[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Feb, 22:10, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:





On 8 Feb, 19:19, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Feb, 17:16, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

There's some kind of logic in there, I'm sure, but not being an
unthinking bubba redneck I personally cannot fathom it. ;-)-

your views of me are way off base.

But yours of me are not, I suppose. ;-)-

you post anonymously.
In reality, you could be a pimply
14 year old nerd. Who knows?

Not even you are that stupid.

We all know about your views though. On some issues you're progressive
and
open-minded, and on others your mind could be a coffin that's sealed
with
shipwright's nails.

on the stimulus bill
it is little more than a funding source for the liberal agenda of
expanding
government programs. The jibs it creates are not susteianable in'
the economy, and are dependent upon contiunued government funding.
Even the infrastructure posrtion is non sustainable.
\We need a stimulus to kick start the economy woth
activities that can be sustained in the private scetor.
Many of these funded items are desirable, but dont'
be fooled into thinking it has anything to do with
stimulating the economy. It is just a temporary
blip that will disappear once funding is spent
or the project is completed.

I am all in favor of infrastructure and the expansion of
unemplyment insurance eligibility, but it is
not a stimulus for any sort of sustained activity.

Doesn't have to be.

then it appears you are saying we don't need a stimulus
that kicks the economy into sustained growth.

You guess wrong: it doesn't have to be exclusively enabled by "sustained
activity."



if you put an unemployed person to work in
a road construction job that lasts six months, in six months
he is out of work again.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 14, 8:56*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 8 Feb, 22:10, MiNe 109 * wrote:





In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Feb, 19:19, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Feb, 17:16, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

There's some kind of logic in there, I'm sure, but not being an
unthinking bubba redneck I personally cannot fathom it. ;-)-

your views of me are way off base.

But yours of me are not, I suppose. ;-)-

you post anonymously.
In reality, you could be a pimply
14 year old nerd. Who knows?

Not even you are that stupid.

We all know about your views though. On some issues you're progressive
and
open-minded, and on others your mind could be a coffin that's sealed
with
shipwright's nails.

on the stimulus bill
it is little more than a funding source for the liberal agenda of
expanding
government programs. The jibs it creates are not susteianable in'
the economy, and are dependent upon contiunued government funding..
Even the infrastructure posrtion is non sustainable.
\We need a stimulus to kick start the economy woth
activities that can be sustained in the private scetor.
Many of these funded items are desirable, but dont'
be fooled into thinking it has anything to do with
stimulating the economy. It is just a temporary
blip that will disappear once funding is spent
or the project is completed.

I am all in favor of infrastructure and the expansion of
unemplyment insurance eligibility, but it is
not a stimulus for any sort of sustained activity.

Doesn't have to be.

then it appears you are saying we don't need a stimulus
that kicks the economy into sustained growth.

You guess wrong: it doesn't have to be exclusively enabled by "sustained
activity."

if you put an unemployed person to work in
a road construction job that lasts six months, in six months
he is out of work again.

So you've fed a family for six months, they've bought things which
stimulates the economy and you have a new road.

Or you can give them unemployment benefits for six months, or you can
let them starve. What's a compassionate conservative to do? LoL.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

I am all in favor of infrastructure and the expansion of
unemplyment insurance eligibility, but it is
not a stimulus for any sort of sustained activity.

Doesn't have to be.

then it appears you are saying we don't need a stimulus
that kicks the economy into sustained growth.

You guess wrong: it doesn't have to be exclusively enabled by "sustained
activity."



if you put an unemployed person to work in
a road construction job that lasts six months, in six months
he is out of work again.

Brilliant. He's been paying his bills and spending for six months and a
road construction project will contribute to future economic activity.

If no one is spending, the government must.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

I know I'll regret this, but I'm going to try to establish some context for
Clyde's low-wattage dogma.

then it appears you are saying we don't need a stimulus
that kicks the economy into sustained growth.

You guess wrong: it doesn't have to be exclusively enabled by "sustained
activity."

if you put an unemployed person to work in
a road construction job that lasts six months, in six months
he is out of work again.

What could possibly be the purpose of building up the infrastructure? Other
than providing paying jobs for unemployed people, that is.

Think really hard about that one, Sacky. It may come to you. (Especially if
you don't spend any time at Witless's house while thinking about it.)

