MICKEY MOUSE ECONOMICS
A few days ago, my friend Bonny woke up $600 richer. She was one of millions of US citizens who had benefited from the Bush government’s economic stimulus package. A cheque from the Federal government, ostensibly a tax rebate, landed on her doormat. The theory behind it is that those who receive the money will immediately plough it back into the economy, thereby stimulating the profits of corporations which will prompt them to expand and employ more staff.
Well, all I can say is that so far, I have spoken to about 7 people and only one of them, a friend of mine, has rushed out to spend the money on an impulse (on a Kayak, would you believe. Guess that is a lot better than a gun or a gas guzzling Hummer. And what is more, she is a staunch Democrat who would never have a good word to say about the current regime and its policies).
All the others had either paid off a credit card bill with it or deposited it in their savings account. And yet, there is a consensus between the Republicans and the Democrats that such interventionist measures really do work in times of economic recession. It is believed that low-to-middle income people, however financially challenged they are, will still go out and indulge in some retail therapy. Both Clinton and Bush, back in 2002, implemented stimulus packages which were said to have been efficacious.
Those who earned less than $3000 in 2007 are not entitled to a rebate and yet, a couple with 3 children whose income was $145,000, would benefit to the tune of $2100. Does not sound very equitable to me.
By and large, serious economists do not like economic stimulus packages. They say that they are all about creating a short term feel good factor and do not address the structural problems in the economy. A fairly obvious conclusion which seems about right to me. Some say that, paradoxically, if you make unemployed people feel richer, they will be less likely to try and rejoin the work force. Others point out that simultaneously trying to encourage investment by way of tax cuts to businesses and consumption by way of rebates to individuals is counter- productive. Without wishing to get too technical, they say that to apply demand side and supply side economics at the same time is a flawed approach.
I called my friend, Larry the Birdman (he makes bird art using palm leaves) to see what he made of it. ‘Well I didn’t get one but the folks who did seem to be sharing some of their wealth around, so it’s alright by me,’ he said. I asked him how they were sharing their wealth and he told me that there was more meat in evidence in his neck of the woods in Virginia and he had been to a couple of barbecues where there was an abundance of good quality steak.
I finally heard a statistic on the radio, that only a third of people who received a lump sum have spent more than half of it. Not a particularly good return on the government’s $150 billion investment.
AMERICAN ENGLISH -BRITISH ENGLISH UPDATE
AM.ENGLISH :::: BR.ENGLISH
CHINKY :::: CHEAP
YOUR ACCOUNT IS DELINQUENT :::: YOUR ACCOUNT IS IN
ARREARS/OVERDUE
A TEMPEST IN A TEA POT :::: A STORM IN A TEA CUP
LAY- AWAY :::: PUT TO ONE SIDE (YOU CAN PAY
FOR SOMETHING IN
INSTALMENTS BUT YOU ONLY
TAKE POSSESSION OF THE ITEM
WHEN YOU HAVE PAID IN FULL)
DUMPSTER DIVING :::: RUBBISH SKIP SCAVENGING
JET JOCKEY :::: PILOT
JUMP DRIVE-STORE’N’GO :::: COMPUTER MEMORY STICK
GALLAHOOTING :::: GALLAVANTING

















