…that the president doesn’t read much. I’d be willing to bet that one of the things he hasn’t read is Hayek. Or Friedman. Or Sowell. If he had, he wouldn’t be such an economic ignoramus.
Speaking of which, IBD:
Only minutes after her department reported that payrolls had shed another 131,000 positions in July, there was Secretary Hilda Solis speaking brazenly of the “strong and immediate action” the White House had taken to save or create “more than 2.5 million American jobs.”
But as the market action showed, investors could see she didn’t know what she was talking about.
But then, Solis is no different from any number of administration officials who by their comments or actions demonstrate almost daily that they know nothing about creating jobs or anything else to improve the economy.
And why should they? There’s never been an administration led by so few people with any experience in the private sector — including the president, the vice president and even the treasury secretary, who last week wrongly called it a “myth” that raising taxes on high-income Americans would hurt small business.
The country’s in the very best of hands.
Government rakes revenue from subway fare. What do I win?
That’s called a difference without a distinction. You win the idiot prize, because you are a prize…
The thing is Presley, everybody else gets it. See, when you’re writing code for a computer, you have to be precise. When speaking to people, words are imprecise and you rely a bit on the listener to understand your meaning even without the precision of computer code. Computers have no intelligence; humans parsing language like a computer have none either.
Being able to parse the word ‘is’ like Clinton is not an admirable trait except to some juveniles. Adults get it.
BTW, what did you think I meant by, (by any name)?
Daveon talks of rightwing fantasies. You know what my rightwing fantasy is? That anyone who believes in redistributing other people’s income have the guts to try to do it personally. Especially in the South and West. End result: fewer redistributionists. Which means a better world.
Presley, I don’t buy your premise. Let’s look at specific examples.
On the other hand, government also spends money where market availability is non-existent or too weak to sustain itself to meet a particular public need. Aerospace, for example.
What’s the public need that wasn’t being met in aerospace? Private industry already builds planes and other such things that both private and public side want. Sure, it’s heavily subsidized at the “big plane” level, but that’s what you’d expect from a rent-seeker situation. I’ll just mention as an aside, that a few, well-subsidized participants in a market is what I’d expect from a government provided rent-seeking opportunity. Too many rent-seekers and tragedy of the commons, that is overconsumption of the public resource, occurs. It’s optimal from the government point of view in terms of return on pork.
My claim here is that the government intervention in a good portion of the aerospace industry has created the current sparse market situation that you claim government intervention is needed to cure. Here’s what I see as the crucial test. We’ve had government intervening in aerospace ever since the end of the Second World War. Why is it then, that the aerospace market is so weak now after sixty years or so of government support?
Well that’s obviously false. Both real GDP and federal outlays have trended upwards as far back as we have data for both.
The “evidence” you cite here, Pressley, doesn’t support your rebuttal. If GDP growth were solely dependent on its relationship with government spending, then that would be an adequate argument. But it isn’t. Qualitatively, we have no reason to believe that government expenditures (especially on entitlements such as Medicare, Social Security, federal employee/railroad worker pension funds, and education loans) are anywhere near as efficient as their private counterparts, even in places where they are truly doing productive or necessary stuff.
Second, we have a few cases where governments have spent massively without generating corresponding economic growth. The most recent examples are the current US economy and the Japanese economy of the past two decades. You implicitly admit that in the paragraph following the “aerospace” paragraph above.
You might say that finding the balance where public outlays produce diminishing returns and hurt the economy is a great challenge in macro. Of course, that leaves the reader with the impression that economics is an otherwise established science.
If you’re treating government expenditures as a macro input (as you imply here), then you’re doing it wrong. Government expenditures are a transfer of resources.
The economy is goods and services produced.
It’s also how those goods and services are traded. And sometimes, it gets enlarged to include the beliefs and preferences of the participants in the economy.
. Money serves as a convenient measure; it is the information transmitted through the economy about the value of a good or service at any particular point in space and time. Our markets result from imperfect knowledge of this aggregate information at the micro-scale, yielding profit and thus incentive to continue producing. Or so theory goes.
