Keynes VS Hayek

[marharth]

2 Million dollar lotto winner on food stamps.

Food stamps help the economy like I said before.

 

Not only that, half of his prize went to taxes anyways, he is pretty much paying for the food stamps with the one million dollars in taxes.

 

Again, food stamps help the economy only if you ignore the part where they take the money from somewhere else. Your theory only works if the money for the food stamps magically appears somehow. Are you seriously telling me than a person driving a brand new Audi and a mil in the bank should qualify for food stamps?

Of course he shouldn't have food stamps, I am just saying it doesn't really matter.

 

As I said before, food stamps work as a stimulus. I have already explained why it works like a stimulus.

 

"if you ignore the part where they take the money from somewhere else"

 

The stimulus effect does not have physical money, it simply makes people spend money more which helps the economy.

 

If you think you need physical money for everything and mathematical effects do not matter, how do you explain cutting spending without raising taxes?

 

It is known as debt which is even worse than spending money we actually have (or by devaluing the dollar). When you add in the result it is even worse. It is NOT stimulus at all, you are only looking at one aspect of food stamps, you need to look at the bigger picture.

 

If you think food stamps are stimulus than you think a broken window is stimulus. If a broken window is stimulus why don't we run around breaking windows to fix the economy?

Your missing the point.

 

Broken windows would be stimulus if the window instantly got fixed by someone, and the person was paid for it. That's not what happens with broken windows, that is what happens with food stamps.

 

It has everything to do with the speed that people use food stamps.

 

EX: You could throw a brick at a window, it is unlikely the window will be fixed soon due to the cost of getting a window fixed, as well as the fact windows are not entirely needed to live.

 

EX: If you have food stamps, it is likely you will use them as soon as possible. There is not much point is saving food stamps. Since you quickly use the food stamps, more money will circulate.

 

Now of course you won't spend them fast if you have a high income, but if you are living paycheck to paycheck you will use them fast.

 

The reason that I didn't really care about that guy still using food stamps is because he paid about one million dollars in taxes for winning. Also to my understanding, he just would have recently won. I am sure he would have gone off food stamps in at least a year.

[csgators]

Leroy Fick of Bay County admitted he still swipes the electronic card at stores, nearly a year after winning a jackpot on "Make Me Rich!

 

Do you honestly think these people will simply not eat if they don't have the food stamps? Maybe if they didn't get them they would find a way to earn the money to eat. That would stimulate the economy far more than TAKING THE MONEY FROM SOMEONE WHO IS PRODUCTIVE and giving it TO SOMEONE WHO ISN'T. According to your theories even if they stole the money from someone (which they are already doing IMO) it would be stimulus.

 

If a shop on main street gets a broken window it will be fixed right away, it has to be in order to secure the store and maintain a pleasant environment for shoppers. The reason it is not stimulus is that the store owner could have used that money on other things like hiring a part time employee or buying a new oven for his bakery. The money would be used for something else rather than to replace an existing window.

 

Again, the money for food stamps must be taken out of productive use (in the best case scenario, ie no deficit) and put into non-productive use. Rather than feeding someone who will eat anyway it could be used to create new jobs to feed even more people and to create even more tax revenue from those additional jobs or increased productivity.

Edited May 18, 2011 by csgators

[csgators]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrg1CArkuNc&feature=related

[marharth]

Leroy Fick of Bay County admitted he still swipes the electronic card at stores, nearly a year after winning a jackpot on "Make Me Rich!

 

Do you honestly think these people will simply not eat if they don't have the food stamps? Maybe if they didn't get them they would find a way to earn the money to eat. That would stimulate the economy far more than TAKING THE MONEY FROM SOMEONE WHO IS PRODUCTIVE and giving it TO SOMEONE WHO ISN'T. According to your theories even if they stole the money from someone (which they are already doing IMO) it would be stimulus.

 

If a shop on main street gets a broken window it will be fixed right away, it has to be in order to secure the store and maintain a pleasant environment for shoppers. The reason it is not stimulus is that the store owner could have used that money on other things like hiring a part time employee or buying a new oven for his bakery. The money would be used for something else rather than to replace an existing window.

