How Can People Deny Trickle Down Economics...

[imagep]

Spending is not equal, imagep.
I can spend $1M to dig a hole and fill it.
Or to create a new piece of software that reduce far more people's total time in doing their job, than it took me to write it.

You do see the difference, I hope.

Our gov didn't build a damm and then distroy it. 60 years later that damm is still generating electicity for all of Vegas and more.

And the money that the gov taxed away from the private sector to build the damm didn't disapear, it almost immediately reentered the private sector, who then put it to good use.

Now I am against make-work projects as much as the next guy, but few gov jobs are make-work. I mean I have really never heard of the gov intentionally digging holes just to fill them back in. Maybe when mismanaged, but mismanagement happens everywhere, including the private sector.

 

[imagep]

How on earth do you think banks make money; by keeping peoples money in a bank?

You Silly Willy. They make money by getting it from the government and then lending it back to the government.

 

[david52875]

Our gov didn't build a damm and then distroy it. 60 years later that damm is still generating electicity for all of Vegas and more.

And the money that the gov taxed away from the private sector to build the damm didn't disapear, it almost immediately reentered the private sector, who then put it to good use.

Now I am against make-work projects as much as the next guy, but few gov jobs are make-work. I mean I have really never heard of the gov intentionally digging holes just to fill them back in. Maybe when mismanaged, but mismanagement happens everywhere, including the private sector.

But if the dam was not worth the cost, or if there was a better use for the money and materials used to construct the dam, then wealth has been destroyed.

 

[Kushinator]

But if the dam was not worth the cost, or if there was a better use for the money and materials used to construct the dam, then wealth has been destroyed.

The question then becomes......

Was it worth the cost?

 

[haymarket]

No, you cannot disprove the fact that I have five fingers. It is an observation, not a theory.

Do you know the difference between an observable fact like having five fingers in front of your eyes and your claims about coulda woulda shoulda in the Land of If?

 

[david52875]

Our gov didn't build a damm and then distroy it. 60 years later that damm is still generating electicity for all of Vegas and more.

And the money that the gov taxed away from the private sector to build the damm didn't disapear, it almost immediately reentered the private sector, who then put it to good use.

Now I am against make-work projects as much as the next guy, but few gov jobs are make-work. I mean I have really never heard of the gov intentionally digging holes just to fill them back in. Maybe when mismanaged, but mismanagement happens everywhere, including the private sector.

Why not get the government to build dams everywhere? The government could direct all its resources to building huge dams everywhere.

The point is, if there is a better use for the resources and money, then wealth was destroyed.

 

[david52875]

The question then becomes......

Was it worth the cost?

That is determined best by the free market and the price system.

 

[david52875]

...your claims about coulda woulda shoulda in the Land of If?

Oh, you mean those claims I never made?

 

[haymarket]

Why not get the government to build dams everywhere? The government could direct all its resources to building huge dams everywhere.

The point is, if there is a better use for the resources and money, then wealth was destroyed.

Again, your theory in the Land of coulda shoulda woulda.

 

[haymarket]

That is determined best by the free market and the price system.

more theory based on an almost religious like belief in what you want to believe in... it never stops does it?

 

[david52875]

Again, your theory in the Land of coulda shoulda woulda.

No, that is truistic statement about reality. You don't even know what a theory is.

 

[imagep]

But if the dam was not worth the cost, or if there was a better use for the money and materials used to construct the dam, then wealth has been destroyed.

Sure, in theory, but I could say the same thing about any private project. I could theorize that Apple Computer used investment money to develop computers that in my opinion weren't very good, and that money would have been better utilized if the investers had invested in Microsoft instead. Of course I can't prove it either way, and neither can you.

 

[Centinel]

When money is taxed away it is not distroyed. It is spent. someone gets the money, and then they use it to invest and produce.

If money taxed away was distroyed, you would have a point.

No, even if the money is not destroyed overall wealth is reduced. Again, if you are going to use your money to buy a widget, and I take your money and I buy a gizmo and give it to you. You are worse off than if I had just left you alone to buy the widget. Your money was used to buy something lower on your preference scale than your first choice. Thus, you were made worse off, even though you were given a really nice gizmo.

