HappySqurriel said:
No, your argument was that the government employs people and these people buy products but this is only a benefit to the economy if these people produce value to taxpayers that is equal (or greater than) the value of the goods and services they would have otherwise bought. In the case of building certain kinds of infastructure, or providing essential services, this may be the case; but it is not generally true. When it comes to departments or agencies providing "support" to companies, more often than not the benefit of this "support" is that it counteracts the harm that other departments or agencies are doing to these companies.
Suppose you had an additional $5000 per year, what would you spend that money on? If you're like most people you would probably buy some additional goods, pay for some services, pay down some debt and/or invest this money; in other words you wouldn't just start filling a pool with money so that you could one day swim in it like Scrooge McDuck. This money would then be put in the economy and create jobs producing those goods or providing those services, or the money would be used to invest in companies that would create other jobs. The money that is currently being spent on welfare would result in a similar number of jobs if it was not taken from the economy in the first place. So the "investment" in these communities would be made regardless, except it would be as a result of people working and providing something in return for the money they recieve. On the topic of welfare communities ... Most of the studies I have seen about subsdized housing indicate that it lowers the value of home and increases crime in the area; and I have never seen an indication of it becomming a trendy community until after the housing projects are knocked down.
"Green" energy firms can be split into two distinct groups ... Companies like GE that will invest in green energy regardless of government action, and use government subsidies to pay their executivies massive bonuses; and companies like Solyndra who sell magic beans to the government and use government subsidies to pay their executivies large bonuses until the companies go out of business. In no way does government intervention lead to an increase in green energy research. |
1st bold, yes it was my point. Perhaps it was too vague for someone with no intention on understanding could read, but it was meant that on top of those services, they are employed, hence why the likening to the inventory manager is such a perfect metaphor. You who do not care to see my point, don't see it.
2nd bold, I spend maybe 2 bucks a week on welfare if that. That money would likely go to buying a single ride on the train, or a pack of gum, or a soda. Instead, when it gets lumped into welfare, that 2 dollars becomes a 90$ pair of shoes for someone else, or a 300$ tv. My 2 dollars cannot support industries with products at a higher level than 2$, so, for example:
Everyone makes and has bills exactly due to what they make +2 dollars, welfare does not exist. The entire market of products above 2$ price tag is destroyed.
Same scenario, with welfare, suddenly 20-30% of the population can afford goods up to say 100$. This expands the market vertically to create premium products.
You'll notice that this scenario is basically what the normal economy looks like, poor and middle making just enough, rich support the niche market. With welfare, the size of the market grows since I cannot do anything with 2$ to support an industry that sells 500$ items. I can save up 50 a week for ten weeks, but that 2$ per week won't even affect how many weeks it takes to get 500$. Again, it lets me buy a pack of gum when it's in my pocket, it lets others buy bigger purchases. Again, this is roughly how republicans think of the rich, give the rich more of a break (instead of welfare to the poor), and they will support the market by purchasing goods. The difference is that instead of giving the extra to the rich, we're giving it to a different class, who likely buys different items.
Sure I can see the problems of green subsidies, but seriously what are you going to do without subsidy? I know it sucks but who's going to work on it? I don't think everyone is in the industry to weasel the government, that seems a bit conspiratorial. Kids don't dream of going to the olympics so that they can get a chunk of gold and merchandising, the same with companies in green energy. Sure maybe some companies do the wrong thing and abuse the system (of course it's impossible to regulate that nowadays, thanks GOP), but there are some that don't. It isn't a bad system because bad people abuse the system, it's a bad system because those bad people pay bad people in congress to prevent action to be taken.
