The Obama "Stimulus" (Deficit Spending) Plan--Posner

I suspect that we have entered a depression. There is no widely agreed definition of the word, but I would define it as a steep reduction in output that causes or threatens to cause deflation and creates widespread public anxiety and a sense of crisis. Suppose some shock to the economy, such as the bursting of the housing and credit bubbles, causes people to reduce their demand for goods and services. Before the shock, demand and supply were both X; now demand is X - Y. How do producers respond? If all prices, including the price of labor (i.e., wages), are completely flexible, producers (and suppliers of inputs to them, including suppliers of labor--i.e., workers) will reduce their prices, and this will induce consumers to increase their buying. Consumers will have less income because those who are employed will have lower wages, but since prices are lower they will buy enough to prevent a substantial reduction in output. Unfortunately, not all prices are flexible; wages especially are not. This is not primarily because of union or other employment contracts. Few private-sector employers in the United States are unionized and as a result few workers (other than federal judges!) have a guaranteed wage. The reasons that employers generally prefer to lay off workers than to reduce wages when demand drops are first that by picking the least productive workers to lay off an employer can increase the productivity of its work force; second that workers may respond to a reduction in their wages by working less hard, and, conversely, may work harder if they think that by doing so they are reducing the likelihood of their being laid off; and third that when all workers in a plant or office have their wages cut, all are unhappy, whereas with lay offs the unhappy workers are off the premises and so do not incite unhappiness among the ones who remain. When, to bring output down from X to X - Y in my example, producers and other sellers begin laying off workers, demand is likely to sink even further because the workers who have been laid off suffer a loss of income and the ones who are not laid off fear that they may be next and so try to save more of their income rather than spending it. As demand falls, sellers will lay off more workers, putting still more pressure on demand, but in addition they will reduce prices still further in an effort to avoid losing all their customers. As prices spiral downward, consumers may start hoarding their money in the expectation that prices will keep falling. In addition, they will be reluctant to borrow (and borrowing increases economic activity by giving people more money to spend) because with prices falling they will be paying back their loans in more expensive dollars, that is, dollars that have greater purchasing power. When the same number of dollars buys more goods, we have deflation--money is worth more--as distinct from inflation, where money is worth less because more money is chasing the same number of goods and services. One way to try to prevent a deflationary spiral is for the Federal Reserve Board to increase the supply of money, so that dollars don't buy more goods than they used to. The Fed does this by buying federal securities from banks; the cash the banks receive from the sale is available to them to lend, and what they lend ends up in people's bank accounts and so increases the number of dollars available to be spent. Fearing deflation, the Fed has done this--without success. The banks, because they are close to being insolvent, are fearful of making risky loans, and loans in a recession or depression are risky. So they have put more and more of their money into federal securities, thus bidding down the interest rate virtually to zero. Zero-interest short-term federal securities are the equivalent of cash. If banks want to hold cash or its equivalent rather than lend it, the Fed's buying cash-equivalent securities for cash does nothing to increase the money supply. So the Board is now buying other debt, and from other financial firms as well as banks--debt that has a positive interest rate, so that if the Board buys the debt for cash, the seller is likely to lend out the cash so that it does not lose the interest income that it was receiving on the debt it sold to the Fed. But as yet this program has not had much success either. This is the background to the stimulus program proposed by soon-to-be President Obama. To return to my example, if monetary policy is not going to equate demand to supply--is not going to close the gap between a demand of X - Y and a supply of X--then maybe government spending can do the trick. The government can buy Y worth of goods and services, thus replacing private with public demand, or it can reduce taxes by Y, so that people have more money to spend, or it can do some of both, as in fact Obama proposes to do. At this writing, roughly 40 percent of his proposed multi-hundred-billion deficit-spending package (that is, spending financed by borrowing rather than by taxing) is earmarked for tax reductions. The rest is split between public-works programs, such as road construction, and transfer payments in such forms as additional unemployment benefits, mort-gage relief, and health insurance for people who don't have any. There are three basic questions to ask about the program. The first is whether it is necessary, the second whether it has the right structure, and the third whether it is the right size. I will discuss just the first two questions. Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and the leading economic student of the Great Depression of the 1930s, is a conservative economist. Conservatives don't like huge deficit-spending programs, or at least the public-works and transfer-payment components of them, which increase government involvement in and control over the economy. Bernanke supports the program, after having failed to avert a depression by means of monetary policy alone. Almost the entire economics profession converted--virtually overnight--from being Milton Friedman monetarists (Friedman believed that only bad monetary policy could turn a recession into a depression) to being John Maynard Keynes deficit spenders. I'll assume they're right, and move on to the question of structure. I do not think the tax cuts are a good idea. Most of the increase in after-tax income is likely to be saved, rather than spent on buying goods and services. One of the reasons why the recession has turned into a depression is that Americans have meager savings, most of them in overpriced houses and overpriced stocks, and so they are sensibly reallocating income from consumption to saving. And there is much evidence that even in normal times, people spend less out of temporary income spurts than they do when they receive what they think will be a permanent increase in in-come. There is no such thing as a permanent tax cut, because the Congress that enacts a tax cut cannot bind subsequent Congresses (there is a new one every two years) not to rescind it. I also think the transfer payments are a bad idea. The goal of a Keynesian deficit-spending program is to restore demand to X, not to increase it. If instead of demand rising as a consequence of the program from X - Y to X, it rises from X - Y to X + Z, there will be inflation because demand will exceed supply. Programs to transfer wealth are very difficult to abolish, because interest groups form about them. The problem is somewhat less serious with public-works programs, especially road-building and other infrastructure projects, and especially those infrastructure projects that were planned or begun by states or municipalities and interrupted or deferred because of the fall in tax revenues resulting from the depression. The federal government can finance these projects until the depression is over, and then the states can continue them with its own tax money. There is a legitimate concern that many of the projects undertaken by the federal government will yield costs in excess of benefits. But the concern is exaggerated, because it ignores the benefits that such projects confer on fighting the depression as distinct from simply improving the nation's transportation system or reducing carbon emissions or buying military equipment to replace what has been lost in the Iraqi and Afghan wars. To the extent that the projects by increasing demand reduce unemployment, and reduce fear of unemployment by those who are not laid off (yet), they not only increase people's spendable income (unemployment benefits are lower than the wages they replace) but by reducing job insecurity reduce the fraction of wages that people save rather than spend. The saving rate has soared in recent months and is one of the major factors in reducing consumption and pushing us to the edge of a deflation. In addition, public-works spending has a multiplier effect. The government's expenditure on buying goods and services (a road, a bridge, or whatever) increases output directly, but it also does so indirectly because the company that builds the project with government funds pays its employees and suppliers, and they in turn spend part of the money they receive, further stimulating output. Properly structured, a Keynesian program can help to check a downward economic spiral. With monetary policy apparently inadequate to avert a downward spiral big enough to trigger deflation, there may be no good alternative to such a program.

