Did FDR's policies help us get out of the Great Depression?

[editec]

There are two distinct phases of your argument... I've highlighted each in distinct colors... Please be so kind as to identify those SPECIFIC participants to whom you refer in the blue phase and those to whom your refer in the red...

Both are specifically directed to any of you on either side of this debate who think that you can KNOW what the outcome events in the economy will do to that macroeconomy.

So I GUESS I'm directing this to both those of you who think you are Chicago School of Econ neo-cons AND the Chicago School of Econ Kynesian economists, too.

ACtually I suspect that those boys (in both camps) know this without my help, but it seems pretty obvious to me that a lot of players on this board do not.

You boys come at problem of economics thinking you can easily pin (for example) the root cause of the current markets on (again for examples) ACORN, or people who bought house they cannot afford, or the FED or whatever.

You are a prime example of that the economy works like a clockwork ignorance that I am trying to describe.

My point is that the economy is not a mechanistic system it's an ORGANIC system.

In fact all social science has to cope with the problems of dealing with an organic social system which is NEVER the same organic social system that it was yesterday.

 

[Truthmatters]

Ahh yes... the classic illustration wherein the educated empiricist rejects a simple query of the base elements of their argument as being the pure embodiment of abject ignorance...

My favorite part is where you ONCE AGAIN... REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS CHALLENGE REPEATEDLY SET TO YOU; CRITICALLY EXPOSING YOU AS A FRAUD; RESULTING IN YOUR CONSESSION BY DEFAULT, WHICH IS DULY NOTED AND SUMMARILY ACCEPTED.

Your argument: FAILS

You are insane

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It wasn't built by the Federal government.

It was PAID FOR by the Federal and State governments

Where did the money come from? From revenues taken by taxing gasoline and diesel fuel.

And do you really think America would have been better served leaving the development and ownership of our road system to private companies?

There'd have been not a chance in hell we'd have developed anything remotely as useful as what we have now, had we left it to private capital to do that, Bar.

there's have been a few roads build, no doubt.

But nothing like the system we have today.

Or was that your point? That we overbuilt?

The US Interstate system is a prime example of the Federal Government working... the concept is wholly in-line with the US Constitution, in that the network of super-highways serves the Welfare of the individual states as well as the united collective that is 'the nation.'

It serves the national security of each and the whole, the means to particpate in interstate commerce and the public health and safety... it serves the individual as it serves the collective sum of individuals, neither usurping the rights of the individual, absent any establishment of advantage to either.

With that being said... that the Federal government can engineer a highway system in no WAY means that it has anywhere near the means of predictably manipulating the markets.

Markets are a function of nature and like any adventure that seeks to control nature, peril is never far from certain. My beef is not with the common sense regulations in the form of legislation against violation of sound principle, theft, fraud, etc... those, like the Interstate network and the US military serve the rights of the individual as they serve the Welfare of the collective; but it is the redistributionists that by their very existance VIOLATE sound principle... the government which BAILS OUT THOSE WHO BY VIRTUE OF THEIR NEED TO BE BAILED OUT COMMITED THEFT AND FRAUD AND THE MEMBER'S OF GOVERNMENT WHO SPONSORED IT... There is little doubt who these deceitpful players are and not one word is being advanced to haul these rascals in and hold them to account.

We simply play to the panic, toss valueless tender at the failure and as every minute ticks by the natural energy created by their individual and collective graft is being stored, summed onto itself and all the slight of hand left-think in the world is not going to make it go away... at some point that stored energy will explode, crippling the system, as it did in '29 and throughout the 1930s...

And even now with the advantage of 80 years hindsight... four complete generations... we sit here debating the wisdom of repeating THE SAME FUCKING MISTAKES! Kids... that's a fairly strong working definition of INSANITY. And as I've pointed out MANY TIMES... we can always count on our friends on the left... Toro being a classic example in this instance, on this thread... who is demanding that we do the SAME DAMN THING AND EXPECT A DIFFERENT RESULT. "day Crazy... Day Crazy as HEYAL!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You are insane

Am I? Oh... That's not good... for YOU I mean; in that I can't help but to notice that this opinion is served absent a reasoned basis... So despite my being insane... your opinion stands in the unenviable mire of BASELESSNESS! MEaning it serves no potential purpose beyond the fallacious appeal to popularity and what could be of less value than a line of reason which rests upon baseless fallacy?

