How does government help the economy?

[Brian Blackwell]

During political campaigns, a huge focus is the economy. But how does government help the economy?

All economy, no matter how complex, breaks down to simply trades between individuals. Employees trade their labor for pay, consumers trade their pay for products and services, etc. What can government do to assist in this process?

The only thing it can ever do is exert force on someone. This is its only power. Typically this comes in the form of interfering with the voluntary exchange between individuals. The mandatory minimum wage, for example, says that two people willing to make an exchange of labor for pay is not permitted if it does not meet the minimum standard. Many people see this as an increase in pay for low-level employees, but in reality, if I can only afford to pay you 8 dollars an hour, and the government uses coercion to make me pay you 10, I'm just not going to hire you. You were perfectly willing, even happy, to get 8, and I was willing to pay it because I could use the help, but by their interference you get 0 dollars, and I get no help. How could it ever be beneficial to step between consenting adults who are both willing to engage in a particular transaction?

Even when the government subsidizes a particular industry, they are not bringing new money into the economy, they are simply taking it from somewhere else. Government produces nothing, so its action can never cause a net gain. All it can do is take money from some people and give it to others. And it behooves them to do this in a way that creates a greater number of voters to look upon them favorably, not necessarily in a way that would help the economy overall. Like all governmental action outside the scope of basic protection of human rights, it's a matter of hurting one person to help someone else. And their solution to all problems always benefits them more than anyone else, either by generating greater revenue, gaining greater control, or assuring the maintenance of their own position.

Despite all the rhetoric, I don't see how government can ever do anything to help the economy except by simply getting out of the way.

 

[Pete7469]

You will not get one single serious response from a libturd in this thread.

It has been kicked around for decades in debates across every possible venue, and no moonbat "intellectual" (LOL...) can explain how government interference benefits everyone at the expense of no one.

You would get a more logical argument from some blithering idiot trying to prove the earth is flat or that Americans driving SUV's are responsible for the weather.

That's not to say things like 40 hour weeks, paid holidays, safety standards and some of the policies "progressives" in the 1920's enacted aren't nice perks, but they have gone way outside reasonable demands since then. The democrook party has become soviet regressive and needs to be thwarted. The republicrats need to purge the globalists from their ranks as well.

 

[Timmy]

GOV can promoted expansion in areas that the private industry would not do on its own because of cost and uncertainty. For example , the internet .

Gov projects can create infrastructure that creates new or expanded business opportunities. Think the Hoover dam.

 

[dudmuck]

Even when the government subsidizes a particular industry, they are not bringing new money into the economy, they are simply taking it from somewhere else.

You can get a good perspective on that from Trump's recent "made in america" event.
21 of the 50 companies attending that event had received some sort of government grant, subsidy, loan guarantee, or other economic incentive since 1997.
Perhaps the best is example is Caterpillar receiving $155 million in taxpayer assistance, to what benefit?

 

[Pete7469]

GOV can promoted expansion in areas that the private industry would not do on its own because of cost and uncertainty. For example , the internet .

Gov projects can create infrastructure that creates new or expanded business opportunities. Think the Hoover dam.

Right on que... Here's the USMB Forum's biggest idiot to parrot nonsense.

GOV can promoted

Whatever the fuck that means...

expansion in areas that the private industry would not do on its own because of cost and uncertainty. For example , the internet .

This idiot probably believes Algore invented it.

Government might help fund infrastructure, but that has nothing to do with it managing a free market economy. Go back to your Play Station you moron.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

GOV can promoted expansion in areas that the private industry would not do on its own because of cost and uncertainty. For example , the internet .

Gov projects can create infrastructure that creates new or expanded business opportunities. Think the Hoover dam.

The private sector naturally sees profit in demand. If the Private Sector hasn't done it, there's no demand, and the government doing it in their place is a waste of money.

Of course, that doesn't stop the government, all of their money is stolen from the people, they need to demand more money from us, only gets it by wasting their entire budget, and will steal the money from the people regardless of how well or poorly they perform.

The government did not invent the internet. Packet switching was invented by a private business, "Bolt, Beranak, and Newman".

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm mot sure how much of an economy we would have without roads, and fuel for our vehicles (oil companies received massive government funded startup grants) and medical care for workers( most medical research is government funded) etc. etc.

 

[alang1216]

During political campaigns, a huge focus is the economy. But how does government help the economy?

All economy, no matter how complex, breaks down to simply trades between individuals. Employees trade their labor for pay, consumers trade their pay for products and services, etc. What can government do to assist in this process?

The only thing it can ever do is exert force on someone. This is its only power. Typically this comes in the form of interfering with the voluntary exchange between individuals. The mandatory minimum wage, for example, says that two people willing to make an exchange of labor for pay is not permitted if it does not meet the minimum standard. Many people see this as an increase in pay for low-level employees, but in reality, if I can only afford to pay you 8 dollars an hour, and the government uses coercion to make me pay you 10, I'm just not going to hire you. You were perfectly willing, even happy, to get 8, and I was willing to pay it because I could use the help, but by their interference you get 0 dollars, and I get no help. How could it ever be beneficial to step between consenting adults who are both willing to engage in a particular transaction?

