Other socialists...

foxpaws

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
3,971
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver
Reflate the Economy - Now

by Ben Stein

Herewith a few thoughts about the economy, public policy and retirement.

First, a note to the mighty international powers convening at the White House for the G-20 Summit to consider the world economic and finance slowdown. In this situation where aggregate demand is collapsing and where credit is desperately tight almost everywhere, the future dangers facing us are all on the deflationary side.

That means there is virtually — for all practical purposes -no limit to how stimulative fiscal and monetary policy can and should be. The dangers of inflation at this point are extremely modest. There is a worldwide commodities debacle. There is almost no new corporate financing. Even mighty China is slowing hour by hour. Inflation is not a present danger.

In this situation, the governments that care about their citizens should and must have extremely expansive policies. That would include running very large deficits — which we are doing, not even mentioning tax hikes until the situation is stabilized, and possibly cutting taxes as a temporary measure. Public works projects, tax rebates, even to people who paid no taxes, extensions of unemployment insurance payments — all of these are necessary. Bailing out the big auto companies, offering loan guarantees to encourage banks to lend, making sure lending facilities are in place for credit card issuers - all of these should be done and immediately.

Obviously, this is also a time for extreme monetary growth. As we economists would say, the velocity of money — that is, how often it changes hands — is falling rapidly. This means the Federal Reserve can pump up the quantity of money greatly to offset that fall without fear of inflation. There are the usual "pushing on a string" limits to how well this will work but it must be attempted.

The real issue choking the economy now is lack of lending and fear by the banks and other lenders. This must be met by explicit solvency guarantees from the central banks. There should be no pussyfooting around this. It's a matter of extreme urgency.

The sums involved will be substantial, but tiny compared with the losses to the world if we slide into a world wide depression. I offer as an example that it might have cost the government about $30 billion to $60 billion to save Lehman. That was deemed too expensive. The losses to the U.S. from the panic caused by that blunder are on the order of $4 trillion to $ 5 trillion. This is what is at stake if we do not spend the hundreds of billions and maybe a trillion or more to reflate the economy now.

Mr. Obama clearly has a better idea about this than Mr. Bush, who is dragging his feet about Detroit and other aspects of reflation. I hate to say it, but I think we are lucky Mr. Obama won the election. Of course, time will tell.

I desperately hope I am wrong and I may well be, but the government has to put in a bottom here. Otherwise, the bottom is very hard to see. Again, I hope very much I am being too pessimistic.

Secondly, the broad stock market is now at levels it hit roughly ten years ago on the Dow Jones Industrials Average and the S&P 500. This means something horrifying. If there are to be no long term gains in stocks, the retirement projections of almost everyone are simply demolished. Unless a pre-retiree is terribly lucky, he or she cannot count on meaningful gains in stocks. Obviously, the interest on bonds is modest and aside from Treasuries, they have been hit hard as well.

If workers can only rely on dividend and interest income and not on long-term capital gains of 8% or 9% per annum, pre-retirees have to save enormously more than they had anticipated to adequately fund their retirement. This is serious business.

Again, I hope I am wrong. Historically, stocks have major recoveries after falling as low as they have in recent months compared with the 15-year moving average of stock prices. This is what my pal Phil DeMuth, of Conservative Wealth Management, tells me, and he is a super smart fellow. But I would also consult my pal Ray Lucia, who requires his clients to have a very large amount of cash or short-term Treasuries to get through long difficult stretches. Ray's advice has turned out to be spectacularly sensible. But, again, if we have a lot of low return cash and low return stocks and low return bonds, we have to save much more than we thought we did three or even two years ago.

This makes reflation even more desperately needed. I hope Mr. Bush will wake up, stop listening to Dr. Evil, his Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, and work with President-Elect Obama to get a large, serious stimulation package into the economic bloodstream pronto.

This is getting ugly.
 
Yeah, unfortunately Stein has been wrong quite frequently recently and Keynesian economics doesn't work well. Even if you wanted to see an short term expansion federal spending, the problem is the government would never END the programs.

However, he does mention something that I find fascinating and was unaware of until the other day... and that is the economic havoc this slow down is causing in China right now. Because demand for good in this country has fallen, the Chinese are losing work and we're starting to see widespread civil unrest on the verge of riots.
 
independant thought

China undervalued their currency to build their economy up...

We are pulling that rug out from under them by crashing the worlds economy to keep them from getting too powerful economically...

Yep we are doing this on purpose to stop the Chinese from eating up all the world resources,and it's a team effort.

Other countries are playing along because their interests are at stake here too.

By some estimates, at the pace prior to the worldwide economic downturn, within 20 to 40 years, China would use more resources in one year then the whole world produces in a year.

That is a PROBLEM!

The growth in China is astonishing and un-paralleled, and unhindered, especially due to the lack of regulations in China's economy.

We as a world economy had to do something.

FEAR

We scared everybody into a state of fear regarding the economy,and as self fulfilling prophesies are just that, self fulfilling; blammo recession.

Now we can slow the growth of china while we try to figure out how to keep them from taking over the planet. And I think that they could do it if they had a bit more time and the inclination or NECESSITY to do so

So when we think about all this it seems crazy but just what if, What if we decided to stave off the "gestating super giant" to save our "land of the free" and the "mother Russia" and "kings England" and all our ways of life.

Call me whatever and pick me apart you as you will, but heed my warning, China is growing and fast. So something has to be done to keep food on our tables and gas in our cars and steel in our buildings, and life in our chests, because in survival there are no rules. And China WILL fight to survive if it comes down to it.



I came up with this by myself by looking at everything going on in the world and thinking about it for myself, no one gave me any part of this idea. So say what you will about me and my crazy theory, but it's mine.

Peace and good luck in the times to come!
 
