2 ms·
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 defen
by 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 agoWell, 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.