Comments on: The Impact of Government Safety Funds

By: Olga

Olga — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:21:08 +0000

about banks – totally agree. Mentioning people I did not mean giving them cash, no. Just invest some money to make PEOPLE lives a little better, not Co’s lives.
Example: pay for families with small children – to pay some health support more then susal obligatory.Sounds understandable and reasonable?

By: jbarthel

jbarthel — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:53:18 +0000

You are right Olga, but I – should have written but only – implied, that goods are things people need. It is the question on where to invest. Into strategic services like banks that have burned the money and caused this crisis in the first place, indecent salaries of managers? Or into products that start the money cycle. Without bread, the people starve. Without goods they have nothing to trade. “Service” or “non-essential” money-burners are not what I consider “important investments. We also need banks. But do we need that they own the country? The largest buildings are banks and insurances. What good have they been? So for the sake of people: It’s production that starts the cycle, even the service cycle. Food, but also luxuries.

By: Olga

Olga — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:11:24 +0000

Is it not goods that need streets? what about people?
Following your wording: what are that goods for if there no people to buy and use them? what are streets for if nobody is going for a walk? Cannot agree with you that GOODS are what’s that all about. People are what all the world is for! Anybody agrees?