Even perfect knowledge markets can exist. You still have the effect of comparative advantage, namely, that it is generally more effective for certain entities to specialize rather than everyone providing everything they need themselves. That results in the opportunity for trade.
So there’s no difference between buying a bus ticket and paying the AMT?
Really? So what’s all this fuss about taxes and financial reform and the like about?
Apparently, you take the monkey banging on the keyboard approach to both, then scream bloody murder when people don’t understand you.
You could say the same of people who regurgitate the wit of others to mask their own weak grasp of the subject.
So you’re telling me grown ups repeat themselves over and over again and throw temper tantrums when confronted with contradictory evidence?
Probably “I reserve the right to redefine taxation.”
They won’t, because they let the air of the redistributionist rhetoric more than three decades ago. Now liberals depict government as just another financial advisor; the biggest one on the block, and the only one you from which you can’t walk with your business. While we’re still wailing about socialism, liberals are recasting the public sector base as a “responsible” alternative to the “free-wheeling” money managers on Wall Street. And in case you didn’t notice, it worked well enough to pass the most screwed up excuse for financial reform in American history.
Come to think of it, they pulled the same gimmick with HCR.
As to the NYC subway fare example, I’m willing to consider that partially not a tax. Keep in mind that New York City enjoys a monopoly position here that a private subway contractor might not. For example, NYC could have leased the subway lines to multiple contractors who would then run their own cars and compete on whatever grounds they chose (price, bundling with other services, etc).
But that would mean less revenue for NYC. That difference is effectively a tax.
Probably “I reserve the right to redefine taxation.”
I’ll give you points for that. The government has a lot of names for the things it collects… tax, fee, levy, etc. It all goes into the same pot. But more importantly it all comes from people that could have instead spent it themselves…
Thus reducing their spending.
Notice that regardless of any service the government provides (subways or otherwise) it still reduces their spending.
I say it this way, because one of us is incredibly simple minded (remind yourself of what the jester said in King Lear.)
Oh, but in NY they use subway tokens… ya got me, now there’s a distinction with a difference fer sure.
I’ve laid out quite a few, almost all a variation of the theme “we don’t know all that much at all (about the economy).” I don’t think you’re addressing any of those premises here.
Combat aircraft.
Indeed, but I didn’t argue that there’s a public sector competitor in aerospace. We were discussing public v. private spending
No argument with any of this.
No specific argument here, but let me rephrase your question. Why is the aerospace industry at its current size so weak in civilian sales after sixty years or so of government support? I believe the answer lies in the question; government is such a plurality customer that if its business were to disappear aerospace across the board would be considerably smaller than it is today. I’d love to wean aerospace of the public tit, and I suspect viable commercial space is a necessary step to that end.
It certainly supports the rebuttal–which is a straightforward falsification. It doesn’t, however, support the contrary hypothesis that you think I’m trying to show.
That is my point precisely. Hence, public spending doesn’t necessarily reduce private spending.
My intuition suggests the same. However, it is intuition. I hate to say it, but the data we have exists within a specific regime that doesn’t lend strong support to either interventionist or libertarian conclusions. That is a consequence of my essential point; that economics presently lacks a sufficient empirical foundation to predict anything, let offer explanation. This is a known problem, interestingly enough. Economists frequently admit that the accuracy of their forecasts are not terribly better than flipping a coin. Which is why I find it jarring that any of us put any stock in any so called economic “truth.” If anything, the strength of economic conservatism is that its preferred set of strategies fall right out the precautionary principle. If we cannot reasonably estimate the benefits of intervention, why do so at all. If a long lived intervention cannot be shown to be effective, why remain burdened by its cost? Devolve economic decisionmaking to the stakeholders as far as possible; avoid centralization.
Why we feel the need to go beyond this, to compete with liberals in the shadowy valley of theoretical pronouncement without an observational leg to stand on, is beyond me.
Certainly. Including ours, despite the popular myth surrounding fiscal policy during World War II (the slope of recovery). Once again, no argument here.
Implicitly? I’ve explicitly stated as much several times before.
