How will the economy respond to the stimulus?

[GREENBACK]

We nationalized our railroads and our airport security (on 9/11) and to our amazement, we weren't all of the sudden calling each other Komrade.

We "nationalized" them? Weren't they already under the scope of the transportaion safety board which is, of course, a federal agency. We simply made them do a more thorough job. I'm mainly talking about economic systems since I do believe national security is the job of the gov't. I'll repharse my previous post: Show me a nationalized econmic system that has worked better than the US system? I hate what has happened on wall street but to let the gov't take over things is cutting our noses off to spite our faces...IMHO.

If the gov't takes control, all promises and guarantees are out the window. Just ask the Indian nations.

[zakity]

[QUOTE][Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldy1
stock swill

I know this was a typo but it just struck me as funny./QUOTE]

You weren't the only one. I got a good chuckle from it also.

[Scanner]

I wasn't proposing a nationalized economy, just nationalizing the banks. It's just people hear nationalization and then they react with the USSR and China rhetoric courtesy of Rush Limbaugh.

If you actually want to bear witness to a socialized system of gov't outperforming a capitalistic gov't. . .one could argue China's growth and Europes "Euro" are proof of that.

Personally, I am tired of the ideologues running the country. I am Generation X and like Obama, want solutions that are pragmatic and yes, if that means "temporary socialism" (horrors!), I don't care.

You would be even surprised that Ben Stein, noted Conservative, even agrees with me. Nationalize them for 5 years and then auction them off to the private sector at the end of 5 years. The taxpayor could even come out ahead.

C'mon - fess up.

You have 2 banks -

1. Chase Bank who sends you free credit cards every month

or

2. Bank of the United States

which bank would you be more confident in? 9 out 10 people would pick #2 and that's what this is all about - confidence.

And in the end, it may even be cheaper than this bailout where we just keep sending money in and they keep skirting guidelines to get CEO's more than the pittance 500K/year they must subsist on. If you nationalize them, you fire them all. . .I kinda like that idea.

[disneysteve]

Bank of the United States

I grew up in Philadelphia and I've always wondered about something (but never bothered to research it). In Philly, some of the famous buildings in the historic section of town are the First Bank of the United States and the Second Bank of the United States (or something to that effect). Were those early banks private enterprises or were they government-run institutions?

[GREENBACK]

Steve

I'm a little bit of a history buff but not an expert by any means. I believe the 1st bank AKA bank of the united states was what gave us the U.S. mint among many other federal things. I believe it was established when Thomas Jefferson was the secretary of state and Alexander Hamilton was president. I remember reading that one of the priorities of congress was that this be a private bank although it was created by the gov't. Don't remember many details beyond that but this sticks out in my mind

[snafu]

I thought all this money was to go to rebuilding crumbling highways, bridges, water plants, wind turbines under the umbrella of infastructure. This would benefit everyone and provide an enormous variety of jobs right across the country. Funding is needed for new methods of treating waste and creating 'green' energy.

Was all that empty PR words?

[GREENBACK]

I wasn't proposing a nationalized economy, just nationalizing the banks. It's just people hear nationalization and then they react with the USSR and China rhetoric courtesy of Rush Limbaugh.

If you actually want to bear witness to a socialized system of gov't outperforming a capitalistic gov't. . .one could argue China's growth and Europes "Euro" are proof of that.

Personally, I am tired of the ideologues running the country. I am Generation X and like Obama, want solutions that are pragmatic and yes, if that means "temporary socialism" (horrors!), I don't care.

You would be even surprised that Ben Stein, noted Conservative, even agrees with me. Nationalize them for 5 years and then auction them off to the private sector at the end of 5 years. The taxpayor could even come out ahead.

C'mon - fess up.

You have 2 banks -

1. Chase Bank who sends you free credit cards every month

or

2. Bank of the United States

which bank would you be more confident in? 9 out 10 people would pick #2 and that's what this is all about - confidence.

And in the end, it may even be cheaper than this bailout where we just keep sending money in and they keep skirting guidelines to get CEO's more than the pittance 500K/year they must subsist on. If you nationalize them, you fire them all. . .I kinda like that idea.

China's not outperforming us. China's former booming economy was because of us(been to walmart lately). The Euro has lost a whole lot of ground lately because of what's happening here. I am a libetarian in terms of gov't control. I get it that you're a gen x'er. But don't buy into this change for the sake of change nonsense. I to want change I can believe in and if Obama shows me that then I'll start buying into it. He's rehashing what Franklin Roosevelt did 70+ years ago.

Believe you me, there ain't no such animal as temporary socialism.