Comments

[xd]

happy birthday you honor

[Nelson]

I don't see saving as a bad thing. If people pay off their debts and create a safety net for themselves, then whatever recovery we do eventually have will be more sustainable. Also, it makes dealing with entitlements easier, which we're going to have to do at some point anyway.

[Tom K]

"I do not think the tax cuts are a good idea. Most of the increase in after-tax income is likely to be saved, rather than spent on buying goods and services. One of the reasons why the recession has turned into a depression is that Americans have meager savings, most of them in overpriced houses and overpriced stocks, and so they are sensibly reallocating income from consumption to saving."

If a lack of saving is a cause of the depression, why is taking action that will lead to more saving a bad thing?

[Wendy]

If "a Keynesian program can help check a downward economic spiral," then why did FDR's spending spree in 1936 not work out so well?

Why was there still poverty in America after LBJ's "War on Poverty?"

Why are there still homeless and unemployed people in America after George W. Bush's "compassionate conservativism?"

Two words: William Easterly.

If people do sacrifice their welfare for the sake of "the economy" and take money out of banks to consume, bank capital reserves will get depleted. Who will then save the banks the second round?

[Anonymous]

"If "a Keynesian program can help check a downward economic spiral," then why did FDR's spending spree in 1936 not work out so well?"

In 1936-1937, FDR attempted to balance the budget which plunged the recovering american economy back into a recession, but thanks for your valuable and completely wrong insight to Keynesian deficit spending.

ALso, Keynes' general theory wasn't even published in 1936, and even after publication it didn't gain significant policy traction till the presidency of JFK. It's not as if Keynes published one day and all of the classical economists fell over trying to rush onto the boat. Truth is, we have never had a truly Keynesian approach to economic policy in the history of the country. Hopefully Obama will break that trend.

