4 ms·
Except that the state doesn't take any sort of a long term view, unless you consider the next election a "long term". The state can't do anything to benefit th
by MCRed 11y ago
Except that the state doesn't take any sort of a long term view, unless you consider the next election a "long term". The state can't do anything to benefit the economy- by definition all the money spent by the state was taken via taxation or inflation, in both cases taken out of the private economy exactly at the point where they would otherwise be invested in economic growth... and the state is notoriously terrible at allocating that money (most of which is spent bombing people, or preparing to bomb people.)
- 1stop 11y ago> exactly at the point where they would otherwise be invested in economic growth That's why a tiny percentage of people hold the vast majority of wealth... Because they "reinvest"? Are you seriously arguing government shouldn't exist and shouldn't tax?
- nharada 11y agoYou could also argue that the money being taken by the state is being used for programs like public education and infrastructure instead of being stashed offshore by multinationals where nobody can use it.
- frame_perfect 11y agoAh man, one of those right-libertarian/anarcho-capitalist types. Don't worry, most of these people change their belief system once they take an elementary economics class. I know I did :)
- saool 11y agoJust to clarify, I wrote what I understood the piece to be, I don't necessarily hold the same view. I have seem my share of resources squandered by a short-sighted politician looking for re-election. I guess in a perfect world, the State realizes it needs to plan and invest beyond 4 years, and in the rest of the cases your mileage will vary greatly.