillion cost over the next decade money well spent.
All hail our Messiah-in-Chief!
>You thought that asking Palin what newspapers she reads was a “gotcha” question. Why should we trust your judgement on what is and isn’t one?
Er.. Seeing as I asked the question, wouldn’t I kind of know if I was asking it to be a “gotcha” question? I don’t recall saying that asking Palin what newspapers she reads was a “gotcha” question, do you have a link? I don’t recall either way, but from the way you frame it, that would be a bizarre thing to complain about.
>Halpo, the problem with your argument is you make the premise that government bureaucracy is inherently inefficient & corrupt.
What premise have I put forth? I haven’t made a claim either way. Oliver made a post that essentially says “government spending that creates employment is good.” I subsequently ask, ok, what kind of government spending doesn’t create employment, and is thus bad? Sure I think government is inefficient, but I don’t see how it makes sense to claim that government spending just disappears into a hole somewhere, never to be seen again. The logical conclusion to Oliver’s statement, it seems to me, is that just about *any* government spending is good for the economy. Where am I wrong in concluding that?
$13 a week?
Hurray! We’re all saved! Happy days are here again.–DaveinSoCal
Contrast to Michelle Obama last summer talking about the $600 government rebate check then.
“You’re getting $600. What can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything. But maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn’t pay down every bill every month..
Barack’s approach is that the short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good. And it may even feel good that first month when you get that check. And then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings.”
The upshot of what he said is that just about any spending, any time, by the government, is a good thing for the economy.
Just about any spending, any time, by the government is stimulative.
Whether that’s a good thing or not depends on the economic environment in which it happens. In an environment where the actual GDP is falling far short of potential GDP, it’s helpful. Also, some spending will be more stimulative than other spending. For example, the results of some academic study floating around on the lefty blogs says that a dollar spent on food stamps is more stimulative than a dollar spent on something else.
Why? Because a dollar in food stamps gets spent quickly and it also gets re-spent quickly. You’re putting the dollar in the hands of someone who will use it soon to buy from a low-margin, high-inventory business.
I know one strategy that Obama should avoid implementing for government spending: telling a lie to get us into a war with another nation, bungling the aftermath, and the whole time giving huge no-bid contracts while getting nothing in return. That’s a wicked inefficient stimulative plan.
I’m glad the government spending hawks have finally found a voice again, I missed it since the time it disappeared eight years ago!
Yay! Thank you Quaker, for a reasoned description of your thinking. I didn’t actually have some big point I was trying to make, I just wanted to try to understand the thinking behind the assertion that Oliver made. Thanks again.
Just about any spending, any time, by the government is stimulative.
And just where does that spending come from? This entire discussion is predicated on the theory that somebody just opens up the vault to the Treasury one day and finds Brewster’s Millions just sitting around waiting to be spent.
The truth is that the money comes from me and you. And every dollar the government spends is a dollar that you and I DON’T spend. All those dollars that are being “pumped into” the economy are only doing so after being “pumped OUT”, with government bureacracy taking their share off the top. If you want to REALLY stimulate the economy, let people have their money back and watch them invest. Yeah, some people are going to “waste” it on slurpees, big-screen TVs and porn. But somebody’s got to manufacture the slurpee machines, build the TVs, and … uh …
Farris:
My thinking was that Keynes vs Friedman was likely to generate far more heat than light on this blog, so I figured it best not to go down that path. Proceed at your own peril.
So, back to the question: You know what a government bureaucracy gets when it spends $650 million on computers?
About $100 million worth of computers.
Yeah, maybe, but then the guys who skim off the other $550 million go buy boats, mansions, private jets, coke, strippers etc.
So it’s all good.
I know one strategy that Obama should avoid implementing for government spending: telling a lie to get us into a war with another nation, bungling the aftermath, and the whole time giving huge no-bid contracts while getting nothing in return. That’s a wicked inefficient stimulative plan.
Funny, I don’t remember Iraq being spun as a stimulative plan. However, look at this chart and note how the deficit had actually been decreasing since 2003 or so (at least until the housing bubble collapsed). My God, it WAS a stimulative plan. That Chimperor Bush was an evil genius!
I’m glad the government spending hawks have finally found a voice again, I missed it since the time it disappeared eight years ago!
They never went away. I think you’ll find that many of the “wingers” here complaining about the ‘Stimulus’ bill were just as disgusted with (and outspoken about) Bush and the Republican majority spending like drunken sailors. I know I was.
I know I was.
And then you went out and voted for them and defended them in blog comments.
Funny, I don’t remember Iraq being spun as a stimulative plan
You don’t read Krugman?
When the other option was Kerry?!? Every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Mr. Heinz’s campaign called for even more of a spending binge than Bush (though to be fair, Obama puts them all to shame!)
Heh. ed, do you ever say anything on topic, or do you just kind of fling poo from the sidelines, patting yourself on the back all the while?
