The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

That $300 goes immediately out into the economy as cash. It isn't saved.

Pretend $50 goes to the grocery store. The grocery then gives $20 out in salaries (which goes out again to groceries, rent, etc a second time), puts $5 into inventory (grows business) and he puts $10 out in car purchase (expands who gets part of that $300) and $5 out into his groceries, rent, etc.

Pretend $250 goes to rent. Repeat the above with the owner paying off the mortage, then buying groceries, etc.

That $300 goes out and circulates throughout the economy multiple times before it ends up "taken out" (into long-term capital investments, savings, etc) Each time it circulates, it requires a business to be open and have inventory, it supports salaries: grocery, truck line, grower of food, gas station owner, clerk, gasoline tanker driver, etc.

Bonds, etc. only make money that goes into the economy the first time they are sold. Trading stocks, etc. in the markets does NOT circulate money into the economy that causes growth.

The problem with your theory is that all the jobs you believe are saved are all govt subsidized or in no danger anyway. The food production business is already massively subsidized by the govt, public utilities as well. The oil industry is hardly hurting (gas stations).

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem with your theory is that all the jobs you believe are saved are all govt subsidized or in no danger anyway. The food production business is already massively subsidized by the govt, public utilities as well. The oil industry is hardly hurting (gas stations).

It's no theory. You might read your WSJ a little more thoroughly for the explaination if you can't understand how dollars infused immediately into the economy help keep the economy stable.

My "theory" (which is not my theory, but the common knowledge of economists) is not saying anything at all about jobs saved, government subsidized, etc. If you can't understand what the conversation is about, probably best not for you to jump in and start talking about something else entirely, as you usually do.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's no theory. You might read your WSJ a little more thoroughly for the explaination if you can't understand how dollars infused immediately into the economy help keep the economy stable.

My "theory" (which is not my theory, but the common knowledge of economists) is not saying anything at all about jobs saved, government subsidized, etc. If you can't understand what the conversation is about, probably best not for you to jump in and start talking about something else entirely, as you usually do.

Give me a break. Your idea that all spending is good spending regardless of where the money comes from is silly.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Give me a break. Your idea that all spending is good spending regardless of where the money comes from is silly.

Good thing I didn't say that. Keep up here.