China undervalued their currency to build their economy up...

We are pulling that rug out from under them by crashing the worlds economy to keep them from getting too powerful economically...

It's an interesting theory, but I just don't think it's likely.
It's wonderful to think that the governments in charge, or even some individuals, have this kind of foresight and control over the economy. But they just don't. The world is chaos, always is.
 
Chaos

Thanks It's nice to see no one knocking it yet, especially since it's my theory and I've not heard it elsewhere. We shall see. I like chaos personally, with a touch of capitalism, and as splash of socialized health care. I think the world would be doing all right.

Wait off topic but, Ill trade pure capitalistic market economics for pure socialized health care.

the rich can do what they want as long as the rest of us are healthy... LOL!!!
 
You can't have both.
But if you have a healthy capitalism, then the market forces will keep health care affordable and the competition will ensure that it remains high quality.
 
problem is ss, with what china owns of the states already, they could put alot more hurt in if it was an economic manipulation.

and since when was healthcare in the states affordable? maybe for some, but not many. my province(alberta) is finally going to full premiumless healthcare in 2009. no more monthly costs. regardless of income.
 
and since when was healthcare in the states affordable? maybe for some, but not many. my province(alberta) is finally going to full premiumless healthcare in 2009. no more monthly costs. regardless of income.

The high healthcare costs in America are not due to free market forces. In fact, the healthcare industry is arguable the most heavily regulated industry in American. You can tie the rising cost of healthcare back to the Great Society and the creation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as regulations on insurance companies and the FDA.
 
Originally Posted by hrmwrm
and since when was healthcare in the states affordable? maybe for some, but not many. my province(alberta) is finally going to full premiumless healthcare in 2009. no more monthly costs. regardless of income.
Enjoy sitting in those long lines.
 
Canada is a big supplier of oil to the US and it all comes from Alberta.
That's why Alberta taxes are low and socialized healthcare is generous.
 
The high healthcare costs in America are not due to free market forces. In fact, the healthcare industry is arguable the most heavily regulated industry in American. You can tie the rising cost of healthcare back to the Great Society and the creation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as regulations on insurance companies and the FDA.

Then you can tie it into government salary controls that caused employers to have to increase fringe benefits.

And then government tax policy that made health benefits a tax benefit.

And finally, top everything off with overly aggressive trial lawyers. Always interesting how Democrats love to put burdens, regulation, and government micromanagement of business, yet they won't do anything resembling tort reform.

And then any issues of affordability of health care is easily understood by just looking at a simple supply and demand curve, something taught (or should be taught) in the first week of any basic economics course in high school.
 
Canada is a big supplier of oil to the US and it all comes from Alberta.
That's why Alberta taxes are low and socialized healthcare is generous.
Is this a response to my post, or just an addendum? Because I don't really see how it's relevant.
 
Is this a response to my post, or just an addendum? Because I don't really see how it's relevant.
I suppose it's an addendum.
The point being that it's easy to afford socialized medicine when a country has large oil revenues.
Therefore in Alberta at least (in response to your waiting comment) there isn't much waiting in line for medical services.
 
You mean it works when the government has an independent source of revenue, ideally abundant and derived from the earth , and a small population to provide for.

The entirety of Alberta has about 3.5 million people in an area about the size of Texas. In contrast, Texas has 24 million citizens.
 
The high healthcare costs in America are not due to free market forces. In fact, the healthcare industry is arguable the most heavily regulated industry in American. You can tie the rising cost of healthcare back to the Great Society and the creation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as regulations on insurance companies and the FDA.

Good synopsis, but you missed one and a big one at that......Trial lawyers. Insurance companies (third party) and trial lawyers are the major reasons why healthcare is where it is today.
 
It could work

If there was a truly free market the amount of money we spend on taxes would drop by a huge amount, therefore freeing up more consumer spending along with less regulation allowing for better quality of product at a cheaper cost, along with less costs associated with the regulation itself.

The overall effect would be the freeing up of HUGE sums of money that could be diverted to subsidize medical care for everyone.

Would not the free market left on its own, make for a much more profitable situation for companies and workers alike? Thus allowing for (gulp) taxes to be used for medical care, while still being lower than current rates. We wouldn't be paying the government to handle and implement stuff that could be better and more cheaply done by the private market. So I think that would save us all tons of money.

Maybe I'm wrong and there just isn't enough money out there to help everybody stay healthy, but I have a hard time accepting that with all the advances in the medical fields, we can't find a way.


So I do think it's possible It just seems that some of you are averse to it on sheer principle and therefore are unwilling to give it a chance.

Oh and you always have to talk all about how something WON'T work ya bunch of negative nancies!!! Think positive its good for Ya!

LOL

J/K I love the opposition, it lights the fire of thought in my too oft disused noggin.
 
If there was a truly free market the amount of money we spend on taxes would drop by a huge amount, therefore freeing up more consumer spending along with less regulation allowing for better quality of product at a cheaper cost, along with less costs associated with the regulation itself.

The overall effect would be the freeing up of HUGE sums of money that could be diverted to subsidize medical care for everyone.

Would not the free market left on its own, make for a much more profitable situation for companies and workers alike? Thus allowing for (gulp) taxes to be used for medical care, while still being lower than current rates. We wouldn't be paying the government to handle and implement stuff that could be better and more cheaply done by the private market. So I think that would save us all tons of money.
Almost, but no cigar. You were half way to the pot of gold, and then you strayed off course.

Medical costs would plummet if insurance companies were not involved and healthcare providers were a) not so heavily regulated and b) forced to compete with each other for services. Let medical care continue to be part of the free market and watch it flourish and cheapen. Watch more innovation and advances.

Add that to your first paragraph, and all that "extra cash" can go right back into building roads and bridges, where it belongs.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top