Also Wendy, LBJ's war on poverty did dramatically reduce poverty, and it was interrupted by a little thing called the Vietnam War, not sure if you have heard of it. ANd compassionate conservatism was just a slogan, not a real attempt at anything substantial policy wise.

And what does a developmental economist that spars with Jeffrey Sachs over the third world have anything to do with Keynesian deficit spending? I'm guessing you have just read "The Elusive Quest for Growth" and decided you should chime in with some non-sensical talking points.

[RJ]

"If "a Keynesian program can help check a downward economic spiral," then why did FDR's spending spree in 1936 not work out so well?"

In 1936-1937, FDR attempted to balance the budget which plunged the recovering american economy back into a recession, but thanks for your valuable and completely wrong insight to Keynesian deficit spending.

ALso, Keynes' general theory wasn't even published in 1936, and even after publication it didn't gain significant policy traction till the presidency of JFK. It's not as if Keynes published one day and all of the classical economists fell over trying to rush onto the boat. Truth is, we have never had a truly Keynesian approach to economic policy in the history of the country. Hopefully Obama will break that trend.

Also Wendy, LBJ's war on poverty did dramatically reduce poverty, and it was interrupted by a little thing called the Vietnam War, not sure if you have heard of it. ANd compassionate conservatism was just a slogan, not a real attempt at anything substantial policy wise.

And what does a developmental economist that spars with Jeffrey Sachs over the third world have anything to do with Keynesian deficit spending? I'm guessing you have just read "The Elusive Quest for Growth" and decided you should chime in with some non-sensical talking points.

[Lefcrearo]

–¢–°: ++

[CHUCK TOOMBS]

Has anyone given consideration to the fact that the beginning of the housing "burst" was caused by the baby boomers putting their housing stock on the market (downsizing)?

[neilehat]

Interesting. I take it the analysis is assuming it operates in Closed Loop Economic System. That is, the money circulates within a narrow bound like within a Nation or a small group of Nations. If so, the analysis will stand.

The problem is, that the system is not closed, but open and significant monetary leakage occurs. Never too be seen again. Such is the problem confronting the U.S. today and its ability to respond to the current Economic Crisis. Why are the Banks cash poor? The offshoring of productive elements that consumers support. Hence, the massive cash outflow that has occured over the last twenty five years or so. And this money does not recycle back into the National Banking system to any significant degree. So, where does the cash come from to restimulate various economic factors? The Federal Reserve and Treasury. Which is what is being attempted now, but it will volatilize and disappear through the leaks as well. Leaving us only poorer than before. Before anything can be done, the leaks that have created this problem in the first place must be plugged.

[Jack]

Neil: The leaks are of interest and are addressed to some extent by targeting infrastructure projects and direct aid such as extended unemployment to distressed households.

I suppose we can say the leaks are the $800 billion trade deficit or 7% of GDP. But that's not right either as most of that amount comes back as reinvestment in the US, though that in the long run means yet more dividends and interest going "over there". Still a big leak.

If in a closed system our multiplier might have been four (not sure at all) say today as the dollar makes it rounds the 7% gross leak would add to over 25%. A huge "leak" over time. So, I'd agree; in the medium term we need to work to close the leak by some combo of buying less abroad and finding more stuff we can bring to the world bazaar.

But, Ha! as something of a mariner, I'm convinced that one response to a leak is that of bailing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CHUCK: You bring up the thorny question for "capitalist" economists of trusting "the market" vs some amount of planning.

Common sense, perhaps with advanced polling techniques and the readily available graphs showing housing prices outrunning the ability to pay for them, should have given "us" a glimpse of the downside of the graph before we got to the top of the hill.

Even going to a social gathering could tell us that about the only "investment" boomers and others believed in and were prepared to make was that of residential R/E and that like tulips the game would end at some point.

But, (I'm close to the housing biz) the functioning of the building, mortgage, and resale markets is one of starting a new home, or two, as soon as the last was sold, with both large builders and small trying to maintain or increase market share. Thus, huge public corporations such as Toll Bros, Pulte etc that have all the economic data anyone else has, ran straight into the windmill as have smaller builders. No one was prepared to see the new home market cut by 50% with no rebound.

