Or, with occurences of underheated economies.
GovernmentÂ’s TEMPORARY expenditures for stimulus programs during economic recession or depression stress are popular.
With
some of us.... particularly those who
directly benefit from these stumulus programs.
When stimulus dollars are spent for needs that are likely in the future to increase and their amounts (due to currency inflation) are additionally more likely to increase, they are both economically and politically sensible.
There's the debate, isn't it?
Some would suggest that it is not
economically sensible.
They posit that such investments cost society more than they're worth.
They note that the opportunity costs of such government interventions, rather than investment on the private sector, is also high.
I think both those arguments have merit, actually.
They do not, however, lead me to the conclusion that the government ought to do nothing.
At such economically stressful times TEMPORARY increased federal spending. grants or loans for increased durations of unemployment insurance, and sustaining necessary federal, state or local public services, (i.e. the general physical and social welfare of our nation) within the nationÂ’s financial capabilities, are (in my opinion) economically justifiable.
That's the theory.
I'm incline to agree, relunctantly, that it falls to the government to do
something.
I naturally doubt it will do something entirely to my liking.
A problem arises when public funds or credit is risked for loans, (particularly loans directly or indirectly for non-government entities) are due to their extent of risk or other attributes of the loans to be intrinsically less justified.
Yup.
Dare dare call it corruption, of course.
The purpose of anti-trust or monopoly or oligopoly laws and regulations is to provide more level playing fields for all entities and no non-government entity should ever be permitted to grow “to big to be permitted to fail”. USA’s laws and regulations are obviously inadequate.
Of late, that is true, the laws and the application of those laws has been less than stellar.
Its the age of the
nod and a wink monopoly, actually.
Now, when did our anti-monoply laws so drastically change?
During that period of anti-government, perhaps?
The lack of governments’ explicitly drafted, equally and diligently enforced regulations are “not the solution, but rather the cause of our problems”.
We changed the laws concerning monopolies.
And regulations were also not diliegently enforced.
We can do better.
Quit being an obstinate fool.
