Comments | ka9q: Government spending is not a zero-sum game

ka9q

Government spending is not a zero-sum game

Mar 17, 2009 23:03

Libertarians Conservatives often argue that the economy government spending is a zero-sum game, and that government spending it necessarily decreases everyone's standard of living.

I strongly disagree; the economy is most definitely NOT a zero sum game. The big variable is productivity. This number drops quite a bit when lots of people are out of ( Read more... )

economics stimulus credit-default swaps

Comments 23

huh? anonymous March 18 2009, 14:11:36 UTC

Libertarians don't argue that the economy is zero sum. In fact, most libertarians argue that economic growth is the key to success of everyone overall. That's why libertarians argue that taking money from the productive (i.e. wealthier) people and giving it to the less productive ends up hurting the poor more - because the economic pie isn't growing as fast ( ... )

Re: huh? atari_eric March 18 2009, 19:42:39 UTC

taking money from the productive (i.e. wealthier) people

Oh really? You just assume wealthy people are productive? What about those who inherit their wealth? Even heirs who still work aren't necessarily more productive, or even productive at all - their lack of production can easily be hidden by their vast cash reserve.

See, it's this type of assumption made in economics that gets us into trouble. All the various "laws" of economics are just taken for granted without anyone ever re-examining them to see if they still hold true, if they ever held true, or they're appropriate to the subject they're compared against. I mean, have you even seen a real-life "rational actor" (economics-wise)?? I haven't - all I see are human beings - people who do not make their decisions purely on logical economic concept, though many may try. A large part of economic "law" - if not its entirety - depends on the true existence of this fictitious entity and I have seen NO ONE who touts these laws ever adjust for the fact that their theories depend ( ... )

You're right - economic "laws" have assumptions ka9q March 18 2009, 23:11:44 UTC

You are exactly right when you say that the various "laws" of economics are just assumed to be true.

I think most of them are still valid if certain basic assumptions are met. For example, free market competition does push prices down towards costs if there are many suppliers and many consumers in a market and participants are free to come and go, and accurate information about the market is available to everyone ( ... )

Re: huh? anonymous March 18 2009, 20:31:50 UTC

There are a few problems with ka9q's line of thinking ( ... )

Thread 11

Surely a troll? anonymous March 18 2009, 15:46:51 UTC

Surely this is a troll? It starts with libertarians think economics is a zero sum game and ends with financial libertarians had their chance?

I prefer to think a troll than some poor unthinking slob surrounded by only like minded morons in a college somewhere. At least a troll is good at something.

Re: Surely a troll? anonymous March 18 2009, 15:51:11 UTC

I tend to agree. This can't possibly be a serious article. For instance...

"I used to be fairly libertarian. I've changed my mind. We now have direct experimental evidence for what happens when our government takes a completely laissez-faire role in the economy."

Nobody could write that with a straight face unless they literally knew absolutely nothing about the world they lived in. Must be a joke.

Re: Surely a troll? ka9q March 18 2009, 21:57:17 UTC

Well, I hate to disappoint you but I did write it with a straight face. Strip off your ski mask, make a serious counter-argument and I'll listen to you. Otherwise, you're the troll.

anonymous March 18 2009, 17:51:31 UTC

[Quote] The bottom line is simple: the financial libertarians have had their chance, and they blew it. It's time to try something else. [/Quote ( ... )

for serious? anonymous March 18 2009, 18:01:19 UTC

"We now have direct experimental evidence for what happens when our government takes a completely laissez-faire role in the economy"

Really? When? Banking is the most heavily regulated industry in the economy; hardly "laissez-faire", no matter how many people repeat that falsehood.

And as for, "Libertarians often argue that the economy is a zero-sum game," I think you're off your rocker. I am not at all familiar with a libertarian "zero-sum economy" argument. If you know of some, please point them out.

On the other hand, libertarians often do argue that government spending is a zero-sum game, which is to say that every dollar the government spends into the economy, was either first taxed or borrowed out of the economy.

Re: for serious? ka9q March 18 2009, 22:43:00 UTC

Okay, I'll concede that I used "laissez faire" in a relative sense, and the regulatory climate has never, ever been "laissez faire" enough to please the true libertarians ( ... )

Re: for serious? anonymous March 22 2009, 11:37:11 UTC

So now, at this point, you've had to basically back off every factual point in your article. Now that you've come that far, it's time to assume that most of your opinions are based on factual points of similar veracity. You've been sold a bill of goods, or maybe you're just surrounded by people who all think alike... either way, if you can learn, you will, if you can't, you won't, so there's not much anyone else can say to you.

But, those of you who can't learn, stop trying to take the money from those of us who can.

Re: for serious? ka9q March 23 2009, 05:44:54 UTC

I am able to change my views in accord with experience and new evidence. You seem to consider this a weakness or at least a disadvantage. I guess you're entitled to your opinion ( ... )

anonymous March 21 2009, 18:11:02 UTC

Phil, your arguments are as flawed as a sieve. You do however have one good point - "productivity". Socialist countries have no productivity because people have zero incentive to be productive. Please name ONE productive socialist nation. Previously, you failed to name one successful socialist nation, I suspect you will ignore this challenge as well with additional long winded rhetoric. Your attempt to refute (or divert) the fact the economy is a zero sum game is mute. Aside for introducing massive inflation, when the government wants to give $1 to the "needy" it needs to take about $2 from the "wealthy" (or as Libtards like to say: the "lucky" ones ( ... )

ka9q March 23 2009, 06:25:47 UTC

You still don't get it. I argue that EVERY country, including ours, is and always has been inherently "socialist". They differ only in degree (the government's fraction of GNP) and nature (which socialist services the government funds). This is true even for governments that do little more than maintain an army. National defense is provided to a country's citizens as a socialist service ( ... )

anonymous March 24 2009, 15:18:32 UTC

FM^2 = Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Per your suggestion, I looked up the Moral Hazard definition on wikipedia: "Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk." This is consistent with my point. In a free market, if companies are exposed to risk they behave more responsibly. This massive intervention by govt removes most risk and therefor creates a situation which promotes bad behavior. In a free market - the companies should have been left to fail. The dooms day scenario our elected officials tried to convince us would happen would not have happened. Companies would be have bought and following the "impulse response" they would have self corrected to "steady state ( ... )

Moral Hazard ka9q April 8 2009, 15:01:51 UTC

Yes, that's the definition I thought it had. And, believe it or not, we are actually in violent agreement that it would have been best to let these companies fail. Since I became a *former* EV1 driver, I confess that I've kinda been looking forward to GM's eventual failure. Unfortunately, a lot of people will suffer a lot more from it than will the people who were responsible for it ( ... )