Even when the government subsidizes a particular industry, they are not bringing new money into the economy, they are simply taking it from somewhere else. Government produces nothing, so its action can never cause a net gain. All it can do is take money from some people and give it to others. And it behooves them to do this in a way that creates a greater number of voters to look upon them favorably, not necessarily in a way that would help the economy overall. Like all governmental action outside the scope of basic protection of human rights, it's a matter of hurting one person to help someone else. And their solution to all problems always benefits them more than anyone else, either by generating greater revenue, gaining greater control, or assuring the maintenance of their own position.

Despite all the rhetoric, I don't see how government can ever do anything to help the economy except by simply getting out of the way.

Government is critical to the economy for several reasons:

• like a ref is required in football, the gov't's job is to ensure all the players play by the same rules.
• a secure and predictable money supply allows a basis for transactions
• keynesians believe the gov't should run inflate the money supply during recessions and shrink it during boom times
• using tariffs, the gov't can protect selected sectors
• using taxes, the gov't can encourage or discourage certain behaviors like investments in research

 

[BULLDOG]

GOV can promoted expansion in areas that the private industry would not do on its own because of cost and uncertainty. For example , the internet .

Gov projects can create infrastructure that creates new or expanded business opportunities. Think the Hoover dam.

The private sector naturally sees profit in demand. If the Private Sector hasn't done it, there's no demand, and the government doing it in their place is a waste of money.

Of course, that doesn't stop the government, all of their money is stolen from the people, they need to demand more money from us, only gets it by wasting their entire budget, and will steal the money from the people regardless of how well or poorly they perform.

The government did not invent the internet. Packet switching was invented by a private business, "Bolt, Beranak, and Newman".

Packet switching is to internet like the wheelbarrow is to cross country rail service.

 

[Pete7469]

I'm mot sure how much of an economy we would have without roads, and fuel for our vehicles (oil companies received massive government funded startup grants) and medical care for workers( most medical research is government funded) etc. etc.

Again, that is not government managing the economy.

No one has ever argued government does NOTHING. It's government subsidizing certain companies, and bankrupting others through regulations that are designed to favor one senator's donors over another that wrote a check to the guy he beat.

As a libertarian you will never hear me demand government pay a company to do something it can profit from by doing on it's own. Building public infrastructure obviously has to be publicly funded. When certain donors are awarded contracts that end up doubling in costs amidst construction I call that corruption. Unless it's the fault of bed wetters who get courts involved because someone found a beetle that is a slightly different color that the rest of the beetles in the area.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm mot sure how much of an economy we would have without roads, and fuel for our vehicles (oil companies received massive government funded startup grants) and medical care for workers( most medical research is government funded) etc. etc.

Again, that is not government managing the economy.

No one has ever argued government does NOTHING. It's government subsidizing certain companies, and bankrupting others through regulations that are designed to favor one senator's donors over another that wrote a check to the guy he beat.

As a libertarian you will never hear me demand government pay a company to do something it can profit from by doing on it's own. Building public infrastructure obviously has to be publicly funded. When certain donors are awarded contracts that end up doubling in costs amidst construction I call that corruption. Unless it's the fault of bed wetters who get courts involved because someone found a beetle that is a slightly different color that the rest of the beetles in the area.

No infrastructure, no economy. You don't get that?

 

[gtopa1]

Even when the government subsidizes a particular industry, they are not bringing new money into the economy, they are simply taking it from somewhere else.

You can get a good perspective on that from Trump's recent "made in america" event.
21 of the 50 companies attending that event had received some sort of government grant, subsidy, loan guarantee, or other economic incentive since 1997.
Perhaps the best is example is Caterpillar receiving $155 million in taxpayer assistance, to what benefit?

So you agree that Govs are an economic burden!!

Greg

 

[BluesLegend]

California spent $77 billion on high speed rail while 114,000 homeless people live in cardboard boxes. That's enough money to buy every homeless person a $675k house. Which would have done more for the economy, high speed rail or 114,000 homes that cost $675k each?

 

[gtopa1]

I'm mot sure how much of an economy we would have without roads, and fuel for our vehicles (oil companies received massive government funded startup grants) and medical care for workers( most medical research is government funded) etc. etc.

Again, that is not government managing the economy.

No one has ever argued government does NOTHING. It's government subsidizing certain companies, and bankrupting others through regulations that are designed to favor one senator's donors over another that wrote a check to the guy he beat.

