Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.





I agree with the main point i.e. the fallacy of the "Broken Window" theory. However we must leave room for sensible and essential infrastructure spending that does have a measurable multiplier effect and the results of which provide for more efficient commerce. For the most part, that is NOT what we got from Obama's "porkulus" package.
Last edited by Eric Stoner; 04-05-2012 at 06:49 AM.





^^^ agreed that, under certain circumstances, the imposition of higher current taxes or higher gov't borrowing against higher future taxes or money printing by the gov't to fund infrastructure spending can result in a net increase in economic activity that exceeds the amount of money taxed away or borrowed or printed. But also agreed that this was NOT the result of recent US gov't 'stimulus' spending. And even when this HAS happened, it's impossible to judge after the fact whether or not the gov't induced increase in economic activity actually exceeds the increase in economic activity that would have taken place of it's own accord had the 'stimulus' money been left in the hands of the private sector.
Bookmarks