WHAT ??? Sea urchins taste like chicken ?? No way!! If you have to find a comparison perhaps caviar is the closer (but still far) one, since you basically eat the eggs of the female urchin.
In any case sea urchins are more of a delicacy or condiment at best, not a consistent source of proteins. If anything because finding them, fishing them (and opening them) requires some dedicated manual effort, which is not easy to scale or automate.
I think there are way too many lawyers and like-minded people who try to solve things be throwing regulations at them without even trying to understand the consequences.
I'm all for smart regulations that try to regulate systems optimally, but this is way too much, far beyond worrysome and not even funny !!
If these companies are trying to occupy the same marketplace as the Arduino, i think it's too late. Otherwise it's definitely a good move.
In any case IMO what really allowed the Arduino to take off was not much the fact that it was open source, but rather the fact that it had readable documentation, which anyone could actually follow and make things work.
I am still amazed at the extent to which, to this day, the documentation for many Arduino-wannabe boards (e.g TI MSP 430, Chipkit 32, and others) really sucks.
The federal government is basically a coalition of the fortune 100 corporations. The larger and more toxic to liberty it gets, the more power the 1% has over the rest of us.
Yes and no. Yes because corporations and the 1% buy lobbyists to get their way. No because representatives are elected mainly with votes, and buying votes costs a lot of money and it's feasible only to a point. So politicians cannot be completely indifferent to the other 99%.
To me, this is a call to fix the loopholes that let 1% and corporations buy votes, more than a call to shrink the government.
Moreover i don't fully understand the measure against which a government can be classified as big or small, perhaps size of public spending vs GDP ?. Remember that most of the taxpayer's money get spent on private entities in healthcare and defense anyway, so the government is just a mean for "us the people" to buy ourselves defense and healthcare.
In any case, i see and understand your point, even if i don't totally agree with it.
Today, the liberals draw more political power to the state with things like encroaching tax, identity politics, censorship, and other marxist tenets
I honestly don't see this, can't make examples of any "marxist tenets" that are held sacred by the left. To the extent that this is really so, and these tenets run contrary to the interest of the population, then it is absolutely something that the left needs to fix.
I think corporations don't kill or torture people because, luckily, they live in an environment of laws (which is created and enforced by the governments) which makes such violent action too risky and expensive for them:)
But, yes, i agree with everything you suggested. I'd only add that whenever governments need to have some concentration of power (which i agree is dangerous), then they should absolutely positively pay for this concentration of power with transparency, so that they can actually be monitored and kept in check by their citizens.
To me transparency is a key point, if we give power and money to the government to represent our interests, we really can't afford misguided secrecy and privacy laws that prevent us to know how those power and money are spent.
Yes. But real power nowadays lies elsewhere. Big corporations, quasi-monopolies, banks, lobbies, all the guys buying off the politicians. And IMO we need STRONG and effective governments to fight this sources of powers which almost always are interested in screwing everyone else.
This sort of thing is precisely why some of us dislike government in general and large governments in particular.
I don't see this as a rational position. The idea is that governments are "we the people" remember ? If you don't feel represented by your government then this calls for action to correct that specific problem (e.g. be careful who you vote, make your voice heard, and so on), not for shrinking the government. Without an organization representing "we the people" then we'll descend inevitably into middle ages, 21st century style, where only the strongest (financially) will rule. You don't want that, do you ?
Sometimes i wonder whether we might come to a point, like 10-15 years from now, where it might make more economical sense for MS to just rely on the Linux kernel (perhaps contributing just some resources to it, the way that other companies do) instead of having to develop and maintain their own. That could free up resources to do other things, and potentially help to gain some share in the mobile device market, where it looks like NT-based kernels might never be as efficient as Android or Macs.
Sure, that might be true for the 0.1% that has dividends of the robot companies, but the rest will probably die off in one way or another.
Also note that if only few survive, many robot companies won't be needed because there will be less stuff to be produced, so the sustainability of this kind of society should not be given for granted.
That being said, 2045 is waaaay too soon (i would guess many hundred years) for something like that to actually happen. Robots just aren't advanced enough to replace humans in too many jobs, especially, i would say, jobs that require a mix of many "real world" skills (e.g. plumbers, salesmans,... drug dealers, and so on, you get the idea:-)
I think it is time to pull the plug on solar and focus instead on wind and research thorium reactors.
