Video added below.

“Obama’s stimulus plan makes as much sense as paying my wife and kids to work for me to increase the cash flow in our household.” — Pete Martinez, responding to “Barack Obama-san.”…

If only our teachers would see and show this to our kids.

Sorry, cheapseat. The “teachers” are too busy “teaching” kids this, and this, and this.

John Maynard Keynes is dead wrong…

Well, he was right about this:

“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

That last line it telling. It proves that John Adams was right when he said this:

“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in the Constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”

Which proves what AlohaGuy said when someone stated this – People don’t understand what the hell is going on.

Then the NEA has been successful.

Can anyone say deflation (or stag-deflation)? Enjoy!

yeah we’re going back to the 70s…polyester, bell-bottoms, disco…oh yeah lets party

The TARP money approved to date has been intended for the so-called “rescue” of the financial system. The idea is to prop up a necessary utility in the economy that provides for the circulation of money, improving velocity between traders on both streets. Allocating any of that money to a non-financial sector company like the autos sets a dangerous precedent. If we’re going to support one industry, why not others?

The UAW bailout does not end with a “bridge loan”. The big 3 don’t work. At least 2/3 of them are hopelessly lost. This first round of subsidy will be noticed by foreign competitors, but may go without a severe response. However, the eventual endgame to the current scenario where the auto makers are making cars they can’t sell – warehousing them on dealership lots and empty fields in the mid west – is to subsidize the manufacturer to the point at which they are selling cars BELOW THE MARGINAL COST OF PRODUCTION. It is then that foreign competition responds quite negatively, and it is then that we have a new trade war.

Can anyone say deflation (or stag-deflation)? Enjoy!

Moreover, pushing capital into the banks is a supply side tactic, is it not?

No it isn’t. Lowering taxes, especially capital gains taxes is a supply side tactic, not increasing the supply of money (which only reduces the value of the money already in cirulation).

the problem is you have to tax or borrow those funds from somewhere and that aspect has its implications upon an economy-all negative.

It’s statements like these that show the economic ignorance of the opposing viewpoint.

Taxing in and of itself is not negative to the economy and neither is debt. Both occur in growing companies (overhead and debt) and neither is automatically negative to the growth of a company. In fact, companies almost ALWAYS borrow to grow.

Governments can IMPROVE the efficiency of the economy through taxation and debt…..via security, infrastructure, education, benefits, etc. A some point those “services” help the rest of the economy grow faster than it would otherwise.

It’s EXCESSIVE taxing and EXCESSIVE debt that is the problem, defined as the point where they reduce economic efficiency. Our real debt is around 38% of GDP. As you saw in his video, Japan’s debt is creeping towards 140% of GDP. We aren’t excessive.

My problem with the video is the notion that economic stimuli don’t work. The goal of the recent stimuli was not to grow the economy as defined by the video, it was to help STOP the deterioration of the situation, which it did…..as did the tax cuts in 2002. Moving the money around via these mechanisms CAN help the situation…and has.

Moreover, pushing capital into the banks is a supply side tactic, is it not? The concept is to stuff the system with capital at the top and then let it trickle down through the system via investment.