Comments on: STIMULUS, ASS-BACKWARDS by Douglas Rushkoff

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:23:17 +0000

I have an extremly novice view of this,

I just see it as all the banks as 1 BANK and they re using the term ‘Bailout’ instead of using ‘Taking’ the money of the public to give all the money possible to the morgan/rothschild families. They are using ‘a drip system’ that will add up to everything, instead of them taking it in a massive clump and causing immediate civil war, this way it just passifies the public a touch, although its uproar is inevitable.

Eventually, they will use all of this money and trade it for a new currency/system that they will be completly in control of(they are sucking the dollar dry at the moment)….and then unless we create an alternative way of life, we will be sucked into their new system.

It honestly has nothing to do with Obama, in my opinion.

Aside…Precursor to Martial Law?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090422/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_national_service

lot of money during ‘cuts’!

By: yoseph leib

yoseph leib — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:29:33 +0000

Is President Obama reading these articles? Can someone get him a copy of this? An intern or something?

By: a minority

a minority — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:50:58 +0000

To Benjamin-

giving money for existence versus giving money for a train is different, you are correct. however, the source of the money is the same.

what determines an effective innovator? the government? can effective innovators be legislated into existence?

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:02:29 +0000

I think you’re missing the global perspective. The game being played right now is that China is effectively making most things we buy and then lending us the money for us to buy it. But come on, you don’r really think there is any intention to ever pay it back, do you? The Federal Reserve is printing money in unprecedented amounts. All of this stimulus and bailouts and other programs are just ways of injecting this currency into our economy so we can inflate our debts away. The trick is to print enough to inflate away our debts without freaking out the Chinese and other foreign TBond holders into moving their foreign reserves into other currencies. The USA’s creditors have to believe that this wealth is going to be taxed out of the economy and there needs to be quite a bit of growth to service the compounding interest on the national debt. So all this inflationary activity is being whored up to look like it’s going to kick-start the economy. But the chinese don’t understand economics any better than Americans do and so long as everyone believes the big lie, all is well in the world. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Thank you.

By: Benjamin Melançon

Benjamin Melançon — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:59:46 +0000

To A Minority – paying a company (even General Motors) to make a streetcar, to design a transit station, to lay down track (or magnets) is quite different from giving money to a company so that it continues to exist. The more decentralized and corruption free this process can be made, the better, but it’s still a different approach.

By: a minority

a minority — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:44:02 +0000

Doug,

think you’re on to something but you’re not quite there. your proposed policies are in contradiction.

“Indeed, it would be much cheaper to simply build towns and supply chains less dependent on automobile travel, stop penalizing companies capable of innovating effectively, and repair laws on the books so they aren’t so biased in favor of gigantic corporate players. Almost no one questions the need for government spending as economic stimulus. But as long as we’re doing it, why not invest in people, rather than the oversized, over-centralized firms for whom people are just another resource to be exploited? ”

“stop penalizing companies capable of innovating effectively” is incompatible with “no one questions the need for government spending as economic stimulus”.

an economic stimulus is a penalty on those capable of innovating effectively. what you are suggesting is that, to enable effective innovators, we (Obama, etc.) should steal from the effective innovators and give the money to our friends (mass transit construction, etc.). it is still impossible to get five from a pair of twos. and a bureaucratic award to company xyz is also a penalty to other effective innovators.

“why not invest in people, rather than the oversized, over-centralized firms for whom people are just another resource to be exploited”? ummmm…do you know what kind of governmental overhead is required to “oversee” the distribution of all this “stimulus”? if you put $1 into the black box known as the federal government, do you know how much comes out the other side? it is not and is not close to $1. what is a more prime example of something “oversized” and “over-centralized”? do we really want to circulate more money through (invest in) this black box?

“Almost no one questions the need for government spending as economic stimulus”? really?