- Could our society implode on the race issue?
- Business becomes the villain? Is Hollywood Making money from Financial Crises?
- Limited best seller Inside Job: The Looting of the American Savings and Loans
- Now, AT&T, the once proud flagship of American commerce uses outright fraud to boost earnings
- Another New Thought: Helicopter money and fiscal rules
The other side of BIG and Demand
The books need to be balanced, saldeck, - at least theoretically - to demonstrate if your proposition of the new BIG is feasible.
That balance is the answer to the query, "Who pays for it?"
Distribution in any amount to other than the chosen recipients, is objectionable - especially to the 83 or 87 who constitute the weighted majority in today's effective constituency. They do not favor recovery; if they did, the capital would have been available and the process would have been underway. Demand would no longer be an issue. But, with your proposal, taking the effect of inflation into consideration, finances would be a considerable burden. If distribution to the lower echelon is necessary, paying for it could only be managed by reclaiming the distribution by raising taxes on the recipients. Clearly counter-productive. Therefore, we're left with the option of taxing the 83 or 87 who have control of governments world-wide.
Now, I ask - How viable is that?
The first objection would be the basic panic curse of "Communism!" or "Socialism" (which, if applied as it has been in the recent run-up to the crisis, meaning assistance to the culprits who ran short of circulating currency because they diverted the flow to where they believed it would do the most good, then had the governments reimburse them for the "goodwill" (?) created. That was an acceptable form of socialism; but any suggestion for restitution in the form of taxes on the elite or restoration of missing funds would be clearly the anathema of current governmental systems. The anthem woudl be heard loud and clear, that painful howl echoing day and night, "Robbery! Nobody's gonna get my money!"
So there you are! Directional flow of all money has been pre-determined. There's not enough to feed the savage hunger of the 83 or 87 controlling individuals and also stimulate the basic needs which comprise "demand" for the 72% who constitute normal consumers in normal markets.
So, the 83 or 87 have staked out their claim. And the legislators have dutifully decided who is entitled to collect and retain and who will not pay! Other than that, options are wide open. Those options have no relation to the outmoded theoretical concept of old-fshioned (as of the new century) "Demand".
The books will be unbalanced again for one reason or another if your proposed "BIG" concept is instituted.
This is an attmept at posting a reply as an Forum Topic since the dreded 403 denial is in force somewhere and willnto permit my response to be posted as a comment.
Here's the trial.