3 ms·

Are you staying that fed taxes are positive sum for the economy? That's a pretty bold claim, as most people would have trouble citing $3 trillion in real value

Are you staying that fed taxes are positive sum for the economy? That's a pretty bold claim, as most people would have trouble citing $3 trillion in real value the fed gov creates each year.

maxbond 3y ago
Things like creating highways, making sure our food is uncontaminated, running the GPS, etc, etc, provide incredible value to the economy, yes. We are after all talking across an internet developed with public funding. They might not do so in a way people take note of, but it doesn't seem like a particularly bold claim to me.
- jpadkins 3y ago
  the things you cited are like 2% of the budget, and I fully agree. For the other 90% of the budget, I still am very skeptical that its GDP positive (our defense budget is mostly about blowing things up, which destroys wealth instead of creating it)
  - maxbond 3y ago
    Well, when the government spends $1 it contributes $1 to GDP (regardless of what it's spent on), but note that whether or not an investment helps the economy of the US expand is an entirely different question to how it impacts the world. Things can be a net negative to the world and expand the economy. Also note that I intend these as descriptive and not proscriptive statements. I'm not trying to say the government isn't wasteful (though 90-98% waste is an overstatement) or that it's the best way to do things, I'm just trying to illustrate why seemingly ponzi-like systems like national currencies can be economically productive and stable over long periods of time while truly ponzi-like systems rarely have longevity (Herbalife and Amway being exceptions to this rule, in my opinion) because they don't actually produce anything.
bandrami 3y ago
You're saying if the US government disappeared tomorrow the hit to the GDP would be less than $3T? I have trouble taking that claim seriously.

3 ms·

Are you staying that fed taxes are positive sum for the economy? That's a pretty bold claim, as most people would have trouble citing $3 trillion in real value

by jpadkins 3y ago

Are you staying that fed taxes are positive sum for the economy? That's a pretty bold claim, as most people would have trouble citing $3 trillion in real value the fed gov creates each year.

maxbond 3y ago
Things like creating highways, making sure our food is uncontaminated, running the GPS, etc, etc, provide incredible value to the economy, yes. We are after all talking across an internet developed with public funding. They might not do so in a way people take note of, but it doesn't seem like a particularly bold claim to me.
- jpadkins 3y ago
  the things you cited are like 2% of the budget, and I fully agree. For the other 90% of the budget, I still am very skeptical that its GDP positive (our defense budget is mostly about blowing things up, which destroys wealth instead of creating it)
  - maxbond 3y ago
    Well, when the government spends $1 it contributes $1 to GDP (regardless of what it's spent on), but note that whether or not an investment helps the economy of the US expand is an entirely different question to how it impacts the world. Things can be a net negative to the world and expand the economy. Also note that I intend these as descriptive and not proscriptive statements. I'm not trying to say the government isn't wasteful (though 90-98% waste is an overstatement) or that it's the best way to do things, I'm just trying to illustrate why seemingly ponzi-like systems like national currencies can be economically productive and stable over long periods of time while truly ponzi-like systems rarely have longevity (Herbalife and Amway being exceptions to this rule, in my opinion) because they don't actually produce anything.
bandrami 3y ago
You're saying if the US government disappeared tomorrow the hit to the GDP would be less than $3T? I have trouble taking that claim seriously.