Reaganomics !!

[Bama4Ever831]

Government spending during a recession only works when governments stop spending and cut taxes during economic booms. Typically, they just keep spending though.

It really isn't correct to say Keynesian economics doesn't work when the politicians only follow it when it is convenient to reelection. ie Medicare/Medicaid/Other government welfare programs need to be cut, but someone will never get reelected on that campaign! Or at least not enough of them will to make any difference.

 

[RammerJammer14]

Government spending during a recession only works when governments stop spending and cut taxes during economic booms. Typically, they just keep spending though.

It really isn't correct to say Keynesian economics doesn't work when the politicians only follow it when it is convenient to reelection. ie Medicare/Medicaid/Other government welfare programs need to be cut, but someone will never get reelected on that campaign! Or at least not enough of them will to make any difference.

Funny, that what the Communists say...

 

[Bodhisattva]

Government spending during a recession only works when governments stop spending and cut taxes during economic booms. Typically, they just keep spending though.

It really isn't correct to say Keynesian economics doesn't work when the politicians only follow it when it is convenient to reelection. ie Medicare/Medicaid/Other government welfare programs need to be cut, but someone will never get reelected on that campaign! Or at least not enough of them will to make any difference.

IMO the primary problem with Keynesian theory is that it assumes that government spends money well. It doesn't. Government spending is always inefficiently spent on what is often garbage. I worked on a few ARRA spending projects. The net result of the tens of millions spent? Nothing. They were essentially just make work projects - a modern version of hiring one person to dig holes and another to fill holes. So, since the government does nothing but take money out of the private sector, we traded efficiently spent money for government-sponsored waste.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

Funny, that what the Communists say...

In Soviet Russia, car drives you!

 

[Bama4Ever831]

IMO a bigger problem with Keynesian theory is that it assumes that government spends money well. It doesn't. Government spending is always inefficiently spent on what is often garbage. I worked on a few ARRA spending projects. The net result of the tens of millions spent? Nothing. They were essentially just make work projects - a modern version of hiring one person to dig holes and another to fill holes. So, since the government does nothing but take money out of the private sector, we traded efficiently spent money for government-sponsored waste.

I agree with you. However, there is no reason why government shouldn't be more efficient. We as a nation have allowed it to take place by voting in career politicians. It starts at the top.

I have started working much closer with the DoD and I can tell you the budget is starting to get tighter and people are getting more efficient to save jobs.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I agree with you. However, there is no reason why government shouldn't be more efficient. We as a nation have allowed it to take place by voting in career politicians. It starts at the top.

I have started working much closer with the DoD and I can tell you the budget is starting to get tighter and people are getting more efficient to save jobs.

Unfortunately, government bureaucracy is largely insulated from market forces - the things that drive efficiency. In my office we get policy changes all the time - seriously, almost weekly. Someone from on high has an idea, so we add that to the process. The big thing now is the effort to give more work to small businesses, which is often dubiously defined by the government. Projects will soon be tied to meeting small business goals. This is not a response to markets/economic factors/drives for efficiency. This is political. I don't give contracts to the best company; I give it to the company that fits congressional whim.

New procedure involves all potential contracts being sent to the SB office for review and approval/rejection. This adds about a month to the typical timeline. And this is just the latest of many things that make my office less efficient. We already have legal reviews, intellectual property reviews, engineering reviews, budget reviews, project management reviews, accounting/auditing reviews, etc. that have to be done for each and every contractual action. These are all separate offices in often far flung places. They each work on their own schedules. Add to this the internal reviews (four levels) in my office. It's a very clunky, drawn-out process.

Since the new fiscal year started the time horizon for completing contracts has been stretched out several months. I have many "emergency" actions to do and my tasks can't even begin yet. I've had them for several months, but I probably won't be even able to start my tasks until late summer. I hope not too many American troops die before they receive what's been requested. And this is just to order items that have already been built by government contractors. The level of bureaucratic approvals is mind-numbing. All my work has to be done four-fold because the various systems are silos.

I would like to believe in efficient government, but there's no such animal.

 

[mittman]

IMO the primary problem with Keynesian theory is that it assumes that government spends money well. It doesn't. Government spending is always inefficiently spent on what is often garbage. I worked on a few ARRA spending projects. The net result of the tens of millions spent? Nothing. They were essentially just make work projects - a modern version of hiring one person to dig holes and another to fill holes. So, since the government does nothing but take money out of the private sector, we traded efficiently spent money for government-sponsored waste.

