This is luiscar's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following luiscar's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
The USA is a country of contrasts. For instance: on the one hand you have the biggest porn industry in the world, on the other hand, you pretend to be puritans. The same happens with laws. You accuse Europe being old and stuck in the past but you have a constitution written three centuries ago. During this two centuries Spain has had 7 constutions and France has had three cosntitutions during the last century. When you read the US constitution, it turns out that it is long and bad structured. Articles are actually chapters and it even included contradictory ammendments. It reminds me of the Spanish const5itution of 1812 that said that catolicism was a would always be the religion of Spain... It has rained a lot since those days. Maybe your politicians should re-write the cosntitution of the USA or write a new constitution. It would not harm and that way you could adapt laws to current times. You could for instance elect your president by total number of votes cast, instead of by the college. After all, we are in the internet age and that is possible.
What Steve explains in this post is not new at all. Keynes used to say that in the worst case, the central bnak should pay some enterprises to make deep holes and bury boxes full of money. Afterwards replenish the holes and leave enterprises to redig to get the boxes. He complete everything that this would be better than not doing anything. Anyway, it is obvious that if something good is done, for example a good bridge, then it is better. The idea is that governments at this moment should compensate the lack of consumption of the market who is frightened of what can happen.
Your explanation is mathmatically good. Nevertheless, you have to demonstrated that the composition of household has really changed this decade in relation to last decade
Steve, I am not American and from the outside I consider that your house of representatives has acted in the best way to protect the interest of the American citizens. I am not against a plan to save the American banking system (and who knows if that means saving the World banking system too), but not the way it is proposed. There are bankers who have made bad management decisions and have bought "toilet papers" believing that those were lotto winning tickets. Why have the American citizens to now re-buy this toilet paper so that those bankers do not have a loose? That is not the way how you should protect your banking system. If the bankers have made bad management decisions, the shareholders have lost the value of their investment: end of the story. If these companies were not banks, we would be speaking about bankruptcies. As they are banks, we have to avoid the generation of a "financial panic" (please correct my English if this is not the expression). The government, thus, has to intervene the banks if they are bankrupt but that does not mean given citizens money to their shareholders but getting the control of the bank to protect the customers' accounts and incidentally telling the shareholders hat their investment has dropped to 0 (they are bankrupt anyway). This method has been used in Sweden and Spain at least: there were no "financial panics" and the citizens did not gave away money to well-related people. Unless this is done the same way in the US, it seems to me that certain lobbies expect to gain the 5% of the US GDP for them and their friends.