When you factor everything (e.g. panel production environmental cost, maintenance, use of land, longevity of the panels, and so on), solar is just not worthy, or at least very rarely better than wind. So i see no reason to artificially keep it alive.
Also there is not as much uranium as people think. Civilization is a 18TW bulb. If you power (all of) it only with existing uranium resources the light would last barely one year, (go run the number yourself if you don't believe it or have a look at this). Thorium should be better.
I hope this gets actually done soon, so we can call it a day and get back to more interesting concepts like building a base in the south pole of the moon (using robot), or trying to build space elevators, or placing shades in the L1 point to regulate global warming, or, you know, maybe funding actual science (e.g. gravitational wave detectors, and plenty of other very cool missions).
I really doubt it because it's a rather well know fact by now (e.g. research by Zimbardo et. al) that the majority of people that commit crimes don't actually think about the future before committing them. They don't even think a few months in advance, let alone at what happens after life...
Agreed. Besides we basically have the F35 ready by now. So tossing the F22 would really be the most sensible thing to do, and i would argue that the only reason why we haven't done it already it's because people get attached to their pork.
Funny how the same people that want to starve the government start to cry bloody murder when government supported defense jobs are at stake.
The government doesn't want holes. It might even be difficult to find a place for people to dig them. The government wants jobs.
So what ? It does not matter what any entity "wants" to the effect of the GDP. It only matters what gets bought and sold and for what price. If some entity is paying people to do a job, regardless on how useful or useless the job is, that money gets accounted in the GDP. That's just the way it is.
Essentially, it really depends on how the transaction is accounted for. If it's considered as a purchase then it goes in the GDP. If it's listed as a transfer, (that is a gift) then not. However, the multiplier can be greater than one even in the second case, if people spend more than 50% of those money right away on purchases.
No, you're incorrectly using the expenditure method of measuring the GDP
In this model everything that is produced is bought. And in fact it is a reasonable assumption that always holds for services and almost always holds even for physical stuff that actually gets produced, especially given the decreasing size of inventories nowadays. More and more stuff is produced literally only "after" it gets bought. In fact the expenditure method is the most accurate and the de-facto-standard way of measuring the GDP.
Nobody is buying holes, nobody wants them because they are just filling them up again.
Not true. The government in this case is buying refilled holes.
surely you can see that digging a hole no one wants and then filling it up again is producing nothing of value for the economy.
Again, someone wants that refilled hole. And by definition something "has value" when it is bought. Regardless on whether you can use it later, or how does it look, or any other consideration.
Besides, who are you to tell that something that gets bought and sold "has no value" ? There are people spending a lot of money on sex hot lines, for example. Those money gets accounted in the GDP. I personally see this as "nothing" or even negative produced value, (if anything for the waste of time). And i am sure that one can find a lot of crazy examples in which people buy the most useless services and crap, but, again who am I to establish (against the used definitions and conventions by the way) that something that gets sold and bought has "no value" ??
And finally, even if you want to see this as money for nothing, that is a negative tax, so nothing gets bought from the government, then the second part of the previous post applies, and as i said (but you can do the math yourself) under some conditions (basically if you give money to the right people) the multiplier is still greater than one.
I'll try to get to the article later, it looks interesting.
So the GDP is "the market value of all the final goods and services newly produced on domestic soil during a given time period".
So if i buy from you a service and i pay you with a dollar, then that dollar gets accounted in the GDP. (BTW this would be accounted under "consumption" (C). If you sell the same service to a business it's called investment (I), if you sell it to the government is called government expense (G), and finally if you sell it overseas it's called net export (NX)).
If i give the same dollar to you as a gift then no, it's not part of the GDP. If i decide that digging hole is a service and you dig a hole for me and i pay you a dollar it does go in the GDP. And this is true whether i am the government, a business, a consumer, or a foreign entity.
So if I am the government and you dig a hole for me and i pay you then it goes into the GDP directly. When you spend part of that dollar on other things that part goes in the GDP as well. So the multiplier of digging holes cannot be less than one (if i am doing the math right, in this simple model is 1/(1-Cy) with Cy = dC/dY between 0 and 1).
If I the government give you money for free then it's called a tax rebate, you will spend part of that dollar, and (only) that part goes in the GDP.
