Why are they talking stimulus when the DOW is at 11,250 and corporate profits are fine?
 

It's a headscratcher.. The DOW was in the 6000's briefly in the big crash, now it's almost double that, and the country needs to take some uppers?

I think that corporations are sitting on so much money nowadays that the average person struggles to get much for themselves, and the income gap is easily seen by looking at the markets. Markets seem to be very disconnected from the populace at this point.

They say the #1 most important thing for the economy is "consumer spending" ie: people making $2k a month and paying out $2k-3k a month in living expenses. So what that means is consumer retardation is the #1 most important thing for the economy.

not everything is as it seems.

Bankers and Wall St gotta milk us all for as much as they can get before Obama gets kicked out of office.

Say it together with me. The stock market doesn't equal the economy.

what i find hilarious is the feds suing the big banks... aren't those the same people they bailed out? we the people get screwed... again

I hear that, but what's the fear of not giving the stimulus? That it's going to affect corporate profits no? Sending stock markets down. They're not doing it to help the average person, so what's the idea behind it other than to keep share prices inflated to stop more job losses.

it is complicated, because companies do not see the benefits of reinvesting their money right now. so you have companies like google sitting on ass loads of cash, and they arent putting it to work.

You are right .

One of the ideas is that these companies will use the money to expand and create jobs. I don't think that is the case. Many companies are making record profits and they are just sitting on them. They have no reason to create jobs when they are already making such huge profits and when they do expand they do it overseas where they can do it cheaper.

If the adminstration trully wants a stimulus plan that puts people to work they need to do one of three things:

1. make a new deal type of plan. Hire a bunch of people to fix bridges, roads, schools, infrastructure etc. It's not ideal and its not long term, but it puts people to work and those people will spend money which can help spark the economy. They might then later be able to fold these people into some kind of renewable energy jobs.

2. only give money to companies that will directly use it to hire people. Essentially the government pays for these worker's salary and benefits for a period of time so the company has much less risk in hiring new people.

3. Create some kind of a worker redevelopment program. There are many people who lost their jobs and those jobs no longer really exist. These people could go back to school and learn to do something new, but that is neither cheap nor easy especially if you have a family to support. So the government puts in place a program where they can get financial support to go to school and learn a new trade so when the are done they can get a good job in a career path that has a future.

None of these are great savior type ideas, but they would at least put money directly into the hands of people who would have jobs or they would get people ready to get a job that actually exists and pays a decent wage instead of it landing in the vaults of banks and companies that will do nothing with it.

Broken window fallacy.

To "put money in the hands of people" means you have to "take money out of the hands of people" either via taxation and inflation. You have created nothing and destroyed everyone's wealth via inflation which hurts the middle class the poor the most.

Someone needs a lesson on inflation and artificial growth. The Dow at 6,000 was worth more than today's 11,250.

they are going to try and give 'bailouts' every few years to these robber barons.

Robber Barons, Yes history dose repeat its self:thumbsup

I don't mean just hand them money. I mean put money into their hands by helping them get a job where they earn it. Sure, that still means that money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is likely taxes so in essence you are taking money from one person and giving it to someone else, but it seems to me you could cut spending in some areas that we don't need and use that money to help put people to work. For example, we are scheduled to give Pakistan $800 million dollars in aid by the end of the year. Instead of giving them that money why not use that money to put people to work or send them back to school where they can learn a trade that will help them get a better job? The money is already in the coffers, we can choose to spend it more wisely by reinvesting it.

There is no easy answer to fixing the problems this country has. I was just giving a few examples of how a stimulus could be used to put people to work as opposed to just putting money into the economy that doesn't seem to do anything but sit in vaults.

Stimulus packages work great, that's why the third one is on its way!

Nonsense.

The money Kane spoke of is a portion of those profits that the big corporations are currently sitting on. That's money that at present is doing neither the country nor the economy any good whatsoever.

Until this country starts working again, things will never get better.

Agreed we should be spending that money differently. But spending it will still cause the effects of inflation. Which does hurt the middle class and poor the most.

Not doing any good? You realize if you pull that money out of the banks through taxation the banks will have less money to lend? Again, taking money from one and giving it to who the government thinks should have it. Not a good system at all.

It has been prove over and over again that stimulus packages do not work. If the last 3 years has not prove that I don't know what will convince you.

It's not like the banks are lending that much nowadays anyway and much of what they are lending is being spent in India and similar locales.


That would depend on who they "give" it to.

Hiring the unemployed to do work that really needs to be done, i.e. repairing the country's infrastructure, is a win win situation for everybody involved. Bridges and such, that will need to be repaired eventually anyway (and at greater cost), will get fixed now and the economy will be properly stimulated with real money (not freshly printed money) spent by real American workers inside of this country.


That's because most so called stimulus packages are nothing more than pork, spent at the whim of corrupt public officials and/or mismanaged abysmally.

A well managed public works program can't help but to succeed.

Cause the average Joe and Jane is fucking broke.

Qft.

Let's think about why someone running a business would hold cash.
Businesses including ours normally invest money paying for people, equipment, etc. because they expect to make a profit. Think of your own business. You will buy content, software, ads, or hire people when you think you will earn more by doing so. Of course if a bunch of businesses buy content, that gives a photographer a job. When you buy software that gives a programmer a job. You do this spending in order to make money for yourself. So in normal times your own self-interest leads you to invest your cash and help create jobs.

When would you hold on to your cash instead of buying content, ads, and software?
a) you think it will not make money because the economy will not improve
b) you don't want to invest more in adult because you fear another CDA or COPPA type regulation (there is a Clinton in Washington)
c) you think perhaps government will turn against business in general, making profit less likely
d) you're concerned that you don't know what's going to happen next, so you may need the cash at any minute

Which of the four reasons do you think is happening now?
Remember in normal times you and other businesses spend money to make money - self interest creates jobs. So why would you hold cash right now rather than say buying Clonebox, or more content, or traffic?