Economics

Stimulis: Because All Economies Have Performance Issues

|

Are you an economy with performance issues?

If you find it hard to achieve and maintain growth, maybe Stimulis is right for you.

Take Stimulis once every election cycle or whenever you're in need of economic enhancement.

"Stimulis" is written and produced by Ted Balaker, and edited by Alex Manning.

Reason Foundation on the stimulus here.

NEXT: Recently at Reason.tv: The John Stossel Interview

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You know, this really isn’t good enough to be posted as much as it has.

    /ducks/

  2. Now, compare that video to this one (skip the first 3 minutes), and imagine if Reason had sent an expendable in to talk to either Specter or a policy aide, both of whom should have been able to answer difficult questions about the scheme but who could have been shown up.

    A video showing that Specter hadn’t thought through the impacts of the bill would have gotten Drudge link and hundreds of thousands of views. Thousands of people would have heard about Reason for the first time.

    Yet, for some reason, they did nothing. Speculating on why they did nothing is left as an exercise.

  3. I figure it this way: with the stimulus, the economy should turn around in about eighteen months. Without it, it would take up to a year and a half…

  4. The next six months in the U.S.-which will determine the prospects for an economic recovery here-are the most important six months in U.S. economic policy in a long, long time.

  5. How about discussing this: Will it cause more harm by putting caps on top executive salaries and bonuses of financial companies taking bailout money?

    I remind you, I’m a peaceful anarchist, and thus just an interested observer. That said, I obviously don’t buy the concept of “leadership” and the exorbitantly high price thereof.

  6. This would be great timing – Valentine’s Day – if it weren’t posted twice before.

  7. This needed separate people to write and edit it?

  8. It’s deja vu all over again.

  9. I used stimulis and achieved real and lasting growth.

  10. You know, this really isn’t good enough to be posted as much as it has.

    Yeah, this was mildly amusing the first time I saw it, but that was all. Constantly reposting this is the internet comedy equivalent of “Meet The Spartans”…

  11. Pretty sad if you ask me, the only ones that will benefit are those who dont need it.

    RT
    http://www.anon-tools.us.tc

  12. if you ask me

  13. I would make a joke about this being old, but last night SNL did a commercial parody involving Sir Mix-a-lot and fotomats. Pretty much anything seems timely after that dated train wreck.

  14. How about discussing this: Will it cause more harm by putting caps on top executive salaries and bonuses of financial companies taking bailout money?

    I’m in favor of requiring the CEOs of companies asking for a bailout to commit seppuku on the White House lawn prior to being allowed to ask for a handout. But pay caps? I’ll take what I can get.

    As far as I’m concerned, anything that makes companies less likely to take my tax money is a good thing, and anything that punishes them for doing so is fine with me. I’d love to see mandatory tattooing on the forehead of executives that take TARP money with the amount they currently owe.

  15. This video has worn out. Not funny anymore. Here is something more interesting from Skewsweak:

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/184985

    More bullshit caused by the lead regulations.

  16. As far as I’m concerned, anything that makes companies less likely to take my tax money is a good thing, and anything that punishes them for doing so is fine with me. I’d love to see mandatory tattooing on the forehead of executives that take TARP money with the amount they currently owe.

    Until you get into a position like Ford, where they tried to refuse the bailout but were given it anyway. When Hank Paulson forces bailouts on a company, then goes back and tries to regulate the recipient, an injustice has occuured…

    (P.S. Was is Ford? I know one major recent TARP recipient denied money, but will be forced to obey the same CEO rules…)

  17. Taktix,
    I thought it was a bank that refused TARP money. I do know, however, that so far Ford has said it doesn’t need a bailout. Good for them. If they build something that doesn’t suck in the future, I might buy it.

  18. “I’m in favor of requiring the CEOs of companies asking for a bailout to commit seppuku on the White House lawn prior to being allowed to ask for a handout.”

    I like that idea. However, I would like to propose an alternative. If you ask for bailout money, you must fight to the death against everyone asking for bailout money. The last man standing wins.

  19. Stimulus, the first step on a depressing Journey along the road to serfdom? We’ll see. . .

    I agree, by the way, you have pretty much worn out that posting, it’s gettin’ old.

  20. Sunday fun link!

    This has to be the most one-sided coverage of events in Venezuela I’ve ever seen from a major U.S. news source.

    I’m not one to post random links, but this was so ridiculous I had to share…

  21. … a deeply polarized country where Chavez has spent a tumultuous decade in power channeling tremendous oil wealth into combating gaping social inequality.

    Heh, good luck with finding a second act now that all that oil “wealth” has been carved up and the price of oil is likely to stay below $40 for years to come. As Mises would say, I think we’re about to watch the “Santa Claus principle liquidate itself” in Venezuela.

  22. It was the heads of Goldman Sach, JP Morgan, and Wells Fargo that tried to refuse the money. Wells’ CEO apparently pounded the table in defiance, before being threatened by Paulson. Morgan Stanley probably also had objections, but didn’t publicly state them.

    Paulson’s logic was that healthy firms had to take the money to eliminate the stigma of handouts. (Check you history–FDR did something similar for Social Security.)

    After the compensation BS Congress added to the massive spending (aka stimulus) law–over the objections of Geithner–I’m certain that Goldman and Morgan are plotting to give the money back as soon as its politically feasible so they can go on a poaching spree for Wall Street talent.

  23. Quit bumping this garbage.

  24. Ford has refused any bailout, because the Ford family still owns a controlling position in the company and is unwilling to be crammed down by Geithner/Paulson/Pelosi/Reid/Obama.

    Goldman will be paying off their forced bailout at the earliest opportunity (at least that’s what people who work there say). I’m sure Morgan and Wells are the same.

    If I’d been at Goldman, I would have just put the forced bailout into a restricted account, and be waiting with a pen poised over a checkbook to sign the check sending it back.

  25. was that healthy firms had to take the money to eliminate the stigma of handouts. (Check you history–FDR did something similar for Social Security.)

  26. A great performance can capable of archive everything

  27. Stimulis is right for me, great stuff!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.