Now why would you write that? What did I get wrong?
Yeah, I didn’t think so.
Carry on, party of Lee Atwater. (That’s where it all starts. Look it up.)
Wow Oliver. When did your blog become troll central?
Though it makes sense for rightwingers to argue about economics here than on an economics blog, where the commenters would all laugh at them.
As we all sit here pontificating on this package’s strengths and weaknesses the market is approaching new lows.
Spoke too soon, Mr. Gloom. Market rebounded almost 200 pts in the final half-hour of the day. What happened? They all change their minds?
@ Haplo:
Take farm price subsidies as an example.
If the price of wheat is $2 a bushel and there’s plenty of wheat to go around, there’s no incentive to grow any more of it. You might even have farmers who stop growing it because they can’t make any money at it.
If the government starts buying lots of surplus wheat, the picture changes. More farmers can stay in business growing and selling wheat.
(Now before we get derailed, this isn’t about whether there should or shouldn’t be farm subsidies or the role of a free market in setting prices. It’s just an example.)
Any other government spending acts just the same way. Except instead of buying wheat, the government is buying hours of construction labor, groceries, computers, medical care, etc. It’s all stimulative.
The truth is that the money comes from me and you. And every dollar the government spends is a dollar that you and I DON’T spend.
Nonsense.
That’s only true if taxes are increased today to cover spending today. We’re borrowing this money.
That’s right. I admit it. We’re borrowing today from Saudi Arabia and China so the government can spend. And my daughter will have to pay them back. Maybe her sons and daughters too. A dollar the government spends today is a dollar they don’t spend.
That’s why your Ms. Malkin refers to this as the Generational Theft Act.
What Ms. Malkin–and you–like to ignore is the alternative. Let’s say we don’t increase government spending. What do you suppose happens next?
Shorter ‘Marvel-boy’ Sturbridge: “Everyone please ignore my spelling habits while I call other people dumm.”
Two point…
1.) It’s called a typo, while your mistakes appear to be intentional.
2.) Style over substance. Thank you for admitting defeat, you can leave now.
The problem is, Quaker, you can’t ignore free-market implications in this argument. If the government buys surplus wheat at $2, it gets a lot of wheat. But then what? They can’t re-sell it for a profit, because the market will only bear a $2 price tag. So, in order to get anything for their purchase, they’ve got to resell it at $1.75. Wheat buyers are getting a deal, so they can spend their extra quarter a bushel buying new farm equipment or what not. But the farmers that USED to sell wheat just got undercut by the government, so now they’re out of a job … and noone’s growing wheat anymore.
Likewise, when the government “buys” construction work, medical care, etc, that’s goods & services no longer being sold by the private sector. Which means the people that WERE providing it before are now out of jobs.
Actions always have unintended consequences, especially government actions. To pretend that they don’t exist is naive.
And then you went out and voted for them and defended them in blog comments.
Show me where I defended their spending. No rush. I’ll wait.
Hey, since we’re sharing anecdotes and parables, I found one.
A Democrat and a Republican were looking at a horse called Economy and why it was not moving. “It’s sick,” the Democrat said. “We need to take it to the vet and have him looked at and find out what’s wrong with him.” “No no,” the Republican replied, “he’s just lazy. I’ll beat him with my big stick called Tax Cut and he’ll be back out there ploughing the field in no time.” So the Republican started beating the horse with the big stick called Tax Cut. An hour or so later and the Democrat walked around to the front of the horse and noted, “He’s not breathing. I think he’s dead.” The Republican replied, “no, he’s just pining for the fjords. If I beat him some more with my big stick called Tax Cut, he’ll be out there ploughing the field in a jiffy.” A few hours after that, the Democrat opened Economy’s mouth, and noted flies buzzing out. “This Economy is rotting,” the Democrat said, and the Republican said “I guess I’ll have to beat him with my big stick called Tax Cut even more, then.” The Democrat shook his head and said, “You’re beating a dead horse, dude! You killed the Economy by not taking him to the vet and getting what ailed him fixed!” Then the Republican glared at the Democrat and said, “You’re not being bipartisan. We have to both beat Economy with this big stick called Tax Cut or you’re just a hater.” And that is where we’re at right now.
– Badtux the Parable Penguin
As we all sit here pontificating on this package’s
strengthsand weaknesses the market is approaching new lows. What a complete clusterfuck of a situation we’re ALL in.Well, that’s an improvement, Dennis. You didn’t go right to blaming Obama directly this time, as you have since November 5.
but I don’t see how it makes sense to claim that government spending just disappears into a hole somewhere, never to be seen again.
Au Contraire.
My thinking was that Keynes vs Friedman was likely to generate far more heat than light on this blog, so I figured it best not to go down that path
We’ve tried Friedman. So has Chile, Argentina, England, Poland, Russia, Japan, South Africa, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Brazil, and Venezuela.
