Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does campaign spending stimulate the economy and if a record amount of spending was done in October what indicator should we be looking at when October's numbers come out? You know, should we see some number move in California and Nevada, for example? I'm not trying to be a wiseguy. In the past has there ever been any reporting of any economic indicator moving in the month before an election?
Could happen. TV Advertising revenues probably went through the roof and the post office got a good revenue bump with all the mailers. Probably didn't add one new job though. They get the "party faithful" to vollunteer.
This didn't sound like a "wiseguy" question to me at all. It's actually a really interesting question and not something I'd thought about before.
But all those lawn signs -- some company had to be paid to make those. All those mailers they send out -- some office supply company had to sell them the paper. Even fundraising itself stimulates the economy because you need to rent a banquet hall and pay for the food. So I would say campaign spending stimulates the economy without a doubt.
With that said, it's actually kind of sad that they can stimulate the economy running for office but then fail to do so when they're actually IN office -_-
The United States Unemployment Rate (http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp - broken link)
In my opinion, I'd say no. There are too many other factors involved that drive the unemployment rate up or down. Keep in mind that while money pisses everywhere in election cycles, it is more volunteer-driven in certain regards. Plus, what is being produced from a political campaign? It's basically a black hole for someone to get elected, who, when in office, will not produce a product or service. If anything, I'd say it takes away from the economy instead of giving to it.
This didn't sound like a "wiseguy" question to me at all. It's actually a really interesting question and not something I'd thought about before.
But all those lawn signs -- some company had to be paid to make those. All those mailers they send out -- some office supply company had to sell them the paper. Even fundraising itself stimulates the economy because you need to rent a banquet hall and pay for the food. So I would say campaign spending stimulates the economy without a doubt.
With that said, it's actually kind of sad that they can stimulate the economy running for office but then fail to do so when they're actually IN office -_-
Great point. I guess that 4 billion the respective parties spent had to end up somewhere.
How could that money spent, not help out a bit! Some of that money spent, would help out a bit would it now. Wouldn't it stimulate the economy to some degree.
It would help the TV and radio networks to have a nice christmas, but it's not going to do anything to stimulate the economy.
I disagree. If TV/radio stations were in trouble, which from the article that pvande posted they clear were in 2009, they'd have to delay things like improving their studios/equipment. They might have to lay off workers. If they're making more money from political advertisements, they can maybe have their studio re-done, and then they have to hire a construction company, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
