a slightly different take on govt involvement in the economy
5 responses | 0 likes
Started by bear - Nov. 7, 2020, 4:22 p.m.

armstrong gives a chart ( i cannot find it at this moment ) which is quite insightful.  

as govt involvement grows,  then economic growth (going forward the next decade) gets weaker.  

so for example... if govt represents 30 % of the economy,  then growth over the next 10 years will be far less than if govt represents 10% of the economy.  

or , if govt spending represents 15% of the economy,  then you will have better growth going forward, than if govt spending represents 30% of the economy.  

liberals want things to be "more fair" without understanding that more govt involvement will mean weaker growth going forward.  

remember, the countries where there is more growth, are more likely to give us new, better cars, phones, planes, medicines,  etc. etc. 

as a more concrete example... a person in france who wants to invent a better cell phone... will leave france, and go to america.  france has too much taxation, bureaucracy, and socialism.  

By 7475 - Nov. 7, 2020, 9:13 p.m.
Like Reply

Yeah but bear, I couldnt leave france to build my next french spec house..

All dont have that option .

So like I said above,Im moving to your neighborhood when the country splits


By TimNew - Nov. 8, 2020, 6:37 a.m.
Like Reply

A basic rule of economics is. ..  The more efficiently money is used, the better the population will live.  So when money is used productively,  to create more wealth,  there is more wealth to share.

Government is the least efficient and least productive entity there is, so naturally,  the more money they take from the economy,  the worse off we are.

Government is a necasary evil and should be treated as such.

By bear - Nov. 11, 2020, 10:59 a.m.
Like Reply

govt intrusion was very much a beneficial thing as the canned food industry got under way in the 1800's, and up to WW1.  companies used horrible toxic substances as preservatives.  (and these substances were not listed on labels).

there is a good documentary on a guy named wiley, who became the first director of the FDA,  the effort to force companies to list ingredients, and his "poison squad" which was used to test food products and see what bad health effects might come from unsafe canned goods.  

so the govt got involved over the issue of food quality,  but they did not force us to buy specific products.  

By TimNew - Nov. 11, 2020, 11:16 a.m.
Like Reply

Government is a necessity.   Problem with Government agencies is not only that the never go away,   they strive to grow.  The FDA of today does not resemble the original FDA and arguably does more harm than good. The EPA did lots of good in cleaning up the Great Lakes and the air we breath in the 70s.  Now they are busy outlawing CO2.  

Look at just about any of them, and the same holds true.   They all get bigger, more expensive and eventualy harmful. 

By bear - Nov. 12, 2020, 11:09 a.m.
Like Reply

i give students this example from aristotle... the idea of the golden mean.  something that can be ok in small amounts, can also be very bad in large amounts.  what is the point of diminishing return?  how do we do a study to determine the point at which we have gone too far?  

one beer with supper at night can be ok.  but you should not drink a whole 12 pack each night.  at what point have we gone from "a little is ok" ,... to  "too much is bad"?  2?  4?  6?   

many young people may understand this problem with beer,  but are totally clueless on how to think about this when it comes to govt involvement in society.  

too many people (when it comes to govt involvement) think a little is not enough,  more is a lot better, and a LOT more will make us all better off.  they do not understand that a lot more makes us all worse off, not better off.

but the difficult question is... when do you hit the point of diminishing return?