![]() |
|
![]()
October 06, 2010
Why The Ultra-Keynesians Are Almost Certainly Wrong
So, apparently the theory emanating from the left, especially in the person of Paul KKKrugman, is this: we need massive government spending, trillions of dollars, to grow the economy, and then everything will be great. Otherwise, we're doomed. There's a very simple, easily-understood reason why Krugman and the other statists are almost certainly wrong: marginal government spending at 45% of GDP is not likely to create much real growth. Real growth happens when someone figures out a way to provide a product or service that is either new and desirable, or a cheaper substitute for an existing product or service -- in other words, productivity gains that make consumers' lives better. Now, obviously government can add value -- if there were no roads or rail between, say, Chicago and New York, it would be useful for the gov't to exercise eminent domain and get them created. And obviously preventing monopoly, fraud, external costs like pollution, etc is also economically useful. But after it's paid for all the economically efficient regulations, roads, and rail (note that even at current supply, rail is generally not a paying proposition) an economy can support, mostly what government can do is inflate bubbles. Someone remind me, how'd messing with housing via Fannie and Freddie work out? Government spending is at 45% of GDP; post-WW II federal revenue has generally been in the range of 18-22% under all tax schemes, overall revenue is around 28% by most estimates. Krugman argues we need gov't to spend 65% of GDP. It's a ludicrous notion that there are trillions of dollars of economically useful things to buy with that money, surpassed only by the even more ludicrous notion government knows what those things are but the markets don't. We are not Afghanistan, bereft of basic roads, schools, rail, bridges and airports. Building Bridges to Nowhere is what Japan tried in their Lost Decade, and it didn't work. What we need is capital working in the private sector to generate more productivity gains. If we want to free up capital for that currently unknown genius, sitting in his garage right now about to create the next Google or Amazon or Intel, then government spending must be cut to match government revenues. Here's some ideas on where to start. posted by Dave on 10.06.10 at 08:12 PM |
|
October 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2010
September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Thank You Friend
Mark Kirk Ad Why The Ultra-Keynesians Are Almost Certainly Wrong I Have Done A Terrific Job "for the good for society"? Or for the good of the state? The Golden Rule Of Politics I Had Hopped we have always been seriously at war with humor Democrat - We Must Preserve Theories Booze vs Pot
Links
Site Credits
|
|
But Government is a growth industry, it grows departments, employees, deficits and generally produces nothing. What better way to spend/waste the countries wealth?