Now that seems to indicate that you're in the position of being well behind the intellectual curve of a whacko...

Of course, the question now becomes..."are you aware that BY YOUR OWN definition and the evidence provided BY YOU... you're the person that the insane feel sorry for?"

Work that out and get back to me...

 

[editec]

Markets are a function of nature and like any adventure that seeks to control nature, peril is never far from certain. My beef is not with the common sense regulations in the form of legislation against violation of sound principle, theft, fraud, etc... those, like the Interstate network and the US military serve the rights of the individual as they serve the Welfare of the collective;

That's reassuring.

I was beginning to think your were one of the objectivist libertarians who think everything in the world should be privatized.

but it is the redistributionists that by their very existance VIOLATE sound principle... the government which BAILS OUT THOSE WHO BY VIRTUE OF THEIR NEED TO BE BAILED OUT COMMITED THEFT AND FRAUD AND THE MEMBER'S OF GOVERNMENT WHO SPONSORED IT... There is little doubt who these deceitpful players are and not one word is being advanced to haul these rascals in and hold them to account.

Hey, you don't have to be a conservative or an advocate of the Austrian school of ECON to see that our government is a handmaiden to the wealthy.

We editec King today, there's be bankers heads on pikes in front of the FED and some of those temples of capitalism we call banks, too.

That said, we have a liquidity problem, and just letting the chips fall were they may is not, in my opinion, the short term medium term or even long term solution.

I don't like the solution they're coming up with any more than you do, but doing nothing is even worse than what they're doing now.

Doing NOTHING would be more fair, perhaps.

But the outcome of doing nothing would be disasterous for this nation and the world economy, too.

We need to radically rethink the way our economy works, but you and I both know that is not going to happen.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

"Too important" should have nothing to do with it. There are few things more important than food, and we leave that (more or less) to the markets, and thank god, because we know what happens when we don't.

You have been extremely misinformed.,BvB.

EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

Yes, I'm fully aware that there are large subsidies and so forth. That's why I said "more or less". My point is, we know what happens when the state takes over production of food--there are shortages and often starvation, as in the case of the USSR. Our mixed system works now, but it would work better without the subsidies.

And Toro's point about the government providing food is weak. Yes, we shouldn't let people starve just because they fell on hard times for a little while. But it doesn't logically follow that government should do it. Government aid to the poor is a relatively recent thing. Right up until 1965 it was still primarily provided by charity groups and fraternal organizations. The Tragedy of American Compassion covers this in excruciating detail.

And do you really think America would have been better served leaving the development and ownership of our road system to private companies?

There'd have been not a chance in hell we'd have developed anything remotely as useful as what we have now, had we left it to private capital to do that, Bar.

there's have been a few roads build, no doubt.

But nothing like the system we have today.

Or was that your point? That we overbuilt?

That's part of my point, yes. A system of "free" megafreeways has created a lot of problems for us. The biggest problem has been that it's a huge subsidy for sprawl developers, Wal-Mart, and so forth. Sprawling out has also made us dependent on oil. Most average americans MUST have cheap gas, whereas in other countries, there is a train stop within walking distance.

If you had to pay, say...$3 minimum every time you left your neighborhood in a car, would you be more inclined to find a neighborhood with integrated shopping within walking distance, and/or a transit stop? I would. If you were Greyhound bus company, would you start running transit routes? Probably, because people would get tired of the tolls. Especially around rush hour, when peak pricing would be in effect (no more traffic jams). You might even pay the road company to reserve a lane, which removes the main disadvantage of busses, getting stuck in traffic.

The free rider problem is a non-problem, certainly for freeways at the very least. We already have toll roads. They have advanced technology called "concrete blocks" and "gates" which stop free riders. Even without them, RFID chips can now be used to track mileage and set up billing. RFID chips could also ensure that every motorist has insurance, that no one is speeding, etc.

The government is needed, but only to enforce property rights and stop trespassing. And roads have been built with private money before, they were called turnpikes. England had them for a while and so did some of the eastern states. James Hill's Great Northern Railroad was built entirely with private funds, with no eminent domain land stealing. It was the best-run railroad by far and remained profitable and efficient; meanwhile, government-funded railroads had inefficient routes due to political pressure, shoddy construction, and were completed over schedule and over budget.

