You say "Sounds like..." and "You imply..." a lot.
Maybe you could try reading what I wrote and taking it at face value, or at least responding to it directly, instead of replying to some vague interpretation you drew from it.
Maybe I can choose whatever words that I want in order to most reasonably reflect what I would like to say?
What about that?
That's fine - if you are interested in having a conversation with
yourself, which I am coming to realize is exactly what you want.
I am not an anarchist, and I am, for the most part, not inclined to generalization, but your every response seems to assume such of me, while at the same time not providing much, other than hand-wavy generalization as support for your own argument - if you really have any thing to say other than "Government is good. You are a fool not to blindly accept it as your savior, as I have".
The burden is NOT upon me to provide examples regarding how if or in what ways the government is good.
If you are making suggestion that we need to change some institutions in the status quo set up and you have some vision about why too much government is bad in such set up, then buren is upon you to describe your vision of how we get from point A to point B, not me.
So your job is simply to read what I write supporting my assertions, then just say "nuhn'uh!" I am starting to understand your rhetorical style.
As far as multiplier effects go, I recently read a study done by an economist at the San Francisco branch of the Federal Reserve, who attempted to measure the "jobs multiplier" of the stimulus package promoted by the incoming Obama administration back in 2009. He determined that the president's claim that the stimulus had 'created or saved' ~2,000,000 jobs was an accurate claim. He also noted that this represented a cost of ~$400,000 per job. I think this is fairly representative of the multiplier effects I have seen from the government attempting to do the job of the private sector.
Sounds as if you have a very limited knowledge of the concept of multiplier effect in terms of the various ways that government money can be spent... And, attempting to couple this with Obama's performance seems to be a bit narrow minded on the topic... and maybe even a distraction from my original comment, which was merely that much more societal wealth will be created when we find ways to distribute money more broadly.. so take from the rich and spread across the poor in various ways, rather than doing the opposite.. which would be, for clarification, taking from the poor and giving to the rich (which has largely been the case for at least the last 20 - 30 years).
Uhm, could you at least share the logic that led you to this conclusion? I stated an example of a multiplier that fits the context, and you conclude from that one quite valid example that I have a "limited knowledge of the concept of the multiplier effect"? How exactly does that follow logically?
I can't make any sense of your 'attempt to link Obama performance' at all. I didn't attempt anything. I presented an example. If you think that example is specifically a bad reflection on President Obama, that is a conclusion that your have reached on your own. I just presented another example of this nonsense Keynesian notion that government spending of money they steal from people who would have spent it themselves, probably more wisely, somehow "multiplies" the effectiveness of that spending. Richard Nixon made even stupider economic moves when he was president, i.e. wage and price controls... Jimmy Carter did some very smart economic things as president, i.e. deregulation of the transportation industries. This is not a Republican vs. Democrat thing. Stupid and wrong is stupid and wrong no matter who does it. And the stimulus bill was stupid and wrong. And there is NO example of any such spending resulting in such a multiplier effect that you can point to with evidence to back it up. It has never happened. Not in the US. Not in the world. Not in history. Not ever. It sounded good when Keynes wrote it, but in practice it just doesn't happen.
Oh, and again - do you really believe Americans are poorer now than they were in the '30s? I have never seen the American standard of living decline in my lifetime. When I was a kid, we didn't even have a telephone, or air conditioning (in the deep south!). Now, even the poorest people I know have cellphones and HDTVs. Is it different where you live
In a couple ways, you are fucking amazing. 1st... I mentioned comparing the 1990s to 2014, and then second if you believe that cell phones, air conditioning and HDTVs are indications of wealth then you are likely looking at the situation too narrowly.
Not indications of wealth. Indications of being better off than someone who DOES NOT have those things. Yes, that is a narrow definition of 'better off', but I don't think any of us here are qualified to judge every facet of the quality of anyone's life, so we have pick something as an indicator. If you have an indicator that negates mine, please present it.
You are not making your case more persuasively by turning this into some ad hominem attack, or an attempt to paint me a some political caricature you feel superior to. I might be right in my beliefs, or I may be wrong - but I am just as well-read and educated on the subjects at hand as you are. I may disagree with you, but I will respect you and your opinions as long as you afford me the same respect.
I do believe people are better off in general than they were 25 years ago, certainly in terms of material wealth - although, as Richie_T pointed out, that is mitigated somewhat by the fact that we do have to work longer hours now - and we ALL have to work too. Single income families are not really viable now like they once were.
Poll