Well, technically I’m not. It’s built right into the definition of aggregate demand. That said, you’re not wrong about government spending being a transfer of resources. However, the claim that “public spending reduces private spending” assumes that government hoards income and never releases it into the economy. I submit to you that existence of deficits blows that assumption right out of the water.
So the question is whether government can ever can spend revenue collected from the private sector as efficiently as the private sector for any given component of demand. My answer to that is “yes, where spending concerns a clear area of demand the private sector cannot scale to service.” Public spending in aerospace is one example. At the same time, my intuition suggests that government generally is less efficient than markets at pump priming economic activity, which is why I oppose fiscal policy in the main.
You could define it that way. I prefer the mainstream distinction between the economy and activity in it, and would prefer even greater formalism in the field come the future.
Of course they can. But they are either trivial or negligible, and they generally do not make market (or at least, no one’s identified one in the real world).
Which is another way of saying that information is compartmentalized and incomplete as held by any particular agent.
In other words, you now define taxation as any source of government revenue. Wonderful.
So, my $60/month CharlieCard costs me more than a $200 parking space or a $40 round-trip ride via cab?
I’m still trying to figure out in what world $60 > $200. Let’s go back to that one.
I’m sorry, I don’t follow hip-hop.
If I had to guess, it’s because people got sick and tired of smoothing out paper bills.
I’m not willing to stretch the definition of tax that far, if for no other reason than the opportunity costs due to presence of public monopolies or competitors is an area of interest in its own right.
So is the cost of the token, more or less than what it should be?
If it’s more, then obviously the extra cost deprives that person from spending the money they would have saved had they spent what it should cost.
If it’s less, that means some other person is being taxed to make up the difference and is deprived of money they could have spent.
If it’s just right, that would be a government first and we should all declare a holiday.
So, my $60/month CharlieCard costs me more than a $200 parking space or a $40 round-trip ride via cab?
Seems I answered this question before I saw you ask it. Sowell is not such a dummy when he keeps referring to scarce resources having alternate uses.
See the invisible my friend.
They won’t, because they let the air of the redistributionist rhetoric more than three decades ago.
Looks to me like the current crop in Washington is letting the air back into the argument. My take on such things is that public attitudes depend more on current conditions than on the effectiveness of rhetoric three decades back.
Also, it’s a pretty poor argument to claim that something is (or rather was) unpopular or cliched as a reason for discounting it. I grant this isn’t a primary argument of yours, Presley, but you won’t gain anything by it.
However, the claim that “public spending reduces private spending” assumes that government hoards income and never releases it into the economy.
Not at all. It assumes that government spending introduces inefficiencies that reduce the overall amount that can be spent. It also assumes there’s a finite amount at any given time that can be spent (even with govt. monetizing.) Total spending being whatever it is, more public means less private.
I submit to you that existence of deficits blows that assumption right out of the water.
What this does is muddy the water. Regardless, you start with a false assumption.
In other words, you now define taxation as any source of government revenue.
If they comingle the funds (something that would often put a private citizen in prison) definitely. Otherwise… yeah sure.
Remember, distinction without a difference, a rose by any other name, etc…
Anything they get their grubby little hands on is a form of tax. Any service they provide is irrelevant but serves to muddy the waters as you’ve demonstrated effusively.
Well, they never gave up the argument, just the rhetoric. Sometimes discipline gives out and you get a “spread the wealth” gaffe on the campaign trail. Certainly there a number of liberal Congresscritters, state weenies and aldermen who can still safely cling to the old liberal lines. But consider how many times you hear government spending referred to investment, regulation as managing risk, or leverage markets for “socially responsible” ends. This is the Chevy Chase set playing up their image as the Main Street stock broker; promising both the trustworthiness and reliability of a grizzly, old savings bank manager with insane predictions of prosperity.
Which is good for us, because rhetorically we went out with the 80s.
Didn’t say I was discounting the reality of redistributionist politics. It obviously exists. I’m simply pointing out the rhetoric we use to call’em out on it is not as powerful as it once was. Damn shame, too; if Washington DC wants to pretend she’s the new Wall Street, I don’t see why conservatives can’t sic Main Street on them as effectively Democrats did the reverse in 2006 and 2008.
