On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:18:54 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
So everyone is always in favor of stimulus that directly feeds real growth,
but no one has ever really succeeded in directing money that way in a
recession. I don't know of a way to do it, politics aside.

--
Ed Huntress
=======
While highly desirable, this is very difficult in a rapidly
changing economy/culture. While historical data exists and tools
such as input-output analysis are available, this leaves the
policy makers in the position of attempting to drive down the
interstate at 70 MPH by looking in the rear view mirror.

Another problem is defining "real growth." Does this mean
"economic growth," e.g. more of the same only better (which is
largely how/why we got into trouble in the first place) or does
it mean "economic development," e.g. the development of new
products, services and organizations. Another facet of this
question is how are the benefits to be shared?

As I have indicated in previous posts on other threads, until and
unless Draconian financial and corporate governance
reform/regulation is enacted and rigorously/intensively enforced
for both institutions and individuals, this is simply sending
good [taxpayer] money after bad, as the economic crises,
debacles, catastrophes, disasters, etc. will just keep occurring,
and the retail investors/taxpayers will continue to take it
directly and indirectly in the shorts.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).