They say Wall Street is "forward looking" in that stock prices rise perhaps six months earlier than increased earnings show up, it's my guess that's about as far out as "the market" can generally project.

In years past, I think a case can be made that a combo of FRB and other bank tightening slowed overbuilding, which in any case was typically regional and sorted itself out with relatively little pain. The Mortgage Mess, meant that this time we hit the windmill under full power, nationwide and with the company of many other nations. Big splat.

The pain will be intense and measurable. Median home prices soared to $250,000 while historically prices stayed in a relationship to median income that points to $175,000 today so the losses will be that triangle from the $175k base up to $250k, a LOT of money and the on average those buying since 2002 or so will be underwater.

The bright side? After a few years the problem of "affordable housing" will be greatly diminished.

[RPB]

The reason the Fed is increasing the supply of money is to help alleviate the current debt crisis. Some contend that Bernanke is willing to test Freidman's helicopter hypothesis by actually putting it into practice!

Has anyone considered the root of this crisis was the move away from the gold standard and the delineation of strong economic powers to elected officials who are incentivized, by elections, to maintain and fuel asset bubbles?

At the end of the day this is a failure of government regulation to properly incentivize agent actions within the system. We will now all pay for the system that Nixon created.

Our economic growth over the last 10 years has been predicated on asset growth and the ability to tap out these high asset values. Furthermore, couple high asset values with easy access to credit and you have arrived at the consumer created primer for US economic growth over the past decade. With the consumer up to his eyes in debt, unprecendented asset price correction, the destruction of the debt securitization machine and the evaporation of large sums of investor cash that bought the debt backed securities; we have stumbled into paradigm never thought possible.

Any model that fails to take into account the consumer's ability to leverage herself and cash out asset values will not arrive at how much more output will decline. Because much of the production capital growth over the past 10 years was only made possible by this debt/high asset value system, much of it needs to go out of production.

In the end, absent some sudden, large gain in effeciency or worker output gain, much of the capital and labor in the system will not find support. I do not know what the exact mathematical predictions will be if we take such factors and their multiplying effects into account, but those with the time to quantify these assumption will be faced with incredibly grim numbers.

Resultantly, any stimulus package that tries to kickstart our economic engine will find it is out of gas. The Obama stimulus should concentrate on strengthening social nets, infrastructure improvements and holding up our financial system. It should certainly shy away from trying to prime our economy.

[PF-Flyer]

Neilihat: On leakage:

- Some consider "capital flight" to be a form of leakage that occurs when the capital gains tax rate is higher in the US than in other countries. Make capital gains taxes more competitive, and require that corporate heads and hedge fund managers get more of their income from taxable income and not from capital gains.

- Some multinational corporations use sites in various countries to their advantage depending on the direction the currency and tax-advantage winds are blowing. This will always occur to some extent. But printing enough money, or not too much, can keep the value of the dollar favorable so as to attract industry, could it not (instead of buying securities, which is the other way).

- Corporations set up off-shore headquaters (Cayman Islands is a favorite) to avoid taxes, and some US policies allow govt. contracts with such corporations. Prohibit government contracts with corporations that have off-shore headquarters, or those whose assets are mostly off-share, etc.

- An energy economy too dependent on coal, oil and natural gas represents major leakage: If you live in a state that does not mine coal or have productive oil wells, you have to pay others for your energy. Converting to a greener, renewable and more sustainable energy economy, and decentralizing the grid so that people produced more of their energy locally instead of buying it from oil-coal-gas concerns, would go a long way toward dealing with this leakage.

- Military spending in the US equals or exceeds that of the rest of the world (especially if you count not only Pentagon and war spending, but veterans spending, and hidden costs such as Dept. of Energy maintenance of nuclear warheads, etc.). As we know from the depression and WWII spending, military spending in general does put people to work and stimulate the economy, but if we're not getting back something with a longer-term value such as infrastructure or education or or health care, and if we're spending more on military than we need to spend because of the military-industrial complex and the way the vested interests work, then this becomes major leakage.

RPB: I would not put too much faith in the gold standard. It works well in a system that seeks to protect those who own most of the gold, but not in a more realistic economic system. Things of value come from natural resources, from labor, ideas, creativity. A functioning monetary system has to facilitate the exchange of value, and should not be tied to gold any more than it should be tied only to labor, or only to natural resources, or only to the group that has the most and biggest guns.

