Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They have the notion that the private sector is better off without government involvement. What they seem to not fathom is that most if not all private industries benefit from government functions. Small businesses can't get customers if roads are not handy and safe. Private practices would see their business deminish if seniors lose out on their social security. That is why Rand Paul is a hypocrite. The majority of his patients are social security receipients.
If there is up to date infrastructure, it would be a benefit to the private sector.it was proven when the US built the interstase highway system. Our economy saw substantial economic growth after the post war era. Veterans were able to purchase homes and go to school at the expense of tax dollars. This stimulated the private sector. The housing complex got to work.
The point is that government stimulus has its benefits.
I hate the argument that says stimulus packages take money from the private sector. Well, the money in the private sector is sitting idle. It's not doing anything to stimulate growth.
The post war boom benefited mostly from the simple and fortunate fact that the USA had intact cities and factories. Most of the major industrial powers were bombed to ruins. This gave us a uniquie, and all to brief, period of time where we could export like crazy.
Most people would cite the highway system as a plus. I believe Eisenhower, a Republican, implemented it.
There was no stimulus package in the period you reference. You are welcome to refute that, but I notice that you start threads and then run away from them.
the assumption being that states or the private sector couldn't provide this.
no, that's your assumption. i was answering his question, to name one benefit of past federal stimulus. the new deal is the first that comes to mind for me. Many lakes in the deep south were created during the great depression.
IMHO all economics are religions created to explain commerce. As religions they do not have to be rational but only require some internal consistancy. There are differents versions but they all worship Mammon.
I wish someone could explain why greed is a bad word and why so many cower away and deny their own greed?
I am an unrepentant greedy capitalist and sleep well at night. Humans are hardwired to be greedy. To be otherwise is just unnatural. While some take some sort of moral high road that was spoon fed to them by some religion (including the religion of liberalism) and claim to be more "evolved", they are only showing their own poor understanding of what evolution actually is.
WTF does this have to do with Chicago? Do you realize there is a difference between government interference and benefiting from government functions? I can't even take this post seriously, there are way too many flaws in your strawman argument.
BTW, I think comprehension is more important than knowledge, per se. What good is knowledge if you can't comprehend it?
there is an austrian school of economics ie hayek, mises, rothbard etc. there is also the chicago school of economic thought. milton friedman would be the most prominent. in a nutshell, austrians are laissez faire without a central bank, the chicago school advocates laissez faire with a strong central bank and monetary control
no, that's your assumption. i was answering his question, to name one benefit of past federal stimulus. the new deal is the first that comes to mind for me. Many lakes in the deep south were created during the great depression.
the assumption you make is that it's a benefit. nobody has any idea what might have been had they not built that infrastructure. it's impossible to say what would've been built, were the govt not involved and or whether the money spent might have been better spent elsewhere. what i know is that judging by the way govt spends money, those lakes could've been built faster, better and cheaper by the private sector
the assumption you make is that it's a benefit. nobody has any idea what might have been had they not built that infrastructure. it's impossible to say what would've been built, were the govt not involved and or whether the money spent might have been better spent elsewhere.
this is true, I have every reason to believe that the area in question would've remained an economically depressed area, like the rest of the region. However I cannot prove that it provided a benefit.
Quote:
what i know is that judging by the way govt spends money, those lakes could've been built faster, better and cheaper by the private sector
this is pure speculation based on ideological thinking. You are assuming that the private sector would've built those lakes in the first place.
imo, only market currency is sound. i don't believe in an enforced debt based system like we have or and enforced commodity currency like the gold standard. iow, the buyer and seller of goods and or services agree on the means of exchange.
in such a system, multiple forms of currency exist. personally, i think gold, silver and varying time currencies would emerge. this might seem cumbersome but it is far more fail safe in the sense that today just about everyone has placed their trust and life savings into paper
this is pure speculation based on ideological thinking. You are assuming that the private sector would've built those lakes in the first place.
the market has given you sophisticated products like iphones, automobiles, sky rise buildings, airplanes, ships etc all far more complex than a hydro electric dam. i don't see why it's inconceivable that it couldn't provide a lake.
i don't assume that the lakes would have been built at all. in fact, there is a good chance the lakes wouldn't have been built because there probably wasn't sufficient demand. life would've gone on and if the area was overly depressed perhaps the town wouldn't exist at all. perhaps the money paid in taxes would've been spent building another skyscraper in new york, people might've been able to afford more consumer goods.
what is not impossible to tell is that govt will always spend more than the private sector to do the same thing
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you realize there is a difference between government interference and benefiting from government functions? I can't even take this post seriously, there are way too many flaws in your strawman argument. 