So in that simple aggregate model the multiplier is Cy/(1-Cy), which is less then one if Cy is less than 0.5, basically depending if on average people spend that dollar right away or not.
Now, here is the important point, if you are not rich and are "budget constrained", chances are that you WILL spend almost the whole dollar right away on a car, a beer, or whatever is of value to you. So if i give 10$ to the poorest half of the population and they spend them right away on whatever is of value to them, then essentially those 10$ go directly in the GDP and if you consider that the liquor stores and car shops in turn spend part of that money then the multiplier is probably still greater than one.
Actually this has been a good exercise for me to think about this concepts in order to explain them. Thanks:)
Sorry for the late answer i had no time to pee in the last couple of days:)
You have to compare how much the government spent with how much the economy grew
Yes it is the G/GDP ratio, that is important, of course, and in fact that picture shows exactly the G/GDP ratio, and over the following few years the GDP increased largely beacuse of government demand, so... I don't get what you are trying to say here.
Basic Macroeconomics theory is often wrong
Well you have to start from somewhere. Of course every theory gets refined to hopefully represent reality better. Besides saying that something is wrong without providing evidence that a refined model can do better is not really a constructive approach. OTOH this is Slashdot so we can all get some slack here:)
But, are you saying that advanced macro says the opposite of basic macro ? I really don't think that's the case.
Your point #4 is called "crowding out" and it is considered in the ISLM model. It does decrease the effectiveness of the multiplier, but it's still greater than one. Also crowding cannot occur if there is a consistent excess of savings over investments as in this recession.
Taken to the extreme, if the government hires everyone to dig holes, nothing of value will be produced by anyone.
Yes but it won't hurt anyone either. In other words, in this simple model in which people don't need to eat or consume, G (government expenditure) = Y (GDP) = T (taxes) and the multiplier is exactly one, as a raise in G is equal to a raise in GDP. All income gets spent in taxes, and there is no real economy. There is a demand for holes, from "we the holediggers", which is met with a supply of holes, and holes would be all that is valued and produced in this kind of civilization.
As soon you get consumption into the equation, with the very reasonable and empirically proved assumption that C(Y) has positive slope (people consume more when they have more money to spend), then GDP = Y = G + C(Y-T) its easy to see that the multiplier is greater than one (solve for Y and get the derivative wrt G). Once you pull in also investments, savings and the LM equation you can see that the multiplier decreases, (in normal situations) because of crowding out, as you mentioned. If you allow for the government to run deficit so taxes can be deferred in the future, and account for inflation then the multiplier actually goes up again.
People trying to actually calculate the multiplier from data seemed to get a value of 1.3 or 1.37, i don't remember now, but i can look for the papers.
Anyway the bottom line is that if you hire unemployed people to do actually something more valuable than holes, and use money that are invested in low yield long term bonds (== sitting idle for all practical purposes), or even better not invested or spent at all, and allow for taxes to be paid later, maybe over 30 years, then common sense says that a lot of value is produced at a very small cost and the multiplier should be much greater than one.
Basic Macroeconomics theory says that any spending in which the state intervenes on the market by hiring people to do some job has multiplier greater than one. of course how much greater depends on the job and the situation.
This very basic models might be, and actually are, oversimplified, but during the crisis made correct prediction, e.g. about the rate while many other models had nothing to say or made completely wrong predictions.
By the way, see the bump in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt.png that was the spending for WW2, arguably while those were money spent to DESTROY things, it served to reboot the whole US industry, getting the US (and the whole world including especially europe) out of a depression/stagnation and arguably into 20 a path of 20 years of solid growth. I'd argue the multiplier was greater than 1:)
I am not an economist but i have been studying economics (mostly basic Macro) during the last few years. Having a simple mathematical model such as IS-LM makes it a little easier to think clearly about this stuff.
I am not sure about the effect that you would expect from tax breaks, but consider that tax breaks are not exactly the same as "just paying people", because a lot of tax breaks go to people who don't really need to spend money right away (like for example the unemployed) and therefore get saved, so they don't contribute to increase demand. This was especially true in the Bush years.