[Clyde Slick]

On 14 Feb, 12:18, George M. Middius wrote:


What could possibly be the purpose of building up the infrastructure? Other
than providing paying jobs for unemployed people, that is.

Think really hard about that one, Sacky. It may come to you. (Especially if
you don't spend any time at Witless's house while thinking about it.)

sure, it has purpose on its own merits, but the infrastructure
improvements are not a "road" to sustained economic recovery.

We should faciltate the creation of private sector jobs that will
permamanent jobs.

The stimulus package provides temporary funds to
fix some things that are needed and wrok on other things that are
not.
But most of it will not stimulate sustained growth or activity.

The one bright spot I see is talk about finally buying
up the bad loans and rewriting them into something
reasonable that owners can afford.
It should have been done months ago, before Obama came in.
This whole mess is mostly a credit, banking, equitry, and mortgage
crisis.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 14 Feb, 12:18, George M. Middius wrote:


What could possibly be the purpose of building up the infrastructure? Other
than providing paying jobs for unemployed people, that is.

Think really hard about that one, Sacky. It may come to you. (Especially if
you don't spend any time at Witless's house while thinking about it.)

sure, it has purpose on its own merits, but the infrastructure
improvements are not a "road" to sustained economic recovery.

We should faciltate the creation of private sector jobs that will
permamanent jobs.

The stimulus package provides temporary funds to
fix some things that are needed and wrok on other things that are
not.
But most of it will not stimulate sustained growth or activity.

The one bright spot I see is talk about finally buying
up the bad loans and rewriting them into something
reasonable that owners can afford.
It should have been done months ago, before Obama came in.
This whole mess is mostly a credit, banking, equitry, and mortgage
crisis.

You're hung up on the sustained thing. The point is to reduce the depths
of the downturn, quickening the recovery. Once that happens, the
"sustain" takes care of itself.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 14 Feb, 16:03, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:





On 14 Feb, 12:18, George M. Middius wrote:

What could possibly be the purpose of building up the infrastructure? Other
than providing paying jobs for unemployed people, that is.

Think really hard about that one, Sacky. It may come to you. (Especially if
you don't spend any time at Witless's house while thinking about it.)

sure, it has purpose on its own merits, but the infrastructure
improvements are not a "road" to sustained economic recovery.

We should faciltate the creation of private sector jobs that will
permamanent jobs.

The stimulus package provides temporary funds to
*fix some things that are needed and wrok on other things that are
not.
But most of it will not stimulate sustained growth or activity.

The one bright spot I see is talk about finally buying
up the bad loans and rewriting them into something
reasonable that owners can afford.
It should have been done months ago, before Obama came in.
This whole mess is mostly a credit, banking, equitry, and mortgage
crisis.

You're hung up on the sustained thing. The point is to reduce the depths
of the downturn, quickening the recovery. Once that happens, the
"sustain" takes care of itself.


there is no impetus for sustained recovery.
once a public works job is done, you are back
to where you were before. The only lasting thing
created is the infrastructure itself, and an improved road,
as necessary as it may be, does not contribute to sustained
recovery.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 14 Feb, 16:03, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:





On 14 Feb, 12:18, George M. Middius wrote:

What could possibly be the purpose of building up the infrastructure?
Other
than providing paying jobs for unemployed people, that is.

Think really hard about that one, Sacky. It may come to you.
(Especially if
you don't spend any time at Witless's house while thinking about it.)

sure, it has purpose on its own merits, but the infrastructure
improvements are not a "road" to sustained economic recovery.

We should faciltate the creation of private sector jobs that will
permamanent jobs.

The stimulus package provides temporary funds to
*fix some things that are needed and wrok on other things that are
not.
But most of it will not stimulate sustained growth or activity.

The one bright spot I see is talk about finally buying
up the bad loans and rewriting them into something
reasonable that owners can afford.
It should have been done months ago, before Obama came in.
This whole mess is mostly a credit, banking, equitry, and mortgage
crisis.

You're hung up on the sustained thing. The point is to reduce the depths
of the downturn, quickening the recovery. Once that happens, the
"sustain" takes care of itself.


there is no impetus for sustained recovery.
once a public works job is done, you are back
to where you were before. The only lasting thing
created is the infrastructure itself, and an improved road,
as necessary as it may be, does not contribute to sustained
recovery.

