“Economic Stimulus” Doesn’t Include American Jobs
March 11, 2008 by Miranda Marquit
Filed under Finance
The big news this morning is that, in order to help inject “confidence” into the economic outlook, the Fed is offering a $200 billion plan for increased liquidity. Of course, most of this help goes to mortgage lenders who got into trouble with their subprime lending practices.
The move is par for the course in terms of the numerous efforts in recent months to produce “economic stimulus.” And while “economic stimulus” includes tax rebates, mortgage rate freezes and modifying home loan terms, one thing it doesn’t include is American jobs.
The Pentagon just announced that instead of awarding a tanker contract to Boeing, it will award it to a European company. After all the perks and special costs, etc. are added in, this could actually cost more than having Boeing do the job. And don’t forget one important point: Fresh on the heels of the worst jobs data in five years, the US government is denying jobs to possibly as many as 40,000+ workers for this project.
It seems to me that offering American jobs would help stimulate the economy better than increasing our national debt through tax rebates that are likely to go straight to paying for higher gas prices or mortgage loan finagling that only serves to prolong the inevitable while allowing mortgage lenders to get as much as they can for as long as they can.
Do you agree that providing American jobs would be better for “economic stimulus”?
Amen and hellelujah, Miranda!
I can’t help but compare our current economic situation (and the bumbling efforts to “stimulate” it) to the 1930’s. Instead of putting money in the pockets of businesses with questionable ethics, Roosevelt created the Civil Conservation Corps. This gave hundreds of thousands of Americans paying work doing projects that beautified the country at the same time.
The CCC was a prime example of a win-win and worthy of copying. Sadly, it’s a far cry from what we’ve got going now. Grr.
I agree. Instead of using smoke and mirrors to try and trick us into spending money to “stimulate” the economy, something substantial should be done. Unfortunately, most of today’s pols are more interested in the lobbying money they get from the Wall Street firms they are intent on helping…
You want to create jobs? You need to start a business. To start a business you need a loan. The money you are loaned is called capital. The banks and financial institutions receiving aid from the stimulus package provide capital. You need to take basic classes in Macro & Microeconomics. The unemployment rate is lower now that during most of the Clinton administration. It seems you are ignorant of basic facts and concepts. I’m going to keep stumbling because I’m done here.
I am well aware that businesses need loans, etc. Unfortunately, this capital that the banks and what-not are getting is not being made more available to businesses. So far, what has been done to keep banks and lenders going hasn’t been passed on in a meaningful way that helps the regular folks.
I don’t propose to compare this administration’s numbers with past administrations. I did compare it with five years ago — the last time we had “economic stimulus.” Obviously it didn’t work then, and it probably won’t work now.
Honestly, I think a little downcycle is healthy. Economics don’t naturally remain unidirectional. There should be cycling.
And small businesses. When I mention businesses above, of course, I mean small businesses. Those middle class bastions of our economy are not finding it easier to get the loans they need to start up and hire people. I don’t think government is the answer, but if it’s going to meddle, it may as well do something a little more effective.
Well, if you have a sick sense of humor (like mine) the funniest thing that can happen is that people won’t spend the money and that those odd living approaches that embrace recycling, thrift store purchases, NO purchases, local food, etc. really catch on and “they” will have to find another driver for the economy as a whole.
What the heck drove the economy BEFORE consumer spending?
If only, Miki, if only! If they would save it, or make some well-chosen investments, it would be a good thing. Consumer spending has always been an economic driver, but our money system also used to be based on tangible assets.
Also, it used to be that we had a more stable economic cycle. Now we expect no cycle, but constant growth. That actually makes the economy more unstable.
“Well, if you have a sick sense of humor (like mine) the funniest thing that can happen is that people won’t spend the money and that those odd living approaches that embrace recycling, thrift store purchases…”
Exactly! Sometimes I feel like an alien when I mend my clothes and cook my own breakfast!
It might be another post, Miranda, but could you say more about “if the gov’t is going to meddle, they might do something more effective.” What kinds of things would you do?
Oooooh. Yes. I’ll put it in my docket (I’m already answering another question today).
Amen! We need to dump Reganomics and the whole notion that free trade unregulated works and go back to creating real jobs in this country…
Unfortunately what we’ve got is a sort of socialized capitalism in which many large companies are subsidized, but they still get a great deal of “free market” type freedom. With Fed trying to influence and manipulate the economy as we go.
You’re right, though, that the current viewpoint that “trickle down” Reaganomics don’t actually result in a growth at all economic levels of society.
True job creation would be a step forward.