I agree with you that it is a problem with Keynesian economics, but I don't think it is the primary problem. Sure government spending is inefficent, but it is not all bad. There are some problems that only government intervention can solve. That is why we have one.

I believe the primary problem is that government can't do stimulus well without corrupting itself. When they start trying to pick winners and loosers, when they start trying to invest in specific areas of our economy out come the hands, out go the handouts. That is why this right leaner see tax breaks or better yet, a much simpler tax code as a much better alternative to direct stimulus. Let the market pick the winners and loosers.

 

[mittman]

...
I would like to believe in efficient government, but there's no such animal.

Yea, I feel your pain. Glad I am in the private sector now.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

IMO the primary problem with Keynesian theory is that it assumes that government spends money well. It doesn't. Government spending is always inefficiently spent on what is often garbage. I worked on a few ARRA spending projects. The net result of the tens of millions spent? Nothing. They were essentially just make work projects - a modern version of hiring one person to dig holes and another to fill holes. So, since the government does nothing but take money out of the private sector, we traded efficiently spent money for government-sponsored waste.

Ain't that the truth. I used to work for a medical supply company in Florida, and we did a lot of bid business with local municipalities. I could always tell when the fiscal year was ending for these municipalities when the phone calls for $500 or $750 worth of ice packs started coming in. Items were being ordered simply to make sure that budgets got increased for the following year.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I agree with you that it is a problem with Keynesian economics, but I don't think it is the primary problem. Sure government spending is inefficent, but it is not all bad. There are some problems that only government intervention can solve. That is why we have one.

There are a few things the government is supposed to do, and they are enumerated in the Constitution.

I believe the primary problem is that government can't do stimulus well without corrupting itself. When they start trying to pick winners and loosers, when they start trying to invest in specific areas of our economy out come the hands, out go the handouts. That is why this right leaner see tax breaks or better yet, a much simpler tax code as a much better alternative to direct stimulus. Let the market pick the winners and loosers.

Agreed.

 

[cbi1972]

That government is legitimate and necessary for some purposes does not make it so for all purposes.

 

[mittman]

There are a few things the government is supposed to do, and they are enumerated in the Constitution.

That government is legitimate and necessary for some purposes does not make it so for all purposes.

I agree. However, I don't think we need to be so rigid as to say that borrowing money to stimulate it is never good. I personally do not mind the government OCCASIONALLY doing this. For instance even though "bridges to nowhere" are a popular thing to bash, I don't have a problem with our government investing in our transportation and other infrastructures in a way that help most businesses.

I know you still have a corruption possiblility even doing this picking the winning area, and bringing home the bacon. All the way back to George Washington and his Potomac canal project you can see this.

If we are going to have a government we are going to have people expecting things of that government. Assistance in stimulating the economy is one of those things that is expected by most people. They are going to do it. We need to ensure that when it happens it is as broad and as temporary as possible.

 

[cbi1972]

I agree. However, I don't think we need to be so rigid as to say that borrowing money to stimulate it is never good. I personally do not mind the government OCCASIONALLY doing this. For instance even though "bridges to nowhere" are a popular thing to bash, I don't have a problem with our government investing in our transportation and other infrastructures in a way that help most businesses.

I know you still have a corruption possiblility even doing this picking the winning area, and bringing home the bacon. All the way back to George Washington and his Potomac canal project you can see this.

If we are going to have a government we are going to have people expecting things of that government. Assistance in stimulating the economy is one of those things that is expected by most people. They are going to do it. We need to ensure that when it happens it is as broad and as temporary as possible.

Using the desires of greedy, ignorant voters as the basis for formulating policy is the chief flaw of democracy.

 

[mittman]

Using the desires of greedy, ignorant voters as the basis for formulating policy is the chief flaw of democracy.

You have read up on your Aristotle I see :smile:

That is why I am glad we still have a representative republic, and a electoral college. They both help to hedge these tendancies.

 

[RedStar]

So ole' BW got suspended eh? Hate I missed it, was there an epic meltdown somewhere? I guess he set one too many fires.

 

[MattinBama]

So ole' BW got suspended eh? Hate I missed it, was there an epic meltdown somewhere? I guess he set one too many fires.

He vanished after posting about 4,000 responses in this thread in a row.

 

[mittman]

He vanished after posting about 4,000 responses in this thread in a row.

 

[ValuJet]

So ole' BW got suspended eh? Hate I missed it, was there an epic meltdown somewhere? I guess he set one too many fires.

More often than not, Non-Sports tends to bring out the identities of those who have long used up their nine lives.