I wrote that you need about 400 before a sample becomes close to accurate. This survey used about 10% of that number, so its accuracy would be minimal. I'm sorry I didn't point this out more directly, I just assumed that anyone reading what I wrote would know that 400 is a bigger number than 40.
Also, I don't at any point 'defend' the economic policies of the US. I just highlighted the differences, and went on to say that there is considerable reluctance across the broader population to accept the reasoning that banks et al should be bailed out because they are 'too big to fail'. It's not a policy I agree with, but I'm not an economist.
What I do know about economics is that on the whole, people respond to incentives. So, if the part of the population that gets into unmanageable levels of debt receive handouts from the government, while the part of the population that is careful with their money and lives within their means receives no money from the government, then there will be an incentive for everyone to get in to debt buying things that they cannot afford. I think this would have terrible consequences to the local economy, and yes, I would disagree with this.
And on a final note, bailing out people in debt is not economically stimulating, since by definition you are giving them money to pay down debt. Therefore this money will never enter into the economy and so won't provide any boost. Bailouts work (at least according to Keynes) by introducing more money to be spent on more goods or services, which has a trickle down effect through the economy. There is debate about what this multiplier is, or even if it exists at all. However if you give money to people and they put it straight into the bank, there is no multiplier at all, and hence no additional economic stimuls.
Actually, I'm not defending the survey.
I wrote that you need about 400 before a sample becomes close to accurate. This survey used about 10% of that number, so its accuracy would be minimal. I'm sorry I didn't point this out more directly, I just assumed that anyone reading what I wrote would know that 400 is a bigger number than 40.
Also, I don't at any point 'defend' the economic policies of the US. I just highlighted the differences, and went on to say that there is considerable reluctance across the broader population to accept the reasoning that banks et al should be bailed out because they are 'too big to fail'. It's not a policy I agree with, but I'm not an economist.
What I do know about economics is that on the whole, people respond to incentives. So, if the part of the population that gets into unmanageable levels of debt receive handouts from the government, while the part of the population that is careful with their money and lives within their means receives no money from the government, then there will be an incentive for everyone to get in to debt buying things that they cannot afford. I think this would have terrible consequences to the local economy, and yes, I would disagree with this.
And on a final note, bailing out people in debt is not economically stimulating, since by definition you are giving them money to pay down debt. Therefore this money will never enter into the economy and so won't provide any boost. Bailouts work (at least according to Keynes) by introducing more money to be spent on more goods or services, which has a trickle down effect through the economy. There is debate about what this multiplier is, or even if it exists at all. However if you give money to people and they put it straight into the bank, there is no multiplier at all, and hence no additional economic stimuls.