It doesn't matter on what the stimulus is spent, so long as it is spent.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/fiscal_policy

Stephen

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On 2009-02-14 15:54:53 -0500, Clyde Slick said:

On 14 Feb, 12:18, George M. Middius wrote:


What could possibly be the purpose of building up the infrastructure? Other
than providing paying jobs for unemployed people, that is.

Think really hard about that one, Sacky. It may come to you. (Especially if
you don't spend any time at Witless's house while thinking about it.)

sure, it has purpose on its own merits, but the infrastructure
improvements are not a "road" to sustained economic recovery.

We should faciltate the creation of private sector jobs that will
permamanent jobs.

The stimulus package provides temporary funds to
fix some things that are needed and wrok on other things that are
not.
But most of it will not stimulate sustained growth or activity.

The one bright spot I see is talk about finally buying
up the bad loans and rewriting them into something
reasonable that owners can afford.
It should have been done months ago, before Obama came in.
This whole mess is mostly a credit, banking, equitry, and mortgage
crisis.

Clyde, there are multipliers at work here. Certain sorts of fiscal and
monetary policies can have what are known as multiplier effects. One of
the things you're trying to do is increase the velocity of the money
supply. Think of that as increasing the numbers of people who get to
":touch" the money."

The construction worker gets paid, buys groceries, goes to the mo vies,
maybe takes his family out to eat (and so on). Each of those activities
takes some of the money paid to the worker and passes it on t others,
who in turn pass that on to others, hence the multiplier effect.

Do enough of this and one actually increases the money supply. How?
Well, enough people buying from a supplier may cause that supplier to
borrow mony to finance new inventory, When that loan is processed, the
bank may literaly be creating new money to make that loan.

If you want a more detailed explanation, e-mail me. It can get fairly
complicated. If you're really intent on rewriting mortgages, you need
to explain what you mean by that. There is huge moral hazard lurking
here. Remember that there's no point in rewriting a mortgage if the
homeowner can't afford the new payments either. If you reduce the
principal thereby making payments smaller, not only will there will be
a huge tax bill due, but you're making fools out of all the people
struggling to pay off their mortgages the old fashioned way.

So what are you proposing? There are ideas out there, but I'd like to
hear yours.

Herbert

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Herbert Hoover said:

When that loan is processed, the
bank may literaly be creating new money to make that loan.

Guh?

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:43:17 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



Herbert Hoover said:

When that loan is processed, the
bank may literaly be creating new money to make that loan.

Guh?


It's a little hard to fathom, isn't it? Think of it this way: every
bank by virtue of its charter, is allowed to lend out a certain
multiple of its assets (i.e. desposits and equity).

Those loans represent "new" money that shows up on the bank's balance
sheet as liabilities and assets, but which have not been specifically
borrowed from the Fed, for example, or raised in a new equity
offering. These loans increase both the money supply and the velocity
of money


Increases in market cap, for example, can dramatically affect a bank's
ability to lend. In effect, it's an increase in the money supply
because increases in market cap allow the bank more room to make
loans.

It's also why the banks are in such trouble. Market caps go up, but
they also come down. When they come down, they throw the ratio of
assets to liabilities way out of whack, hence "technical insolvency."

It's not quite the same as The Treasury printing more money, but in
practice, it's pretty damn close.

Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[Clyde Slick]

On 14 Feb, 21:39, Herbert Hoover wrote:
On 2009-02-14 15:54:53 -0500, Clyde Slick said:





sure, it has purpose on its own merits, but the infrastructure
improvements are not a "road" to sustained economic recovery.

We should faciltate the creation of private sector jobs that will
permamanent jobs.

The stimulus package provides temporary funds to
*fix some things that are needed and wrok on other things that are
not.
But most of it will not stimulate sustained growth or activity.

The one bright spot I see is talk about finally buying
up the bad loans and rewriting them into something
reasonable that owners can afford.
It should have been done months ago, before Obama came in.
This whole mess is mostly a credit, banking, equitry, and mortgage
crisis.

Clyde, there are multipliers at work here. Certain sorts of fiscal and
monetary policies can have what are known as multiplier effects. One of
the things you're trying to do is increase the velocity of the money
supply. Think of that as increasing the numbers of people who get to
":touch" the money."

