Comments | ka9q: Government spending is not a zero-sum game

ka9q

Government spending is not a zero-sum game

Mar 17, 2009 23:03

Libertarians Conservatives often argue that the economy government spending is a zero-sum game, and that government spending it necessarily decreases everyone's standard of living.

I strongly disagree; the economy is most definitely NOT a zero sum game. The big variable is productivity. This number drops quite a bit when lots of people are out of ( Read more... )

economics stimulus credit-default swaps

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

huh? anonymous March 18 2009, 14:11:36 UTC

Libertarians don't argue that the economy is zero sum. In fact, most libertarians argue that economic growth is the key to success of everyone overall. That's why libertarians argue that taking money from the productive (i.e. wealthier) people and giving it to the less productive ends up hurting the poor more - because the economic pie isn't growing as fast ( ... )

Re: huh? atari_eric March 18 2009, 19:42:39 UTC

taking money from the productive (i.e. wealthier) people

Oh really? You just assume wealthy people are productive? What about those who inherit their wealth? Even heirs who still work aren't necessarily more productive, or even productive at all - their lack of production can easily be hidden by their vast cash reserve.

See, it's this type of assumption made in economics that gets us into trouble. All the various "laws" of economics are just taken for granted without anyone ever re-examining them to see if they still hold true, if they ever held true, or they're appropriate to the subject they're compared against. I mean, have you even seen a real-life "rational actor" (economics-wise)?? I haven't - all I see are human beings - people who do not make their decisions purely on logical economic concept, though many may try. A large part of economic "law" - if not its entirety - depends on the true existence of this fictitious entity and I have seen NO ONE who touts these laws ever adjust for the fact that their theories depend ( ... )

You're right - economic "laws" have assumptions ka9q March 18 2009, 23:11:44 UTC

You are exactly right when you say that the various "laws" of economics are just assumed to be true.

I think most of them are still valid if certain basic assumptions are met. For example, free market competition does push prices down towards costs if there are many suppliers and many consumers in a market and participants are free to come and go, and accurate information about the market is available to everyone ( ... )

Re: huh? anonymous March 18 2009, 20:31:50 UTC

There are a few problems with ka9q's line of thinking ( ... )

Re: huh? ka9q March 18 2009, 22:56:24 UTC

There are a few problems with ka9q's line of thinking:

I don't think you meant me; I wrote the base story, and I basically agree with you. I think you're referring to the anonymous guy who responded to me, and to whom you're responding.

Re: huh? anonymous March 22 2009, 20:22:42 UTC

Excellent points:
1) Paris Hilton is the exception - not the rule. Aside, do you really know how her wealth trickles down, or do you just love to hate a pop-culture celebrity like her. The VAST MAJORITY of wealthy people do create a trickle down effect.
2) I love your comment about the founders of Google being hungry and focused. They weren't entitled, they were young and hungry, and they worked very hard to make Google happen. If they were fat dumb and happy, we would be paying for their food stamps. Tell me that the trickle down effect doesn't work with Google - how many jobs have they created, thousands or tens or thousands?
3) Micro investments - another excellent example. BTW, who makes micro investments? NOT the government - wealthy private individuals.

Re: huh? ka9q March 18 2009, 22:13:52 UTC

I was responding to (another anonymous) commenter on my last entry who said directly that economics was a zero-sum game. Perhaps he wasn't a true-blue libertarian but I certainly took him as one ( ... )

Re: huh? anonymous March 22 2009, 11:33:20 UTC

We don't think he's a socialist any more, now we think he's a fascist.

Re: huh? ka9q March 23 2009, 05:03:57 UTC

Fascist? Where were you eight years ago when Bush and Cheney took office?

I almost snorted soda out my nose when I heard Rush Limbaugh blather on about "individualism", "liberty" and "rule of law" last week. Please don't tell me you agree with him.

If you're not going to take off the ski mask, could you at least put a distinguishing mark on it?

Re: huh? anonymous March 22 2009, 17:18:28 UTC

The fact that this president is a "socialist" is undeniable. An effective stimulus package is one that jump starts economic engines that are self sustaining. You claimed they stimulus budget can't be criticized as a whole, it needs to be scrutinized line by line, yet you found it easy to criticize Bush as a whole and not consider his actions one by one. That is typical Liberal double speak. If you really look at HR1 line by line, you will see the vast majority is pork to non sustainable sectors. Furthermore, it significantly increases entitlements and it is a fact that "safety nets" perpetuates poverty and social decline ( ... )

Re: huh? ka9q March 23 2009, 05:17:12 UTC

I criticize Bush as a whole because the man didn't make a single positive contribution as president. Not one, except perhaps not declaring martial law on January 19th of this year and canceling Obama's inauguration. I don't know enough about James Buchanan to know if he still qualifies as the worst US president in history, but George W Bush most certainly qualifies as the most disastrous US president in the last 100 years ( ... )

Back to all threads