 

[david52875]

more theory... it never stops does it?

It's very simple. If people want more computers, they will be willing to pay more for computers, and computer manufacturers will benefit from making more computers. The government, we are expected to believe, is omniscient in regards to the economy. They can apparently centrally plan the voluntary economic interactions of over 300 million people. BullSh*t.

 

[haymarket]

No, that is truistic statement about reality. You don't even know what a theory is.

a truistic statement about reality.

That is determined best by the free market and the price system.

It must be comforting - at least in a very unchallenging way - to BELIEVE so deeply.

interesting. :lamo

 

[Kushinator]

No, even if the money is not destroyed overall wealth is reduced. Again, if you are going to use your money to buy a widget, and I take your money and I buy a gizmo and give it to you. You are worse off than if I had just left you alone to buy the widget. Your money was used to buy something lower on your preference scale than your first choice. Thus, you were made worse off, even though you were given a really nice gizmo.

Nonsense. You have to show that government spending is crowding out private investment to make any sort of judgement call in regards to relative wealth gain differentials.

 

[david52875]

Sure, in theory, but I could say the same thing about any private project. I could theorize that Apple Computer used investment money to develop computers that in my opinion weren't very good, and that money would have been better utilized if the investers had invested in Microsoft instead. Of course I can't prove it either way, and neither can you.

But if a private project is a not productive, it FAILS. The government, however, can just pump more and more tax payer money into the project until it's done. Then, if it outlives its purpose, the government just keeps pumping MORE AND MORE money into it. It can never fail, no matter how un-productive and wasteful it is.

 

[haymarket]

It's very simple. If people want more computers, they will be willing to pay more for computers, and computer manufacturers will benefit from making more computers. The government, we are expected to believe, is omniscient in regards to the economy. They can apparently centrally plan the voluntary economic interactions of over 300 million people. BullSh*t.

I did not realize we were arguing about computers.

 

[haymarket]

But if a private project is a not productive, it FAILS. The government, however, can just pump more and more tax payer money into the project until it's done. Then, if it outlives its purpose, the government just keeps pumping MORE AND MORE money into it. It can never fail, no matter how un-productive and wasteful it is.

I bet the word IF is your favorite word in the language.

 

[Centinel]

And it was returned to the citizens as soon as they got their pay checks and invoice checks. A zillion dollar damm was built, not one ounce of wealth was distroyed. Redistributing wealth does not distroy it.

It actually does. When you are able to exchange your money for your highest preference, you are able to maximize your wealth. If your money is taken from you and a less preferred alternative is bought and given to you, your money did not produce the same amount of wealth. It produced less than it would have had you used it to fulfill your highest preference. Thus redistribution cannot help but reduce overall wealth.

 

[david52875]

a truistic statement about reality.



It must be comforting - at least in a very unchallenging way - to BELIEVE so deeply.

interesting. :lamo

So apparently:
Insult + smileys = argument.

 

[haymarket]

It actually does. When you are able to exchange your money for your highest preference, you are able to maximize your wealth. If your money is taken from you and a less preferred alternative is bought and given to you, your money did not produce the same amount of wealth. It produced less than it would have had you used it to fulfill your highest preference. Thus redistribution cannot help but reduce overall wealth.

And the real life examples of the Hoover Dam and the TVA be damned (okay - pun intended) .... but why let reality get in the way of theory?

 

[david52875]

I did not realize we were arguing about computers.

JESUS CHRIST you are difficult. We are arguing about the economic transactions that take place in the computer industry.

 

[haymarket]

So apparently:
Insult + smileys = argument.

I was just making a truistic statement about reality as observed in your posts.

 

[imagep]

I assume that you already know this, but the reason that government revenues increase as tax rates go up on the LEFT side of the Laffer Curve is due to private sector expansion which happens due to government sector spending. Mostly infrastructure spending, but also services such as police and fire protection.

Government spending does not neccesarally distroy wealth, it can actually increase it. This is evidenced by the fact that generally governments who invested in education and infrasture (like most Western countries) are wealthier than countries like Uganda that didn't.