US Presidential Candidates

Imaginos1892 wrote:I saw John Stossel run down two Democrat politicians and try to make them admit that we are forced to pay taxes. That in the end, if you are sufficiently persistent in refusing to pay, the government will confiscate your money and property, and send men with guns to throw you in jail. Neither of them would admit to anything. They practically ran away from the camera.

Maybe being pursued by a guy with a camera and a penchant for asking the most stupid question in the history of mankind may have something to do with it?


Naah, it MUST be democrat duplicity!

Why do politicians insist on calling their runaway government spending 'investment'? Because 'flushing your tax money down a rat-hole' just wouldn't play well?

Why do you insist on not knowing how the economy works and what the governments' role in it is?

The E wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:Why do politicians insist on calling their runaway government spending 'investment'? Because 'flushing your tax money down a rat-hole' just wouldn't play well?

Why do you insist on not knowing how the economy works and what the governments' role in it is?

What's the problem with Imaginos' assertion? Government first must take from the economy to redirect it where policy dictates it should go. That's adding a level of waste and inefficiency in the distribution of resources. We saw a marked decrease in the rate for GPD growth after the nadir following the 1929 crash. Regressing GPD growth to the same variables, GDP did not achieve the same pre-Depression growth rate until well after WWII.

The principal driver post Depression was government stimulus. The principal driver after WWII was private investment in an environment of non-existent competition. In both cases there was no competition as exits in the private sector pre-1929 crash. The key difference was that private sector investment drove the post war boom whereas public sector investment drove the anemic post 1929 recovery.

Imaginos is correct to view government "investment" as a "rat hole" compared to private investment. History proves it over and over again.

PeterZ wrote:Imaginos is correct to view government "investment" as a "rat hole" compared to private investment. History proves it over and over again.

History also proves, over and over again, that private companies are terrible at building and maintaining infrastructure and common-good services that citizens and businesses rely on.

Come on, Peter, this is basic economy theory here. Saying that the government is nothing but a drain and that everything would be so much better if it weren't around is about as credible as a teenager who believes that everything would be so much better if Mom didn't nag all the time about cleaning the house (I invite you to explore the many, many parallels between classic libertarian "minimal government" thought and teenagers threatening to run away from home because their parents are asking them to clean their room and maybe put some clean clothes on).

The E wrote:History also proves, over and over again, that private companies are terrible at building and maintaining infrastructure and common-good services that citizens and businesses rely on.

Come on, Peter, this is basic economy theory here. Saying that the government is nothing but a drain and that everything would be so much better if it weren't around is about as credible as a teenager who believes that everything would be so much better if Mom didn't nag all the time about cleaning the house (I invite you to explore the many, many parallels between classic libertarian "minimal government" thought and teenagers threatening to run away from home because their parents are asking them to clean their room and maybe put some clean clothes on).

The only thing government has that the private sector doesn't is size. Some infrastructure projects are simply too massive for any one private firm to take on. The risks that the projects do not finish on budget can be very big. Aside from the ability to sustain financial risk, government investments are suboptimal.

Its not a matter of not liking government projects because they are government projects. Its a matter of knowing that the inefficiencies of government projects are swamped by their being distributed over a vastly larger support base. Any inefficiency isn't felt much at all by an individual tax payer, even if overall the project is much more inefficient than the same one conducted by the private sector.

That's why government investments to boost the economy is a "rat hole". It does not boost the economy as well as the same amount of private sector investment. Mind you, if infrastructure is necessary, depending on the size of the project government funding may be necessary. Had their been a sufficiently well funded private company, it would have completed the large project more efficiently.

That's not to say, Imaginos is incorrect. He is absolutely correct that using the term investment implies a return and that the return is worthwhile for government "investments". They are rarely worthwhile as investments even if they might be necessary to complete some infrastructure goal. Adding to our Interstate Highway system won't improve productivity sufficiently to pay for the cost. Building the system in the first place did indeed improve productivity to pay for itself, but adding to it would not.

This isn't about government spending so much as how to generate economic growth. Government expenditures are rarely as efficient at doing so as private investment.

PeterZ wrote:What's the problem with Imaginos' assertion?

It´s bloody ignorant?

PeterZ wrote:Government first must take from the economy to redirect it where policy dictates it should go.

Just like a private company has to take from the economy to redirect it where profitability dictates it should go.

Guess what is more effective for society overall, taxes or private profits?

PeterZ wrote:That's adding a level of waste and inefficiency in the distribution of resources.

No it doesn´t. Except of course if there´s corruption. You know, like there often is in private companies?

PeterZ wrote:The principal driver post Depression was government stimulus. The principal driver after WWII was private investment in an environment of non-existent competition.

Really... What an "interesting" claim.
I guess you missed the part where the US economy would have collapsed post-WWII without the Marshall-plan adding public money to the industry.
Among other "little" things you just sort of, "accidentally left out".

PeterZ wrote:The key difference was that private sector investment drove the post war boom whereas public sector investment drove the anemic post 1929 recovery.

That´s bullshit and you know it. And if you don´t you´re seriously beyond the line where you should be arguing about it and even further away from where you should use it as proof of anything.

PeterZ wrote:Imaginos is correct to view government "investment" as a "rat hole" compared to private investment. History proves it over and over again.

Only if you´re exceptionally incompetent and ignorant about history.

PeterZ wrote:Its a matter of knowing that the inefficiencies of government projects

And have you ever actually bothered to look at the inefficiencies of private corporations?

