Michael Gurstein wrote: > I'm not an economist so I need to rely on Wikipedia as in > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplier_%28economics%29 but the significance > of this in the context of my comment is that if the rich folks buy only > Louis Vuitton and drink French wines and the poor folks buy sandals handmade > in the Adirondacks and drink Bud the multiplier of the first would be low > and the second would be high since one dollar spent would trigger only > limited additional local expenditures (retailers, advertisers, truck drivers > for the imported stuff) and a lot more for the non-imported stuff (the same > as for the others but also the folks who raised the cattle, did the > butchering, tanned the local hides and grew the hops and managed the vats > etc.etc.
1) That's why the Predators made sure that the poor guys have to buy Chinese imports. This way, the RoI is bigger. 2) If the billions that Obama puts into the holes cut by Predators, come from the poor/middleclass guys in the first place (which basically remains so even after his cosmetic "tax uncuts", mainly due to the fiat money trick), then the "multiplier effect" becomes pretty irrelevant. What matters is the bottom-up re-distribution that makes a farce of Obama's "Leftism". Obama appointing Larry Summers and Dubya's own war minister (aren't Republicans bad guys??) should have removed the final doubts. But if you took your economic "education" from NYT and Dumbipedia, it's no wonder you are clueless. (I'm not an economist either (this liberates from economic dogmas), but I have learned to think and learn for myself.) Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