Hasn’t worked out so well.
There is a special circle of Hell reserved for Milton Friedman.
Er.. Seeing as I asked the question, wouldn’t I kind of know if I was asking it to be a “gotcha” question?
Not necessarily.
The truth is that the money comes from me and you. And every dollar the government spends is a dollar that you and I DON’T spend
It’s also a dollar that you and I WOULDN’T spend. The reason taxes exist is because people don’t have an incentive to spend money on things that benefit everyone. If we have to give the economy a jump-start, we might as well have as many people benefit as possible.
Likewise, when the government “buys” construction work, medical care, etc, that’s goods & services no longer being sold by the private sector. Which means the people that WERE providing it before are now out of jobs.
Whuh?!?
That makes no sense at all. Who do you think the government is buying these things from? The Tooth Fairy?
The government is buying those goods and services from contractors. They’re not setting up the Bureau of Bridge Construction Services. They’re going out and hiring Bridge Construction, Inc. to build a bridge.
That doesn’t stop anyone else from building anything.
Likewise, when the government “buys” construction work, medical care, etc, that’s goods & services no longer being sold by the private sector. Which means the people that WERE providing it before are now out of jobs.
Gawrsh, I can’t figgur out to whom I should listen, this guy or Paul Krugman.
Quaker,
>If the price of wheat is $2 a bushel and there’s plenty of wheat to go around, there’s no incentive to grow any more of it. You might even have farmers who stop growing it because they can’t make any money at it.
Why is that bad? I’d say that’s a good indicator to farmers that they might want to look into growing something else.
>If the government starts buying lots of surplus wheat, the picture changes. More farmers can stay in business growing and selling wheat.
Why is that good? Now farmers are using their resources to produce wheat that nobody wanted at that price in the first place. I wouldn’t call that a win for the economy, would you?
>Except instead of buying wheat, the government is buying hours of construction labor, groceries, computers, medical care, etc. It’s all stimulative.
I guess we have different definitions of stimulative. You seem to think it means “stimulate production of something, regardless of whether it is being demanded, because that will cause economic activity.” I think of it as something that should grow the economy in a long term manner. Admittedly, your definition is not a terribly unreasonable literal definition of the word, its just that by your definition (like Oliver’s), stimulus just equals spending money on something, not economic growth. If we spent the entire stimulus on buying computers, for example, would that grow the economy overall? If not, why not, and how would you tell that you are spending “too much” on computers?
>What Ms. Malkin–and you–like to ignore is the alternative. Let’s say we don’t increase government spending. What do you suppose happens next?
Well, my money is on: After people get used to housing-no-longer-appreciates-at-10%-a-year conditions, it will recover on its own. As a bonus, we won’t saddle future generations with even more debt. In fact, given that we’ve already saddled future generations with gigantic liabilities in the forms of Soc Sec, Medicaid, and the already outstanding debt, I would say even if it could be proved that the stimulus would help things out in the short term, we should draw a line and say that we’ve messed up enough. No more pushing the problem off to our kids. I’m quite certain that neither party has any interest in that though.
Why is that bad? I’d say that’s a good indicator to farmers that they might want to look into growing something else.
Now didn’t I warn you? I chose that example, not to make a point about farm subsidies. I chose it only as an example of what happens when government spends money. Nobody disputes that farm price supports are “stimulative” to commodities markets. The spending in the current bill has the same effect.
I guess we have different definitions of stimulative. You seem to think it means “stimulate production of something, regardless of whether it is being demanded, because that will cause economic activity.” I think of it as something that should grow the economy in a long term manner.
Well right there is your problem. Long term? This has nothing to do with long term. Unemployment just went to 7.6%, and that’s on the most restrictive of definitions. Nobody, even the most starry eyed optimists are saying it’s not going higher. We’re still shedding jobs at a half million a month. Four million people are collecting unemployment and 10 million want jobs and can’t fine them.
Let’s make no mistake. I am definitely not denying that we’re taking out a National Payday Loan here. What I’m saying is that without it, this recession will be longer and deeper.
You seem to think it means “stimulate production of something, regardless of whether it is being demanded, because that will cause economic activity.”
Close enough. FDR paid poets, for the luvva Pete.
my money is on: After people get used to housing-no-longer-appreciates-at-10%-a-year conditions, it will recover on its own.
This isn’t about housing prices any more. See discussion of jobs and unemployment, above.
we should draw a line and say that we’ve messed up enough. No more pushing the problem off to our kids.
How bad do things have to get–in our economy and in the rest of the world–before you think we need to do something now?
About government computers: one size does not fit all. Dell computers are meant for home use, in a home that needs only typical security. Government computers may have to be on 24/7, 365 depending upon agency. There’s additional storage needs for large files, the cost of integrating old files into new systems, there’s the need for nearly fortresslike security with passwords and the like. Some computers are used for processing and may have to take hundreds of thousands of keystrokes per day, every day. And each agency has its own needs: sturdy weather-proof laptops for the Interior, high-tech computing for Defense and Nasa, strong and encrypted for security and diplomatic work. There’s also the effects of wear and tear in general and the need to keep up with modern computing.