I bet you haven´t. It´s like saying the Ewoks have the most powerful army in any known universe. It´s perfectly true as long as you very carefully do not actually compare it with anything.

It´s also exceptionally stupid.

PeterZ wrote:Had their been a sufficiently well funded private company, it would have completed the large project more efficiently.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA...



Private or public has NOTHING to do with which is more efficient.

Who runs the project and what s/he has to work with has everything to do with it.

PeterZ wrote:Adding to our Interstate Highway system won't improve productivity sufficiently to pay for the cost. Building the system in the first place did indeed improve productivity to pay for itself, but adding to it would not.

You really don´t have a clue regarding economics do you?

PeterZ wrote:Government expenditures are rarely as efficient at doing so as private investment.

Government expenses has actually been proven beyond any doubt to be generally more effective than private money.

Because government money gets used and used again much faster than private money, which creates more economic growth.

Government money is only pisspoor at growth if it´s used to pander to the rich.

PeterZ wrote:That's not to say, Imaginos is incorrect. He is absolutely correct that using the term investment implies a return and that the return is worthwhile for government "investments". They are rarely worthwhile as investments even if they might be necessary to complete some infrastructure goal. Adding to our Interstate Highway system won't improve productivity sufficiently to pay for the cost. Building the system in the first place did indeed improve productivity to pay for itself, but adding to it would not.

Right, because as we all know, populations just do not grow or shift over time, so there's no reason whatsoever to ever build out more infrastructure, is there?

You are wrong on a very fundamental level here. Even if we put aside the need to maintain the infrastructure, there are always areas where improving it would improve the quality of life of those living there. Take, for example, broadband internet: In many ways, this has transformed from a luxury to something people need access to. However, in rural areas, an efficient business would look at the required investment to bring connectivity, compare it with the expected return, and (correctly!) conclude that it wasn't worth it. This is where governments, not bound by the need to show a quarterly profit, can and must step up. You might call this a failed investment, because it's not going to show a direct return. However, again, you would be wrong: The return for that investment is more opportunities for the people now connected. There is no way to accurately quantify opportunity, but I think we can all agree that having more of them certainly doesn't hurt anyone.

Your stance here reminds me of nothing so much as the old conservative/libertarian motto "Fuck you, got mine".

I did note some goals are politically necessary, eh? You bring up an excellent example. Yet, as an investment generating a return it fails. As a means of accomplishing a political or social goal, it succeeds.

Clinton's use of infrastructure investments is one that she claims will generate a return on GDP. It will not.

We are already using taxes to maintain the interstate system. Localities might be skimping on bridges and such, but that too has been improved in these past 6 years or so. The amount of truly necessary building is rather small.

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:That's not to say, Imaginos is incorrect. He is absolutely correct that using the term investment implies a return and that the return is worthwhile for government "investments". They are rarely worthwhile as investments even if they might be necessary to complete some infrastructure goal. Adding to our Interstate Highway system won't improve productivity sufficiently to pay for the cost. Building the system in the first place did indeed improve productivity to pay for itself, but adding to it would not.

Right, because as we all know, populations just do not grow or shift over time, so there's no reason whatsoever to ever build out more infrastructure, is there?

You are wrong on a very fundamental level here. Even if we put aside the need to maintain the infrastructure, there are always areas where improving it would improve the quality of life of those living there. Take, for example, broadband internet: In many ways, this has transformed from a luxury to something people need access to. However, in rural areas, an efficient business would look at the required investment to bring connectivity, compare it with the expected return, and (correctly!) conclude that it wasn't worth it. This is where governments, not bound by the need to show a quarterly profit, can and must step up. You might call this a failed investment, because it's not going to show a direct return. However, again, you would be wrong: The return for that investment is more opportunities for the people now connected. There is no way to accurately quantify opportunity, but I think we can all agree that having more of them certainly doesn't hurt anyone.

Your stance here reminds me of nothing so much as the old conservative/libertarian motto "Fuck you, got mine".

The E, you should look at Broadband in Australia.

The original, socialist, national upgrade plan was both future proof and fast.

Then the conservative business types won power.

Now revised to be not future proof, slower, less available, more expensive, and strangely involves buying existing out of date infrastructure from a major donor.

Basically, the wrong people, private sector types who got elected on a hate/fear campaign, are building it, the private sector way.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I fully agree with this comment. Annachie has it down exactly as to what happened here.

Some things are better in private enterprise, some not.

Another Australian example was our national job finding service (CES) that for 50 years had provided a free to user employment service. A conservative government outsourced it by paying per placement,and the result is less service for about 350% more cost. The profit has to come from somewhere, and there is now massive duplication.

Annachie wrote:The E, you should look at Broadband in Australia.

The original, socialist, national upgrade plan was both future proof and fast.

Then the conservative business types won power.

Now revised to be not future proof, slower, less available, more expensive, and strangely involves buying existing out of date infrastructure from a major donor.

Basically, the wrong people, private sector types who got elected on a hate/fear campaign, are building it, the private sector way.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Strangely enough, I recently read an article about a study on violence in American prisons, according to which for-profit prisons experience upwards of 20% more incidents of serious violence than state- or federal-run prisons - because the cost-saving measures those for-profit prisons implement tend to reduce the inmates to faceless numbers instead of human beings.

Of course, privately-run prisons is such a deception. Their incomes are entirely dependent on the government.