You mean is it more or less expensive than it would be if the service was fully privatized? How many jobs were “created or saved” by the stimulus? Who knows? They’re both pointless counterfactuals. There is no private MBTA, and the MBTA is cheaper than a cab or parking.
I’ll just reply to the following two things:
It certainly supports the rebuttal–which is a straightforward falsification. It doesn’t, however, support the contrary hypothesis that you think I’m trying to show.
I already showed why your falsification is not a falsification, but I’ll elaborate on that below.
That is my point precisely. Hence, public spending doesn’t necessarily reduce private spending.
That’s a pretty stupid thing to say. You are claiming here that because there are other factors affecting GDP growth, that the assertion that government spending reduces private spending is incorrect. It does not follow.
Let’s use a car analogy. Suppose I claim that red cars get more traffic tickets. A rebuttal of the sort you provide initially is that people have been buying more red cars than ever before, yet the number of tickets given out hasn’t gone up respectively. Later, when it is pointed out that this doesn’t tell us anything about whether red cars get more tickets or not, then you point out that there are other ways to get tickets, such as driving on the wrong side of the road, hence your argument remains correct. (I’ll ignore that to continue the analogy, you already stated that you agree with the premise that red cars get more tickets which transitions this argument from “does not follow” to absurdity)
The point here is that you have made at least two non sequitur arguments. Just because GDP has gone up doesn’t mean that there isn’t a negative correlation between government spending and private spending (which is what is being asserted, not an absolute claim that private spending has gone down). Second, when confronted on this, you claim that your “point” was that there were other factors, hence, the assertion of negative correlation was still incorrect. But just because there are other factors doesn’t mean anything.
You make a second claim based on ignorance which I think bears rebuttal.
I’ve laid out quite a few, almost all a variation of the theme “we don’t know all that much at all (about the economy).” I don’t think you’re addressing any of those premises here.
That’s because “we” is you. Just because you don’t know much about economics, doesn’t mean that “we” can’t make reasonable qualitative observations about the US economy. Further, even if we can’t know “all that much” about economics, that doesn’t mean that the assertion of negative correlation between government spending and private spending is incorrect. That’s the arguing from ignorance fallacy. “We don’t know enough and/or the system is really complex and hard to understand, therefore you must be wrong”.
Finally, I recognize that a considerable part of the disagreement in this thread is semantics, what are “taxes”, etc.
You could define it that way. I prefer the mainstream distinction between the economy and activity in it, and would prefer even greater formalism in the field come the future.
Here’s the definition of economics:
Trade is a fundamental part of the “distribution” part of economics. It is quite mainstream (contrary to your assertion) to include trade in economics. The relevant attitudes and perception of the participants in the economy affect choices made about all three of the aspects of economics. Usually simplifying assumptions are made about the last part (eg, rational, perfect knowledge agents). So that part isn’t usually considered economics (as I indicated earlier), but something has to be stubbed in there when one considers choices in economics.
Ultimately, if the best argument you can make against the claim that public spending reduces private spending is that economics is hard and the US economy is complex, especially when you agree elsewhere with the claim, then what was the point of opening your mouth? It doesn’t contribute to the discussion.
Yes it does. I’ve been trying to pound this consequence of your maximal pronouncement into your thick skull all day now.
That’s as easy to disprove as pointing to a single deficit. Clearly in that case the government is spending its entire revenue, so the overall amount spent cannot be less.
There is no private MBTA, and the MBTA is cheaper than a cab or parking.
…and parking (and tickets) are more expensive than the purchase price of my car when I lived in NYC. Yeah, it was a cheap car… but the parking!!!
Back to the issue. You’re right regarding counterfactuals (and thanks for adding to my vocab.) However, paying for the cost of operation is coming both from tokens and taxes. Even if you did find a counter example where the numbers supported your argument you are still left with the big picture…
Public spending reduces private.
