Total bailout/stimulus/QE cost is $5.3 trillion - according to Ron Paul

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by DA60, Jul 16, 2011.

  1. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Are you serious?

    QE1 and QE2 are common knowledge and the Stimuli were never supposed to be paid back - that's over $3.2 trillion in less then 3 years.

    And the rest I have never heard any news that anything I stated is not true. And these buyouts are common knowledge as well.

    If you wish to believe that they have all been paid back - go ahead.


    Have a nice day.
     
  2. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And as Milton Friedman would say, necessary.

    40% of that is tax cuts. and the other funds were for unemployment compensation and public spending. They did the job of not allowing the U.S. to fall into a deep and prolonged depression (at least right away... the GOP is ibstructing any more stimulus and that may bring on a depression or a lost decade like Japan had.

    Anyway, it shows that the GOP can't be trusted with the economy. They inflated a bubble and now gripe that there's a clean up of their mess left behind that costs money.
     
  3. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Well, he died before they were enacted so I do not see the relevance.
    And, of course, there is zero proof that had they not been enacted that America would have been any worse off. In fact, many say she would have been far better off in the long run (I DEFINITELY being one of them).

    Tax cuts is still spending if there is no corresponding reduction in the budget.
    And that seems to be the ONLY justification Keynesian 'economists' have for all the ridiculous spending...it prevented a long depression.
    Of course, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THIS.
    So, with respect, the point means nothing.

    I will tell you what happened when the second stimulus was enacted - unemployment went from 8.2% to 10.1% in eight months.

    In fact, the unemployment rate went up more in the 8 months after the Stimulus then in the eight months before it.

    http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
     
  4. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The last big liquidity trap that happened before he dioed he prescribed QE to help get the country out of it. Instead, they went to a tight monetary policy and the country is still in the doldrums.

    That's why I would go elsewhere for economic analysis. YMMV.

    Fiscal stimulus would have done a better job.

    Which is a good thing.

    Empirically, it already has. Spending multipliers are economic fact.

    7 decades of proof already. Don't weorry. I don't expect you to change your mind.

    Proving the stimulus wasn't large enough, as most economists predicted. Here's the thing... had we done a stimulus large enough, we'd probably be paying it down by this point (meaning debt to GDP would be falling from the economic growth).
     
  5. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
  6. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's what I asked over a week ago and still haven't gotten an answer.
     
  7. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am not expert.

    I listed off all I could readily think of ($3.8 trillion).

    If you want the rest - ask Ron Paul.
     
  8. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Typical Keynesian solution - if it doesn't work the first time, throw more taxpayers money at it.

    The gov't. threw twice as much as a % of GDP at the economy this time as was done so in the Great Depression and still they want more.

    And still they don't get it - throwing huge sums of government money at free market-style economies does nothing but run up debt and deaden the economy.

    It happened in the Great Depression (17%+ unemployment avg. and a DOW that actually went down during mid '33 to mid '42), in Japan (the Nikkei has been dead for 20 years and the highest debt to GDP ratio in the world) and it is happening now (crappy real estate market for years, worsening unemployment and trade deficit AND inflation, fiscal crisis).

    Keynesian's will probably not get it that their mooching ideas do not work until the economy collapses under inflation and debt.
     
  9. loosecannon

    loosecannon New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry but that isn't what is happening at all. A small amount of money was spent from TARP and TALF to purchase toxic assets, and the Federal Reserve allowed banks to use toxic assets as reserves.

    But the alleged $5.3 trillion is almost all money lent to banks thru the discount window to do things like inflate the commodities bubbles (gold, silver, oil, food) and pump up stock markets worldwide. A lot of that money also went overseas in the form of US foreign investment.

    Ask BOA if the Fed is asking them to sell the at risk mortgages in their portfolio to the Fedsters. Because the $9 billion in loses in QI say otherwise.
     
  10. loosecannon

    loosecannon New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree. In fact I heartily agree. But all the same throwing money into an economy on fire was not going to be the solution this time.
     
  11. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no. I would not advocate giving money to anyone.

    debt levels need to be written down not temporarily kept on life support.
     
  12. Fred In Texas

    Fred In Texas Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    What was the actually cost?
     
  13. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't even understand what point you are trying to make.

    What is it that I typed that specifically is wrong in your opinion...and I know about all the things you listed.
     
  14. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And this part...

    let's look at those 7 decades?

    First, from mid '33 until mid '42 America averaged 17+% unemployment and the DOW actually went down. So that period sucked.

    Second, it took until the mid-50's to get the DOW back to it's pre-crash level of 1929. So I would hardly call that stellar growth.

    And third, America had it COMPLETELY her own way after WW2 until roughly about 1970 (and after that - her place 'in the sun' declined)

    Europe was in ruins, Japan was in ruins and Russia and China were communist. What competition did she have?

    It would have been almost impossible for America - who escaped the war relatively unscathed and FAR stronger then when it began - not to thrive under those circumstances.

    And despite that gigantic advantage - America still ran deficit after deficit.

    And this is your 7 decades of proof?

    Sounds to me like 7 decades of first stumbling and then running away with a one horse race.
     
  15. loosecannon

    loosecannon New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree again, so shoot me!
     
  16. loosecannon

    loosecannon New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You said that the alleged $5.3 trillion in funny money was being spent to buy toxic assets:

     
  17. loosecannon

    loosecannon New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    According to the Ben Bernanke there was no actual cost, just a profit of $125 billion.

    I mean even discount window money costs the big banks something, even if it is .2% interest.
     
  18. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, I did not...I said 'among other things'.

    Please do not misrepresent my words.
     
  19. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The Fed is sitting on trillions of dollars in 'toxic assets' and other 'things' whose face value they may never regain.

    All bought with money from thin air.

    The Fed's final tally over this is yet to be determined.
     
  20. macaroniman

    macaroniman New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    squidward and (deleted member) like this.

Share This Page