3 ms·

hiring people to destroy wealth is deficit spending and inflation. not sure where you're getting the "later time" bit. this sort of jobs program is just welfa

hiring people to destroy wealth is deficit spending and inflation. not sure where you're getting the "later time" bit. this sort of jobs program is just welfare with the caveat that you have to be somewhere 40 hours a week. this helps workers save face. but the result is the same: value is being taken from one group and being used to prop up another. whether society as a whole benefits from such a safety net is a whole nother argument and I won't argue about the rightness or wrongness of such a plan here. but trying to transmorgrify the issue to obscure the means and ends is awful.

barrkel 17y ago
No. I think you're fundamentally missing the point, and moreover one of the most basic reasons for government. Loans (deficits) shift expenditure from one time to another. Welfare and welfare-like policies funded by deficits (loans), in this branch's context of counter-cyclical policies, don't "take value from one group" and use it to "prop up another". They reduce consumption from the future, where hopefully we're richer, and increase consumption today, via loans.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  a loan is predicated on the idea that the loaned money will be invested in wealth producing ventures, enabling a payback of principle + interest later. this is counter to the digging holes and filling them in bit, unless you plan on heavily taxing anyone who took assistance later on to make up for it. in which case again, why make them dig holes? in the other case, where investment is made in a wealth producing venture, why is government needed? the only reason money isn't available for sound investment will be due to malinvestment brought about by shitty incentives in the first place. also, WRT transferring future wealth to the present:http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/09/maturity-transformation-considered.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/09/maturit...
  - chancho 17y ago
    Not to pile on, but I think you really are missing the point. The point of the current deficit spending (taking out loans) is not to invest in something that will create wealth later, it's to prevent the destruction of wealth now. That's what he means when he says it's "counter-cyclical" spending. We're smoothing out this negative GDP bump now by borrowing from a future positive GDP bump. You spend now to prevent a depression. When you pay the loan back you break even at best, probably lose a little, but it's better than not doing anything at all. If you don't agree with this kind of macroeconomic reaction then that's the argument you should be making. To disagree with these loans because they can't possibly turn a profit just misses the point.
    - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
      okay so the premise is that the government spending prevents a depression. this is based on an aggregate demand theory of the business cycle. since i'm supply side I doubt a debate would be very productive. neither one of us is going to budge the other from their axiom. I've tried to understand demand side economics and I can't.

barrkel 17y ago

No. I think you're fundamentally missing the point, and moreover one of the most basic reasons for government. Loans (deficits) shift expenditure from one time to another. Welfare and welfare-like policies funded by deficits (loans), in this branch's context of counter-cyclical policies, don't "take value from one group" and use it to "prop up another". They reduce consumption from the future, where hopefully we're richer, and increase consumption today, via loans.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
a loan is predicated on the idea that the loaned money will be invested in wealth producing ventures, enabling a payback of principle + interest later. this is counter to the digging holes and filling them in bit, unless you plan on heavily taxing anyone who took assistance later on to make up for it. in which case again, why make them dig holes? in the other case, where investment is made in a wealth producing venture, why is government needed? the only reason money isn't available for sound investment will be due to malinvestment brought about by shitty incentives in the first place. also, WRT transferring future wealth to the present:http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/09/maturity-transformation-considered.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/09/maturit...
- chancho 17y ago
  Not to pile on, but I think you really are missing the point. The point of the current deficit spending (taking out loans) is not to invest in something that will create wealth later, it's to prevent the destruction of wealth now. That's what he means when he says it's "counter-cyclical" spending. We're smoothing out this negative GDP bump now by borrowing from a future positive GDP bump. You spend now to prevent a depression. When you pay the loan back you break even at best, probably lose a little, but it's better than not doing anything at all. If you don't agree with this kind of macroeconomic reaction then that's the argument you should be making. To disagree with these loans because they can't possibly turn a profit just misses the point.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    okay so the premise is that the government spending prevents a depression. this is based on an aggregate demand theory of the business cycle. since i'm supply side I doubt a debate would be very productive. neither one of us is going to budge the other from their axiom. I've tried to understand demand side economics and I can't.