-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
formatting link
| 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
How are you going to stop them? Pelosi was elected from the fairy state of Californica; Reid from the union-humped state of Nevada :-( ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
flipper wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
that is always a possibility that Congressional leadership is unprincipled,so Congress should be closed down after the November elections,until the new Congress is seated. there should not be any legislation so urgent that it needs to be done in that remaining time. None of this "lame-duck" Congressional sessions nonsense.
A lot of businesses start with this exact same proposition: Even if you're already in debt, if you just borrow a bit more, you can advertise more or otherwise expand the business enough to come out prosperous in the long term.
The difference is that a bank is going to look very closer at a business's proposition to see how likely that really is... whereas in congress there is no such requirement before, e.g., more bonds are printed.
Yeah, it's just that one person's "irresponsible spending spree" is another's "investment in the future." I'm sure Obama would *claim* he's "investing!" :-)
:-( Uggh. I suppose that indeminity is supposed to only be "temporary" as well?
A consumer spending $5 on junk food isn't an investment--that's consumption, an expense, with no chance of a (positive) return.
A business's purchase of a piece of equipment (or even goodwill through advertising) is directly calculated to generate a return, as best as humanly possible.
Meanwhile, to give that consumer his $5 "stimulus," Mr. Obama has to take a much larger amount from every business in the country (we've got more people than businesses) , thus diverting money from productive to non-productive use.
It depends on the exact use, obviously. I don't know what the overall success rate is, so I can't assess their overall value.
We got a few. I think we might've almost recouped the time we wasted with all the paperwork applying, the taxpayer got squat, and the bank got their commission. So, everyone was happy.
Since the consumer has to eat, and will - eventually - die of starvation without any food, there's definitely an element of investment in buying something to eat. One could argue that junk food has a poor calories per buck ratio, though in fact the main problem with junk food is that it gives you too much in the way of calories and not enough in the way of exra-calorific nutrition.
If the business is being run by somebody who is otimally competent. Modern economic research makes it clear that businesses are as prone to fall for economic junk food as are consumers.
Which misses the point that Keynes made a long time ago - in a recession the peop.le who have money to spend aren't spending it.
Actually, it is the people who have money to spend and are too nervous to spend it who kill jobs. That irrational choice drives a progressive spiral of recession and depression that can be hard to break out of.
Government intervention wiht pump-priming spending can - and did - break that particular vicious circle.
Your passion for phlogiston-era economic delusions blinds you to this kind of insight. The right wing has always chosen its favoured economic theory on the basis that they like the advice it generates, not matter how badly the the theory predicts the real world.
And be wrong. Junk food is not short on calories, and is generally pretty cheap to the end consumer.
You can't generalize. The sorts of $40M companies around in the 1990s we all used to work for had perfectly respectable rates of return*.
What's happened is that the sharks have managed to construct the fiction that this is inadequate return, and built a series of equally fictional companies promising greater returns. These all fail.
Read "All The Devils Are Here" for details from the last go-round. Fiction, all around. There was a core of truth but it got lost.
Facebook is valued in the tens of billions. It's a company with no native revenue** from its "product" and really only hype for a business model.
*they had those returns then, but the returns were declining. They may not have been adequate now.
**it reports revenue, but it's not clear what that means. People are guessing what it means.
Because as Hayek said, too much capital was redirected towards unproductive investment. The lack of returns from the fictional investments resulted in a shortage of ready cash. The destruction of capital from their failure knocked a hole in the bottom of the store of available capital.
Those people don't have that money. That's why they're not spending it. The very small group who *do* have money aren't enough to make a material difference. The increased uncertainty of even maintaining employment causes people to self-insure through saving.
The choices people are presented with are phlogiston or hydraulics. Neither works very well. The hydraulics (Keynsian) model works badly because it's presented with an infinitely complex "manifold" as a load, and it's all but mathematically impossible to measure.
It's also bogus--our country's fat. Poor people here aren't poor.
[...]
It also doesn't matter whether businesses invest optimally. Whatever their success rate, it's always better than dissipating the money via consumption.
[...]
Right. It's ordinary consumers who aren't buying, and rationally so.
Pump-priming? A pump moves fluid by force, with massive energy input. The economy isn't a pump and it doesn't have a massive energy input. A free nation's economy is money moving voluntarily, citizens making the best rational decisions they can about their own futures, purchases, and situations. That's by convection, not under pressure.
Keynesian stimulus isn't pump-priming, it's a perpetual motion scheme-- the claim is that robbing Peter will make him produce more (i.e., has a yield greater than 1), and the explanation is that Peter will do this because Paul will give him back part of it.
They throw in a bunch of phase delays and obfuscations to dress it up, but those don't change the fundamentals.
Bill wants to (re)move your money by force and dissipate it because you're not doing what he wants. That's totalitarian.
And it doesn't work. Bill thinks government workers are better, smarter, and can invest more optimally than successful individuals (e.g., businesses). They aren't, and they can't. They're worse.
They don't do what you do, or know what you know. They push paper. They can't possibly choose the best car for you, toilet paper, food, health care, invent stuff, design products or business practices better than you can, and they never will.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.