Also consider that the Obama stimulus and federal tax breaks were (and still are) offset by a lot of cuts and layoffs at the state level. Still, things are very slowly getting better, so perhaps the worst part is over assuming Europe doesn't break down.
we could easily accomplish the same goal now simply destroying the infrastructure ourselves, and rebuilding it.
or by simply rebuild it. We in fact could, but as i said we have lost the political will to start these big scale projects.
we could just hire people to dig holes and fill them up
or simply pay people to do nothing at all. To be clear, that would be among the worst possible investments, but as long as people will readily spend those money that would create demand for products, and therefore business investments and everything else. In this economy, i maintain the overall effect would still be slightly positive. Of course there will also be a raise in inflation down the line, but we will be slightly better off by then, if anything because inflation will help with the debt (which will matter less).
Note that this would be actually bad for the people and institutions who own that debt, which they call in fact credit, because their assets would be devalued. Which in fact is the very reason why we are not politically capable of doing anything like that, while at the same time the government did not blink twice before handing over a trillion dollars to save the banks a couple of years ago.
Also note, the money base has nearly triplicated in these couple of years, (quantitative easing, stimulus package and so on). A lot of that money is in fact sitting idle in banks, or invested back in treasures, but it is NOT circulating, at least in the US, because business are not willing to borrow those money to expand their capability when they in fact face a shrinking demand for their products.
No the point is that that T$ would NOT get spent any other way but sit idle in banks (well, more or less) until we decide to start another war. OF COURSE it would be much better for the economy to have a 1T$ investment on, say, technology, without having to sustain the damage in the first place. But apparently we have lost the political capability of doing that after we landed on the moon.
I was half-joking in the original post, but if you think about it, either way you put it it would be a tremendous immediate loss of value, but it would then put everybody to work and cause some redistribution from people who have lost value to people that work for a living. And we will end up with a much better infrastructure at the end.
If that's what she said, it's tragic other than funny. This administration of sad clowns, old thieves, and incompetent assholes (except perhaps the finance minister) has to go. The sooner the better. And i say it as an Italian who lives in LA but goes back yearly and still loves his country.
You need to learn MATLAB early on, since MATLAB and Simulink are the tools that the automotive industry uses the most for engine modeling and control, and to generate the low-level code that ends up in the ECUs.
Slashdot Mirror
... I hear they taste like chicken.
WHAT ??? Sea urchins taste like chicken ?? No way!! If you have to find a comparison perhaps caviar is the closer (but still far) one, since you basically eat the eggs of the female urchin.
In any case sea urchins are more of a delicacy or condiment at best, not a consistent source of proteins. If anything because finding them, fishing them (and opening them) requires some dedicated manual effort, which is not easy to scale or automate.
I think there are way too many lawyers and like-minded people who try to solve things be throwing regulations at them without even trying to understand the consequences.
I'm all for smart regulations that try to regulate systems optimally, but this is way too much, far beyond worrysome and not even funny !!
If these companies are trying to occupy the same marketplace as the Arduino, i think it's too late. Otherwise it's definitely a good move.
In any case IMO what really allowed the Arduino to take off was not much the fact that it was open source, but rather the fact that it had readable documentation, which anyone could actually follow and make things work.
I am still amazed at the extent to which, to this day, the documentation for many Arduino-wannabe boards (e.g TI MSP 430, Chipkit 32, and others) really sucks.
The federal government is basically a coalition of the fortune 100 corporations. The larger and more toxic to liberty it gets, the more power the 1% has over the rest of us.
Yes and no. Yes because corporations and the 1% buy lobbyists to get their way. No because representatives are elected mainly with votes, and buying votes costs a lot of money and it's feasible only to a point. So politicians cannot be completely indifferent to the other 99%.
To me, this is a call to fix the loopholes that let 1% and corporations buy votes, more than a call to shrink the government.
Moreover i don't fully understand the measure against which a government can be classified as big or small, perhaps size of public spending vs GDP ?. Remember that most of the taxpayer's money get spent on private entities in healthcare and defense anyway, so the government is just a mean for "us the people" to buy ourselves defense and healthcare.
In any case, i see and understand your point, even if i don't totally agree with it.
Today, the liberals draw more political power to the state with things like encroaching tax, identity politics, censorship, and other marxist tenets
I honestly don't see this, can't make examples of any "marxist tenets" that are held sacred by the left. To the extent that this is really so, and these tenets run contrary to the interest of the population, then it is absolutely something that the left needs to fix.