 

Again, the money for food stamps must be taken out of productive use (in the best came scenario, ie no deficit) and put into non-productive use. Rather than feeding someone who will eat anyway it could be used to create new jobs to feed even more people and to create even more tax revenue from those additional jobs or increased productivity.

You seem to think that everyone who uses food stamps is just lazy.

 

Helping non productive people be productive helps the economy, taking away food stamps will not magically get them a job and feed them.

 

Using the money on more productive people won't change anything, using it on less productive people will help them become productive.

 

As I said with the window thing, it is different.

 

The shop owner or home owner already have a fair amount of money, and it would likely be a businesses fixing the window.

 

Also your talking like food stamps is the same thing and throwing away money.

 

"Rather than feeding someone who will eat anyway it could be used to create new jobs to feed even more people and to create even more tax revenue from those additional jobs or increased productivity."

Not entirely true, but if the money put into food stamps was used for a social program that helped create jobs for non productive people, then sure, take away food stamps.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here, Ill sum up what I am trying to say below.

 

1. While I beleive food stamps do help the economy, the money could be used for something else that would be more beneficial to helping non productive members of society.

 

2. No current bills are out to try to do such a thing above, so I think food stamps need to stay until a more realistic approach could come about.

[csgators]

I am not arguing to end food stamps, I think there are better ways to go about it like you mentioned above but it is not near the top of my list of programs to end. I am simply pointing out it is not stimulus no matter how many times Nancy Pelosi says it is. It is a net drain on the economy.

[marharth]

I am not arguing to end food stamps, I think there are better ways to go about it like you mentioned above but it is not near the top of my list of programs to end. I am simply pointing out it is not stimulus no matter how many times Nancy Pelosi says it is. It is a net drain on the economy.

The link I posted had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi, just because she said it once does not mean everyone in the world got it from her.

 

The reason I think it somewhat stimulates the economy, like I said before, is because it helps out the unproductive part of society AS WELL as circulate money.

 

So food stamps effectively help someone buy a suit, and help the unproductive person buy a suit.

[csgators]

I am not arguing to end food stamps, I think there are better ways to go about it like you mentioned above but it is not near the top of my list of programs to end. I am simply pointing out it is not stimulus no matter how many times Nancy Pelosi says it is. It is a net drain on the economy.

The link I posted had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi, just because she said it once does not mean everyone in the world got it from her.

 

The reason I think it somewhat stimulates the economy, like I said before, is because it helps out the unproductive part of society AS WELL as circulate money.

 

So food stamps effectively help someone buy a suit, and help the unproductive person buy a suit.

 

Back to this fallacy, the suits come at the expense of other peoples goods. Like the new shoes I would have bought if they didn't take my money in the first place. Not to mention the bureaucratic costs of the program and as it stands now, the increase in the debt and corresponding interest we must pay on that debt.

 

I must have missed the link you provided to back up the food stamps as stimulus, could you re-post it?

[marharth]

I am not arguing to end food stamps, I think there are better ways to go about it like you mentioned above but it is not near the top of my list of programs to end. I am simply pointing out it is not stimulus no matter how many times Nancy Pelosi says it is. It is a net drain on the economy.

The link I posted had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi, just because she said it once does not mean everyone in the world got it from her.

 

The reason I think it somewhat stimulates the economy, like I said before, is because it helps out the unproductive part of society AS WELL as circulate money.

 

So food stamps effectively help someone buy a suit, and help the unproductive person buy a suit.

 

Back to this fallacy, the suits come at the expense of other peoples goods. Like the new shoes I would have bought if they didn't take my money in the first place. Not to mention the bureaucratic costs of the program and as it stands now, the increase in the debt and corresponding interest we must pay on that debt.

 

I must have missed the link you provided to back up the food stamps as stimulus, could you re-post it?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm

 

I understand the fallacy, the thing is is that it is helping non productive people be more productive.

 

 

In comparison to the broken window...

 

The kid breaks the window, and gets nothing from it.

 

The shop owner now has a broken window, he gets nothing from it.

 

The repairman gets money for repairing the window

 

 

With food stamps...

 

The kid needs free food and gets it, he has no idea in the process he broke a window.

 

The shop keeper has a broken window, he he gets it repaired.

 

The repairman repairs the window and gets paid.

 

 

The difference is that the kid who broke the window has a higher chance of becoming productive.

