Stimulus/Response

[vovat]

I saw a sign at a RV sales lot the other day saying that, if you spend your stimulus check there, you can get an additional 10% off. Is it just me, or does anyone else find the stimulus sales to be pretty amusing? While I'm not about to turn down the money (assuming I get any; if what I hear about the system they're using is accurate, I won't know for a while yet), isn't it kind of a stupid system to give people money and then HOPE they spend it on the right things? If they really want people to spend it on RVs and big-screen TVs, why don't they just give the money directly to the manufacturers of such products? Not that I'm recommending that course of action by any means, just that it would cut out the unpredictable middleman. It's sort of like the whole supply-side (AKA trickle-down) economics system, which trusts that corporations will use the money they save from tax cuts to benefit the workers, rather than to send their executives on expensive vacations or something. Dropping dollar bills out of an airplane would probably be about as effective as far as aiding the economy as a whole goes. Also, I hear that the stimulus package is actually a rebate on a person's 2008 taxes. I don't think that means it comes out of our refunds for next year, but I can't say I really understand how that is supposed to work. Of course, tax cuts are the Bush administration's answer to everything. Well, tax cuts and faith-based initiatives. Maybe they think God will make sure the money is distributed properly. Oh, and speaking of dumb tax cuts, what about that gas tax break some politicians are talking about? Aside from the fact that it apparently wouldn't actually save anyone much of anything, notice how it only affects the small part of what we pay that DOESN'T go to the oil companies, which is pretty much the opposite of what I would want. Anything to get out of increasing wages, helping people to find jobs, and regulating corporations, right?

Comments

[nova-one.livejournal.com]

That's such a clear argument against this sort of thing that it makes the current administration seem unintelligent. =)

I wonder how they feel buying RVs and big-screen TVs helps eliminate poverty, slow down climate change, and end war?

I'm not against RVs and big-screen TVs, but they are toys of the rich. They're status symbols. They're out there to be earned. If you can afford one, terrific. But the government should not even indirectly subsidize them. (In fact, I don't know if governments should subsize anything trade-related - agricultural subsidies are one of the many underlying factors behind the current food price / supply crisis.)

If they spent some of this money on ending poverty, it would help make everyone a little happier and more secure, rich and poor alike.

I have hope that the tanking of the economy will give rational technocrats a chance to rise to the top and get us out of this mess. Eventually we're all going to paint ourselves into a corner, and there'll only be one way out - when our decisions start to have immediate consequences, we'll learn to make better ones.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I wonder how they feel buying RVs and big-screen TVs helps eliminate poverty, slow down climate change, and end war?

I think the obvious answer is that the people implementing such measures don't really care about these things. After all, war is big business for some people.

I have to say I'm not too comfortable with the idea that the only way for things to change is for everything to crash and burn, though. Maybe you're right, but I think the chaos would hurt a lot of people before anyone did anything. And most of the people who would be hurt would most likely not be the same ones who contributed most heavily to the problems.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

I read an editorial the other day about something similar to the gas tax holiday having been tried before and failing utterly for that very reason (the "unpredictable middleman"). The thing is though that most of what we pay for gas IS taxes, and the gas companies only get like 9% of what we pay, which is actually a low percentage compared to most retail, so they're really not at fault for the prices either and if you look at the breakdown THAT way it DOES make sense that it's taxes that ought to be cut. Assuming you ignore the fact that that won't accomplish anything. In my opinion, a better move would be to invest in the improvements, expansion, and advertisement of TRAINS! but nobody listens to me.

We're using our return and stimulus money to get out of debt, which you'd think all sensible people would do! The economy makes me sigh. Yes, it fails if people don't spend money, but people have been spending too MUCH money for so long, so there's no sensible way to get out of it.

[vilajunkie.livejournal.com]

I agree. Send money to the train and bus and monorail companies. Chicago has recently started cutting down on bus routes because of the bad economic status of IDOT and the CTA (Chicago Transit Authority). This means more people who need those bus routes are being forced to find other means of transportation to their jobs and homes, such as the always expensive and rather pointless taxis. (Very rarely do I see anyone use taxis in Chicago, and those are mostly the rich and/or tourists who don't understand or underestimate the public transportation system.) Those who use the public transportation systems are those who depend on them, mostly because they can't afford or chose not to have a car. I myself would like to move to the city because of the problems that come with having a car and because I can support the public transportation systems. Not even thinking about gas prices, but finding public parking in the city is ridiculous. Either you pay almost $20 in a parking garage, or an unpredictable amount of money and time with the meters, or fight for the small amount of free (street) parking in the neighborhoods (where you fight for a spot even if you're a resident of that street!).

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I think the public transportation problem is a vicious circle. People don't want to take public transit, so the system is gutted, which leads to people not wanting to use it, which...well, you get the idea.

Metered parking scares me, not only because I'm not very good at parallel parking, but because I'm usually not sure how long I'm going to be parked in a particular place.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Europe has such great public transportation, being there really opened my eyes to what ought to be done here!

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I have heard that the transportation workers go on strike pretty often over there, though. Or maybe that's just Italy. I don't know.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Hah, that's right, in Italy they apparently like to go on strike every August just to mess with summer tourist season! In Vienna Dr G told us if we planned to go to Italy we had to make it one of the July weekends so we wouldn't get stuck there if the train workers decided to strike!

[vovat.livejournal.com]

The thing is though that most of what we pay for gas IS taxes

I'm not sure about that. Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_tax) that the average gas tax in this country is 47 cents per gallon, and I think the average gas price is around $4 per gallon. Maybe the majority of the money is going somewhere other than the oil companies, but if this is correct, it presumably isn't to the government.

Yes, it fails if people don't spend money, but people have been spending too MUCH money for so long, so there's no sensible way to get out of it.

Seeing how much money a lot of Americans spend makes it seem odd that anyone could say the problem is that people aren't spending enough money. I guess the right people aren't spending the right amount of money in the right places, or something like that.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Being poor lately has made me really bitter toward the general retail and merchandising industry and think about stuff like this. I think all these companies invest so much in making NEW STUFF that people really don't need, so when people wake up and realize they don't need this stuff being advertised, suddenly the companies are in the hole, and that's how buying stuff affects the economy and whatnot. Once companies realize they need to invest in GENUINELY IMPROVING their products instead of just making new stuff for the heck of it (especially incompatible new stuff-- electronics and computers industry, I'm talking to you!), or even just keeping up the good work they're already doing, maybe they wouldn't HAVE that problem! But NOOOOO, they have to go for cheap and easy short-term money that crashes in the long run.... This reminds me of the Original Mattress Factory guy. I don't know if you remember his commercials from living in this area, but he does simple commercials stressing the genuine quality of his mattresses and all; but anyway lately he's been occasionally using his commercial time to make political statements, so he'll go a whole commercial without actually mentioning mattresses sometimes. Recently he's been evoking the story of the goose that laid golden eggs to show why other companies are foolish in their pursuit of short-term profits. Anyway, yeah, I agree with him on that one....

I got the gas price numbers from my husband, and I don't know where he got them. Considering he's an angry conservative, it's possible they're slanted in that direction. But that said, I still don't think the gas companies are to blame for the price of gas skyrocketing-- that would be bad business, with this much public outcry. It's just generally the reliance on a constantly uncertain oil supply. ALTERNATE ENERGY ALREADY, PEOPLE! And something cheaper and more effective than ethanol!