Government spending is not a zero-sum game

[ka9q]

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

Comments

Re: huh?

[anonymous]

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.
Its funny that you claim that the market crash is a conservative disaster - once again, the hallmark of democratic indoctrination. The Bush administration can be criticized for many things (I personally think it was awful), but one thing I will never blame it is causing this crash. We have ESTABLISHED EVIDENCE that conservative attempts during the Bush administration to reign in FM^2 were blocked by the radical left. Free markets are self regulating, and what the democrats did is remove moral hazard from self regulation and therefore tamper with the basis of the market.

Re: huh?

[ka9q]

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.

FM^2?

I think you need to take off the libertarian ideological blinders and look at things again from first principles. Pay very close attention to the fact that the properties of free markets depend on some critical assumptions that are often untrue without government regulation.

"democrats did is remove moral hazard from self regulation"

Do you know what "moral hazard" actually means? I don't think you do. Read up on it. The Wikipedia article isn't a bad start.

I used to consider myself fairly libertarian, and on social issues and individual rights I am still very much so. But it was hearing nonsense like what you just said that made me change my position on economics.