[EEinNJ]

You would be even surprised that Ben Stein, noted Conservative, even agrees with me. Nationalize them for 5 years and then auction them off to the private sector at the end of 5 years. The taxpayor could even come out ahead.

C'mon - fess up.

You have 2 banks -

1. Chase Bank who sends you free credit cards every month

or

2. Bank of the United States

which bank would you be more confident in? 9 out 10 people would pick #2 and that's what this is all about - confidence.

And in the end, it may even be cheaper than this bailout where we just keep sending money in and they keep skirting guidelines to get CEO's more than the pittance 500K/year they must subsist on. If you nationalize them, you fire them all. . .I kinda like that idea.

Ben Stein is a Fool. Very funny actor, but not an economist. I remember his comments on "Sunday Morning" last year, early on in the subprime crisis. He maintained it would not be a problem at all, because, according to him, the amount of subprime loans was a tiny portion of the overall mortgage market.

Here's an idea: When governments need to raise money, they sell bonds. Right now, there's lots of cash on the sidelines because investors are afraid of risk. Why not issue mortgage bonds? (I think GNMA already does this) Pay a much higher interest rate than Treasuries, and guarantee them. Sell them only to US citizens, no corporations or foreign investors. Use the proceeds to buy up mortgages and eliminate the "Toxic" mortgage backed securities. The loan servicers and banks know exactly who owes what on their mortgage, so I don't believe this is too hard to figure out.

[sweeps]

Believe you me, there ain't no such animal as temporary socialism.

EVERYTHING is temporary.

[Scanner]

Here's an idea: When governments need to raise money, they sell bonds. Right now, there's lots of cash on the sidelines because investors are afraid of risk.

No, that's the problem - there is no cash. That's why they are printing it.

There is a good article in Newsweek this month "We are Socialists Now" and it outlines how we got here. Much to the chagrin of Boomers and Conservatives, it was courtesy Ronald Reagan and Reaganomics.

The last line said it well - the Obama Administration is in a paradox - it must borrow and spend to fix the mess that was caused by borrowing and spending in the first place (reaganomics).

Yeah, I'm a GenXer and proud of it - we are charged with fixing the mess the Boomers have created and it's a big mess.

[EEinNJ]

No, that's the problem - there is no cash. That's why they are printing it.

There is a good article in Newsweek this month "We are Socialists Now" and it outlines how we got here. Much to the chagrin of Boomers and Conservatives, it was courtesy Ronald Reagan and Reaganomics.

The last line said it well - the Obama Administration is in a paradox - it must borrow and spend to fix the mess that was caused by borrowing and spending in the first place (reaganomics).

Yeah, I'm a GenXer and proud of it - we are charged with fixing the mess the Boomers have created and it's a big mess.

What you're saying about cash is not true:
Cash on sidelines now 74% of stocks' value; 18-year high | Money & Company | Los Angeles Times

Boomers! I resemble that remark. I can assure you, we as a demographic did not create the mess. You are probably too young to remember double-digit interest rates, inflation under Ford, stagflation under Carter. Reagan did indeed run up the deficit, perpetuated under Bush I. Clinton balanced the budget. We all know what happened in the last 8 years. Every generation and administration has it's economic challenges. The next one will inherit a mind-boggling deficit. The US is still far from socialism, despite what Newsweek opinion pieces say.

[tripods68]

Government needs backstop all the toxic asset and provide with greater transparency, how and when. Fractional reserve monetary system that we have consumer need to start borrowing responsibly again, so banks can create new money as debt. No debt = no money

The stimulus will have some impact in the few years, but the economy is so BIG that it won't have an immediate impact.

[grand_canyon]

If you've ever read Naked Economics, I agree with their theory that a shift in one part of the economy will cause a shift to another part of the economy. For example, interest rates drop housing explodes. Gas prices increase ethanol production increases, the cost of corn increases thus we pay more for food. The stimulus will effect something and it'll cause some sector to become overheated and it'll crash. It's just a matter of which one. I don't think anyone really knows.

[Pitman]

I don't think anyone really knows.

That sums up all the conversations/analysis/reviews/expectations that's I've heard regarding this bill.

[kork13]

That sums up all the conversations/analysis/reviews/expectations that's I've heard regarding this bill.

Yea, I've got next to zero confidence that this bill is the best thing that the Congress can put together for the country.... It kills me that one party is strongarm-ing the bill through, despite the absolute disagreement of the other party (which represents nearly half of the country).... I don't even care which party is which, just the simple fact that one faction is overpowering the other to push it through.... if nearly half the country disagrees with a bill (especially of this magnitude), isn't it worth modifying it in order to make it more acceptable to the nation at large?

I don't know about anyone else, but it's a rare voice that I hear (read, etc.) in support of this bill.... well, outside of the congress/white house, at least....