Either way, the process of creating 'real value' on both sides cannot get started in some cases because neither A nor B has any confidence (or capital to support their confidence) that the other side will have the currency to buy the real value they intend to create.

Sure, the currency itself just goes around in circles, and only acts as a catalyst to creation of the 'real value' we are after. But by injecting actual currency to one side or the other (through tax cuts or other means) we increase the aggregate demand and thus amount of flow of this currency in the economy as a whole. This could then (hopefully) increase the confidence of A and B that the other will buy their real value and thus is a way to restart the circular flows of productivity that ultimately creates jobs (and real value).

His talk sort of just assumes you are aware of all the above. His actual point is that by giving tax cuts to the wealthy instead of workers a greater percentage of the stimulus / tax cut stays in bank accounts and thus the effect on aggregate demand is less.

(As eloquently put by Jimmy Stewart in "It's a Wonderful Life".)

Therefore, placing currency in the hands of the masses can and will drive value creation, because it will assign economic value to what brings value to the masses.

Sure they can, according to some models.

Here's the argument: Say A and B produce goods for each other, and so A might buy something from B for $5, and B might come back and buy something from A with the same $5. They are happily creating value, trading back and forth. Now, say something scares A so that he wants to save some of his money instead of spend. Then B is getting less income from A, and so she also becomes worried about her future income and spends less. Then A gets even less money, and is even less willing to spend. As you can see there is a feedback cycle where A and B produce (and spend) less and less. This is a recession.

Now give B some money, possibly even taken from A. Now B is getting a more reliable income, an is more willing to spend on A, who thus earns more and becomes more willing to spend on B, and so on in positive feedback.

This is basically Krugman's "Babysitting Co-op" scenario.

It also assumes that A stuffs the money into the mattress rather than lending it to C, who uses the money to create something that B wants to buy.

It's a very simplistic two-part scenario and has a lot of problems, not in the least what the 'something scares A' part of it. It also assumes that nobody else wants to buy products from B.

In fact the more I read it, the less I am convinced it has any merit at all.

Which? The model ealloc describes or the Babysitting Co-op scenario? They aren't actually the same.

John makes software for law firms. His software has lots of bugs. John justifies this because he can make more money by adding features and isn't at risk of losing his cash flow because there are no competitors in his space. IMHO, John has an obligation to write better software simply because his constituents deserve it. I also think it could be warranted that he charge even more for it at this point. While I'm not sure bug-free software is a universal good, there are definitely products that ought to be better or not exist (pornography and cigarettes come to mind). The government should not have to regulate these.

Value does not exists per se.

You are so simplicistic here, guys, when you talk about rich and poor.

I know you are not so young, but sometimes it seems you are a group of small kids talking about life.

The reason there is so much political emphasis on job creation is that the unemployed are a small but vocal minority, who's political decisions may rest almost entirely on job growth. Whereas value benefits a lot of people in a small way, but value alone probably will not be enough to sway someone's voting decision.

Economy has no rules outside the square we create. So, there's no such thing as Economy per se.

You have to remember that the reason a group of people doesn't go out and take what they want is that there is a State, there are laws, there is a monopoly of legitimate force (the police): all of this can survive only if there is a contract between state and the people. All the people, not just the rich or who has a job or <put a category here>

The community of people is far, far more than the State. Cultural/religious norms shape the State and the rules. If corruption is tolerated, for example, it doesn't matter what the official State rules are.

Furthermore, economics are baked in to human nature. Indeed, gender differences are a kind of specialization of labor. Economic activity and surplus allows the creation of the State, not the other way around. In fact, while certain State activities like protecting property rights advances the Economy, most activity by the State is parasitic on the Economy.

Well, if you think fishing and hunting are economy, go with that.

States can certainly make trade easier and safer (though it doesn't always do so), but to say trade cannot exist without the state is simply wrong.