As a libertarian you will never hear me demand government pay a company to do something it can profit from by doing on it's own. Building public infrastructure obviously has to be publicly funded. When certain donors are awarded contracts that end up doubling in costs amidst construction I call that corruption. Unless it's the fault of bed wetters who get courts involved because someone found a beetle that is a slightly different color that the rest of the beetles in the area.

No infrastructure, no economy. You don't get that?

I'd rather see Private Enterprise do it.

Greg

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm mot sure how much of an economy we would have without roads, and fuel for our vehicles (oil companies received massive government funded startup grants) and medical care for workers( most medical research is government funded) etc. etc.

Again, that is not government managing the economy.

No one has ever argued government does NOTHING. It's government subsidizing certain companies, and bankrupting others through regulations that are designed to favor one senator's donors over another that wrote a check to the guy he beat.

As a libertarian you will never hear me demand government pay a company to do something it can profit from by doing on it's own. Building public infrastructure obviously has to be publicly funded. When certain donors are awarded contracts that end up doubling in costs amidst construction I call that corruption. Unless it's the fault of bed wetters who get courts involved because someone found a beetle that is a slightly different color that the rest of the beetles in the area.

No infrastructure, no economy. You don't get that?

I'd rather see Private Enterprise do it.

Greg

Why would private enterprise build and maintain our infrastructure? They haven't done it in any part of the world ever. You think AT&T would build the road in front of your house?

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm mot sure how much of an economy we would have without roads, and fuel for our vehicles (oil companies received massive government funded startup grants) and medical care for workers( most medical research is government funded) etc. etc.

Again, that is not government managing the economy.

No one has ever argued government does NOTHING. It's government subsidizing certain companies, and bankrupting others through regulations that are designed to favor one senator's donors over another that wrote a check to the guy he beat.

As a libertarian you will never hear me demand government pay a company to do something it can profit from by doing on it's own. Building public infrastructure obviously has to be publicly funded. When certain donors are awarded contracts that end up doubling in costs amidst construction I call that corruption. Unless it's the fault of bed wetters who get courts involved because someone found a beetle that is a slightly different color that the rest of the beetles in the area.

Our laws that regulate interaction between businesses and customers to provide a fair and even playing field have more influence on our economy than most other things. Of course the right is fighting diligently to remove lots of those protections for the working people.

 

[there4eyeM]

Some seem to think what they call 'capitalism' is a kind of 'God' engineered solution for all and everything. This, despite the history of the eighteenth century and the grotesque abuses of excess monetary wealth we have witnessed. Yet, even to say this much is to be accused of being a Stalinist.
All humans need to do is evaluate what, in any system at whatever level, works to the pursuit of happiness to humanity. We need to form a "more perfect union" with our existence and the existence of all. That way we will have peace and not spend astronomic amounts on weapons than, once constructed, are virtually worthless. That is expenditure.
Investment is in things that contribute to increasing wealth (not to be confused with 'money'). Alternative power is an investment. An S.U.V. is an expenditure.
Infrastructure leads to wealth creation. It is best done collectively (as with defense). It is best 'owned' by all. To build bicycles, it needs entrepreneurs and young people passionate about improvement and progress. The last thing wanted is committee debate and 'refinement'. Building bridges is not the same.

 

[dudmuck]

j

Even when the government subsidizes a particular industry, they are not bringing new money into the economy, they are simply taking it from somewhere else.

You can get a good perspective on that from Trump's recent "made in america" event.
21 of the 50 companies attending that event had received some sort of government grant, subsidy, loan guarantee, or other economic incentive since 1997.
Perhaps the best is example is Caterpillar receiving $155 million in taxpayer assistance, to what benefit?

So you agree that Govs are an economic burden!!

Greg

It varies. In some cases yes, others no.
Usually there is some form of crony capitalism.

Typically where government subsidies are most helpful in cases where the free market isnt acting in a way which is beneficial to society as a whole. For example, if we hadnt bailed out General Motors, there would have been a ripple effect down to their suppliers, and would ruin the entire auto industry as a result. Another good example is helping renewable energy, to keep are country globally competitive.

 

[CHSeeman]

GOV can promoted expansion in areas that the private industry would not do on its own because of cost and uncertainty. For example , the internet .

Gov projects can create infrastructure that creates new or expanded business opportunities. Think the Hoover dam.

you are incorrect: If private industry acts as free market says they will then they will act in their own best interest. This results in what is best for the economy. If these so called expansions that you claim the government finances were really the best action for the economy then private industry would fund them.

as far as government money being spent: The money government spends has already circulated in the economy before being given to government and the money multiplier has been used up. If you need proof of the correctness of this statement look at tbe formula the government uses to calculate economic growth, if you look at this formula you will see -G or negative G (the G stands for government spending) and is subtracted or reduces growth. Thus even government economist acknowledge that government spending reduces economic growth.

 

[whitehall]

The government makes it easier for corporations to do business with lower corporate taxes and less regulations. The government also creates an environment that promotes cheaper energy. Corporations ain't the enemy.