Average American

[dairygirl4u2c]

trickle up is a theory, that could work in my opinion if temporary breaks are given. some economists buy this. and i think rightly so.
economists vary in their beliefs soit's no wonder the lay man does.
but mos wuld agree with what i just said.
the idea being that the meony will go the the suppliers eventually anyway, and that'd go to the market, stock market, and circulate as if given directly to the richer.

you could give tax incentive to certain people who do what's good for society.
perosnally, that always made more sense to me than the capital gains tax which is so broad. if you're going to favortism, might as well do it right.

[dairygirl4u2c]

actually what i said is said effectively at wikipedia too

[quote]Traditional neoclassical economics literature assumes that markets are always efficient except for some limited and well defined market failures; Stiglitz et al. more recent studies reverse that presumption: it is only under exceptional circumstances that markets are efficient. Stiglitz (and Greenwald)[4] have shown that "whenever markets are incomplete and /or information is imperfect (which are true in virtually all economies), even competitive market allocation is not constrained Pareto efficient". In other words, there almost always exists schemes of government intervention which can induce Pareto superior outcomes, thus making everyone better off.[4] Empirical evidence on the pervasiveness of these market failures is lacking.[citation needed] Although these conclusions and the pervasiveness of market failures do not necessarily warrant the state intervening broadly in the economy, it makes clear that the "optimal" range of government recommendable interventions is definitely much larger than the traditional "market failure" school recognizes[5] For Stiglitz there is no such thing as an "invisible hand".[6]

Whenever there are “externalities”—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well. But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always.
The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government. Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance will differ from time to time and place to place.[7]
In the opening remarks for his prize acceptance "Aula Magna",[8] Stiglitz said:

"I hope to show that Information Economics represents a fundamental change in the prevailing paradigm within economics. Problems of information are central to understanding not only market economics but also political economy, and in the last section of this lecture, I explore some of the implications of information imperfections for political processes." Stiglitz, Aula Magna
In an interview, Stiglitz explained further:

"The theories that I (and others) helped develop explained why unfettered markets often not only do not lead to social justice, but do not even produce efficient outcomes. Interestingly, there has been no intellectual challenge to the refutation of Adam Smith’s invisible hand: individuals and firms, in the pursuit of their self-interest, are not necessarily, or in general, led as if by an invisible hand, to economic efficiency".[9][/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

as per the stimulus bill, or any government policy for that matter, usually, the devil is in teh details.

te only place the devil is not usually in the details, is with people who are extremeists, often cookie cutter liberals/conservatives. does it help the environment? it's opposed by the coookie cutter conservative. etc.
most of the news should be insulting to anyone of decent intelligence. it's so rhetorial and empty as to be meaningless.

that's why new york times etc are renowned for what they do, they have godo articles.

'there's a train system being built with the stimulus' - this might be good or it might be bad, it depends on the stiuation.
and probably local econoics etc, which is why subsidiarity is so good presumptively.
but, it's not in my opinion something that should stay at the local level in an emergyncy like now economically.

you see, there's so much nuance that's to be put into a good bill, that we necessarily could not know what it's all about. it seems pretty fundamental to say 'here is the budget with this much applied to that' etc, and then have a guy from both sides do it, to have a godo idea of what it's all about. etc
a good reason to insult obama, xause it passed so fast ya don't have time to study it.
but, he might reason that we just need to spend and the money will work itself into the economy.
that may be true, but there's surely more effecitve ways to do it, etc.
so ultimatley he was not the best leader at what he did.


just an example. yeah media by and large smells of elderberries.

[txdinghysailor]

I don't pay attention to politics at all. I didn't know Obama won until noon on the day after the election. I had no clue he gave the State of the Union address last week. If you asked me who the VP was I couldn't tell you without thinking hard about it. I figure that no matter who's in charge, it doesn't change my job right now, which is to succeed at school. Even when I graduate, there's still going to be people who need rescuing, no matter which party's in charge.