The New York Times != iTulip

[LargoWinch]

Re: The New York Times != iTulip

What if our government, let's say, mandated that all consumer products shall henceforth have an expiration date, like construction hardhats do?

discard, repurchase, repeat................

In such a silly sad state of affairs are we.

(stole this from a posters signiture on another site) - Dear government, I don't think you could have screwed up any worse if you had tried - so I'll assume you did.

Much easier than that and straight from the Fed's handbook:

Paper bills need to be stamped every year to have legal tender and each stamp decreases the nominal value of the bill.

This result in a negative nominal interest rate, which forces people to spend and also overcome the zero-bound.

[antiserf]

Re: The New York Times != iTulip

Saving, or paying off debt, might make sense for individual households, but what the economy needs most is for people to spend money, helping stores to sell more, factories to produce more and employers to avoid cutting additional jobs.

This empty circular reasoning is what passes for analysis at the NYT. Turn the argument around, and it makes just as much sense:

Slashing payrolls, or paying off debt, might make sense for individual companies, but what the economy needs most is for businesses to hire people, helping employees to buy more, factories to produce more and increased aggregate demand preventing additional corporate bankruptcies.

[Masher]

Re: The New York Times != iTulip

This empty circular reasoning is what passes for analysis at the NYT. Turn the argument around, and it makes just as much sense:

Slashing payrolls, or paying off debt, might make sense for individual companies, but what the economy needs most is for businesses to hire people, helping employees to buy more, factories to produce more and increased aggregate demand preventing additional corporate bankruptcies.

And we wonder why the average "well read" American is financially illiterate.