Of course, those paychecks also pay for private sector housing, food, utilities, and rent. Goverment contractors and workers also buy clothes and entertainment and pay their own taxes as well. That’s stimulative too.
Quaker,
>Now didn’t I warn you? I chose that example, not to make a point about farm subsidies. I chose it only as an example of what happens when government spends money. Nobody disputes that farm price supports are “stimulative” to commodities markets. The spending in the current bill has the same effect.
That holds whether you choose wheat or computers – the net is that it causes production in parts of the economy where there otherwise would not have been production due to lack of demand. How is it economically beneficial to use resources to produce things that aren’t otherwise desired? This strikes me as the core of the problem in advocating a stimulus – you are essentially arguing that the government can more productively use resources than individuals can. That assertion seems dubious at best – if that worked well, then centrally planned economies would have worked great in the past. Now, I understand that because you are borrowing the money, rather than taxing it, you are essentially injecting future taxpayer’s income into the current economy, rather than just shifting it around. Even so, future taxpayers are not a bank we can draw indefinitely upon – using future taxpayers as an out has been used time and time again, is there not a point where we say it has gone too far?
>How bad do things have to get–in our economy and in the rest of the world–before you think we need to do something now?
Pretty bad – the alternative you are presenting is to gamble that in pushing debt to future generations, we won’t cause them to be worse off than we are. Kind of a selfish and short-sighted view, no?
How is it economically beneficial to use resources to produce things that aren’t otherwise desired?
It is economically beneficial because the people who do the producing get some money and they spend it.
you are essentially arguing that the government can more productively use resources than individuals can.
No, I am arguing that when resources are fallow and no incentive to employ them arises, the government can provide that incentive by offering money.
That assertion seems dubious at best –
I didn’t make that assertion.
the alternative you are presenting is to gamble that in pushing debt to future generations, we won’t cause them to be worse off than we are. Kind of a selfish and short-sighted view, no?
Maybe. Maybe not. At least we’re finally at the starting point of discussing the actual issue. What stikes me as peculiar is that so many of the folks now concerned about the well-being of future generations didn’t say ‘boo’ when Mr. Cheney declared that “deficits don’t matter–they’re our due.”
Pretty bad? As bad as the recession of 80-81? As bad as the Great Depression? Worse?
At some point, doing nothing has long term costs too. Whether we have reached that point or we’re approaching it has not been seriously disputed by the Congressional GOP.
>No, I am arguing that when resources are fallow and no incentive to employ them arises, the government can provide that incentive by offering money.
In what way are these resources fallow? By stuffing them in a mattress, perhaps, but I don’t think thats a serious concern these days. The actions the government is taking results in resources that would have been used for something else and making them be used on whatever it spends money on – its not as if those resources would otherwise have done nothing had not the government not “found” them. (I hope you aren’t treating a loan as “resources” that simply haven’t yet been put to use yet.)
>What stikes me as peculiar is that so many of the folks now concerned about the well-being of future generations didn’t say ‘boo’ when Mr. Cheney declared that “deficits don’t matter–they’re our due.”
Eh, Repubs lost a lot of conservative support over the issue, from what I can tell, though I don’t think either party is remotely sincere on the issue – it’s usually a “when we are out of power, deficits matter, when we are in power, not so much.” Both parties displayed this during the Bush years, and both are displaying it now (in reverse), IMO.
>At some point, doing nothing has long term costs too.
How do you know this? It might also have long term benefits. From my standpoint, the better outcome is that we let whatever problems are occurring in the economy wring themselves out, rather than take out loans to try to maintain whatever level we were used to.
SaveFarris: “Likewise, when the government ‘buys’ construction work, medical care, etc, that’s goods & services no longer being sold by the private sector. Which means the people that WERE providing it before are now out of jobs.”
… Huh?
This could be the stupidest thing written on this site since Dennis claimed 3 was most of 9.
“In what way are these resources fallow? By stuffing them in a mattress, perhaps, but I don’t think thats a serious concern these days. The actions the government is taking results in resources that would have been used for something else and making them be used on whatever it spends money on – its not as if those resources would otherwise have done nothing had not the government not “found” them. (I hope you aren’t treating a loan as “resources” that simply haven’t yet been put to use yet.)”
Actually, yes. A lot of these resources would not be spent.
People tend to not buy as much when the economy slows down, because they are worried about losing their jobs. The government can borrow money and spend it today, thus increasing demand, therefore stimulating the economy.
This is first year economics, and if you don’t have that level of education, you need to stay out of this debate.
