Couple of points - these guys have an agenda. Their board of directors consists of Heritage Foundation, CATO and other ocnservative think tanks. As for the premise itself, very interesting. Does "big government" help economic growth. I don't think we're at the "growth" point right now - I think we had to act to save our asses from a depression. This brings us to an important point on what we think the purpose of government is. Some of us think the government is (as Reagan said) "the problem." Others see the government as a collaborative effort to improve life in our nation. As for productivity, right now is a very good time for American businesses - worker productivity has hit it highest levels in say, forever as businesses got rid of workers and made those left do more work to make up for the absence of colleague and keep their job. Also, it's interesting to realize that "pork" is what voters call everything earmarked by other representatives and senators, but no their own. That road project money for the 3rd District? Not "pork" - hey, we really need it here to help growth and economic prosperity, imcrease the tax base while lowering individual taxes and so on. This is interesting, and too simple to really explain the situation - it doesn't take into effect so many variables, but lays out an easy-to-digest theory that the less educated can apply to an given situation. Love to have an economist actually parse this, because there are huge arguements about the deficit and what it means in terms of it's percentage of GDP - some say it's higher, but still not enough to really make any economist frightened for the future of the nation. If memory serves, Mr. Bush employed that logic occasionally, and I'm not saying it's right or wrong - but without all the information, this proves nothing to me. Is the goverment just supposed to sit idly by while national industries collapse and the currency becomes valueless? I appreciate the post, something to think about.
1 comment:
Couple of points - these guys have an agenda. Their board of directors consists of Heritage Foundation, CATO and other ocnservative think tanks. As for the premise itself, very interesting. Does "big government" help economic growth. I don't think we're at the "growth" point right now - I think we had to act to save our asses from a depression. This brings us to an important point on what we think the purpose of government is. Some of us think the government is (as Reagan said) "the problem." Others see the government as a collaborative effort to improve life in our nation. As for productivity, right now is a very good time for American businesses - worker productivity has hit it highest levels in say, forever as businesses got rid of workers and made those left do more work to make up for the absence of colleague and keep their job. Also, it's interesting to realize that "pork" is what voters call everything earmarked by other representatives and senators, but no their own. That road project money for the 3rd District? Not "pork" - hey, we really need it here to help growth and economic prosperity, imcrease the tax base while lowering individual taxes and so on. This is interesting, and too simple to really explain the situation - it doesn't take into effect so many variables, but lays out an easy-to-digest theory that the less educated can apply to an given situation. Love to have an economist actually parse this, because there are huge arguements about the deficit and what it means in terms of it's percentage of GDP - some say it's higher, but still not enough to really make any economist frightened for the future of the nation. If memory serves, Mr. Bush employed that logic occasionally, and I'm not saying it's right or wrong - but without all the information, this proves nothing to me. Is the goverment just supposed to sit idly by while national industries collapse and the currency becomes valueless? I appreciate the post, something to think about.
Post a Comment