Archive for September 12th, 2011

“Slacktivism”: I care a lot … but not enough to get off my butt or open my wallet.

September 12, 2011

Punchline: “Slacktivism” is a term that caught our eye.

Slacktivism characterizes a trend of consumers’  behavior …  supporting an issue or social cause through small – sometimes very small efforts on social media.

Cynics suggest that this is not enough, and that true engagement is needed to make a social  impact.

Really?

* * * * *

Excerpted from Wikipedia, “Slacktivism”

Slacktivism describes “feel-good” measures, supporting an issue or social cause, that have a limited effect …

Slacktivist activities tend to require minimal effort, but may include:

  • signing Internet petitions,
  • joining a community organization without contributing to the organization’s efforts,
  • copying and pasting of social network statuses or messages, or
  • altering one’s personal data or avatar on social network services.

While there is limited behavioral research behind this activity, the general perception is that consumers engage in this behavior 1) to feel satisfaction about helping a cause, or 2) to present themselves as socially benefiting people to other social networkers …

The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS describes the term “slacktivist”, saying it “posits that people who support a cause by performing simple measures are not truly engaged or devoted to making a change“.

Edit by KJM

>> Latest Posts

Posted in Causes, Cause Marketing, Internet - Soc Networking | Leave a Comment »

Stimulus Deux and the “liquidity trap”…

September 12, 2011

Punch line: One reason the Stimulus was, at best, marginally successful … and, why Son-of-Stimulus is unlikely to spike the economy … is what economists call the liquidity trap.

Translation: people paying off debts and saving for a rainy day … just like they’re supposed to.

Econo-journalist Robert Samuelson summarizes the situation as follows …

Since 2007, households have lost $7 trillion in wealth, mostly from lower home and stock prices.

To restore that wealth, many Americans are saving more, spending less and repaying debt.

That’s why the past year’s continuing massive stimulus (huge budget deficits, low interest rates) didn’t do more for economic growth.

The answer, I think, is psychology.

Small changes in precautionary behavior by anxious consumers and companies offset stimulus.

Suppose, for example, consumers raised their savings rate by three percentage points; that would neutralize three quarters of Obama’s program.

The surprise and brutality of the financial crisis left a powerful legacy of risk aversion.

Companies — like consumers — have become defensive. They accumulate a cash hoard against unknown threats.

Our political leaders have also compounded the caution and fear; indeed, government policies sometimes cause unwanted behavior.

The liquidity trap, among other reasons, is why O’s proposed $450 billion debt-financed slush fund is a bad idea.

>> Latest Posts

Posted in Employment - Jobs, Stimulus Bill | Leave a Comment »

Where was Joe Wilson when Obama said “It will not add to the deficit”?

September 12, 2011

President Obama – and most lib-pundits – seem to have completely forgotten the debt ceiling and credit downgrade.

Pssst … we have no money !!!

And, they appear  hopelessly confused re: what’s  “debt” and what’s a  “deficits”.

Let’s review …

A deficit is an annual shortfall —  when spending exceeds revenues.

In a gov’t context, a deficit happens when spending exceeds tax receipts in the current year !.

Debt is the amount of money that is owed to other people or entities.  It is the sum of annual deficits.

Now, the important point …

A deficit needs to be funded by borrowing, which adds to outstanding debt.

OK, with that as clarifying background …

Obama said a couple of times that his laundry list of potential job creating ideas ” …  will not add to the deficit.”

Here’s what the AP had to say about that:

It’s hard to see how the program would not raise the deficit over the next year or two because  most of the envisioned spending cuts and tax increases are designed to come later rather than now, when they could jeopardize the fragile recovery.

Deficits are calculated for individual years.

The accumulation of years of deficit spending has produced a national debt headed toward $15 trillion.

Perhaps Obama meant to say that, in the long run, his hoped-for programs would not further increase the national debt, not annual deficits.

Said differently, the only way that the 2012 deficit doesn’t increase is if other spending is cut or taxes are raised in 2012.

Neither is likely to happen (a) because there isn’t time (b) because there isn’t will, and (c) because either would neutralize any impetus from O’s spending.

So, it’s practically certain that the deficit will increase, and that short-term debt will increase.

Most interesting: the added borrowing may push Obama up against the debt ceiling again before the 2012 election … his only real line in the sand during the debt ceiling negotiations.

Hmmm.

>> Latest Posts

Posted in Budget - Deficit, Stimulus Plan | Leave a Comment »