Ya know what’s funny? 12 months from now the American economy is going to start rebounding, partially due to economic stimulus/government spending to create new jobs. And with the exception of three moderate Republican senators, the Republican party will be on record as having opposed the economic renewal of America. Delicious.
To put it another way: Why do the overwhelming majority of Americans support this bill? Because from 2001-2006 we had Republicans running all branches of government, and they ruined our country. From 2006-2008 we had the worst president ever still in office and a Democratic Congress that was afraid of standing up to him.
Now it’s 2009 and we, as a country, are doing things differently. Stimulus spending to get the country moving again (although tax cuts were a major part of this bill). However, no more tax cuts for Paris Hilton or George Soros.
If you were the head of the Republican party and asked yourself, “How do I ensure that my party disappears within the next ten years?” you would see your answer over the past few weeks.
Thank you, Republicans. Thank you for showing us what political suicide looks like. With the nomination and destruction of Sarah Palin in 2012, your party dies an agonizing and highly amusing death.
Just to add to what others have said, here’s the deal Republicans: Private investors and entrepreneurs aren’t going to sweep into small-town America right now and open businesses, even if you give them huge tax-breaks. Banks simply aren’t giving loans for this type of activity right now, they’re trying to make sure they survive into 2010.
The issue isn’t government spending vs. private sector spending, it’s government spending vs. no spending at all. And in the short-term, government spending is better than no spending at all.
Thing is, I know it’s hard for your little pea-brains to deal with reality, but thems the breaks right now. And hey, guess what? In six months we might even need to pass another stimulus bill. And Obama will have learned by then that he should simply ignore Republicans, since they don’t have the common good of the American people at heart, but simply want to play politics during a potential Great Depression Part II.
In what way are these resources fallow? By stuffing them in a mattress, perhaps,
Credit crisis. Ever hear of it? At one point very recently, banks weren’t lending money. They were just sitting on it. That’s kind of like stuffing it in a mattress. And even now, lending is very tight.
Also, there are 10 million workers not working.
In all, the shortfall between actual GDP and potential GDP is looking to be quite large over the next couple of years. We don’t have to guess what comes next. We have very recent examples (Japan – 90s) we can examine to see what happens.
How do you know this? It might also have long term benefits. From my standpoint, the better outcome is that we let whatever problems are occurring in the economy wring themselves out,
How do I know this? It’s math. If GDP falls low enough, businesses close. Banks fail. Lenders foreclose. It takes a long time to recover from that. While the New Deal programs of FDR made some headway against the Depression, it was ultimately WWII that lifted the U.S. economy.
No government spending there, now was there?
Letting the recession run its course might seem ducky from your standpoint. Perhaps you have enough gold hidden in the crawl space to see you through. (If that’s the case, can I have your address?) However, letting it run its course means a certain amount of misery for those who aren’t so lucky.
Did you read about the “electronic bank run” that happened late last year? The one that prompted the TARP plan? Without the government stepping in, there was a good chance the entire world financial system could have failed.
Doing nothing, at some point, involves real costs.
Haplo, this isn’t exactly stimulating (Haw!) reading, but I think it would be worth your while. The nut graf for me:
This could be the stupidest thing written on this site since Dennis claimed 3 was most of 9. CS Sturbridge
Because I don’t go back through the archives here to count just how many comic book threads you came on here to comment on, when on the current page you were 3 for 3, and had claimed you weren’t a comic book fetishist? Dude, we all have one-off type interests- I’ll occasionally watch Family Guy and laugh my f’in ass off- but you don’t have to get all girly-boy about it.
Man up a bit, Strowbirdge.
No, the stupidest comment ever here was your saying FNMA and FHMLC had absolutely nothing to do with people flipping houses. Even Maxine Waters wouldn’t say anything that stupid about Fannie and Freddie.
you are essentially arguing that the government can more productively use resources than individuals can.
I think that the government can probably better sell wheat to, say, Belarus than Farmer Brown can. Even at $1.75 a bushel.
Me: “This could be the stupidest thing written on this site since Dennis claimed 3 was most of 9. CS Sturbridge”
Dennis says: “Because I don’t go back through the archives here to count just how many comic book threads you came on here to comment on, when on the current page you were 3 for 3,”
No. It was two for two on the main page, and three for nine in the first three pages.
But I guess you can’t remember that far back.
“…and had claimed you weren’t a comic book fetishist?”
I’m not a comic book fetishist, what ever the fuck that means.
One thread was about a woman in a short shirt and the other two were about movies. I like women in short shirts, and my day job involves movies.
On the other hand, I haven’t bought a comic book in nearly two decades.
“Dude, we all have one-off type interests- I’ll occasionally watch Family Guy and laugh my f’in ass off- but you don’t have to get all girly-boy about it.”
More sexism from Dennis.
There’s no better way to follow-up making an ass of yourself than by insulting half the human race.
Well done.
“Man up a bit, Strowbirdge.”
