Comments on: Baker, Krugman, Roubini, 375 Economists Agree: We Need a Massive Economic Stimulus

By: klynn

klynn — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:08:28 +0000

Well, yes in a manner of speaking. But I will be honest with you. Despite my international relations degree, and required econ and the study of growth models, I am not an economist. (alank’s eyes grow big and fills the room with the snark, “Oh really? What a surprise!”). So, I know just enough to understand what I am reading but not quite enough to be the executor of models. I am use to small business models to be honest (after running non-profits with 10 mil budgets). I am simply motivated by the number of friends and family I know who will loose jobs. So I crunch…on excel.(Many chuckles out there.)

But I was inspired by this article and tried to crunch numbers in a three stage restructuring strategy. I do not know if I am making sense. I tried to develop a short term, mid term and long term restructure which would build on one another. Part of my restructure included buying vouchers/rebates for $200 each that were worth a few thousand. (I thought I had it working at $8000/voucher, but I need to go back and check my figures and make sure I entered everything correctly. Unfortunately, the 10% population participation is very unrealistic too.)

Anyway, I probably need to leave this work to the economists out there. Nonetheless, I figured what the heck do I have to lose by not trying?

By: Scarecrow

Scarecrow — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:05:36 +0000

Jane’s got more on the Mother Ship, uh, I mean her blog upstairs.

Thanks guys, good discussion.

By: selise

selise — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:02:47 +0000

thanks. i think roubini has been remarkably consistent, but perhaps not in line with your views (as i understand your comments @6 and @30).

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:49:36 +0000

Heh. Current speaker is pointing out that Rs have been completely incompetent about governing (at the federal level). Nice of him to notice.

By: alank

alank — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:49:05 +0000

Well, I gathered that he was saying one thing and then the opposite, based on your post. I have to admit, I haven’t yet followed your advice and read the thing yet. I was surmising from your post. There are some good articles at rge, tho.

By: alank

alank — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:46:45 +0000

Well, Paulson with the aid of Congress, made a deep hole deeper. I’m open to ideas that would reverse this trend, to be sure. However, it’s best to avoid what has been tried and failed. Basically, the cure being applied currently is what got us where we are now. It makes no sense.

By: alank

alank — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:42:50 +0000

So, you’re trying analyze the effects of restructuring scenarios?

By: selise

selise — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:38:44 +0000

you’re going to have to start at the beginning and take baby steps if i’m going to be able to follow you. sorry!

By: Hugh

Hugh — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:38:17 +0000

Well, yes, but how does that get us out of the current problem short of another depression? Reforming the financial system is an important part of the overall solution, but we don’t need to have the rest of the economy go into depression waiting until this is done.

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:37:22 +0000

This is actually one of the better panels on this subject that I’ve seen. The moderator is an Indiana pollster. She made the statement that drilling was not an energy policy. Sure, she said, when gasoline prices spiked and the Rs did “drill-baby, drill” the polls showed that rising in popularity, but, she went on to note, that is not where the voter is fundamentally.

Guy speaking now is laying out the evidence on how deeply imbedded the Ds are becoming all over the country except for a small region.

In other words, it’s the first panel on the subject I’ve heard that is not ideological.