Spend a Billion, get a Trillion

[BoyNextDoor]

Now that is a great deal!


Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America’s most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. A year-long analysis by the Sunlight Foundation suggests, however, that what they gave pales compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4 trillion in federal business and support.

That figure, more than the $4.3 trillion the federal government paid the nation’s 50 million Social Security recipients over the same period, is the result of an unprecedented effort to quantify the less-examined side of the campaign finance equation: Do political donors get something in return for what they give?

All attribution to: http://sunlightfoundation.com/

 

[Que]

Exactly right, and this is not a partisan issue, both sides get billions and it takes both sides to fund the trillions they give away.

One of the few things that Bernie Sanders and I could commiserate about over a hypothetical beer.

 

[phrodeau]

I thought this thread was going to be about the success of the stimulus program.

 

[Que]

I thought this thread was going to be about the success of the stimulus program.

No that would be: "Spend 3/4 of a trillion, get the slowest recovery in history."

An easy mistake to make if you know little about politics and less about economics.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

No that would be: "Spend 3/4 of a trillion, get the slowest recovery in history."

An easy mistake to make if you know little about politics and less about economics.

I thought you were more in touch with reality than this. This is Vette-esque

 

[Que]

I thought you were more in touch with reality than this. This is Vette-esque

Seriously?

You liked frodo's assertion that we got 1000:1 bang for the buck off of the Porculous package? We didn't even get the purported 2:1 ratio that Nanci Pelosi insist applies to unemployment checks, but not tax cuts.

We spent 3/4 of a trillion dollars, and this IS the slowest recovery on record. What part of that statement concerns you? Did the Porculous package directly slow the recovery? No. It also demonstrably did not help anymore than the same thing tried in Japan helped them during their lost decade. (Going on two decades by the way.)

 

[Que]

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that Frodo's tired, discredited, Keynesian view of economics was anywhere close to supportable. With the numbers he suggested, a trillion given to anyone including cronies should generate a quadrillion in new, economic activity.

Lets say that Pelosi is right. A trillion given to whomever should pay the economy back at least a couple of trillion. Except it doesn't.

Money (capital) that is not put to profitable endeavors is an expenditure. The amount spent is then re-spent, of course but think of it this way... I give a homeless man a dollar. He buys a jug of water. the store owner deposits that dollar in the bank, the strip club owner gets it in a strap of singles in his change order. It is still one dollar. None of that economic activity made that one dollar into 2.

Money (capital) that is put to work on a good day will yield a return of that capital, plus a profit. You hope to have return of investment plus return on investment. Ideally for every dollar you put to work with machines or a good idea or brilliant marketing you hope to get $1.10 to $1.15 over the course of a full year.

The idea that simply spending money causes more economic activity than actually having that money do work is silly on it's face. If government spending was a better use of available capital than capitalism, I would be in favor of everyone sending all of their money to Washington and simply waiting for their royalty checks.

John Maynard Keynes would laugh his ass off about the wild claims Keynesian make in his name these days.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Seriously?

You liked frodo's assertion that we got 1000:1 bang for the buck off of the Porculous package? We didn't even get the purported 2:1 ratio that Nanci Pelosi insist applies to unemployment checks, but not tax cuts.

We spent 3/4 of a trillion dollars, and this IS the slowest recovery on record. What part of that statement concerns you? Did the Porculous package directly slow the recovery? No. It also demonstrably did not help anymore than the same thing tried in Japan helped them during their lost decade. (Going on two decades by the way.)

Are you referring to "the bailout"/TARP?

 

[Que]

The ineptly named- 'The American Recovery and Re"investment" Act of 2009.' Colloquially known as "The Stimulus Act," or more frankly, "Porkulous."

Tarp was in addition to that, but I don't suppose Frodo is including that.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The ineptly named- 'The American Recovery and Re"investment" Act of 2009.' Colloquially known as "The Stimulus Act," or more frankly, "Porkulous."

Tarp was in addition to that, but I don't suppose Frodo is including that.

Suck an egg.

Do political donors get something in return for what they give?

 

[Que]

Do political donors get something in return for what they give?

Obviously, why else would they give the money?

That sentiment is why, in response to your OP I said:

Exactly right, and this is not a partisan issue, both sides get billions and it takes both sides to fund the trillions they give away.

One of the few things that Bernie Sanders and I could commiserate about over a hypothetical beer.

Does that mean you wish to abandon Frodo's thread-jack and get back to discussing the fact that crony-ism from the left and the right are resulting in unsustainable budgets?

Things like the relatively minor campaign contribution to Obama resulted in a 1/2 billion dollar loss with Soylindra even though before the money was outlayed the feasibility study said it would be far cheaper to simply import panels from china than to manufacture them there. In fairness, that was done both as a kickback and because it promoted the campaign narrative about "green jobs."