[nathan]

anecdotally, large legacy organizations do not always use layoffs appropriately and it makes things worse for company - retaliation, hoard power and money, feed ego and need for control, make life easy for mgr on public aid

[Kristina Brooker]

I'm the interest rate, I choose the credit crisis, how –I’ve been
celibate for seven years to take control of the classing adjustment
coupling would cause (oh that's how you won). So consequently
I could probably have the oil price at $170 currently, how -I was
sleeping to providing days with no expectations, and much ridicule.
Instead on July 16th I started exercising.

The directions in this cash economy come down to this:
1)react
2)fill in personality
3)demand cash

The answer to exiting this economy will always be the same -you
will use a program that the University of Waterloo (99386493) is
aware of. At a certain point of organizing your life with programs
you'll find everybody is dealing with NEXT BEST THOUGHT.

The program will provide you with directions that are as healthy
and as safe as possible using a process of elimination. A program
will answer the following questions, the best way to remove cash
dependency and determine which option an employee finds most
comfortable.

[Kristina Brooker]

I caused the credit crisis, nobody else caused the credit
crisis. The extent anybody else was involved was simply I was
indirectly told one person having sex in the 80's caused a
recession, I waited and tried to take the job of interest rate.

I want to explain something -I only caused the credit crisis
because all the answers to leaving this cash economy are
products and companies currently in the free market system. My plan
was to lower the interest rate as fast as possible and direct
attention to myself with outrageous macro statistics. Which I have a
tendency to be involved with. Another instance besides the credit
crisis was WW3, though that title is an over exageration for
Isreal invading Hizballahland. What happened was I left Newfoundland
and went to Waterloo in June 2006, WW3 started I thought if I went
back to Newfoundland it would end, and the minute I got information
from the TV in Newfoundland they stated it had ended. I don't
actually understand the marco data but I believe it's basically due
to having the best money because of my ethical bloodline and my
free negative space bloodline (like Jesus, Nameless). I'm king of the
spares (1941).

The solution of using a program (impressive software) to leave the
free market system as healthy and as safe as possible will always
be the answer.

It makes sense that the University of Waterloo understands, it is
a technical Uni, this is a technical solution. As well if you
consider the state of industralisation, America's problem is
employment and TV. Canada's employment and TV are close so
relating to the situation in America is easier for Canadian's,
English being the major simaliarity.

That Canada would be a major source of suggestions makes
sense, that Upper class Canada is basically composed of
Waterloo, U of T, McGill, UBC, U of A is true. That amoung these
schools Waterloo is highly competitive concerning the computer
and programming is fair.

[Kristina Brooker]

Since "the news" has made a predictable error my
question is what do you think my "PENIS POSITION OPINION" is,
since with ever opinion the people effecting directions will
check my virile (check my class). You'll find I'm number one in the
world, choose useful financial options, choose best value system.
Of the men who are owners their is a group that all the employed men
use, I provide intentions best at times. Who's character (ego, humor,
sexy, trust...) works best for your job with relativity.
Their are two groups of people you take opinions with, those that
effect and check your class expectations and those your class place
can be determined by the types of statements you have to say to
be expensive.

The point of checking virile is it determines your personal comfort
best which is the best way to be expensive. Given the point of this
economy is to follow the rule of,

Economic Profit:As much money as fast as possible or as long as
possible.

Such games include:
-my sex life affecting your employment, leading to jail finding you...
-women getting directions about work, approved by a male owner
-female payment due to no financial opinion happening through ridicule
-teenagers fitting into class expectation
-drug dealers controlling classing through tv
-the FBI not having a reason to to anything so coming up with
problems for work such as deturing communism.
-problems for the sake of problems for the reaction to keep fitting
class expectation so economic profit increases.
-Problems so that the reaction is "I don't understand", "Doesn't
make sense", "can't discuss".

Of course their are exceptions it depends on comfort.

We are still learning about the worst directions.

[Kristina Brooker]

Since "the news" has made a predictable error my
question is what do you think my "PENIS POSITION OPINION" is,
since with ever opinion the people effecting directions will
check my virile (check my class). You'll find I'm number one in the
world, choose useful financial options, choose best value system.
Of the men who are owners their is a group that all the employed men
use, I provide intentions best at times. Who's character (ego, humor,
sexy, trust...) works best for your job with relativity.
Their are two groups of people you take opinions with, those that
effect and check your class expectations and those your class place
can be determined by the types of statements you have to say to
be expensive.