The earliest oil pipelines were the same IIRC (not technically a road, but essentially the same issue of buying long stretches of land). And the issue of bad roads in China and India...I don't know what that's supposed to prove. It's probably not legal to build roads privately, or the property rights are questionable, or the government alternative is heavily subsidized, etc.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Both are specifically directed to any of you on either side of this debate who think that you can KNOW what the outcome events in the economy will do to that macroeconomy.

So I GUESS I'm directing this to both those of you who think you are Chicago School of Econ neo-cons AND the Chicago School of Econ Kynesian economists, too.

ACtually I suspect that those boys (in both camps) know this without my help, but it seems pretty obvious to me that a lot of players on this board do not.

You boys come at problem of economics thinking you can easily pin (for example) the root cause of the current markets on (again for examples) ACORN, or people who bought house they cannot afford, or the FED or whatever.

You are a prime example of that the economy works like a clockwork ignorance that I am trying to describe.

My point is that the economy is not a mechanistic system it's an ORGANIC system.

In fact all social science has to cope with the problems of dealing with an organic social system which is NEVER the same organic social system that it was yesterday.

Well that serves reason... You want to take the middle of the road... what possum doesn't?

My position is stated clearly and unambiguously... the market is a natural organism which is comprised of billions of sub-organisms and where the government seeks to control it it will only create greater problems which it will then seek to control...

So you're assigning the relevant drivel to me is absurd; and I'll extend that for Mash as well...

The responsibility for the current crisis is not complex... the IDEOLOGICAL LEFT SOUGHT TO INTERFERE WITH THE CREDIT MARKET... The Market reacted to that interference and the sum of those errors have manifested in the present crisis. The tragedy here is, as noted above, those that created the crisis are the one's which are applying 'the fix'... and predictably they're doing so using precisely the same methods that they used to cause the crisis and doing so, fully projecting a different result.

GET OUT! Let the market work... Now by stating that, I do not mean to imply that pain will not be forthcoming; we can fully expect pain to be forthcoming. But where one injures the human organism, one would be foolish to expect that performing the same injurious actions will manifest in a cure.


Now given that such is NOT the issue at hand, let me just once again point out that the policies of FDR have been shown to have been AT BEST a hinderance to the recovery from the '29 correction; a hinderence which promulgated itself into extending that recovery over a full decade and then some.

 

[Toro]

And Toro's point about the government providing food is weak. Yes, we shouldn't let people starve just because they fell on hard times for a little while. But it doesn't logically follow that government should do it. Government aid to the poor is a relatively recent thing. Right up until 1965 it was still primarily provided by charity groups and fraternal organizations. The Tragedy of American Compassion covers this in excruciating detail.

And there was a time when private armies and private police forces were the acceptable form of protection, which is still the case in some parts of the world today. The fact that something was acceptable or occurred in the past does not mean it is an acceptable arrangement now. History is replete with such examples.

 

[Truthmatters]

The US Interstate system is a prime example of the Federal Government working... the concept is wholly in-line with the US Constitution, in that the network of super-highways serves the Welfare of the individual states as well as the united collective that is 'the nation.'

It serves the national security of each and the whole, the means to particpate in interstate commerce and the public health and safety... it serves the individual as it serves the collective sum of individuals, neither usurping the rights of the individual, absent any establishment of advantage to either.

With that being said... that the Federal government can engineer a highway system in no WAY means that it has anywhere near the means of predictably manipulating the markets.

Markets are a function of nature and like any adventure that seeks to control nature, peril is never far from certain. My beef is not with the common sense regulations in the form of legislation against violation of sound principle, theft, fraud, etc... those, like the Interstate network and the US military serve the rights of the individual as they serve the Welfare of the collective; but it is the redistributionists that by their very existance VIOLATE sound principle... the government which BAILS OUT THOSE WHO BY VIRTUE OF THEIR NEED TO BE BAILED OUT COMMITED THEFT AND FRAUD AND THE MEMBER'S OF GOVERNMENT WHO SPONSORED IT... There is little doubt who these deceitpful players are and not one word is being advanced to haul these rascals in and hold them to account.

We simply play to the panic, toss valueless tender at the failure and as every minute ticks by the natural energy created by their individual and collective graft is being stored, summed onto itself and all the slight of hand left-think in the world is not going to make it go away... at some point that stored energy will explode, crippling the system, as it did in '29 and throughout the 1930s...

