a.) My protest is that his claim, which is one of the underpinnings of the overall theme that the stimulus didn't really help, is incorrect.
c.) That's because next to money, a claim to money is the best thing a business can have. Perhaps an example will clarify:
When my company got a $500k contract to design a highway from TxDOT, we didn't get a check for $500k. Instead, we worked on it and billed TxDOT every month based on how much we had completed. So people were employed, getting paid, spending money, just the same as if my company had already received $500k, but TxDOT had not actually spent that much.
d.) The protest is that Taylor's criticism about poorly targeted spending is about it not increasing overall government spending enough; the federal government spent more money, but it was offset by spending at the state and local levels. Government spending hardly increased. The tax cuts didn't increase consumer spending either, because they were used to save or pay down debt.
e.) For what it's worth, I don't think it's an error to use an expert's estimate in an argument; it's just an inconsistency.
h.) I don't think The Forgotten Man is worth a read anymore than Bowling for Columbine is worth watching. I haven't seen/read either, but I know enough about the information contained therein to know that they probably aren't worth the time. If there's any specific data in there worth sharing, feel free, but I already know that the unemployment statistics were chosen to be skewed and that Shlaes ignores the cut in spending before the economy worsened in 1937.
no subject
c.) That's because next to money, a claim to money is the best thing a business can have. Perhaps an example will clarify:
When my company got a $500k contract to design a highway from TxDOT, we didn't get a check for $500k. Instead, we worked on it and billed TxDOT every month based on how much we had completed. So people were employed, getting paid, spending money, just the same as if my company had already received $500k, but TxDOT had not actually spent that much.
d.) The protest is that Taylor's criticism about poorly targeted spending is about it not increasing overall government spending enough; the federal government spent more money, but it was offset by spending at the state and local levels. Government spending hardly increased. The tax cuts didn't increase consumer spending either, because they were used to save or pay down debt.
e.) For what it's worth, I don't think it's an error to use an expert's estimate in an argument; it's just an inconsistency.
h.) I don't think The Forgotten Man is worth a read anymore than Bowling for Columbine is worth watching. I haven't seen/read either, but I know enough about the information contained therein to know that they probably aren't worth the time. If there's any specific data in there worth sharing, feel free, but I already know that the unemployment statistics were chosen to be skewed and that Shlaes ignores the cut in spending before the economy worsened in 1937.