the broken window fallacy is on the 2nd page of any intro econ textbook. basically, a shopkeeper’s window is broken and those who believe in unintended consequences say, “well, at least it will provide jobs and income for the repairman.” an economist will respond, “well, the shopkeeper could and would have spent that money in other ways.”
While essentially accurate, the problem with this, however, is that it doesn’t take into account that the government is capable of allocating funds in ways that individuals are not, particularly when uncertainty and insecurity are high like in times of recession.
[quote]AdamDrew wrote:
This is a ridiculous title for the vid. Why do people find it so hard to maintain a balanced perspective on politics, everyone is eventually attracted to the extremes. That goes for every schmuck here who reduces anyones views to “bat shit crazy”.
Regarding the first vid, it’s definitely not a question that money spent on unemployment insurance helps the economy. People who need money badly who are given it will spend it quickly. Period. Additionally, it’s at least arguable that unemployment insurance can assist people looking for jobs and provide them with additional resources.
This other vid is just absolutely taken out of context. She’s saying that with national health insurance some artists would find it easier to quit their day job and pursue their passions. This is absolutely true, being an artist is often a constant struggle between paying the bills and doing what you love. Is that really so hard to understand?
Seems like not much ever changes around here.
Good for all those people, they would be really lucky to not be burdened with absurd health care costs more than double that of any other industrialized nation. In the end you have to do what you love. At least we know that the musicians and actors will be contributing something valuable to society through their art.
Edit: A general flaw your making is suggesting that artists/musicians/actors make the same contribution to society as a bird watcher, a porn actress, and a soap opera watcher. You also suggest that they all take the same amount of creative energy. Why don’t you address that when you clarify your point.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Good for all those people, they would be really lucky to not be burdened with absurd health care costs…[/quote]
No, you’re right, they won’t. But someone else will be when the burden is shifted to them.
You see, Tanker Baby the Re-Distributor, the burden doesn’t just “go away.”[quote]
…In the end you have to do what you love. At least we know that the musicians and actors will be contributing something valuable to society through their art.[/quote]
I see you are drawing the lines rather strictly…limiting “art” to musicians and actors. What about the potter? The dog musher? The sailor? The sumo wrestler? The beekeeper? The blacksmith?
Who actually gets to go play (and contribute to society through their art) and who has to actually harness up and pull the wagon?
[/quote]
Well the burdens don’t seem to be in most other industrialized nations who happen to live longer and healthier than us sweety push. Seems like there are unnecessary burdens that can go away.
Anyway, relief from health care costs would be good news for any of those people you or I mentioned for the obvious reasons. Musicians and actors just happen to contribute more economically and socially to this country than dog sled mushers and porn stars. Probs why Pelosi was talking to them. Again, what’s your point? Mine was that the video was absurdly biased.
[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
While I certainly agree that Pelosi is lacking in the intelligence department, what she is trying to say in that video is true. Millions of people have lost their jobs and therefore have no income (aka money to spend). Businesses are laying off employees because demand for products and services have decreased.
The point of stimulus spending is to “stimulate” the economy and poor people spend virtually all of their income. If you give a million dollars to poor people then you will have a million dollars in spending aka demand (it actually ends up bringing more than a million in demand because that spending will in turn get spent again). On the other hand if you give a million dollars to relatively wealthy people (aka Bush tax cuts) they would probably save at least some of it which means that a million in stimulus spending would result in less than a million in demand. What I think Pelosi was trying to say is that you literally get more bang for your buck by spending on unemployment rather than in other ways.
Now there’s also moral and societal aspects to consider. There is certainly substance to the argument that unemployment compensation leads to more poverty, but under the circumstances facing our country right now it is one of the best ways to create demand. [/quote]
No. Rich people do not put their money under a mattress. Rich people invest their money. They loan to start up business, they invest in the market and even the money that is put in a bank doesn’t sit there. Banks use that money to loan to customers to start a business, or buy a house, or expand a business, ect.
You know nothing about the way the economy works. Do you really thing buying groceries is more productive for the economy than investing?
LOL - the burdens of healthcare costs . . .
let me let you all in on a big secret . . . the government is not paying for healthcare . . . YOU ARE . . . its called taxes . . . all you’ve managed to do is to allow the governemt to take your money and decide how to spend it for you and you call it freedom from the burdens - LMAO - ya’ll’re stupid . . .
The video is mislabeled? I thought I understood english pretty well. I’ll quote her for those that are obviously biased.
“Now let me say about UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, we talk about it as a safety net, this is one of the BIGGEST STIMULUSES to our economy. Economonists will tell you that this money is spent quickly, it injects demand into the economy and is JOB CREATIVE. It CREATES JOBS faster than almost any other initiative you can name, because again it is money needed for families to survive and it is spent. So it has double benefit. It helps those that have lost their jobs but it is also a JOB CREATOR.” I think the video name is dead on. Option 1: lower taxes enabling small businesses to invest money where they see fit on construction, additional human or material resources, stocks, etc. Small businesse employ over half the population by the way. Option 2: take money from the producers, PAY a govt entity to take in and redistribute the funds to those they see fit. How much does it cost to run the unemployment program? It’s run by our federal govt, so waste and punctuality are probably not big concerns. How much of this money is given to people that do not need it? There are people that need unemployment. However, I bet an investigation into every wellfare recipient would result in the findings that 25-33% of them do not need it and are just lazy. To me, unemployment creates stagnation. They give you enough to get by which amazingly is the same amount to quash your ambitions of finding another job. I don’t understand how one of the most famous sayings that makes perfect sense to everyone on the planet, “give a man a fish”, can be banished from the mind when people think they are “helping” some by stealing from others. Pertaining to the artists’ healthcare video, her comments could be aimed directly at a very small percantage of the population. I think her message comes of as “Don’t worry about financial obligations and do what you want.” This falls in with the “someone else will pay for it” mentality that I so adamantly hate. Lastly, Schlenkatank…you are bat diarrhea crazy.