Keynes Is Dead

[Gaspar]

The rest of the story - the 30 billion assistance for small business was something the Dem and Rep agree on.  Something McCain and Palin campaigned on.  Until it comes time to "put up or shut up".  Then it's just the same old 'party of no'.

Like cap and trade - again a major campaign issue of McCain/Palin.  Until the Dem's agreed and said yes, let's do that.  Then it's again just the same old 'party of no'.

But I wouldn't expect it to be any other way.

Don't really care what letter is behind their name.  They are taking money from businesses, then turning around and offering it as loans to businesses.  It is distribution of waste.

[nathanm]

There is this old saying about gift horses and mouths. You might want to look into it.

Furthermore, I'm sure you're quite aware of the large budget deficit we're running. You might consider that much of the money is, in fact, not coming from taxpayers, but from people who are buying bonds, hopefully to be repaid with inflated dollars.

[Conan71]

There is this old saying about gift horses and mouths. You might want to look into it.

Furthermore, I'm sure you're quite aware of the large budget deficit we're running. You might consider that much of the money is, in fact, not coming from taxpayers, but from people who are buying bonds, hopefully to be repaid with inflated dollars.

Does that make it somehow better?  Lending borrowed money?

[nathanm]

Does that make it somehow better?  Lending borrowed money?

Uh, how do you think banks work?

[Conan71]

Uh, how do you think banks work?

No smile Superrnate.  The government doesn't need to be in that business.

[Red Arrow]

No smile Superrnate.  The government doesn't need to be in that business.

Too late.

[nathanm]

No smile Superrnate.  The government doesn't need to be in that business.

The government has been lending money to small business through the SBA since at least the 80s. This is not new.

Personally, I think it's a far better use of money than more hundred million dollar a pop fighter jets, but that's just me (Don't get me wrong, I think modern fighters are freaking awesome, but the ROI is very poor)

[Red Arrow]

(Don't get me wrong, I think modern fighters are freaking awesome, but the ROI is very poor)

\

To paraphrase a credit card ad:

Some returns are priceless.

[Conan71]

The government has been lending money to small business through the SBA since at least the 80s. This is not new.

Personally, I think it's a far better use of money than more hundred million dollar a pop fighter jets, but that's just me (Don't get me wrong, I think modern fighters are freaking awesome, but the ROI is very poor)

How is the ROI poor when it provides high-paying private sector jobs for engineers, IT people, manufacturing, plus all the ancillary jobs created from the manufacture, sale, and ongoing maintenance?  It does create productivity and the government is able to help provide one of the primary objectives we expect of government: national security.

Whether we like it or not, defense spending has proven to be an economic bonanza over the last century and has helped create many high-tech industries without which many of us would not have the jobs we do or at very least a demand for products we sell.  It's mind-boggling how much money a base like Tinker or Vance dumps into the local and state economies.  There are many civilian jobs on base as well. 

Again, not my first choice for a way to stimulate an economy, but it appears to be effective.  I've often wondered how much longer it would have taken to get out of the Great Depression if it weren't for our involvement in WWII.  Many inventions for defense during the 1940's helped provide higher tech peacetime jobs after the war was over as we figured out how to apply those technologies to things we could use in our everyday lives.

[nathanm]

I wasn't talking about jets in a Keynesian sense, I was talking about the cost for what we get in useful military power. We need fighter jets, to be sure, but the ones we're buying now are arguably too much more advanced over what the rest of the world has to justify the expense.

[Conan71]

I wasn't talking about jets in a Keynesian sense, I was talking about the cost for what we get in useful military power. We need fighter jets, to be sure, but the ones we're buying now are arguably too much more advanced over what the rest of the world has to justify the expense.

They should be much more advanced.  I don't see there being such a thing as "too much more advanced".

[nathanm]

They should be much more advanced.  I don't see there being such a thing as "too much more advanced".

Well, there comes a point at which you're spending a lot more money for little extra gain. (TSA strikes me as a great example of this in action)

After all, it's physically possible to build Reagan's vision of SDI. I don't really see the point, though.

[Conan71]

That's what they call a deterrent...

"Don't love with us, our military equipment is far superior"

I realize that doesn't seem to register with all despots and asshats

[Red Arrow]

I wasn't talking about jets in a Keynesian sense, I was talking about the cost for what we get in useful military power. We need fighter jets, to be sure, but the ones we're buying now are arguably too much more advanced over what the rest of the world has to justify the expense.

Let's back off on our technology to give the other side a fair chance in a battle.

NOT!

[Red Arrow]

Well, there comes a point at which you're spending a lot more money for little extra gain. (TSA strikes me as a great example of this in action)

After all, it's physically possible we don't know how to build Reagan's vision of SDI. I don't really see the point, though.