The basics: What does it take to get our economy moving again? Spending. If nobody is spending nobody needs to produce. You aren’t going to gather the raw materials and personnel together to spend time and money creating a product or service unless you have some degree of confidence that there are people out there who either have or can borrow the money to buy it. Our economy is a constant day-by-day election process. The products and services put into the marketplace are the candidates. Consumers are the voters. Dollars are the ballots. If a candidate gets no votes, the candidate either reinvents himself or just simply goes away. The whole process slows down or grinds to a halt if the voters don’t have ballots to cast.
..Clearly, to stimulate our economy money had to be spent. That’s basic…
Well given the whole point of the article is to allow people to spend their own money rather than politicians, I can forgive a little analytical sloppiness.
Well…what Boortz actually believes is that everyone should be forced to give their money to the military industrial complex , the police and the national security state. (To be fair, he does mention investment at one point, but it’s mostly incidental.)
The things is, if I hear one more person claim that spending is the source of all prosperity I think my head is going to explode. [;)]
“What does it take to get our economy moving again?”
if he means truly that the economy is performing poorly as compared to other points in time…does he mean consumer spending facilitated through credit creation at the bank level? economic growth thru continual credit spending? if noone is spending as he claims are they just
“Our economy is a constant day-by-day election process. The products and services put into the marketplace are the candidates. Consumers are the voters. Dollars are the ballots. If a candidate gets no votes, the candidate either reinvents himself or just simply goes away. The whole process slows down or grinds to a halt if the voters don’t have ballots to cast.”
unhappy with the products?
"If nobody is spending nobody needs to produce. You aren’t going to gather the raw materials and personnel together to spend time and money creating a product or service unless you have some degree of confidence that there are people out there who either have or can borrow the money to buy it."
various types of production have taken place without spending taking place. so maybe that comment needs to be refined in some way.
but i expect that if people chose to save money they intend to spend it at some point.
if the phenomena of lending money while creating credit (what i have read at mises.org sites) at the Fed and bank level is generally what causes the bo**om/bust/recovery/repeat cycles, maybe a sounder approach to lending and credit suppresion would (eventually) get the economy started again - in a better and different way.
I propose that the economy will continue to degrade until we shoot Neal to the middle of the sun…oh wait then I would be advocating public projects…yuck..
Any one got a rocket ship they are renting? It’s for a good cause, tax write off and all.
The concept is just wrong. Suppliers will attempt to save, invest and create new products based on FUTURE demand or guesses of demand. Consumers will always have desires and will always be willing to spend given the combination of products and prices. It is this spending concept that is really hurting the economy. As the central bank continues to create money, savers must save more nominal dollars to continue to hold the same amount of wealth.