I think corporations don't kill or torture people because, luckily, they live in an environment of laws (which is created and enforced by the governments) which makes such violent action too risky and expensive for them :)
But, yes, i agree with everything you suggested. I'd only add that whenever governments need to have some concentration of power (which i agree is dangerous), then they should absolutely positively pay for this concentration of power with transparency, so that they can actually be monitored and kept in check by their citizens.
To me transparency is a key point, if we give power and money to the government to represent our interests, we really can't afford misguided secrecy and privacy laws that prevent us to know how those power and money are spent.
Power corrupts. Always.
Yes. But real power nowadays lies elsewhere. Big corporations, quasi-monopolies, banks, lobbies, all the guys buying off the politicians. And IMO we need STRONG and effective governments to fight this sources of powers which almost always are interested in screwing everyone else.
This sort of thing is precisely why some of us dislike government in general and large governments in particular.
I don't see this as a rational position. The idea is that governments are "we the people" remember ? If you don't feel represented by your government then this calls for action to correct that specific problem (e.g. be careful who you vote, make your voice heard, and so on), not for shrinking the government. Without an organization representing "we the people" then we'll descend inevitably into middle ages, 21st century style, where only the strongest (financially) will rule. You don't want that, do you ?
Sometimes i wonder whether we might come to a point, like 10-15 years from now, where it might make more economical sense for MS to just rely on the Linux kernel (perhaps contributing just some resources to it, the way that other companies do) instead of having to develop and maintain their own. That could free up resources to do other things, and potentially help to gain some share in the mobile device market, where it looks like NT-based kernels might never be as efficient as Android or Macs.
Sure, that might be true for the 0.1% that has dividends of the robot companies, but the rest will probably die off in one way or another.
Also note that if only few survive, many robot companies won't be needed because there will be less stuff to be produced, so the sustainability of this kind of society should not be given for granted.
I suggest you this interesting read about 4 possible futures.
That being said, 2045 is waaaay too soon (i would guess many hundred years) for something like that to actually happen. Robots just aren't advanced enough to replace humans in too many jobs, especially, i would say, jobs that require a mix of many "real world" skills (e.g. plumbers, salesmans, ... drug dealers, and so on, you get the idea:-)
I think it is time to pull the plug on solar and focus instead on wind and research thorium reactors.
When you factor everything (e.g. panel production environmental cost, maintenance, use of land, longevity of the panels, and so on), solar is just not worthy, or at least very rarely better than wind. So i see no reason to artificially keep it alive.
Also there is not as much uranium as people think. Civilization is a 18TW bulb. If you power (all of) it only with existing uranium resources the light would last barely one year, (go run the number yourself if you don't believe it or have a look at this). Thorium should be better.
I hope this gets actually done soon, so we can call it a day and get back to more interesting concepts like building a base in the south pole of the moon (using robot), or trying to build space elevators, or placing shades in the L1 point to regulate global warming, or, you know, maybe funding actual science (e.g. gravitational wave detectors, and plenty of other very cool missions).
... what you are doing, but you better start looking for a lawyer :-)
I really doubt it because it's a rather well know fact by now (e.g. research by Zimbardo et. al) that the majority of people that commit crimes don't actually think about the future before committing them. They don't even think a few months in advance, let alone at what happens after life ...
... Simultaneous Localization and Mapping.
Agreed. Besides we basically have the F35 ready by now. So tossing the F22 would really be the most sensible thing to do, and i would argue that the only reason why we haven't done it already it's because people get attached to their pork.
Funny how the same people that want to starve the government start to cry bloody murder when government supported defense jobs are at stake.
So what ? It does not matter what any entity "wants" to the effect of the GDP. It only matters what gets bought and sold and for what price. If some entity is paying people to do a job, regardless on how useful or useless the job is, that money gets accounted in the GDP. That's just the way it is.
Essentially, it really depends on how the transaction is accounted for. If it's considered as a purchase then it goes in the GDP. If it's listed as a transfer, (that is a gift) then not. However, the multiplier can be greater than one even in the second case, if people spend more than 50% of those money right away on purchases.