For you to argue otherwise is astounding.
“Presley Cannady”
That is the WASPiest name I’ve seen in print since Erskine Caldwell. Just… yeah.
No, you did not, as I’ll demonstrate below.
Funny, considering it’s correct.
I am observing that real GDP has trended upwards along with government spending. That observation alone falsifies the claim that “public spending reduces private spending.” I’m not the one who made a maximal assertion that couldn’t survive even cursory scrutiny. If you choose defend it, then feel free.
Follow? I’m not presenting a chain of reasoning here. I’m presenting evidence that directly contradicts someone else’s hypothesis.
Let’s not, as your analogy has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that private spending has consistently increased with public spending.
The point here is you know how what a non-sequitur is. You’ve yet to exlain how the fact that public and private spending have increased together qualifies. That is, it is not germane at all to addressing the claim that public spending decreases private spending. It is really that simple.
On the contrary, it certainly does. You can’t establish a negative correlation between two variables that track with one another. You can argue there’s little or no correlation at all (which, given the state of economics, is certainly convincing to me), or you can argue that something subtler is at work here (which I think, given my lack of confidence in economics, is a mistake). Either way, the hypothesis that “public spending decreases private spending” is out the door.
Explain how one follows the other.
Only if you believe real GDP grows or diminishes for no reason at all. Certainly at least one factor is at work.
Outstanding. I was really worried that it was more than just me. So when are you due to take up Romer’s old position.
Certainly. They’ll be no more powerful or deep than anyone with enough sense to work his own checkbook, but there you go.
Didn’t say “can’t.” Said “don’t.”
Except, of course, when a positive correlation is found. As in the positive correlation between real GDP and federal outlays since 1947.
No, an argument from ignorance would be “A is false, therefore B is true” when there’s no reason to believe that A and B constitute the entire set of options. All I’ve done is show that A is false.
Ken (and you) are wrong because of cold, hard data contradicting your claim, not because of some silly strawman argument.
Apparently, it’s been redefined to include anything that sources government revenue. That’s not entirely unreasonable for the sake of modeling, but it’s not a significant part of disagreement in this thread. It’s a tangent off of Ken’s absurd demand that I abandon falsification and instead reason a contradiction to a thoroughly empirical claim. I gave him an answer worthy of the challenge.
That’s “economics,” not “economy.” The definition of the latter depends on how your education and practice. In my line of work, an economy is simply a system of indicators that represents some sector of goods and services, or the aggregate thereof. This is a minor point.
Let me know when you get back from Strawmanville.
My understanding is that counterfactuals are purely hypothetical; you’d never encounter numbers supporting one by definition.
Probably because my conservatism isn’t rooted in zealous regurgitation of throw away lines from pop lit. The sooner the movement gets over that thirty year hump, the better it will be able to deal with the new rhetoric emanating from the Left.
Cannady is Irish, I’m Black, and you’re “Andrea Harris.”
Yes it does. I’ve been trying to pound this consequence of your maximal pronouncement into your thick skull all day now.
Not at all. You are simply wrong here. Ken explains why in the next sentence you quote. Ken’s skull may be thick, but there’s no reason for him to buy into your strawman argument just because you repeat it.
That’s as easy to disprove as pointing to a single deficit. Clearly in that case the government is spending its entire revenue, so the overall amount spent cannot be less.
With deficits, government spends future revenue. Any excess they spend now has to be paid back later. Why do you miss this obvious fact? And there are limits to how much you can borrow. Else why not borrow a quadrillion dollars tomorrow and kick off an exciting economy?
To penetrate my thick skull (yes, I’m an INTJ. Thick skull is part of the definition) is easy. All you have to do is provide the fact that makes sense. It took less than a day for me to give up my cherished premise of intrinsic value which I’d held for years, once Titus and Rand provided the key to that lock.
assumes that government hoards income
That’s not my assumption. From my perspective you pulled that one out of yer arse.
I said: It assumes that government spending introduces inefficiencies that reduce the overall amount that can be spent.
