- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Would the economy be better if the Feds had just handed out money to the 90%
Posted on 11/19/14 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 11/19/14 at 2:09 pm
QE/stimulus money has eclipsed over 4 trillion dollars since 2008, if the 4 trillion was distributed amongst the 90% would GDP and top line growth be better for most small and large businesses? Seems bottom line growth in many companies has come from the reduction in head count and reducing expenses in some form or another rather than substantially increasing revenues. Not sure how the money would be allocated amongst the 90% just throwing this out there for discussion. 
This post was edited on 11/19/14 at 2:10 pm
8
Posted on 11/19/14 at 2:13 pm to JoeMoTiger
I say yes.
I can't even begin to fathom the amount of wasted money that was probably spent on crony handshaking behind closed doors.
I can't even begin to fathom the amount of wasted money that was probably spent on crony handshaking behind closed doors.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 2:14 pm to JoeMoTiger
There is no such thing as a free lunch. So who pays for the fed expanding its balance sheet? And what does that mean anyway? And who pays if we did the money to the 90% plan? Someone has tonpaymright?
Posted on 11/19/14 at 2:16 pm to JoeMoTiger
No sorry engineering a stock boom is a much better allocation of the Fed's energies and besides, it's doing gods work.
But if you're hellbent on this path, why not just reduce the tax rate to 0 and save helicopter fuel at the Fed?
But if you're hellbent on this path, why not just reduce the tax rate to 0 and save helicopter fuel at the Fed?
Posted on 11/19/14 at 2:22 pm to UncleFestersLegs
The boom will go bust eventually, right?
Posted on 11/19/14 at 2:25 pm to JoeMoTiger
This is basically a large part of the premise of a tax cut
Posted on 11/19/14 at 2:29 pm to JoeMoTiger
The Federal government knows how to spend your money better than you do. I would much more have preferred tax cuts instead of long term QE, then again it did allow me to take advantage of a balling awesome interest rate for my home loan!
Posted on 11/19/14 at 2:34 pm to JoeMoTiger
quote:
QE/stimulus money has eclipsed over 4 trillion dollars since 2008, if the 4 trillion was distributed amongst the 90% would GDP and top line growth be better for most small and large businesses? Seems bottom line growth in many companies has come from the reduction in head count and reducing expenses in some form or another rather than substantially increasing revenues. Not sure how the money would be allocated amongst the 90% just throwing this out there for discussion.
No.
A big chunk of the reason things went to shite was the American public over-reaching on their credit, specifically home loans in the over-heated housing market. Throwing money at people that don't understand wise money-management in the first place is no different than trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it.
With that said, I think the money would have been far more wisely spent just paying off the home loans instead of everything else it was spent on. Ideally though, there should have never been a stimulus. People won't learn a lesson if there's no reason.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 2:38 pm to JoeMoTiger
The 90% aren't the 10% because of money management for the most part. Unfortunately, the government has a worse track record than even the 90% with spending not being an investment.
Give it ALL to current small business owners? I'm sure that would be more often good than bad.
Give it ALL to current small business owners? I'm sure that would be more often good than bad.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 2:38 pm to zeebo
Don't get me wrong, the Money would be nice, but wouldn't investing in infrastructure be a better plan?
* New Infrastructure woudl keep on giving in the future.
* We'd have people working good paying jobs, and then in turn throwing money back into the economy.
* The Government woudl get 30% or maybe even more back in taxes when infrastructure white/blue-collar workers would pay local taxes too.
* Building an up-to-date infrastructure throughout would pay off more than jsut a one time financial bump.
* Moving people and goods much faster would make the USA more competitive in the world.
Seems this would be a win/win to me, but I'm not economic expert to know for sure.
* New Infrastructure woudl keep on giving in the future.
* We'd have people working good paying jobs, and then in turn throwing money back into the economy.
* The Government woudl get 30% or maybe even more back in taxes when infrastructure white/blue-collar workers would pay local taxes too.
* Building an up-to-date infrastructure throughout would pay off more than jsut a one time financial bump.
* Moving people and goods much faster would make the USA more competitive in the world.
Seems this would be a win/win to me, but I'm not economic expert to know for sure.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 3:30 pm to SquirrelyBama
quote:
Don't get me wrong, the Money would be nice, but wouldn't investing in infrastructure be a better plan?
* New Infrastructure woudl keep on giving in the future.
* We'd have people working good paying jobs, and then in turn throwing money back into the economy.
* The Government woudl get 30% or maybe even more back in taxes when infrastructure white/blue-collar workers would pay local taxes too.
* Building an up-to-date infrastructure throughout would pay off more than jsut a one time financial bump.
* Moving people and goods much faster would make the USA more competitive in the world.
