3 ms·
> You're literally saying that having a government is a net loss. Are you serious? But that's not what he said. He said: 1. ...an ever growing government sect
by lionhearted 17y ago
> You're literally saying that having a government is a net loss. Are you serious?
But that's not what he said. He said:
1. ...an ever growing government sector does not lead to long term prosperity
2. ...[despite a couple useful things like infrastructure and science] overall [our current government] is a definite net loss.
OP wasn't advocating anarchy. He thinks USG is not doing a good job with their resources, which isn't a particularly radical point of view.
- joubert 17y ago"..., because government almost never creates value". Note, not the US Government, but literally, a government. I didn't quite make the claim that he advocates anarchy, but I am questioning his attitude of trying to have and to eat his cupcake.
- biohacker42 17y agoThe cake is a... never mind. Small and efficient governments which create law and order are good for growth. They themselves do not create the growth, but they create the necessary conditions for growth. Government spending on the other hand, with few exceptions, does not create new value and doesn't even create the conditions for new value. It can create additional demand. If the source of the spending is debt, it can be stimulating in the short term, but it rarely is, see Japan's attempts to stimulate through government spending. Big or huge governments almost certainly are a significant net drain on productivity.