Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
Short answer... No.
Government spending isn't real economic activity.
It's like the owner of a used car salesmen bragging about his sales because he is buying 5-6 cars from himself a week on bank loans.
It's not REALLY doing anything except building debt.
The economy might LOOK worse, but in reality it won't be changed... and will be able to improve quicker.
Which is largely the big difference between tax raises and spending cuts.
One involves mostly the fake economy, while the other tends to directly effect real economic activity.
|
If you looked over the past decade, job growth was mostly through the creation of government jobs. Now that the governments have cut back in the United States, the end result is that the job growth has really been immensely pathetic:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/06/a_lost_decade_f.html
I would question though about, "not doing anything". If you totally got rid of all government, and the military, and courts to enforce contracts, and allow every sort of whim to happen, what would be the state of the economy of a nation? In short, would anyone here argue that good governance has no impact on the state of the economy at all?
|
That seems like a big conflation of the point... as the increases hasn't really been in any of those fields, and yes... job growth has been pretty crappy over the past decade due to excessive government spending and interevention.
|
So GW Bush increased the amount of government spending and intervention over that of Clinton and Reagan?
Has the concept of globalization rang a bell with you? During the past decade, can you answer why China's economy went booming? Why did they show absurdly high growth rates and end up building a huge manufacturing base? Was there suddenly mass demand from penguins or kangaroos or other places on the planet? Or could it be maybe, just maybe, they totally trashed the American manufacturing based, funded by tax cuts?