Seems this would be a win/win to me, but I'm not economic expert to know for sure.
Well, in a perfect world, that is what was supposed to have happened...
But, in the words of Julius Levinson in Independence Day, "You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?"
Posted on 11/19/14 at 7:16 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
No sorry engineering a stock boom is a much better allocation of the Fed's energies and besides, it's doing gods work. But if you're hellbent on this path, why not just reduce the tax rate to 0 and save helicopter fuel at the Fed?
Correct answer, prepare for the final meltdown. I fear unless some miracle occurs the economy will flat line within 5yrs and a true reset will begin. All assets will find their intrinsic value, bad debt will be allowed to unwind, hopefully the dollar does not completely crater and the equities market will find it's true valuation after the QE/stimulus bubble bursts. (Add the +4 trillion dollars from QE/stimulus into the equities market and you have most of the bull market from 2008-2014) now lower interest rates to 0% and all the poor folks who were retired or fixing to retire and expecting 3-5% on fixed income investments are in a world of hurt or they went back into higher risk investments and will face ruination when equities collapse again. Good luck to all.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 7:48 pm to JoeMoTiger
So you think the Fed buying securities is the same as the federal government spending? I hope you know they are totally different and unrelated.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 7:53 pm to JoeMoTiger
quote:
Correct answer, prepare for the final meltdown. I fear unless some miracle occurs the economy will flat line within 5yrs and a true reset will begin. All assets will find their intrinsic value, bad debt will be allowed to unwind, hopefully the dollar does not completely crater and the equities market will find it's true valuation after the QE/stimulus bubble bursts. (Add the +4 trillion dollars from QE/stimulus into the equities market and you have most of the bull market from 2008-2014) now lower interest rates to 0% and all the poor folks who were retired or fixing to retire and expecting 3-5% on fixed income investments are in a world of hurt or they went back into higher risk investments and will face ruination when equities collapse again. Good luck to all.
Boy, I sure hope no one suffers, but the piper has gotta get paid eventually I guess. Darn it, what's the best way to protect ourselves? It's probably obvious I'm not to much on a economic expert, but I got to figure something out. We're just getting on our feet again after my wife got sick and lost her ability to walk. It's been a tough road back, and now post like yours & other info I read soemtimes worries me a bunch. I gotta do some homework to make this saved money into more money smartly. This way my wife doesn't suffer has much if these hard-times do happen.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 7:54 pm to SquirrelyBama
quote:
Well, in a perfect world, that is what was supposed to have happened... But, in the words of Julius Levinson in Independence Day, "You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?"
Man, reality can be a bummer
Posted on 11/19/14 at 7:57 pm to SquirrelyBama
I'd agree that infrastructure projects would be a better investment.
Put people to work on things that will have long term value. Help people develop some marketable skills in the construction field.
But we have to be realistic. The idea that there are all of these shovel ready jobs out there is probably BS. A lot of planning has to go into major infrastructure projects. I'm not sure how many are truly ready to break ground.
Put people to work on things that will have long term value. Help people develop some marketable skills in the construction field.
But we have to be realistic. The idea that there are all of these shovel ready jobs out there is probably BS. A lot of planning has to go into major infrastructure projects. I'm not sure how many are truly ready to break ground.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 8:24 pm to LSURussian
quote:
So you think the Fed buying securities is the same as the federal government spending?
I also thought that lumping "QE/stimulus money" together was bizarre.
Regardless, I'd like to hear more about how this "QE/stimulus bubble" will burst.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 8:26 pm to Powerman
quote:
But we have to be realistic. The idea that there are all of these shovel ready jobs out there is probably BS. A lot of planning has to go into major infrastructure projects. I'm not sure how many are truly ready to break ground.
True, guess the only jobs at 1st would be planning, surveying, office help, and lawyers of course.
I think eventually investing in this would be smart for the USA. Suppose the longer we wait, the newer the technology will be for us. Sorta like one does when trying to get all the miles they can out of an older PC before replacing it. When you go to shop for a new PC finally, the newest and coolest PC technology is available. Hopefully the right technology is happening and the USA gets some sweet fast-trains the are friendly as can be to the environment.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 8:42 pm to LSURussian
quote:
So you think the Fed buying securities is the same as the federal government spending? I hope you know they are totally different and unrelated.
I know that once the Fed goes to 0% interest rates standard monetary policy goes bye bye. QE is the last attempt used by the Fed to avert economic meltdown by buying bonds and other assets from private institutions to stimulate lending from these institutions. The OP was really just an absurd troll to see how many people would try to rationalize the Government/Fed handing out trillions of dollars to the masses.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 8:44 pm to JoeMoTiger
quote:Why?
I know that once the Fed goes to 0% interest rates standard monetary policy goes bye bye.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News