3 ms·
If you read his columns, he's pretty explicit about what government should spend money on But that's a huge part of the problem with his arguments (and that of
by CWuestefeld 16y ago
If you read his columns, he's pretty explicit about what government should spend money on
But that's a huge part of the problem with his arguments (and that of many others sharing the same political views). If we gave this {money|power} to the government, they could do these wonderful things.
Maybe they could do wonderful things, but by-and-large, they don't. They find some way to mess up the details. Perhaps they'll simply be mistaken about the end effects; or maybe they'll implement it badly; at best, a few years down the line, regulatory capture will ensure that the good that was intended is turned around, and the program is turned into a tool for the establishment's rent-seeking, rather than of benefit primarily to the people.
I'm sure I sound cynical and jaded, but I challenge you to cite something -- anything -- that the government has done, that's more than a couple of years old that's an unqualified success.
- kenjackson 16y agoI think the point that Krugman makes, and those of us with similar beliefs, is that gov't is willing to spend money to put people to work on projects that help the greater good. But these projects don't have to necessarily pay for themself. For example, gov't will build a bike trail. The private sector is a lot less inclined to, unless the trail goes through shopping center or is a toll trail. There's just different types of motivations. And in a recession where ROI is hard to get, gov't can be more effective in putting money back in the hands of people who will spend it.
- dnautics 16y agothe categorical assumption there is that spending, no matter how responsible, is a good thing.
- kenjackson 16y agoThat's not an assumption stated or implied at all. I'm saying that motivation and metrics are different. The gov't needs to provide the same, if not more DD than the private sector (since return is harder to measure).
- dnautics 16y agoWell, I'll agree that the metrics are not the same as motivation, but you're putting emphasis on the metrics than the motivation. The argument that the government categorically needs inject more spending provide more than the private sector is totally insane. What if we've maximized the social capacity to wisely invest? Then the only thing left is for the money to chase after stupid things. Like, mindlessly repaving roads that don't need it (versus paving roads which do, which I will argue is a legit gov't function), or putting money into stocks that are sitting on a pedestal of vapor, paying for high schools to have olympic-class swimming pools and immense bureaucratic pyramids, or performing R&D in reach-for-the-stars science that doesn't have an adequate underlying foundation, or unsustainable real estate schemes.... In other words, if we've maximized the possible social output given the societal state, then maybe the right thing to do is to be SAVING for a rainy day. Which, it seems is what main street has been inclined to do despite immense government pressure to do otherwise.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- MaysonL 16y agoOnly during periods of greatly increased unemployment.
- dnautics 16y agoso high unemployment makes irresponsible spending okay? The other problem with aggregate metrics is that no matter how well you craft them they ignore motivation - for example, I can conceive of situations where high unemployment isn't so bad. Call me a traditionalist, but maybe our society would be better if family units could afford to have one parent stay at home and take care of the children, or the elderly, hell, maybe even pitch in to help take care of kids of single parents in a co-op kind of arrangement. (to be followed by trite retort about how unemployment is measured)
- MaysonL 16y agoI defy you to cite something -- anything -- that anyone has done, that's more than a couple years old that's an unqualified success.