The construction worker gets paid, buys groceries, goes to the mo vies,
maybe takes his family out to eat (and so on). Each of those activities
takes some of the money paid to the worker and passes it on t others,
who in turn pass that on to others, hence the multiplier effect.


its like bouncing a ball, the bounce gets lower, and it ends.
the construction worker is out od a job again'in three or six months,
he stops buying stuff, the people who sold or made the stuff, there
income drops back down, and they stop buying stuff


Do enough of this and one actually increases the money supply. How?
Well, enough people buying from a supplier may cause that supplier to
borrow mony to finance new inventory, When that loan is processed, the
bank may literaly be creating new *money to make that loan.

\

so you have trouble with the concept tha a permanaent
increase in private sector activity is superior to temporary
government spending that incites a temporary ioncrease
in private sector activity.



* * * * If you want a more detailed explanation, e-mail me. It can get fairly
complicated. If you're really intent on rewriting mortgages, you need
to explain what you mean by that. There is huge moral hazard lurking
here. Remember that there's no point in rewriting a mortgage if the
homeowner can't afford the new payments either. If you reduce the
principal thereby making payments smaller, not only will there will be
a huge tax bill due, but you're making fools out of all the people
struggling to pay off their mortgages the old fashioned way.

* * * * So what are you proposing? There are ideas out there, but I'd like to
hear yours.



that's why it would have been better to start rewriting mortgages
three months
ago. the loans are a liability to the lenders, they are dragging the
institutions down.
Now, institutional and homeowner equity is even lower than it was
three months ago.

Oh, the people paying off their mortgages the old fashioned way are
also being hurt
by 20 to 25% loss in home values, on the margin, that means generally,
a range of 50 to 100%
loss of whatever home equity they HAD. Your argument is based on envy,
that someone gets
soemthing they don't. But not doing it drives everyone down.
Sort of like the idea behind communism, everyone has to suffer
greatly, so that nobody
has an advantage

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

so you have trouble with the concept tha a permanaent
increase in private sector activity is superior to temporary
government spending that incites a temporary ioncrease
in private sector activity.

That reads as if you're advocating permanent government ownership of
industry.

The stimulus is supposed to be temporary.

Stephen

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:55:08 -0800 (PST), Clyde Slick
wrote:


snipped for brevity

Do enough of this and one actually increases the money supply. How?
Well, enough people buying from a supplier may cause that supplier to
borrow mony to finance new inventory, When that loan is processed, the
bank may literaly be creating new *money to make that loan.

\

so you have trouble with the concept tha a permanaent
increase in private sector activity is superior to temporary
government spending that incites a temporary ioncrease
in private sector activity.


er........?????????????

Sure. Fine. Now show me how you intend to increase private sector
investment and spending. No one's quibbling that private sector
spending ain't grand. They're quibbling that there's no effing way to
do it right now. Solve that, and we'll all love and respect you,
Clyde.



* * * * If you want a more detailed explanation, e-mail me. It can get fairly
complicated. If you're really intent on rewriting mortgages, you need
to explain what you mean by that. There is huge moral hazard lurking
here. Remember that there's no point in rewriting a mortgage if the
homeowner can't afford the new payments either. If you reduce the
principal thereby making payments smaller, not only will there will be
a huge tax bill due, but you're making fools out of all the people
struggling to pay off their mortgages the old fashioned way.

* * * * So what are you proposing? There are ideas out there, but I'd like to
hear yours.



that's why it would have been better to start rewriting mortgages
three months
ago. the loans are a liability to the lenders, they are dragging the
institutions down.
Now, institutional and homeowner equity is even lower than it was
three months ago.

What do you mean by "rewriting mortgages? If you'd like, I can post
statistics showing that foreclosures are increasing on rewritten
mortgages (it's sadly true). People are in foreclosure because they've
lost their jobs. At that point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite the
mortgage. They still can't pay it.

Oh, the people paying off their mortgages the old fashioned way are
also being hurt
by 20 to 25% loss in home values, on the margin, that means generally,
a range of 50 to 100%
loss of whatever home equity they HAD. Your argument is based on envy,
that someone gets
soemthing they don't.

??????????????

Er.....no. It's based on the principle of Moral Hazard, and it's based
on political realities. You're beginning to shade over to the 2 pid
side of town now.



But not doing it drives everyone down.
Sort of like the idea behind communism, everyone has to suffer
greatly, so that nobody
has an advantage


?????????????????

So far you haven't explained what you mean by "rewriting mortgages."
Until you're clear on that, there's nothing to respond to.
Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"