Originally Posted by pistol45

You need to look up the definition of the word "foster" (be careful not to mistake with Foster's beer or Jodie Foster), then look up all the words in the definition. I still think you're trying to lure the liberals into some trap with this discussion, but if you are not really faking it, then ECUgirl thinks you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I understand the word "foster". The problem is the context of the argument. It was stated that when people argue that Keynesians claim that government spending creates wealth that it is a "straw man" argument. So I asked what the difference is between claiming that the spending creates wealth and that spending improves the economy. The ultimate answer was that government spending "may foster an environment where wealth can be created". So if the claim is that government spending improves the economy because it may create an environment where wealth can be created, isn't the claim also that the current environment is not one where wealth can be created and that is why government "investment" is needed? If in fact this isn't the argument and one stipulates that wealth can be created without that government spending, then how does that government spending improve the economy without creating wealth?

Haven't clarified any political/philosophical views, but I have an overwhelming urge to buy a gecko and an aquarium

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

So my interpretation of the argument up until the point that you changed it was correct? Ok so lets tackle your argument here. You claim that government provides resources such as roads and such. You don't explain where government gets such resources to bestow though. Are you claiming that government can bestow net positive resources to the economy through "investment"? Or are you instead talking about the act of government just choosing where already existing resources go, often times contrary to the wishes of the owners of those resources?

Are you asking where the government gets the money it spends? And, are you wondering why individual taxpayers don't get to decide how 'their' taxes are spent? This exercise seems productive...

BTW, my argument has remained consistent. It may be nuanced, and I have provided further examples to help you wrap your mind around the concepts, but my original argument that government spending may foster economic growth has remained persistent. So would you like to put yourself out there and provide some contrary arguments that convince everyone that the government can NOT foster economic growth?

 

Originally Posted by pistol45

but my original argument that government spending may foster economic growth has remained persistent.

Your original argument was that government spending improves the economy because "it may foster an environment where wealth can be created". Once again this implies that the environment absent such spending is not conducive to wealth creation. If it was already conducive to wealth creation then "fostering an environment where wealth can be created" does not change the status quo and thus can't be the reason why government "investment" improves the economy.

As for your questions, why change words? What was wrong with "resources"? "Resources" works better when talking about government in the abstract since government doesn't necessarily mean taxation. And no I am not wondering why individual taxpayers don't get to decide how their taxes are spent.

 

Originally Posted by saxman

Reading through all of this and trying to come up with a different approach ...

Would it be fair to say the primary role of gov't is macroeconomics and the primary role of private enterprise in microeconomics. The government is not directly involved with creating wealth, it is there to support the underlying economy. Private businesses create wealth through the transfer of goods and services. Private businesses exist to make a profit and to generate wealth for their employees and shareholders. The government makes no attempt to realize profits but obviously it has an indirect effect on the profitability of private businesses (wealth) through its various policies.

I would disagree since government makes direct investments to companies which is a "micro" action, not just a "macro" general policy action. If government only made laws and regulations without "investing" in particular companies and projects, then yes maybe your "macro/micro" statement would be more accurate.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

I would disagree since government makes direct investments to companies which is a "micro" action, not just a "macro" general policy action. If government only made laws and regulations without "investing" in particular companies and projects, then yes maybe your "macro/micro" statement would be more accurate.

It depends upon the intended result of those interventions. Most incursions into private industry have other expectations and are supposedly not motivated by returning profits but rather to influence the health of certain industries deemed favorable for the overall health of the citizens or economy.

 

Originally Posted by userid363

Government spending/investment can stimulate the economy just as private spending/investment can. It is not sustainable as a long-term policy, but if there is something that is stagnating the economy, natural or not, and private $$$ is all sitting on the sideline, then who else is going to do the dirty work?

Going off topic a little, but there are a number of socialist economies that have long-term, sustained success. In most cases, the failures of socialism have more to do with failed oppressive social policies than economic policies that failed when executed with discipline under responsible leadership. Just because capitalism seems intuitive to Americans, does not mean it is the only economic model capable of success.

 

Originally Posted by pistol45

Going off topic a little, but there are a number of socialist economies that have long-term, sustained success. In most cases, the failures of socialism have more to do with failed oppressive social policies than economic policies that failed when executed with discipline under responsible leadership. Just because capitalism seems intuitive to Americans, does not mean it is the only economic model capable of success.

Name one please.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Private spending/investment is the economy, it doesn't stimulate it. And how does "private $$$" sit on the sideline? And if it isn't sustainable as a long-term policy then why are you advocating for such? Hasn't there been government "stimulus" for decades now? Isn't that what deficits mean?

The time to reduce public spending is when the private sector is healthy and investing.

How does private $ sit on the sideline? Is this where you tell me that it's actually investing because it's bringing in FED interest?

 

Originally Posted by userid363

The time to reduce public spending is when the private sector is healthy and investing.

How does private $ sit on the sideline? Is this where you tell me that it's actually investing because it's bringing in FED interest?

So are you saying that absent a government created entity such as the fed, resources wouldn't ever sit idle? Or are you going to give me an example that government didn't cause in the first place?

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

No, not at least how I know socialism to be defined. My understanding of socialism is the same as the first paragraph of the wiki, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

The only countries I know of where one could claim that the means of production was controlled by society at large would be the USSR, communist China, Cuba and N. Korea. There are many countries with varying degrees of mixed economies where one could point out aspects that are socialistic and aspects that are capitalistic, the U.S. being one. Note that those who make such measurements along this scale from capitalism to socialism have found that those countries whose economies come closest to capitalism also happen to be the most productive. If a boat only going 30MPH instead of 50MPH because its anchor is out can be called a "success" than so can socialist economies I guess.

A boat that goes 90 mph and half of the passengers drown when they're tossed overboard isn't very successful if you're part of the group that can't hang on.

 

Originally Posted by cmval

my grandparents just left the house, they are life long conservatives, never once voted for a democrat ever

grandfather told me they are voting for obama, reason being is they know Romney is going to do what he can to cut whatever he can from Medicare, and then tell people like my grandparents they didnt work hard enough to earn an "entitlement" like that

they worked their whole lives and paid into the system to have this for their retirement, now pushing 90 they both find themselves at the doctors office a lot

im assuming they are not alone and we all know the elders actually do get out and vote, thing is you wont see many of them on the internet saying this type of stuff

I really think Obama is gonna roll Mittens

gl op

They're not even correct. Nobody that's currently receiving Medicare will be impacted by Romney/Ryan plan. This is a prime example of the Dems using fear tactics to scare the elderly.

 

Originally Posted by pistol45

Some people get very rich, some people die in the gutter. Perfect capitalism.

You have a strange perception of "perfect" in this context.

 

Originally Posted by ECUgirl

They're not even correct. Nobody that's currently receiving Medicare will be impacted by Romney/Ryan plan. This is a prime example of the Dems using fear tactics to scare the elderly.

LOL... No one is trying to scare them into believing it. It's what they believe. You honestly think old people are gonna listen to Romney/Ryan say shit like "These changes will only pertain to those under 55" and believe them?