- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194508
01 Oct 11
Originally posted by normbenignThe majority of economists do not view it that way. Quite the contrary.
It is liberal dogma that spending ended the great depression. The majority of economists at the time and looking back believed that spending and tariffs were like throwing gas on a fire.
The majority of economists DO support the current jobs proposal.
As to the "liberal dogma" about the recession of 1937 and its causes, well, here's a little history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937%E2%80%931938
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194508
01 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd the railroads never would have been built and the industrial revolution never happened - without, yes, government spending.
If road building had been left exclusively to the States, we'd have no interstate highway system and economic activity would be severely negatively impacted. Fortunately, laissez faire loons like yourself weren't in charge at the time. Presumably you would have bitterly fought against the government use of eminent domain to build an intercontinental rail ...[text shortened]... taggering how your quaint Bastiatian ideas would have screwed up economic progress in the US.
01 Oct 11
I'm an electrician and work has slowed so I'm only doing 2 to 3 days a week . Its great , I feel like one of the 18th century weavers Eric Hobsbawm describes in The the making of the English working class 'Their little cottages seemed happy and content .... it was seldom that a weaver appealed to the parish for relief.... Peace and content sat on the weaver's brow '. What makes me TRULY HAPPY , is that I'm not making money for my boss and all the other parasites that live off my labour. If the world economy crashes I couldn't give a toss . For god sake ,we don't need another Keynes to get me back to a 5 day week.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194508
01 Oct 11
Originally posted by kaminskyA little bit of Edward Bellamy as well. But probably most appropriate is Bertrand Russell's essay "In Praise of Idleness."
Sorry it's E P Thompsom , 10 hours of playing poker with what little money I have left ,after a nice relaxing week has left me worst for wear. No work for me today , tomorrrow or monday.
01 Oct 11
Originally posted by normbenignUnfortunately there are some things you cannot buy in the free market even if it would be rational to do so. These are goods others can use without contributing to its construction; e.g. a highway (with no toll booths), sea defences, an army, police, etc. Would there be an army if the contribution to the army was voluntary? Probably not, or at least it would be significantly smaller, and serving some private interests. The only way to purchase these types of goods is to force everyone to contribute. That is, through taxation and government. And the best way to decide how much a government ought to tax, and which collective goods it purchases, is through democracy. I think this has been repeatedly explained to you, but I think it's not compatible with libertarian dogma.
"Here's a thought. Cut in wasteful spending, invest more in useful spending."
If you'ld have stopped there, I'd be on board. Governments in general are very good at the former, and rarely to the latter.
It must be remembered that the government gets money in one of two ways, both destructive of the economy: taxation or the borrowing or printing of ...[text shortened]... ne budgeting, which grants automatic increases in spending via continuing resolutions.