That’s as easy to disprove as pointing to a single deficit. Clearly in that case the government is spending its entire revenue, so the overall amount spent cannot be less.
I admit to having a bit of difficulty parsing this.
You’re saying the government can spend anything if they borrow it. Ok. But that seems like you’ve just added another variable which has quite an impact of it’s own beyond what we were discussing. You’ll have to clarify. I don’t really know what you mean by, the overall amount spent can’t be less. Than what?
Strawman? I’ve shown public spending that has increased with private spending. Tell me how that is a strawman?
Which has nothing to do with the fact that government clearly has spent all revenue taken, and therefore does not “reduce the overall amount that can be spent.”
Sure it is. How else would you label government removing money from the economy to “reduce the overall amount that can be spent?”
I said: It assumes that government spending introduces inefficiencies that reduce the overall amount that can be spent.
Hence, hoarding.
Simple. To disprove that government necessarily hoards, I need to show a case where government expends all revenue taken in. Obviously this occurs whenever there’s a deficit. Also, obviously a government that consistently runs deficits to the point that its revenue is overtaken by its obligations–say, like ours–has nothing to hoard. And as I pointed out, hoarding is just another way of saying that government “reduces the overall amount that can be spent.” After all, the only way you can do that is by removing some amount from circulation. No?
That’s not what I’m saying, and that’s besides the point.
Probably because my conservatism isn’t rooted in zealous regurgitation of throw away lines from pop lit. The sooner the movement gets over that thirty year hump, the better it will be able to deal with the new rhetoric emanating from the Left.
Who knows? You might actually be conservative. It is a broad label and not all conservatives are of the financial sort. But I agree with Andrea, you seem phony, someone coming in either to make a propaganda point or merely troll.
You and Ken certainly aren’t.
That an Irish last name makes me a WASP?
Sure. There’s no more rousing rallying cry than “we don’t know much about economics!”
I said: It assumes that government spending introduces inefficiencies that reduce the overall amount that can be spent.
Hence, hoarding.
Hoarding is a specific form of economic inefficiency,. It is not all forms of inefficiency. Please stop wasting our time with this argument since you’re not using an accepted definition of “hoarding” here. Here’s a suitable definition.
Another item:
I’ve shown public spending that has increased with private spending.
You ignore the huge feedback effect of private spending on itself. Namely, a lot of it is investment, buying capital or durable goods. We would expect private spending to increase anyway under the claimed effect until the public spending burden grows large enough to swamp the natural feedback effect of private spending.
You and Ken certainly aren’t.
I can’t speak for Ken, but yes, I am fiscally conservative, but not conservative.
Ya don’t say?
Obviously I don’t, since I note that private spending increases. You might say I don’t address it, but then again why do I need to in order to show that public spending and private spending have both increased?
I was not addressing your political instincts.
Hoarding? Really? I say inefficiency and you bring up hoarding?
You specifically said “inefficiencies that reduce the overall amount that can be spent.” Tell me, how does government reduce the overall amount that can be spent without holding back revenue it takes in?
Perhaps you meant to argue the government is inherently more inefficient than markets at creating new wealth. That’s an instinct we share out of sheer precaution, though in the absence of reliable forecasts I cannot honestly say that it is a fact, nor can I say anything quantifiable about it at all. Unfortunately, liberals are very selective when it comes to when and where they’ll be cautious, and when it comes to intervention in the markets–they throw caution to the wind.
I notice that you didn’t contribute a thing with those last two posts, Presley. I’m starting to see a pattern here.
With respect to the first post, I apparently need to emphasize that hoarding is not the only form of economic inefficiency. Ken has clearly stated that the sort of economic inefficiency he speaks of is not hoarding. Now that you have the definition of hoarding and Ken’s words on the same webpage, you too can see that we are not speaking of hoarding.
With respect to the second post, I’m sure there’s a really clever point trying to come out. How about you tell us what you intended to say? I don’t feel like doing twenty questions.
I don’t even bother trying to guess what you see, since you’ve long since given up addressing what I’ve actually written.
