| badgenome said: I'm totally opposed to it because even if there's merit to the idea in theory, it requires that governments spend more only when they need to in order to stimulate demand and then reduce spending when times are good. The first part isn't the problem, but of course, the latter is. The temptation for the government to do more, more, more is even greater when times are flush. (I still get a laugh when I think about the 2000 presidential debates when Bush and Gore were debating how we should spend all these "huge" surpluses we were going to be running.) Then when the latest government-stoked bubble bursts and the economy goes into a tailspin, you're already tapped out and buried under a mountain of debt. So Keynesianism just seems like a silly, borderline utopian notion that is premised on the idea that there are Top Men who have good intentions and take the long view and will always make the right call, rather than a bunch of fallible humans and craven politicians who just want to do the most expedient thing for the short term. New Keynesians are even more given to hubristic fantasies about what they (the aforementioned Top Men, naturally) can accomplish beyond simply stimulating the way out of an economic downturn and seem to believe they can coax the economy to do exactly as they please with no unintended consequences. And sure, it's not surprising that any government will generally use any excuse to grab more power, whether or not it's actually warranted, and economic downturns are the perfect opportunity to do so. Politics tends to attract people who are in love with power, and while politicians probably do genuinely believe they are doing good things, they'd also generally prefer to strangle an economy to death with their own two hands than to let it flourish without them micromanaging every aspect of it. Such is the nature of a control freak. I don't know that it's "rational", but it's certainly to be expected. |
I agree with your basic premise. In theory if we could regulate government spending during economic downturns in a way that assured bolstering of the economy that would be great. The problem comes after, once the economy has rebounded. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of this too, they just like spending on different sectors.
I do think that there are legitimate expenses for governments to undertake, including healthcare. I'm not saying that we have the best healthcare system but it is much better, in principle, than what it was before.
I'll also say that a major problem with our gorvernment is the lobby system. Private companies should have no say in government policies, while at the same time government should have minimal involvement in the private sector. Barring legitimate regulations that is.
btw I heard at some point that your a professor at a university, is that true?
The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers
