Comments on: Fiscal Stimulus Lag

By: Drew

Drew — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:10:53 +0000

Dave and Steve (and I know you already know this) - the 1/3 (at least) of the package is the tolling cost of a government intervention. By its very nature, it is not optimized, it is burdened with the political cost. I love quips. The best relevant one is Milton Friedman's (paraphrased from memory) - "I know I'm paying two dollars for every dollar of defense I get, after all its the government. But what is the alternative?" This inefficiency, or tolling cost, is one of the prime arguments for minimizing the role of government. And in the current situation, I believe there is an alternative.......and this "stimulus package" is a travesty.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:30:54 +0000

Raoul,

Read Dave Schuler's post. Twice. Then flip the switch on the back of your head to turn on your brain.

Pete,

If you are talking about Hall and Rabushka's fair tax then you are preaching to the choir here...at least with regards to me.

By: Pete Burgess

Pete Burgess — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:01:00 +0000

You want to know what will work? Try the Fair Tax. People will get to keep their whole paycheck. Corporations do away with income taxes, compliance costs and all other federal income tax costs. 16 trillion dollars parked offshore would come home. Give it a read. It can work.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:41:16 +0000

I'm glad you brought this up, Steve, since it save me the trouble. Seems to me the reasonable course of action is to abandon the non-productive 1/3. If it's needed later, it can be done later. Honestly, I think that anything that can't be fully disbursed in 2009 ought to be scrapped as counter-productive.

Adding to the interest burden isn't just unproductive.

By: Raoul

Raoul — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:40:20 +0000

I got to give it to naysayers- if O proposed a limited program, say like Clinton did with a 100,000 new policemen funded for two years-people will criticize the program because it was not properly funded- so know the president does fund a program for longer (BTW: how long did it take to build the Wilson bridge) and voila- new criticism- let's be real here- anything and everything can be criticized. Now - I love the non-sequitur that O is not interested in ending the recession because you just do not happen to agree with him- I wonder if you thought we were in a recession a year ago. I prefer to just use my intellectual acuity and observe and profess what many economist are saying: we simply are not sure what would work best- specially when most monetary tools have been used by the prior administration. Some humility is in order.