Wow, and after that whole spiel about repeating yourself
Yeah, the kind that “reduces the total amount that can be spent.” I’ve quoted this several times now. If money is not being spent, what is it doing other than being ” ke[pt]…to oneself?”
I know. I provided it. Here’s the link in case you missed it, and assuming you actually read a comment I write rather than whatever imaginary ones you keep assign to me.
Sure. You’re speaking of this totally Zen inefficiency where revenue can be spent and not spent simultaneously.
With respect to the second post, I’m sure there’s a really clever point trying to come out. How about you tell us what you intended to say? I don’t feel like doing twenty questions.
Second post from what?
Erm, you snuck in a relevant post afterwards. I meant 2nd and 3rd posts back from mine.
You specifically said “inefficiencies that reduce the overall amount that can be spent.” Tell me, how does government reduce the overall amount that can be spent without holding back revenue it takes in?
We’ve already explained this. Government does this by spending inefficiently. It’s obvious that government cannot spend money on you more efficiently that you can. They don’t know you. They don’t know what you want. They don’t have experience in doing what you do. And so on. Further, there’s not filter of competence in most government bureaucracies. They don’t lose business or money, if they don’t do it competently. There’s little incentive to save money especially in the US government. It goes back to Congress, if you don’t spend it this fiscal year.
OTOH, if you had that money, you’d know how to spend it on the things you cared about.
In other words, there’s an opportunity cost when you transfer wealth (current or future) from the private world which at least demonstrated some competence in getting that wealth in the first place, to bureaucracies which have not demonstrated any competence at generating wealth.
Further, such things can “distort the market”. What does that mean? It means that because someone got resources by fiat, they bypass the information of markets and in that way introduce inefficiencies into the economy. What results is that things are priced inaccurately in a way that less reflects the true cost of the good or service.
I grant that government can operate to reduce externalities (for example, zoning). In practice, most spending of government has nothing to do with externalities.
Note that neither of the two inefficiencies has the form of a “hoarding”. There’s no good that’s being hoarded.
I’m just Black Irish.
Plain and simple. I don’t question whether you’re instinctively a fiscal conservative, though that speaks more to which side you cheer for than your grasp of the matter.
No you haven’t, and you still haven’t here.
Oh good God. Please, tell us how “government spend[s] inefficiently” such that it reduces the overall amount spent without keeping revenue to herself?
All you’ve done here is simply rephrase Ken’s original claim. You’ve explained absolutely nothing, and certainly haven’t done away with this obvious objection.
Yada, yada, who cares? That’s not at issue here. What is at issue is how government can spend such that it “reduces the overall amount that can be spent.” The only way she can do that is by keeping revenue to herself.
You can scream about the opportunity costs incurred by taxation until your lungs give out–it has absolutely nothing to do with the point raised.
With an imported surname, for sure.
“With an imported surname, for sure.”
I’m adopted.
You can scream about the opportunity costs incurred by taxation until your lungs give out–it has absolutely nothing to do with the point raised.
You’re right that “screaming” isn’t going to get me anywhere. Ken and I both demonstrated why opportunity costs of taxation involve depression of private spending, that is, why it is relevant. I give up.
I must admit to some curiosity, you’ve indicated previously that you think some reason exists for not expanding government spending under some circumstances. Would you care to elaborate on those circumstances?
Well that’s just out and out wrong. You’ve repeated and rephrased yourself over and over again, but you’ve never once provided any data evidence supporting the hypothesis that public spending reduces private spending.
I think there’s a reason to suspect government spending in all circumstances. I abide by the precautionary principle. The government is by inspection the largest, single agent intervening in the markets. It stands to reason that unintended consequences of its anticipated intervention in the economy are the least well understood. Therefore, its intervention should be minimized as much as possible.
Note to all: MTA New York City Transit has not used tokens since April of 2003.
I suspected as much. I haven’t been to NY in over thirty years. Tokens are still useful as metaphor however.
As (probably) a closing comment on this thread: I think it’s unfair to say that Obama doesn’t read very much. He’s given in the neighborhood of 400 speeches during his time in office, and every singe one of them involved reading a teleprompter….