In this model everything that is produced is bought. And in fact it is a reasonable assumption that always holds for services and almost always holds even for physical stuff that actually gets produced, especially given the decreasing size of inventories nowadays. More and more stuff is produced literally only "after" it gets bought. In fact the expenditure method is the most accurate and the de-facto-standard way of measuring the GDP.
Not true. The government in this case is buying refilled holes.
Again, someone wants that refilled hole. And by definition something "has value" when it is bought. Regardless on whether you can use it later, or how does it look, or any other consideration.
Besides, who are you to tell that something that gets bought and sold "has no value" ? There are people spending a lot of money on sex hot lines, for example. Those money gets accounted in the GDP. I personally see this as "nothing" or even negative produced value, (if anything for the waste of time). And i am sure that one can find a lot of crazy examples in which people buy the most useless services and crap, but, again who am I to establish (against the used definitions and conventions by the way) that something that gets sold and bought has "no value" ??
And finally, even if you want to see this as money for nothing, that is a negative tax, so nothing gets bought from the government, then the second part of the previous post applies, and as i said (but you can do the math yourself) under some conditions (basically if you give money to the right people) the multiplier is still greater than one.
I'll try to get to the article later, it looks interesting.
So the GDP is "the market value of all the final goods and services newly produced on domestic soil during a given time period".
So if i buy from you a service and i pay you with a dollar, then that dollar gets accounted in the GDP. (BTW this would be accounted under "consumption" (C). If you sell the same service to a business it's called investment (I), if you sell it to the government is called government expense (G), and finally if you sell it overseas it's called net export (NX)).
If i give the same dollar to you as a gift then no, it's not part of the GDP. If i decide that digging hole is a service and you dig a hole for me and i pay you a dollar it does go in the GDP. And this is true whether i am the government, a business, a consumer, or a foreign entity.
So if I am the government and you dig a hole for me and i pay you then it goes into the GDP directly. When you spend part of that dollar on other things that part goes in the GDP as well. So the multiplier of digging holes cannot be less than one (if i am doing the math right, in this simple model is 1/(1-Cy) with Cy = dC/dY between 0 and 1).
If I the government give you money for free then it's called a tax rebate, you will spend part of that dollar, and (only) that part goes in the GDP.
So in that simple aggregate model the multiplier is Cy/(1-Cy), which is less then one if Cy is less than 0.5, basically depending if on average people spend that dollar right away or not.
Now, here is the important point, if you are not rich and are "budget constrained", chances are that you WILL spend almost the whole dollar right away on a car, a beer, or whatever is of value to you. So if i give 10$ to the poorest half of the population and they spend them right away on whatever is of value to them, then essentially those 10$ go directly in the GDP and if you consider that the liquor stores and car shops in turn spend part of that money then the multiplier is probably still greater than one.
Actually this has been a good exercise for me to think about this concepts in order to explain them. Thanks :)
Sorry for the late answer i had no time to pee in the last couple of days :)
Yes it is the G/GDP ratio, that is important, of course, and in fact that picture shows exactly the G/GDP ratio, and over the following few years the GDP increased largely beacuse of government demand, so ... I don't get what you are trying to say here.
Well you have to start from somewhere. Of course every theory gets refined to hopefully represent reality better. Besides saying that something is wrong without providing evidence that a refined model can do better is not really a constructive approach. :)
OTOH this is Slashdot so we can all get some slack here
But, are you saying that advanced macro says the opposite of basic macro ? I really don't think that's the case.
Your point #4 is called "crowding out" and it is considered in the ISLM model. It does decrease the effectiveness of the multiplier, but it's still greater than one. Also crowding cannot occur if there is a consistent excess of savings over investments as in this recession.
Yes but it won't hurt anyone either. In other words, in this simple model in which people don't need to eat or consume, G (government expenditure) = Y (GDP) = T (taxes) and the multiplier is exactly one, as a raise in G is equal to a raise in GDP. All income gets spent in taxes, and there is no real economy. There is a demand for holes, from "we the holediggers", which is met with a supply of holes, and holes would be all that is valued and produced in this kind of civilization.
As soon you get consumption into the equation, with the very reasonable and empirically proved assumption that C(Y) has positive slope (people consume more when they have more money to spend), then GDP = Y = G + C(Y-T) its easy to see that the multiplier is greater than one (solve for Y and get the derivative wrt G). Once you pull in also investments, savings and the LM equation you can see that the multiplier decreases, (in normal situations) because of crowding out, as you mentioned. If you allow for the government to run deficit so taxes can be deferred in the future, and account for inflation then the multiplier actually goes up again.
