4 ms·

Regarding "a": I don't see a refutation of the idea anywhere in your response. Regarding "b: No. But driving the competitor out of business assumes that you're

by ja30278 17y ago

Regarding "a": I don't see a refutation of the idea anywhere in your response. Regarding "b: No. But driving the competitor out of business assumes that you're doing the same task more efficiently (with fewer people), which is theoretically better for the economy as a whole, since it means that the same goods/services are produced at less cost, and frees up labor for other things. Regarding "c": How exactly would we be worse off as a society in this context? Replace "dig holes" with "pick up litter" or some other menial but necessary task, and it looks like a net win to me. You expend the same money, but actually get some small societal return on your investment. Can you actually argue that welfare recipients _ought_ to be idle? Regarding "d": Aren't higher taxes and greater difficultly in obtaining starting capital "drags on efficiency"? Regarding "e": Imagine you have a brilliant idea on how to produce, market, and sell widgets. To get started, you need new equipment, a storefront, and some working capital. How do you obtain these things? If someone lent you the capital to get started, and you created a new business as a result, are they not (at least tangentially) engaged in a 'productive' activity?

sethg 17y ago
Replace "dig holes" with "pick up litter" or some other menial but necessary task, and it looks like a net win to me. If there are already people employed by state or local governments to pick up litter, they won’t be happy to see former welfare recipients being given the same job for a much lower pay. OTOH, one thing the current stimulus package did was give money to state and local governments, so that they didn’t have to lay off sanitation workers (or teachers or police officers or etc.) for lack of money. Recessions are particularly hard on state governments because most state constitutions require balanced budgets, but recessions cut into their tax revenue at the very same time that demands on government services increase.

by ja30278 17y ago

sethg 17y ago

Replace "dig holes" with "pick up litter" or some other menial but necessary task, and it looks like a net win to me. If there are already people employed by state or local governments to pick up litter, they won’t be happy to see former welfare recipients being given the same job for a much lower pay. OTOH, one thing the current stimulus package did was give money to state and local governments, so that they didn’t have to lay off sanitation workers (or teachers or police officers or etc.) for lack of money. Recessions are particularly hard on state governments because most state constitutions require balanced budgets, but recessions cut into their tax revenue at the very same time that demands on government services increase.