 

The kid, once he has become more productive, will likely go to the shop to buy things.

[csgators]

I am not arguing to end food stamps, I think there are better ways to go about it like you mentioned above but it is not near the top of my list of programs to end. I am simply pointing out it is not stimulus no matter how many times Nancy Pelosi says it is. It is a net drain on the economy.

The link I posted had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi, just because she said it once does not mean everyone in the world got it from her.

 

The reason I think it somewhat stimulates the economy, like I said before, is because it helps out the unproductive part of society AS WELL as circulate money.

 

So food stamps effectively help someone buy a suit, and help the unproductive person buy a suit.

 

Back to this fallacy, the suits come at the expense of other peoples goods. Like the new shoes I would have bought if they didn't take my money in the first place. Not to mention the bureaucratic costs of the program and as it stands now, the increase in the debt and corresponding interest we must pay on that debt.

 

I must have missed the link you provided to back up the food stamps as stimulus, could you re-post it?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm

 

I understand the fallacy, the thing is is that it is helping non productive people be more productive.

 

 

In comparison to the broken window...

 

The kid breaks the window, and gets nothing from it.

 

The shop owner now has a broken window, he gets nothing from it.

 

The repairman gets money for repairing the window

 

 

With food stamps...

 

The kid needs free food and gets it, he has no idea in the process he broke a window.

 

The shop keeper has a broken window, he he gets it repaired.

 

The repairman repairs the window and gets paid.

 

 

The difference is that the kid who broke the window has a higher chance of becoming productive.

 

The kid, once he has become more productive, will likely go to the shop to buy things.

 

It does not make them productive, it makes them consumers of other peoples production and discourages everyone from producing at all. The person producing has less incentive to do so because the more he makes, the more they take. The person receiving aid has no motivation to become productive because they are already getting what they need without producing.

 

Oh yeah, that link. As I said, that study is comparing food stamps to other spending programs and ignores the scenario where the money isn't taken in the first place.

Edited May 18, 2011 by csgators

[marharth]

I am not arguing to end food stamps, I think there are better ways to go about it like you mentioned above but it is not near the top of my list of programs to end. I am simply pointing out it is not stimulus no matter how many times Nancy Pelosi says it is. It is a net drain on the economy.

The link I posted had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi, just because she said it once does not mean everyone in the world got it from her.

 

The reason I think it somewhat stimulates the economy, like I said before, is because it helps out the unproductive part of society AS WELL as circulate money.

 

So food stamps effectively help someone buy a suit, and help the unproductive person buy a suit.

 

Back to this fallacy, the suits come at the expense of other peoples goods. Like the new shoes I would have bought if they didn't take my money in the first place. Not to mention the bureaucratic costs of the program and as it stands now, the increase in the debt and corresponding interest we must pay on that debt.

 

I must have missed the link you provided to back up the food stamps as stimulus, could you re-post it?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm

 

I understand the fallacy, the thing is is that it is helping non productive people be more productive.

 

 

In comparison to the broken window...

 

The kid breaks the window, and gets nothing from it.

 

The shop owner now has a broken window, he gets nothing from it.

 

The repairman gets money for repairing the window

 

 

With food stamps...

 

The kid needs free food and gets it, he has no idea in the process he broke a window.

 

The shop keeper has a broken window, he he gets it repaired.

 

The repairman repairs the window and gets paid.

 

 

The difference is that the kid who broke the window has a higher chance of becoming productive.

 

The kid, once he has become more productive, will likely go to the shop to buy things.

 

It does not make them productive, it makes them consumers of other peoples production and discourages everyone from producing at all. The person producing has less incentive to do so because the more he makes, the more they take. The person receiving aid has no motivation to become productive because they are already getting what they need without producing.

 

Oh yeah, that link. As I said, that study is comparing food stamps to other spending programs and ignores the scenario where the money isn't taken in the first place.

Most people buy from big corporations, big corporations are no longer encouraged or discouraged.

 

Corporations work like machines, they don't care who their consumer is, they just care about profit.

 

They would not be discouraged at all from it.

 

I think we found the base of the issue, you think that giving someone aid will make them feed off the aid without trying to get a better job/more money.

 

 

Giving aid to lower class individuals will likely encourage them, giving aid to large corporations does nothing.