People trying to actually calculate the multiplier from data seemed to get a value of 1.3 or 1.37, i don't remember now, but i can look for the papers.
Anyway the bottom line is that if you hire unemployed people to do actually something more valuable than holes, and use money that are invested in low yield long term bonds (== sitting idle for all practical purposes), or even better not invested or spent at all, and allow for taxes to be paid later, maybe over 30 years, then common sense says that a lot of value is produced at a very small cost and the multiplier should be much greater than one.
I have no idea about the carter stimulus.
Basic Macroeconomics theory says that any spending in which the state intervenes on the market by hiring people to do some job has multiplier greater than one. of course how much greater depends on the job and the situation.
If you google around, actually see for example this:
http://www.wellesley.edu/Economics/weerapana/econ202/econ202pdf/lecture%20202-16.pdf
in page 2 the multiplier is greater than one because b is positive.
See also the equations in here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier
This very basic models might be, and actually are, oversimplified, but during the crisis made correct prediction, e.g. about the rate while many other models had nothing to say or made completely wrong predictions.
By the way, see the bump in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt.png :)
that was the spending for WW2, arguably while those were money spent to DESTROY things, it served to reboot the whole US industry, getting the US (and the whole world including especially europe) out of a depression/stagnation and arguably into 20 a path of 20 years of solid growth. I'd argue the multiplier was greater than 1
I am not an economist but i have been studying economics (mostly basic Macro) during the last few years. Having a simple mathematical model such as IS-LM makes it a little easier to think clearly about this stuff.
I am not sure about the effect that you would expect from tax breaks, but consider that tax breaks are not exactly the same as "just paying people", because a lot of tax breaks go to people who don't really need to spend money right away (like for example the unemployed) and therefore get saved, so they don't contribute to increase demand. This was especially true in the Bush years.
Also consider that the Obama stimulus and federal tax breaks were (and still are) offset by a lot of cuts and layoffs at the state level. Still, things are very slowly getting better, so perhaps the worst part is over assuming Europe doesn't break down.
or by simply rebuild it. We in fact could, but as i said we have lost the political will to start these big scale projects.
or simply pay people to do nothing at all. To be clear, that would be among the worst possible investments, but as long as people will readily spend those money that would create demand for products, and therefore business investments and everything else. In this economy, i maintain the overall effect would still be slightly positive. Of course there will also be a raise in inflation down the line, but we will be slightly better off by then, if anything because inflation will help with the debt (which will matter less).
Note that this would be actually bad for the people and institutions who own that debt, which they call in fact credit, because their assets would be devalued. Which in fact is the very reason why we are not politically capable of doing anything like that, while at the same time the government did not blink twice before handing over a trillion dollars to save the banks a couple of years ago.
Also note, the money base has nearly triplicated in these couple of years, (quantitative easing, stimulus package and so on). A lot of that money is in fact sitting idle in banks, or invested back in treasures, but it is NOT circulating, at least in the US, because business are not willing to borrow those money to expand their capability when they in fact face a shrinking demand for their products.
No the point is that that T$ would NOT get spent any other way but sit idle in banks (well, more or less) until we decide to start another war. OF COURSE it would be much better for the economy to have a 1T$ investment on, say, technology, without having to sustain the damage in the first place. But apparently we have lost the political capability of doing that after we landed on the moon.
I was half-joking in the original post, but if you think about it, either way you put it it would be a tremendous immediate loss of value, but it would then put everybody to work and cause some redistribution from people who have lost value to people that work for a living. And we will end up with a much better infrastructure at the end.
Actually a 1T$ investment to rebuild all the electrical infrastructure would be just great both for the infrastructure AND for the economy.
If that's what she said, it's tragic other than funny. This administration of sad clowns, old thieves, and incompetent assholes (except perhaps the finance minister) has to go. The sooner the better. And i say it as an Italian who lives in LA but goes back yearly and still loves his country.
You need to learn MATLAB early on, since MATLAB and Simulink are the tools that the automotive industry uses the most for engine modeling and control, and to generate the low-level code that ends up in the ECUs.