18 Oct '10 02:18>
Originally posted by sh76The amount of time you spend on this site, it is by no means certain that you do still have a wife. Have you checked lately?
If American women are so emancipated, why doesn't my wife want to work? ðŸ˜
Originally posted by spruce112358I don't think anyone thinks deficit spending and public works alone are a cure, but they do help to mitigate the severity of a recession. Interesting that you recognize that it worked for Japan, then use it as criticism for the US.
Deficit spending and public works. Sound familiar? Have you heard anyone recently proposing that the US take identical steps as a cure for our recession brought on by a property bubble? Krugman, say? Or Thomas Friedman?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think the article said deficit spending only postponed necessary changes.
I don't think anyone thinks deficit spending and public works alone are a cure, but they do help to mitigate the severity of a recession. Interesting that you recognize that it worked for Japan, then use it as criticism for the US.
Your recession was not 'brought on by a property bubble'. It was brought on by a whole range of really bad policies and poor saving habits by Americans (encouraged by bad policies).
Originally posted by zeeblebotHere is a recent article from a female Swedish journalist about the role of women in Swedish society:
actual female employment or stated (by govt) female employment, in Nordic countries?
who raises the kids?
Originally posted by spruce112358In other words they were effective at staving off many of the negative side effects of the recession.
I think the article said deficit spending only postponed necessary changes.
Originally posted by sh76Japan's birth rate is one of the lowest in the world, and immigration too is relatively low. Consequently, Japan is one of the few countries in the world where population is actually falling. It is not therefore surprising that economic growth should be low. But since a static economy with a falling population actually means that GDP per capita is still growing, I'm not sure why Japan should worry about this too much!
So, are we doomed to decades of economic stagnation, deflation and near zero interest rates or are we really different?
Originally posted by finneganIn the last month (again, just to pick a random time sample; feel free to pick another and measure if you please), I have 12 pages of posts. That is far less than at least a dozen other regulars here (probably more). Yet the impression exists that I do nothing but eat, breathe and sleep this board.
The amount of time you spend on this site, it is by no means certain that you do still have a wife. Have you checked lately?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe bank doesn't own your house in the US; a mortgage is a loan secured by the property. Foreclosure is merely the enforcement this lien because of nonpayment; the bank cannot foreclose any time they please.
[/b]In other words they were effective at staving off many of the negative side effects of the recession.
Surely the fact that they are not an ultimate cure, is not an argument against not using them. Thats like saying any doctor that prescribes pain killers is a failure.
I can see the argument for government deficit spending during a large-scale war. f interest). Of course many people found that out in the US when the banks foreclosed on them.
Originally posted by spruce112358The mortgage tax deduction had little impact on the housing boom. Only 20% of taxpayers even itemize, so the majority who own homes don't use it. That would be even more true during the 2000's when the banks loosened their lending standards to include those with lower income and assets to satisfy Wall Street's desire for more mortgages they could securitize.
I think the article said deficit spending only postponed necessary changes.
I can see the argument for government deficit spending during a large-scale war. I'm not sure it makes sense any other time -- and certainly not during boom times like we had been having. You pay down debt during boom times (duh!)
If government was more contrarian or level ...[text shortened]... u need tax policy to encourage buying houses when everyone is buying houses? It makes no sense.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy would someone with a mortgage not itemize? The standard deduction is less than $6,000. Even on a small mortgage (say, $150,000), the mortgage interest alone is going to be more than the standard deduction.
The mortgage tax deduction had little impact on the housing boom. Only 20% of taxpayers even itemize, so the majority who own homes don't use it. That would be even more true during the 2000's when the banks loosened their lending standards to include those with lower income and assets to satisfy Wall Street's desire for more mortgages they could securitize.