|
Post by Shyft Trakia-Vorga VahtiDahl on Jan 31, 2009 12:30:00 GMT -6
All I've really seen in response to the economic crisis in the United States is money spent on little projects and give aways. Does that really make sense? Or rather- does it really make sense long term? Isn't that what was done during the depression? Sure. Lots of jobs were created because people were needed to complete the projects, but didn't the economy continue to fail until the war?
And the war worked. Hm. May be that's what we need-
Presenting The New Economic Stimulus: World War Three! Make some bombs. Make some money. Kick some ass. There'll be too much shit to do for any one to be out of work, and every thing will be too hectic for people to get bored or get depressed.
...On second thought, may be we should just experiment more with moving money around- by moving it all to me. ME. MINE. GIMME NOW.
Seriously, though. There has to be a better way.
|
|
|
Post by kaian on Feb 1, 2009 10:31:05 GMT -6
Heh, I think that World War Three would've been McCain's strategy (or is that tactic? I can never keep those two straight...) for economic stimulus.
I fail to see how any possible (okay, make that "probable") solution to the economy problem could be guaranteed to fix things in relatively quickly and cheaply. Especially since money given to banks and Wall Street to help fix things ended up being given as "bonuses" to high-ranking collars and suits, who bought private jets or luxury cars. I think that no matter what the government does, no matter how good someone's intentions are, there will always be someone selfish enough to fuck it up and ruin it for the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by Shyft Trakia-Vorga VahtiDahl on Feb 2, 2009 11:15:35 GMT -6
Yeah. There are too many people in a country for every one to work together, and in this country not enough of them pay attention to the big picture. Still, though, people like that are usually easy to predict. There should still be better ways.
February 20, 2009- I was thinking about this again today. It seems to me that the government shouldn't be putting their hands in to this issue so much at all. The people who fucked things up should be removed; what those people left behind should be monitored, and the economy should be allowed to fix its self.
And if that is too slow- if the government really wants to try to save the world, the best thing to do would be to just print a whole shit ton of money. Yeah. But without inflation.
If the whole world agreed to just print a huge sum of money divided equally among them all (or add a few zeroes to the end of their digital bank numbers or what ever) without decreasing the value of any currency as a result, every thing would be fine. The economic crisis isn't about a lack of resources or workers. It is just a lack of money, and since money is just a symbol, we can make what ever we want of it as long as every one agrees to those terms. The only way that this could fail (after it being enacted) is if a country cheated and printed more than the agreed amount of money. Right? I mean, of course no one would agree to that to begin with, but the option is there.
I just came up with an other idea. Why not just reverse what happened? Where did all of the money go that we can't get it back? If people are losing their homes because they are losing their jobs because of this, why not just take the money back from where ever it went? Would that be illegal? What about crashing the economy? Isn't what it took to do that illegal? Shouldn't borrowing tons of more imaginary money to throw at stupid shit in response to an economic crisis be illegal?
I don't know a whole lot about economics and I don't pretend to, so if any body feels that they do and can rationalize this shit for me, go right ahead.
|
|