News The do nothing method of finance, would it work?

Click For Summary
Gordon Brown criticized the Conservative Party as a "do nothing" entity in response to the economic downturn, emphasizing their out-of-touch public spending cuts. He defended his government's targeted support for businesses, claiming it has already benefited 20,000 firms since November. David Cameron countered by labeling Brown's measures as ineffective and accused him of creating a "pale" version of Conservative policies. The discussion also touched on the effectiveness of government intervention versus laissez-faire approaches, with some arguing that a mixed strategy could yield better economic outcomes. Overall, the debate highlighted the contrasting views on economic recovery strategies amidst a global financial crisis.

Would the do nothing financial model work?

  • The socialist model is better (bail outs of banks and or nationalisation of banks).

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
  • #31
drankin said:
Is saving money a bad thing to do right now?
Why does saving money jeopardize the recovery?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=289267

Basically, it sounds like you are saying that the feds should spend our money because the public is too dumb to spend it themselves?
I said no such thing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Gokul43201 said:
Why does saving money jeopardize the recovery?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=289267


I said no such thing.

No, you didn't, and I don't mean to put words in your mouth. But is this the attitude of Congress and the current administration? If the voting public had their say, there wouldn't be a stimulus package that looked anything like what is being pushed through right now. Let's just stick with cutting taxes and let the market figure itself out.
 
  • #33
drankin said:
Let's just stick with cutting taxes and let the market figure itself out.
That was mostly what the Bush policy was. And we've had possibly the poorest 8-year span of economic activity under Bush than any time since WW2.

And don't forget, we tried the tax rebate business last year. Fat lot of good that did!

Here's a link to all the analysis from Mark Zandi, McCain's economic adviser: http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/default.asp?src=economy_homepage

An excerpt from the Jan 21 report:
Zandi said:
The top priority should be the implementation of a large fiscal stimulus package. The House Democratic plan proposed in mid-January includes both increases in government spending and tax cuts. The plan costs approximately $825 billion, equal to 5.5% of the nation's gross domestic product. This is not as costly as the public works projects of the 1930s, but it is costlier than the 3% of GDP spent to stimulate the economy during the tough downturn in the early 1980s. The cost of the current package would thus be consistent with expectations regarding the severity of this downturn. At 5.5% of GDP, the stimulus would also be about enough to ensure the economy stops contracting by the end of 2009 and that GDP returns to its prerecession peak by the end of 2010—reasonable goals.

The mix of tax cuts and spending increases in the stimulus package is designed to provide both quick relief and a substantial boost to the struggling economy. The tax cuts will not pack a big economic punch, as some of the money will be saved and some used to repay debt, but they can be implemented quickly. Aid to state and local governments will not lift the economy, but it will forestall cuts in programs and payrolls that many governments would be forced to make to meet their states' constitutional obligations to balance their budgets. Infrastructure spending will not help the economy quickly, as it will take time to get even "shovel-ready" projects going, but it will provide a significant economic boost. Because the economy's problems are not expected to abate soon, this spending will be especially helpful this time next year.

But hey, what do economists know?
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Gokul43201 said:
That was mostly what the Bush policy was. And we've had possibly the poorest 8-year span of economic activity under Bush than any time since WW2...
Upon what do you base that statement? The looming (at the time) credit instability? Wage disparity? Surely not the macroeconomic conditions:

US GDP 2000-2008.
chxl=0:|2000|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|1:&chxp=&chxr=1,0.00,5.00&chxs=&chg=12.5,10.png

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=66
For comparison, US historic GDP average "www.ers.usda.gov/Data/macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalRealGDPValues.xls"[/URL]

GDP growth back to '47 by quarters:
[ATTACH=full]200533[/ATTACH]

US Unemployment 2000 to 2008
[ATTACH=full]196656[/ATTACH]
[url]http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=74&c=us&l=en[/url]
 

Attachments

  • chxl=0:|2000|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|1:&chxp=&chxr=1,0.00,6.00&chxs=&chg=12.5,10.png
    chxl=0:|2000|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|1:&chxp=&chxr=1,0.00,6.00&chxs=&chg=12.5,10.png
    4.2 KB · Views: 169
  • gdpannualized1_2.png
    gdpannualized1_2.png
    20.2 KB · Views: 172
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Gokul43201 said:
But hey, what do economists know?

They know enough to get by, and probably more than those on Wall street, but not enough to predict the future. I saw an interesting program on the credit crunch and why it happened, and the bull bear models of economics and herd mentality lead to it. It seems to me the people most able to predict the stock market, predict that it is fundamentally unpredictable, but there are certain indicators that give hints.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
9K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K