Soleron said:
Kasz216 said:
A) What you don't consider a stimulus, is exactly what a stimulus always is... and always will be with the polticians in charge. Austerity can't be done correctly, but neither can stimulus, the big difference is that failed austerity still somewhat lowers the debt, while failed stimulus increases it.
I don't even think successful austerity lowers debt.
B) The only way to grow an economy is to create products people demand and create value in the economy. This can't happen through stimulus... espeically not through the kind of stimulus provided, at best stimulus can pull foward demand... and companies have to be stupid enough to follow through on it.
Disagree. The point of what I said is to invest in infratstructure and people's skills to create a better environment for doing business. Something it's not feasible for companies to do themselves, but which we all benefit hugely from.
They aren't products.
The government handing everyone a $200 cheque and asking them to buy a TV with it counts as "products people demand" but is also completely worthless to economic recovery.
C) It's got less to do with nationality and more to do with economics. Government spending is useless to measuring the economy, because it's not a part of the economy. The things you listed without a doubt should in no way count.
They are part of the economy. Don't understand your position here.
If they are useful, their effects will show up... in the private data.
Any government spending that can't find effects in the private market is essentially bubble spending and should only be used for specific charitable reasons.
The worst kind of government spending - contracts for random shit people don't need - shows up in the economy. Like the US ordering unecessary tanks or missiles. Or an IT consultancy contract. They "create jobs" but they don't create value. This kind of outsourcing is pretty much my #1 hated thing.
|
|
1) How could it not lower debt. The government is spending less, and borrowing less. If it's less then it takes in, then debt really decreases.
2&3) You seem to have somewhat misunderstood my point. If you are upgrading peoples skills and infrastructure to create a better economic climate, that will be shown... in the economic climate.
So if you increase education to create a bunch of new needed engineers, that will be shown in the economy by the growth of engineers and products created by those engineers.
Now if you increase education to create a bunch of liberal arts students, that won't be shown in the growth of the economy, because it does nothing.
The value of a government's economic policies can only be measured by private GDP.
I'd question the creation of a bunch of skilled technicians at a time where there is no climate for their employ.
Creating a bunch more engineers in troubled economic times would seem to me, only create more people vieing for existing engineering jobs. Hurting engineers positions to bargain, giving companies big advantages to cut their employees salaries and benefits.
That's the untold darkside of education improvement.