Ohhhh… You almost spelled my name right. At least this time it’s a typo.
“No, the stupidest comment ever here was your saying FNMA and FHMLC had absolutely nothing to do with people flipping houses. Even Maxine Waters wouldn’t say anything that stupid about Fannie and Freddie.”
Since you can’t count, or remember basic details of this debate, I don’t trust your judgment on these matters. The inability to count past two, or the unwillingness to click “Older Entries” means you’re the king.
Congratulations.
And I stand by my statement. Frannie / Mac didn’t get us in this mess.
From Wiki…
“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a limit on the maximum sized loan they will guarantee.”
They deal with smaller buyers looking for a house. They don’t deal with people flipping expensive homes as investments.
Now, driving up the prices of homes increased the maximum size of the loan they would guarantee, which means flipping homes was part of the reason Freddie / Mae got into trouble. So in the way, you weren’t wrong, just backwards.
and had claimed you weren’t a comic book fetishist?
…fetishist? So what if he like comic books? Big f-ing deal. Me thinks you might be a wee bit insecure. Must be boring not having any hobbies.
Dude, we all have one-off type interests- I’ll occasionally watch Family Guy and laugh my f’in ass off
Well there’s your problem right there.
You are beyond hope, Strowbridge. My only fear is that other people here may see what you write and the ones that don’t readily recognize what a joke your last post was may take it as being true since you are on their team. And that would be sad.
Seriously, one of the less-publicized reasons we are faced with the crisis we are in is because there were people like you, not quite as clueless but close, who were responsible for investing relatively large sums of money and bought the riskier packages of securitized mortgage loans without having even a basic knowledge of the risks involved; solely relying on their broker’s advice.
It’s a shame it happened, but my advice to you for the good of the country would be to avoid making any financial decisions on your own, no matter how big or how small.
one of the less-publicized reasons we are faced with the crisis we are in is because there were people like you,…
I seriously doubt that.
So what if he like comic books? Big f-ing deal.–Zython
I told him that, Zython. You continue your habit of coming in late to the party and not being the least bit embarrassed at your cluelessness.
One day, like three freakin’ weeks ago, I told him that he only came to this blog here for the comic threads and not for politics because he was bugging the shit out of me that day, and now he’s acting like I was the bully in his grade school who gave him his paranoia complex. He’s like my yr. old terrier puppy, who won’t let go of my pants leg when I start to go out for a run.
As to Family Guy, when I first saw this scene, I literally laughed so hard I thought I was going to cough up blood.
I seriously doubt that. Duros69
Trust me, Duros. I sell securities. I’d love to get a guy like Strowbridge a job on the buy side and cover him.
The problem is, 2 years after they’ve bought something and then it blows up, they always blame the salesman who sold it to them as their first line of defense when their bosses start screaming at them for the losses on their valuations.
Check out Michael Moore’s webpage- it’s the next expose he wants to do a movie on. Those are the people I guarantee you he’ll go to first. Investment managers who have lost their jobs will be the first ones he’ll report on and they will ALL cry that they were duped into buying bad securities. But every one of them was responsible for saying ‘ok, I’ll buy that’. Same thing happened with people buying houses, who are surprised when their ARM’s reset to a higher rate they can’t afford 3 years hence, and there’s no bid for their house like there was when they first overpaid for it.
I told him that, Zython. You continue your habit of coming in late to the party and not being the least bit embarrassed at your cluelessness.
No you didn’t, you just admitted earlier that you called him a “comic book fetishist”.
As to Family Guy, when I first saw this scene, I literally laughed so hard I thought I was going to cough up blood.
The link isn’t working for me. Was it from the old episodes, back when they didn’t rely on referential humor as much, or the new ones? Because the new ones have been lame as hell. I still watch them, but it’s definitely lost its old charm IMO. But that’s a discussion for another time.
It was Foghorn Leghorn getting his head chopped off by Col. Sanders.
Dennis, 2003 called and they want their lame talking points back.
I mean, we all know MICHAEL MOORE IS FAT AMIRITE???
This is why your party dies come 2012. Idiots like you with nothing to offer.
Dennis says: “You are beyond hope, Strowbridge.”
This from the man who can’t count past two.
“Seriously, one of the less-publicized reasons we are faced with the crisis we are in is because there were people like you, not quite as clueless but close, who were responsible for investing relatively large sums of money and bought the riskier packages of securitized mortgage loans without having even a basic knowledge of the risks involved; solely relying on their broker’s advice.”
Two points…
1.) Could these clueless people count past two?
2.) What does this have to do with Freddie / Mae?
“One day, like three freakin’ weeks ago, I told him that he only came to this blog here for the comic threads and not for politics because he was bugging the shit out of me that day, and now he’s acting like I was the bully in his grade school who gave him his paranoia complex. He’s like my yr. old terrier puppy, who won’t let go of my pants leg when I start to go out for a run.”
I’m amazed you didn’t call me a stalker as well.
Here’s what really happened…
Dennis made a claim that was false, and he’s pissed off that I keep reminding him. He’s taking these emotions and projecting them on me.
Now I will keep laughing at him.
Ha ha ha.
Dennis: “Trust me, Duros. I sell securities.”
So the real reason we are in this problem is because of people like you.
No wonder you don’t want the Democrats to solve the problem, it will be a lot harder to make money based on shady deals with tougher regulations in place.
Now as for passing the bill for the stimulus along to future generations, there are a couple of points that haven’t been mentioned.
Money borrowed today to stimulate the economy is paid back with future tax revenues at a discount. Why?
1) Growth of the labor force. Population growth steadily increasess the number of workers contributing to GDP.
2) Increase in productivity. Hours worked by future workers create more GDP than hours worked today.
3) Monetary inflation. Whether the rate of inflation is large or small, dollars borrowed today are repaid with devalued future dollars.
In summary, if government today borrows 1 percent of current GDP for deficit spending, it will pay back something less than 1 percent of GDP in the future.
Oh, and:
4) The price the government is paying on the open market to borrow is at an incredible low right now. Check the rates on Treasurys.
Trust me, Duros. I sell securities. I’d love to get a guy like Strowbridge a job on the buy side and cover him.
No, you missed why I said that. Not surprisingly.
CSS is Canadian. He lives in Canadia. He is not the “people like you” who got us in this mess.
Same thing happened with people buying houses, who are surprised when their ARM’s reset to a higher rate they can’t afford 3 years hence, and there’s no bid for their house like there was when they first overpaid for it.
Ah ha. So, is this an admission that Fannie/Freddie had nothing to do with it?
Ah ha. So, is this an admission that Fannie/Freddie had nothing to do with it? Duros62
Your logistical skills leave much to be desired, Duros62, at least in this case. Fannie and Freddie certainly a lot to do with people flipping houses, as Strowbridge claimed, and still claims. But whatever you mean by ‘had nothing to do with it’, just because naive people borrowed money to buy homes with ARM’s because of a low teaser rate and then acted surprised 3-5 years later when their rate adjusted much higher and that wasn’t necessarily FN and FH’s fault, hardly means they had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis. Not sure where you are coming from on this, but it’s not planet Earth.
And to your prior post, my point was that C.S. Strowbridge is a financial idiot. The crisis in part had a lot to do with idiots who were in charge of buying securities they had no idea what the risks were. They’re not 100% to blame for the crisis, but a lot does fall on them. Instead, they are being treated as victims of predatory sales tactics by brokerage houses in the press.
I doubt Sturbridge has even bought his first house to even know the very beginning of the mortgage loan process.
…then acted surprised 3-5 years later when their rate adjusted much higher and that wasn’t necessarily FN and FH’s fault, hardly means they had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis. Not sure where you are coming from on this, but it’s not planet Earth.
That is where I’m coming from, Dennis. I’ll pit my logistical skills against your comprehension skilz any day.
On one side, you’re trying to blame this entire fiasco on Freddie and Fannie, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank. And then you say, well, it wasn’t ALL their fault.
Sooooo, which is it?
Dennis: “Your logistical skills leave much to be desired, Duros62…”
This coming from a man who can’t count past two.
You keep saying I’m wrong, but you haven’t explained why Fannie / Mac is to blame for flipping houses. It’s like blaming Adjustable rate mortgage’s for people buying houses they can’t afford. Freddie / Mae has a limit on the size of loan they can guarantee, which kind of limits their affect on the phenomenon of flipping houses.
“And to your prior post, my point was that C.S. Strowbridge…”
Hey, you spelled my name right. Congratulations.
“The crisis in part had a lot to do with idiots who were in charge of buying securities they had no idea what the risks were. They’re not 100% to blame for the crisis, but a lot does fall on them.”
So I’m the reason for this meltdown, even though I was saying it was coming years ago.
Granted, I didn’t make this discovery. I learned about it from Paul Krugman, but I certainly knew the problem was there long before most people.
“Instead, they are being treated as victims of predatory sales tactics by brokerage houses in the press.”
Who is doing this? Who are being portrayed as victims?
The crisis in part had a lot to do with idiots who were in charge of buying securities they had no idea what the risks were. They’re not 100% to blame for the crisis, but a lot does fall on them. Instead, they are being treated as victims of predatory sales tactics by brokerage houses in the press.
If the buyers had no idea of the risks they were taking, and not being told of the risks by the sellers, wouldn’t that classify as predatory sales practices?
And again, has nothing to do with Freddie and Fannie.
Just trying to get a handle on your point. Slippery little bugger.