And even now with the advantage of 80 years hindsight... four complete generations... we sit here debating the wisdom of repeating THE SAME FUCKING MISTAKES! Kids... that's a fairly strong working definition of INSANITY. And as I've pointed out MANY TIMES... we can always count on our friends on the left... Toro being a classic example in this instance, on this thread... who is demanding that we do the SAME DAMN THING AND EXPECT A DIFFERENT RESULT. "day Crazy... Day Crazy as HEYAL!

Same damn mistakes?


You are insane.

You twist everything to fit your distorted world view and ignore all facts handed to you for fear of facing the truth.


What Bush and team did with the bailout money was nothing like the work projects of the New Deal.

 

[editec]

Yes, I'm fully aware that there are large subsidies and so forth. That's why I said "more or less".

Got it.

My point is, we know what happens when the state takes over production of food--there are shortages and often starvation, as in the case of the USSR. Our mixed system works now, but it would work better without the subsidies.

Right.

And Toro's point about the government providing food is weak. Yes, we shouldn't let people starve just because they fell on hard times for a little while. But it doesn't logically follow that government should do it. Government aid to the poor is a relatively recent thing. Right up until 1965 it was still primarily provided by charity groups and fraternal organizations. The Tragedy of American Compassion covers this in excruciating detail.

Yeah I remember as a kid when (mostly) old people were starving slowly to death counting on private charity to keep them going.

That's part of my point, yes. A system of "free" megafreeways has created a lot of problems for us. The biggest problem has been that it's a huge subsidy for sprawl developers, Wal-Mart, and so forth. Sprawling out has also made us dependent on oil. Most average americans MUST have cheap gas, whereas in other countries, there is a train stop within walking distance

.

Yeah, okay, I see that point. Highway engineering is ALSO social engineering without a doubt.

But so is railroad building and in most countries the decision to build those rails was done by the government eclusively.

You actually making the argument now for a socialistic system for rails that replaces a socialistic system for roads, aren't you?

If you had to pay, say...$3 minimum every time you left your neighborhood in a car, would you be more inclined to find a neighborhood with integrated shopping within walking distance, and/or a transit stop? I would. If you were Greyhound bus company, would you start running transit routes? Probably, because people would get tired of the tolls. Especially around rush hour, when peak pricing would be in effect (no more traffic jams). You might even pay the road company to reserve a lane, which removes the main disadvantage of busses, getting stuck in traffic.

No argument from me on any of those points.

The free rider problem is a non-problem, certainly for freeways at the very least. We already have toll roads. They have advanced technology called "concrete blocks" and "gates" which stop free riders. Even without them, RFID chips can now be used to track mileage and set up billing. RFID chips could also ensure that every motorist has insurance, that no one is speeding, etc.

You're assuming there is a free rider problem for road building?

hardly, most roads are build from the taxes imposed on gasoline.

In that sense roads are basically funded by USER taxes.

The government is needed, but only to enforce property rights and stop trespassing. And roads have been built with private money before, they were called turnpikes. England had them for a while and so did some of the eastern states. James Hill's Great Northern Railroad was built entirely with private funds, with no eminent domain land stealing. It was the best-run railroad by far and remained profitable and efficient; meanwhile, government-funded railroads had inefficient routes due to political pressure, shoddy construction, and were completed over schedule and over budget.

Few railroads and certainly NOT the transcontinental RR would ever have been built without government help.

The earliest oil pipelines were the same IIRC (not technically a road, but essentially the same issue of buying long stretches of land). And the issue of bad roads in China and India...I don't know what that's supposed to prove. It's probably not legal to build roads privately, or the property rights are questionable, or the government alternative is heavily subsidized, etc.

No idea about pipelines, I presumed most of them were build by private industry to be honest.

I think out interstate system is actually one of the better investments we've made in infrastructure to be honest.

I think its funding is well thought out and while I certain agree with you that where you build a road will effect the economy, where private industry would build roads would ALSO do the same thing.

So your complaint seems to be that the decision about where roads will be built is a political decision as opposed to a market decision.

To which I respond: What WRONG with allowing political forces make some policy decisions?


Why do you imagine that market decisions (which are often nothing more than the perversion of the market forces by VER&Y rich people) is inherently superior to political forces?

Do you think that market forces never get it wrong but poltical forces always do or something?

