A Good Economic Stimulus plan
-
Peace,
Instead of giving these huge corporations hundres of billions of dollars of our money. Why have we not given taxpayers approximately 100,000 dollars each to pay off all of their loans and to stimulate the economy the way an economy SHOULD be stimulated. What lives, lives. What dies, dies. And those who have been layed off can play it smart until they get a stable job again. Why can't we take out loans on the money we will ALL pay in the future? Why is this not feasible? I know it is!
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Instead of giving these huge corporations hundres of billions of dollars of our money. Why have we not given taxpayers approximately 100,000 dollars each to pay off all of their loans and to stimulate the economy the way an economy SHOULD be stimulated. What lives, lives. What dies, dies. And those who have been layed off can play it smart until they get a stable job again. Why can't we take out loans on the money we will ALL pay in the future? Why is this not feasible? I know it is!
Godbless,
AnwarVery good point. I suspect it has something to do with huge corporations making donations to political campaigns.
-
Peace,
Instead of giving these huge corporations hundres of billions of dollars of our money. Why have we not given taxpayers approximately 100,000 dollars each to pay off all of their loans and to stimulate the economy the way an economy SHOULD be stimulated. What lives, lives. What dies, dies. And those who have been layed off can play it smart until they get a stable job again. Why can't we take out loans on the money we will ALL pay in the future? Why is this not feasible? I know it is!
Godbless,
AnwarFun idea, but...
There are aprox. 138 million tax payers in the US.
The total money that would be given by the government = 138,000,000 x 100,000 = 13,800,000,000,000 = 13.8 trillion dollars. This would, no doubt about it, stimulate the economy (aggregate demand would increase significantly), however, eventually tax payers have to pay the money back due to the huge government debt. And guess how that is going to happen... increase in taxes. Also, dont forget that Obama is planning a health care reform. When fully phased-in, it's going to cost between $50 and $65 billion a year - more government debt... and who can guess who is going to pay that back to the gov'ment in the future... -
Anwar, I am very surprised by your comments. I thought you would have been clued up on how the money system works.
I strongly recommend the videos 'money as debt' and 'the money masters', viewable online. They effectively explain the process of money and how situations like these come about. The latter video had a profound impact on my world view of the money system. In fact, I would go as far as to say it is the most important documentary I've ever seen, by a mile.
The reason for the bailout seems quite simple. To not do it would have resulted in a collapse of the current financial system.... which is no bad thing in my view, but obviously for those who do not see a problem with fiat currency and the usury system, it would have been a disaster.
Also, central banks (which are private companies) require boom/bust cycles in order for them to accumulate wealth/resources so it is in their best interests to propagate the system, but not let it collapse.A lot of focus seems to be on banks and the banking system at the moment, so this is prime opportunity to spread the word for reform, but this is a finite window. Within a few years, it will be gone I think.
-
A lot of focus seems to be on banks and the banking system at the moment, so this is prime opportunity to spread the word for reform, but this is a finite window. Within a few years, it will be gone I think.
Glad to hear it
peace
-
Peace,
I understand the REAL reasons behind all of these bailouts and such. Wakas and Rev. John point it out the best. But when their reasons are LIES like 'We need to stimulate the economy', 'people have too many default loans not being paid', and 'consumers need to spend more' then I say why don't they give US the money. As we are the key to all this spending and loan paying that needs to be done in order for the economy to be stimulated. In the end we will have to pay it back, but that does not mean MORE taxes. A good deal of that money will also go to local and federal taxes due to the things being bought and/or the business that are started. It means continued taxes but not necessarily tax increases. As for the 138 million tax payers and the 13.8 trillion dollars, fair enough. I personally would say it applies to people who have payed taxes for the past 3 years. I'm not sure how much that would drive the figure down but as you said, progressive, it definitely would stimulate the economy. And as I said WE would pay OURSELVES back. It is essentially a loan on the taxes we will pay anyway. The government borrows these sums from someone else and our tax dollars go to pay those loans (and their interests) back. But again if the whole issue has to do with the consumers and their defaulted loans and lack of spending, that is the perfect solution. That is how you inject money into the economy and stimulate it. Also a one time injection like this I think will be too quick for inflation. General raises in pay are one thing, as they are long term and inflation can rise in order to equalize the average raises in wages. BUT quick injections like that, I think, will be too quick for companies to react to by raising prices. That's why it is advantageous for these big companies to get the money first and trickle it down. Thereby they get all the benefits of the value of that money before it diffuses into the all facets of the economy and producers react to rising wages (or a steadily rising presence of the currency) by raising their prices (in order to take advantage of this steady presence of more currency).
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Instead of giving these huge corporations hundres of billions of dollars of our money. Why have we not given taxpayers approximately 100,000 dollars each to pay off all of their loans and to stimulate the economy the way an economy SHOULD be stimulated. What lives, lives. What dies, dies. And those who have been layed off can play it smart until they get a stable job again. Why can't we take out loans on the money we will ALL pay in the future? Why is this not feasible? I know it is!
Godbless,
AnwarThe problem is that if you don't bail out the banks, they will go bust, and then even if you've given everyone 100,000 dollars it won't be any use because they won't be able to put it in any bank and so will just have to hide it under their beds. And what use will it be there? Businesses can't operate without using cheques and bank transfers. They need to borrow money somehow - and they can't get it from ordinary taxpayers if ordinary taxpayers are hiding their ?100,000 under their beds.
-
People will put the 100,000 dollars in the banks of their choice. Small banks who have not and will not go bust would have done just fine. If enough people put money in any particular bank (even a big one) that ensures the banks' survival. Anyway with the news out about which banks will have failed, any one possessing money would have been stupid to put or keep their 100 grand in a failing bank. You get me?
Godbless,
Anwar -
Nobody knew which bank was going to fail before it happened, that kind of information was not in the domain of anyone without a crystal ball. Not ever the directors of that bank. Because this collapse was nothing to do with the profitability of the institution - many of the banks which needed to be bailed out were profitable. It was about their cash flow, they relied upon being able to borrow, and when there was no longer any money to borrow, they couldn't pay their debts. It is the inevitable result of creating money through borrowing and lending that when to many people want their money back at the same time it can't be done.
In terms of putting 100k or another appropriate amount into everyone's bank account, you could do that, but then you'd be accused of tax and spend socialism. I'm not sure about the American government but the British government only gave the banks' a loan (i.e. buying "bonds", they didn't give away free money.
-
Yeah, and that is what I am talking about. If you are going to give away free money then give it to the people, not the institutions. As for people knowing which banks were failing and which weren't, the need for the bailout is when people KNEW what was going wrong with which banks. So as I said if we were going to give away free money to save banks or stimulate the economy, we should give it to the people. I know about the excuse that would be given. But a lot can be said about government giving free money (at our expense) to big private institutions. WE, atleast, could pay the money back with future taxes.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Wakas,
Thanks for that info. I'm more clued up on the financial institutions and the mechanics of fiat currency now. I think your suggestions started my learning process. I wish I had known what I learned in 2010 a lot earlier. But i had the shroud of everything is normal and the way it always has been and always will be over my head. I was even resistant to the idea as a possible exaggeration of things. I know better now. Thanks. I wish I had listened to you and others a long tiime ago and not balked at those ideas in my head as most likely fringe, crazy talk.
Godbless,
Anwar