If the buyers had no idea of the risks they were taking, and not being told of the risks by the sellers, wouldn’t that classify as predatory sales practices? Duros62
Not trying to be slippery, just didn’t get your point. As to the above, every time you buy something you should know what your are buying. When you sign your name to a loan, there should be plenty of documentation outlining the risks. I’m not 100% sure, but I believe on most loan forms, you even have a certain time period with with to cancel. Sure, predatory lending happened, but the ultimate responsibibility is with the person who signed his name to the loan.
In investments, it’s not a whole different. I can’t go into it all right now but will another time, but investors should also get a prospectus. In the case I brought up with ARM’s, I thinhk it’s sad that there were so many people out there who were unaware their rates could readjust upward by so much. I’m sure they felt and I’m sure many brokers told these people that they’d always be able to just sell their house if they couldn’t afford the higher rate when it reset.
—
On one side, you’re trying to blame this entire fiasco on Freddie and Fannie, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank. And then you say, well, it wasn’t ALL their fault. –Duros62
Durocell- Strowbridge stated before that Fannie and Freddie had nothing at all to do with people flipping houses. That is categorically false and laughable that anyone would say that. I never said it was all their fault- it wasn’t. A lot of things went in to it. But I will say that the above you mentioned are not without significant fault. Objective analysis bears taht out if you’d just take the time to read about it instead of staying on biased websites for your sources of information.
You keep saying I’m wrong, but you haven’t explained why Fannie / Mac is to blame for flipping houses. –Sturbridge
You stated that FNMA and FHLMC had nothing to do with people flipping houses. I did explain how they did. They provided an market for the loans the banks made. They guaranteed conventional loans subject to their guidelines that the banks could get the guarantee and sell to investment houses, who would package bundles of these loans and securitize them. That in a nutshell is how they had a very important role in how so much flipping of houses happened- if banks didn’t have that guarantee that FN and FH would provide, or the liquidity they would provide, then mortgage lenders would not be able to make as many loans. This is all very well known and information is easily found. Even Paul Krugman, Sturbridge.
You are a dense one.
Freddie / Mae has a limit on the size of loan they can guarantee, which kind of limits their affect on the phenomenon of flipping houses. –Strowbridge
Think, CSS. If someone needed to flip their house, they’d need a buyer who could get financing. That buyer had easy financing because the mortgage lender knew he could make the loan and then sell that loan if it met FNMA and FHLMC guidelines and he could get their guarantee on it, thereby passing the risk of default on to someone else. If he doesn’t get the FNMA guarantee, he may have to hold on to the loan, and that is risk to him, and he can only take so much risk before he tells that buyer of the house being flipped that he can’t make the loan.
“Think, CSS. If someone needed to flip their house, they’d need a buyer who could get financing.”
In that case, you are responsible for flipping homes, because the money in your bank account allowed the bank to lend money to someone either flipping a house, or buying a house that was flipped.
Or BOTH!
[INSERT DRAMATIC MUSIC HERE!]
The ‘connection’ is so tangential that I feel the need to put scare quotes around the word.
Dennis getting pwned yet again. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
“Dennis getting pwned yet again. Move along folks, nothing to see here.”
No, no. He’s right. Every time you buy a Big Mac you help the economy. A growing economy gave people incentive to invest money. Some people choose real estate. And some of these people decided to flip houses.
Therefore Ronald McDonald caused the economic crisis.
GRAB YOUR PITCHFORKS AND MEET ME AT McDONALS HQ!
Durocell
Hey, kinda like that.
Dennis: “Durocell”
Duros: “Hey, kinda like that.”
I agree. You’re lucky. “Sturbridge” just sounds like Dennis had a stroke.
Sturbridge, I can’t help you any more. You have no clue what role FNMA and FHLMC play for mortgage lenders. Not the slightest.
On the one hand, I’m just glad your cluelessness can’t affect me since you live in Canada. But Jaim and Durocell, if they are on your side on this, it’s just scary they can vote. I guess it fits the John Ziegler and Zogby polling about the misinformed Obama supporters who didn’t know what party controlled Congress or who Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid were. At least those two know that.
At least I think they do.
Dennis: “Sturbridge, I can’t help you any more. You have no clue what role FNMA and FHLMC play for mortgage lenders. Not the slightest.”
You explanation was laughable, and I’m not the only one who thinks so. So perhaps you should consider the possibility that you’re the one who is wrong.
Seriously. You explanation was, ‘Freddie / Mae can help people buy homes. Some of these home might have been flipped. Therefore, Fannie / Mac is partially to blame for flipping homes.’
That’s beyond pathetic.
“I guess it fits the John Ziegler and Zogby polling about the misinformed Obama supporters who didn’t know what party controlled Congress or who Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid were.”
You’re actually bringing up that flawed POS survey?
That’s also beyond pathetic.
So is your inability to count past two, but that doesn’t stop you from thinking your opinion is valid.
I guess it fits the John Ziegler and Zogby polling about the misinformed Obama supporters
Straw polls for straw people.