Odd given that in the planning phase both public planners and private planners are going to take exactly the same questions into account as they plan where to build those roads.

Both will be seeking to build roads that PEOPLE need in most cases.

And if you going to complain about the PORK in public policy, then please do not neglect the CORRUPTION that so often decided market forces, okay?

 

[editec]

Well that serves reason... You want to take the middle of the road... what possum doesn't?

That was uncalled for, lad.

Now everything else you're taken the time to write for my benefit is going to go to waste because I'll be god damned if I'm going to bother trying to engage in honest discussion with somebody who just elected to insult me for no damned good reason.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

And there was a time when private armies and private police forces were the acceptable form of protection, which is still the case in some parts of the world today. The fact that something was acceptable or occurred in the past does not mean it is an acceptable arrangement now. History is replete with such examples.

The converse is true too. Just because something was done differently in the past doesn't mean we're doing it better now.

Yeah I remember as a kid when (mostly) old people were starving slowly to death counting on private charity to keep them going.

There haven't been any mass famines in america to my knowledge.

You actually making the argument now for a socialistic system for rails that replaces a socialistic system for roads, aren't you?

No, I didn't mean to give that impression. I would prefer that governments spend nothing on roads, and nothing on rail. If there is a demand for either, they will be built.

You're assuming there is a free rider problem for road building?

hardly, most roads are build from the taxes imposed on gasoline.

In that sense roads are basically funded by USER taxes.

Currently there is no free rider problem with roads, except for the vanishingly small number of electric vehicles.

No, what I meant was, Toro and others would say that private roads have a free rider problem, because people will use them without paying. Which would not be the case. They could use concrete blocks as we do now; or RFID tags, or special license plates, etc.

Few railroads and certainly NOT the transcontinental RR would ever have been built without government help.

The Great Northern went from Seattle to St. Paul, Minnesota. That's damn near transcontinental. They could have gone farther east, but why bother if the great lakes are right there.

No idea about pipelines, I presumed most of them were build by private industry to be honest.

Right. Or, I think so anyhow. That's why I used them as an example. People's main objection to private roads is usually, "but how will they buy up a thousand miles of land without eminent domain, what if one guy holds out?". I assume they have right-to-buy contracts or something. In any case, it seems to be a non-problem.

I think out interstate system is actually one of the better investments we've made in infrastructure to be honest.

I think its funding is well thought out and while I certain agree with you that where you build a road will effect the economy, where private industry would build roads would ALSO do the same thing.

The IHS does have some benefits, to be sure. I don't mean to say that everything the government has ever done is totally 100% shitty, or that everything that every private company does is 100% good. It's just that one is better than the other, on average.

And yes of course, private roads would effect development patterns, just not in the same way.

So your complaint seems to be that the decision about where roads will be built is a political decision as opposed to a market decision.

To which I respond: What WRONG with allowing political forces make some policy decisions?

Why do you imagine that market decisions (which are often nothing more than the perversion of the market forces by VER&Y rich people) is inherently superior to political forces?

Do you think that market forces never get it wrong but poltical forces always do or something?

Odd given that in the planning phase both public planners and private planners are going to take exactly the same questions into account as they plan where to build those roads.

Of course. They are the same in a lot of ways.

But there is one crucial difference. Market companies are guided by profit and loss. If they make mistakes, they will be punished by losses. If they refuse to correct them, eventually they go bankrupt and their assets are put into someone else's hands. This is not true for government entities.

 

[mash107]

You forget the most important thing, Baron.

If a government economic policy fails, they can blame it on the market not behaving correctly

Because, lord knows, whenever a regulation is passed, it never, ever has unintended consequences that hurt consumers or businesses down the line.

 

[Truthmatters]

Where is the PROOF an unfettered market will magically be delicious?

Please give me ONE historical example of where the market has worked out great for all people when left to do as it pleased without any regulation?

 

[Toro]

Where is the PROOF an unfettered market will magically be delicious?

Please give me ONE historical example of where the market has worked out great for all people when left to do as it pleased without any regulation?

