Quote:If we could, yes.
But we can't, so it's an absurd hypothetical.
Just curious. Many on the right seem to be opposed to any debt increase at all no matter what the benefits may be. But at least many here seem to acknowledge that an increase in debt can be justified by GDP increases. Which makes sense of course because the larger the economy the more tax revenue we generate with the same rates.
What you've all agreed to is that spending $1T to increase the GDP $16T (from $16T to $32T) is justified, or a multiplier of 16. My next question for you guys who answered affirmatively (everybody so far, thankfully), is what that multiplier has to reach for you to feel the spending was justified. 10? 5? 2.5 (about the highest estimated multiplier accepted by the CBO)? Or do you not believe in the multiplier effect? This could be productive dialogue I think.
Quote:and: Leaving the money in the private sector is more effective than spending by the govt.
I disagree. Certainly not in all instances. Scrooge McDuck swimming around in his money pit isn't effective at all; whereas if the government took some of that money and gave it to poor people as food stamps, they go to the grocery store and buy milk, which keeps the grocery store in business, and the grocery store buys more milk from the supplier, keeping them in business, and on and on. Government spending as I mention above can have a multiplier effect of up to 2.5, so that for every dollar spent by the government it increases GDP $2.50.
Quote:Keynesian Libs like Max worship the state. They can't conceive of any system that could run efficiently without governmental meddling. Eventually they will create a bubble so large that when it bursts...America is doomed
Sometimes government meddling is appropriate to keep the "system" running efficiently. Without government "meddling" we don't have an American auto industry anymore. The economic effects of that would be devastating. Can't you at least admit there are times when intevention is appropriate?
Quote:I still have the same question for anyone on the left.
You criticize power in the hands of corporations because corporations are run by greedy blood-suckers. But somehow, you don't have the same criticism of power in the hands of government, because government bureaucrats somehow are all altruistic and fair-minded. Exactly how and why do you believe that this happens?
One thing for sure, without that assumption, your whole worldview falls apart. And guess what, that assumption is nowhere remotely close to being true.
I'm not under any illusion that everyone who works for the government is altruistic and selfless, but they're not the
opposite of those traits like corporations are. Corporations are heartless profit machines, who would do anything to clear a few more bucks in profit. Now to be fair the profit motive is in some ways good for everyone, such as when it motivates them to innovative and make a better widget, but it also can motivate them to cut corners to save a few cents in manufacturing the widget, which could make the widget less safe to use or put their own workers' safety in jeopardy. The Ford Pinto is a great example; there was a defect that caused explosions on impact in some cases and the board decided it would be cheaper to just pay off the families of the 100 or so expected deaths from the explosions than to recall every Pinto in America and fix the problem.
Government workers by contrast are all accountable to some degree by our elected officials. Bureaucracy can be wasteful and inefficient but that motivation to be
evil isn't there, at least within the constraints of our constitutional republic. Yes the bureaucrat may have poor oversight and be lazy and may actually do poor work and ask for more money as a consequence, but again, they're not going to kill me to make a few bucks.