The point of checking virile is it determines your personal comfort
best which is the best way to be expensive. Given the point of this
economy is to follow the rule of,

Economic Profit:As much money as fast as possible or as long as
possible.

Such games include:
-my sex life affecting your employment, leading to jail finding you...
-women getting directions about work, approved by a male owner
-female payment due to no financial opinion happening through ridicule
-teenagers fitting into class expectation
-drug dealers controlling classing through tv
-the FBI not having a reason to to anything so coming up with
problems for work such as deturing communism.
-problems for the sake of problems for the reaction to keep fitting
class expectation so economic profit increases.
-Problems so that the reaction is "I don't understand", "Doesn't
make sense", "can't discuss".

Of course their are exceptions it depends on comfort.

We are still learning about the worst directions.

[Kristina Brooker]

-We are not understanding the Rock and or Roll, please explain.

1)React
2)Fill in Personality
3)Demand Cash

How much should I respect you? Do you need lots of money for appearance
safety? Do you relate?

You'll find the bottom of the problem is the female reality of
toss (class), owned (who), tagging. Women have their financial
directions approved by a male owner, rock gets you.

Drug Dealers have problems sleeping while you have options,
correct is uncomfortable for the expensive allocation.

As for reacting the most important question is how much respect do you
get when you sing the JINGLE they expect of your phone number. This
informs them to tell you to stop playing the class game.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jingle comment game

-placement is determined this way:
Approved success is done amongst the spares, it is a one on one game
of "care about me", then "care about publishing". My ten year endeavor
to try to start my Environmental Engineering Company places me
as number 1.

-Here is the reality of why commenting, taking your opinion, reacting
if your out of place is so scary to a paycheck character:

I'll make light of the most uncomfortable consequence to this
comment.

If you say that everytime at least you understand expensive.

The only welcome comments are Right wing criticisms with a welcome
stake in cash flow, this is the demanded citizen involvement. The
solution is take home pay, break even business. The solution to
implementing these necessities is done with an individual making
clever talented criticisms.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Stop making the DRUG DEALER VIEWER have to listen to your
international conversation about me (the inflation oil price) for
better directions about finding twenty dollars illegally.
A lot of people. Until the final second when you fix the bank cards,
being a rapist or assign paid, was safer for the criminal and should
continue. Crime is competing for a percentage of the print and it is
largely responsible for continuing this economy considering the habit
of fitting into employment and expecting that. The criminals are really
involved in your life through TV, they are really competive for control
over you, and the lifestyle is outrageously humiliating. The criminals
are not breakng their character until they are paid to, given their
level of involvement in this continuing this is the same for the rest
of you. The answer to fixing the unemployment and banks is either
yes or no and expectations of the solution are seriously incorrect
for people another CAMPAIGN TO MAINTAIN perhaps (follow the information
in the comment/jingle game).

-The unfortunate nature of changing this system (fixing the bank
accounts with both a GPS phone and monthly welfare) is the minute
you change it you have to accept rolling with the punches. Even if
you could discuss everything you needed to, you are still going to
find unexpected problems and will use computer program to provide
directions, this method improves to deal with this new problem.

[Kristina Brooker]

Health Programs

Basically you'll fix the bank accounts because there is software the
University of Waterloo (99386493) is awear of, this software "knows
what you want" using a process of elimination, I can't stress the
available success of health programs. Which basically explain the
best way to expect pain, the best way to be realistic during pain
and control over improving these types of questions about what you want.
It's likely vocabularly needs to be adjusted to understand
things such as graphs which indicate what is happening, and help you with
predictable. Quickly explained statements are like muscles for you body
and graphing them happens considering what is on you x-axis (defined
information) and what is the y-axis (my question). The reason statements
about your body can be viewed as muscles is because "observing a
statistic changes a statistic" the program can control observing
statements about your health with this type of vocabularily.
An example of a statement your mind could adjust is "my burise
only hurts when I touch it" your mind then exercies your arm muscle
away from your bruise.
As a fair point anybody over 25 would know satisfaction is
better described as minimizing pain.

Producing Programs

"The man who truly and disinterestdly enjoys any one thing in the
world, for its own sake, and without caring two-pence what other
people say about it, is by that vary fact forearmed against some of
our subtlest modes of attack."

