It Must Be An Election Year, Part II
The Wall Street Journal jumps on my bandwagon:
We’re all for putting more money in the hands of the poor and moderate earners, especially via stronger economic growth that will give them better paying jobs. But the $250 or $500 one-time rebate check they may now receive has to come from somewhere. The feds will pay for it either by taxing or borrowing from someone else, and those people will have that much less to spend or invest themselves. We are thus supposed to believe it is “stimulating” to take money from one pocket and hand it to another.
To put it another way, when the government calculates gross domestic product, it expressly omits transfer payments. It does so because GDP is the total of goods and services produced in the economy, and transfer payments produce no goods and services. The poor will spend those payments on something, but the amount they thus “inject” into the economy will be offset by whatever the government has to tax or borrow to fund the transfers. No wonder stocks sold off yesterday after Mr. Bernanke endorsed this 1970s’ economic show.
A fiscal stimulus that really stimulates would change incentives, and do so permanently so workers and investors can know what to expect and take risks accordingly.
Comments
#1 2008-01-18 15:30 (Reply)
Just vote for Ron Paul and lets stop pussy footing around! God people must still be sleeping WAKE UP
#2 2008-01-18 23:25 (Reply)
"JOANNA: Ok. So you’re gonna make a lot of money, right?
PETER: Yeah.
JOANNA: Ok. That’s not yours?
PETER: Well, it, it becomes ours.
JOANNA: How’s that not stealing?"
Great on so many levels.
The tax rebate “becomes ours”. Which begs the question; how’s that not stealing?