Well, generally, nations that are freer are wealthier and have higher standards of living. This has been shown to be empirically true.

http://freetheworld.org/2006/EFW2006complete.pdf

Per capita GDP growth in the post-1980 globalizers accelerated from 1.4 percent a year in the 1960s and 2.9 percent a year in the 1970s to 3.5 percent in the 1980s and 5.0 percent in the 1990s (Chart 1). This acceleration in growth is even more remarkable given that the rich countries saw steady declines in growth from a high of 4.7 percent in the 1960s to 2.2 percent in the 1990s. Also, the nonglobalizing developing countries did much worse than the globalizers, with the former's annual growth rates falling from highs of 3.3 percent during the 1970s to only 1.4 percent during the 1990s. This rapid growth among the globalizers is not simply due to the strong performances of China and India in the 1980s and 1990s—18 out of the 24 globalizers experienced increases in growth, many of them quite substantial.

Finance & Development, September 2001 - Trade, Growth, and Poverty

News & Broadcast - Poverty Drops Below 1 Billion, says World Bank

I am not arguing that markets do not work. I am arguing that they do not always work. They do most of the time.

 

[mash107]

Let's not even pretend we don't know how to defeat poverty. It's free markets that will, obviously, do that. The argument in this thread is about how and why recessions come about.

Austrians contend that you can't have a recession without a boom, and it's in the artificial boom that are where the misallocation of resources occur and that the recession is the market response to those misallocations. In other words, it's properly normal for the market to act this way, just as a person who has drank too much, to the point of alcohol poisoning, will start purging his system to rid the alcohol. So, if you prevent the government from creating booms, and you'll never again see a recession.

Keynesians, I think, contend that the recession is a natural occurrence of a market, and that, in response to sagging consumer demand, government should step up and spend in the consumers' stead. This will get production generated, and income back into the hands of the consumers, reinvigorating the system?

And then you have neoclassical economists which believe that recessions are an because of the sagging consumer demand, and has nothing to do with the missallocation of resources? So never panic the public into thinking that we're nearing a recession, because, they'll adjust their behavior and it'll become true! This is the most mainstream of theories, it seems, from watching Larry Kudlow's show.

 

[garyd]

Trouble is that if the government steps up to spend it has to get the money from somewhere and generally that is from the producers which in turn limits economic growth by taking money from the job creators.

The trouble with all of those views is that they tend more or less to assume that all this happens in a vacuum.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Trouble is that if the government steps up to spend it has to get the money from somewhere and generally that is from the producers which in turn limits economic growth by taking money from the job creators.

The trouble with all of those views is that they tend more or less to assume that all this happens in a vacuum.

Not "generally," it always gets its money from the producers in the private sector. This is either through direct taxation, inflation, or borrowing which amounts to a future tax.

 

[editec]

And yes of course, private roads would effect development patterns, just not in the same way.



Of course. They are the same in a lot of ways.

But there is one crucial difference. Market companies are guided by profit and loss. If they make mistakes, they will be punished by losses. If they refuse to correct them, eventually they go bankrupt and their assets are put into someone else's hands. This is not true for government entities.

Guided by whose profit and whose loss?

Often the profit is to the owners and the losses to the commonweal.

In fact, push comes to shove private companies will always opt for that outcome.

And most of the profit of a public road is rather difficult to put on a balance sheet since they're free for the using.

But look around you.

Do the public roads look unused? Did they waste money building roads people have no use for?

I think not. I think if you build roads they will come (and go)

I'm not convinced there is a major benefit to privatized roads, Baron.

Railroads, now they're more likely best run by private for profit industries, in my opinion

Railroads require an enormous support system to keep them and the equipment on them up to snuff.

Roads are easier to manage and maintain than railroads.And the user tax on gasoline seems as sensible a way of keeping them funded as tolls.

Putting roads into the hands of private industry invites private corruption, probably more than public roads invite public corruption.

The government can be persuaded by an irate public to change roads.

A private industry motivated by profits has no incentive to care what the people want.

For example, they could be swayed to build their road with access to some towns where they (or some other ally) owns property to the detriment of other towns where they don't.

No giving public roads to private industry invites more domination by the monied class.

I'm against it in principle.

Of course I believe that the commonweal's wellbeing is more important that the principle of individual ownership, too.

 

[mash107]

Not "generally," it always gets its money from the producers in the private sector. This is either through direct taxation, inflation, or borrowing which amounts to a future tax.

I don't think borrowing is a future tax.

What's precisely the difference between taking money now, and taking money now with a promise for it to be repaid with interest? It still deprives the economy of capital, and you don't have to wait for the effects to be seen. Stimulus checks never do anything for precisely this reason.