Most people think that government spending hurts the economy. You have to be an economic dolt to think otherwise. Unfortunately, we have a lot of those, some of whom are currently running the country. Not to mention making fools of themselves in my comments section.
17 thoughts on “You Don’t Say (Part 2)”
Comments are closed.
“Most people think that government spending hurts the economy. You have to be an economic dolt to think otherwise.”
Speaking of Jim…
Oh, I don’t think Jim needs the adjective on that label.
But the Obama administration said government spending was better for the economy than tax cuts. Why won’t anyone believe them?
Depends on the spending. I don’t think anyone complains fire departments and city parks are “bad for the economy”. Say rather that government spending is a necessary evil and shouldn’t substitute for private activity unless warranted.
Interesting that you chose fire departments as your example. Normally paid for locally rather than federally.
“…shouldn’t substitute for private activity unless warranted.”
I’ll warrant Obama thinks this should happen for everything.
“…shouldn’t substitute for private activity unless warranted.”
I have a better idea: government shall only do those things it is explicitly empowered to do, by the people, through the Constitution. I think I’ll call this “the doctrine of enumerated powers”….
Bbbeard, that would be federal government. States and municipalities do need some recourse — not much, but some — to the “warranted” thing.
Seems like a terribly designed survey to me. Whether increased spending is bad for the economy or tax cuts good depends on a lot of information not given, such as what are you spending on, will the tax cut increase the deficit, is the economy in depression, recession or a boom, and whether the year is, for example, 1941.
So the best answer is “not sure”. Or better still, “impossible to answer the question as phrased” but that isn’t an option.
I’d add that this seems to be the sort of survey that frames the questions to push the answers towards a particular response desired by the pollster. It’s from Rasmussen, but I repeat myself.
Will, I think it is pretty obvious that there is an understood “given the situation today” in the question.
Taking tax money from me, and spending it on planting trees, fish and bugs in the city parks IS “bad for the economy”.
* The “Park” spending is wholly monopolistic, so there is no incentive to drive it to the most efficient methods
* The “output” is rarely useful to anything else, unlike building a dam, highway, etc.
* The workers involved have been diverted from other potentially useful activities.
Many of us enjoy some level of spending on parks, but I think that current politics has failed to provided the proper balance between useful, self-directed uses of money and frivolous, make work, “public” activities.
“Interesting that you chose fire departments as your example. Normally paid for locally rather than federally.”
The Feds also have fire departments but that’s just a quibble. You can always find some group that’s opposed to government – state, local, federal – spending money on (X). There’s a number of people who think, fer example, that the US military is a complete waste of money and should be shut down *completely*. If you just throw the question out, “Does the government spend too much money” it’s not hard to get a significant number of “HELL YES” answers. You have to drill down into the answers to get a better idea of what the majority of people really think shouldn’t government shouldn’t do.
“Enumerated powers” isn’t a bad place to start for defining what government should and shouldn’t spend money on but even there you run into trouble. The US Constitution is a pretty broad document. It really just sets up a process for the people to elect representatives to decide what to spend money on and if they don’t like what their representatives are doing, they should kick them out in 2 years.
Arguably that’s the weakest point in the scheme. I despise (congressman X) for being a spendthrift/pork barrel politician but I don’t live in his district and his constituents, who are getting the pork, keep voting him back in. Me and 20K or so like minded individuals would have to move there to kick him out of office. That’s obviously not going to happen so Congressman X is going to keep doing what gets him re-elected every 2 years and hang the rest of the country.
It always amazes me that opinion polls are accurate when they say something you agree with, and wrong when they don’t… Bit like science and…
Hmmm… there’s a pattern there.
I assume that this means that you wouldn’t take a contract funded by government subsidies? Or would that be a case of the subsidy being a good thing for the Simberg household?
“Hmmm… there’s a pattern there.”
Yes, moronic troll comments from Dave. Read the link and catch up before proving you’re an idiot.
What are you stupidly blathering about now, David?
Of course I would take a contract funded by “government subsidies” (whatever that means). Much of the money I’ve made in my career has come, directly or otherwise, from government contracts. But to think that this means that I think that it’s good for the economy is nutty. Unlike the government, I have no responsibility to do things that are good for the economy (or at least not actively bad for the economy).
“Most people think that government spending hurts the economy. You have to be an economic dolt to think otherwise.”
Interesting theory. How does it play out in the empirical world? It implies that govt spending/capita should be inversely proportional to GDP/capita (both among states and among nations). Do you have any data to support that idea?
If a poll indicated a majority believe 2+2=5, would that make the statement true? If a poll indicated only a minority believe 2+2=4, would that make the statement false?
How does it play out in the empirical world? It implies that govt spending/capita should be inversely proportional to GDP/capita (both among states and among nations). Do you have any data to support that idea?
I’m not sure that’s the right metric. You should be looking at growth rate, rather than absolute numbers. By that measure, while it’s more of an anecdote than data, California and Texas provide an interesting compare and contrast.