-The screwtape Letters
By: C.S. Lewis

-The "impressive software" could answer that feeling for you, and
many other questions about exactly what you want (food, exercise, ect).

As an addition: "Everybody is just changing stupidity"

[Kristina Brooker]

tension...

-"just like the other girls" wants couple and babies.
-you like/don't like? friends? visitors?
Really the tension is trust concerning "control of"
-considering trust, type want or should.
-"I want what happens." (demand, acceptance, find the advantage,
rationalize comfortable).
-the feelings that my business takes, vs desired.
-memory works best doing honestly how I feel (less safe).
-trying to have control is less in control then EXTENDING MEMORY.
-cool is campaign to maintain opinions, this I call "comp"
the difference being "working now".
-careful, telling you that the point of shocking behavior is to react
scared results in being less scared, changing the shock.
-"Stand by your man" women aren't allowed to think by themselves.
-all seconds of employmet: we do stuff, to say things... and shouldn't.
-as for viewing these documents: "google.com doesn't exist either".

tensions...

-reality happens in three ways -want -fear -as expected, people like
reality to choose their expectation the man who chooses useful
best should win.
-the point of life is to remember your life, it should also be to try
but till you fix memory.
-control as extended memory or "all your time at once".
-they say "you're too nice" I'm like "I don't insult myself".
cause my rules were choices free of "guilt by association".
-survival charisma happens determining amusing while toy with
poor & lonely crack up.
-jelous is working partnerships find a journal.
-The children are not stupid and at thirty I'm still not stupid,
get a pass time.
-you're a twenty-seven year old woman, give up and mistress.
-The Economists love me, but what do they think about themselves.
-I decided that RESPECT should be defined as the ability to weigh
hurting, helping and not hurting.

[Kristina Brooker]

The mother robot's means of survival...

Everybody is taking a stake in her view. Little did she as a child
realise if she was to react like her thougts had a audience she'd
find one. Maybe she thinks her reaction is unexpected/new, Visa
and the drug dealers don't think so.

Mother robot is so nice, so manipulated. Try mother robot try try.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ya the kids act stupid like Highschool Musical, it's terribly realistic.
Maybe it's that we use them as social pawns to fake the
employment is reasonable.

"Went to see High School Musical III last night."
"How was it?"
"I should have worked harder in high school so I'm talking to
someone better than you about this."
"It was sweet, all the little girls wanted that moment like
when the black people decided to go to the prom together. I think
their in for a surprise about how boys STILL are at twenty :-) .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why will I robot?

It's like The Smiths line:
"does the mind rule the body or does the body rule the mind
I don't know"

Better said:
-"My body tells my mind things"

over time we notice...

-"Your body tells our mind things"

[Kristina Brooker]

I had a gift from God, "start a environmental engineering company"
I thought "won't that (oil) shrink the economy, of course replacing
consumption could be work." The dream continues...

The Green Technology Sector is hindered by economic profit.
Money spent being green does not have the same returns as other
investment.

[Kristina Brooker]

Amongst men a women's discrimination is that her directions are
provided to her through an owner, since a women has no financial
representation every male is better than any female (your owner
is an infant).The directions are only for continued classing,
remember it's personality first then sex. Toss, Owned, Tag.

When you're a real man... (I know you'll say...)

[Kristina Brooker]

The diet game.
I eat what I want, when I want, whenever I want, as much as I want,
however I want. I also walk, at least this way I don't think about
food and waste my time.

Even the slightest inclination to eat is correct to me, no matter
what that food is. What I specifically don't do is think that I'm
not going to eat.

If this doesn't get me desire we might not agree on the meaning.

[Kristina Brooker]

The Gay game.

There is SOMETHING WRONG WITH gay: never illegal. PRIVATE TOSS

Hey why say gay I think currently you're not having sex so
you're NONSEXUAL.

Sexuality is: how do you sympathise with what you respect in your
bloodline.

Masturbation is what you sympathise with in your bloodline not
necessarily what you want. If you think the images are not what
you want than maybe you need to understand helping yourself
or hurting yourself. It's difficult to know if you're being
comfortable comfortable, or comfortable uncomfortable.

The best question about sex is comfortable to remember, a bit more
subtle than the savor of youth.

As for your sexual status:
-intimate
-relationships
-intercourse
-what you want (voice).
Take a percentage.