Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
In a blow to the federal Opposition, the OECD specifically commends the infrastructure spending and cash bonus payments opposed by the Coalition in the Senate, describing them as "welcome" and "boosting" domestic demand.
Much depends on what the infrastructure spending was targetted to. Accelerating existing work does not create many permanent jobs.
Really? So, taking the example of the WWII massiv government spending on war helping the economy move to the post-war improvements:
What 'depended' on what the 'infrastructure spending was targetted to', given that it went to completely destructive and expendable things - military equipment? What would be less productive than that - and yet the completel waste of those goods was still adequate for stimulating the economy.
How did the spending 'create many permanent jobs' that was only slightly for things that continued after the war, much for bombs and bullets, much for 'temporary' employment of millions of men in terribly unproductive work - carrying a rifle - that only hurt the economy, taking the out of the workforce, not training them with skills, etc.?
Oh, ya, the solution included massive *government programs* for housing assistance, for education, and whaddya know, it worked. It had nothing to do with one's moral opinion of how 'deserving' they were, it's just an economic question, did the massive government spending of the war and post-war 'work' to help the economy?
Your claims 'only if it's on the right infrastructure' and 'only if it's the right permanent work' are contradicted by the facts. Those things would just have helped even more.
But then, we've never tried the WWII spending on really productive stimulus. Makes rich people kind of nervous.
It is a good sign that Australia may be turning around - I would not expect that the US will do so at the same speed.
Which is off-topic from his thread, about Keynesian economics, which have clearly stood the test of time, generally.
At the same time we have some economists saying they are concerned our stimulus spending is too small, we have the same people who voted for the people who got us into this crisis saying it's too large and trying to block any more spending and ready to throw Obama out for his spending already. Generally no facts involved, they just think that's the right policy.
While Democracy is reasonably good at helping the public be able to counter concentrated power, it has a real weakness at mob mentality economic policies and such being passed.
And so these people just ignore the fact we're in an economic crisis and drag out the same anti-debt platitudes that are not what's needed. I hate government debt. But there's a time to eliminate it, not in a crisis. And there's a time for recognizing as bad as it is, the economy needs it. We recognized that in WWII and spend; and based on what most of the best economists are saying, we appear to need it now. Let's then try to pass policies to fix the problems that got to this problem, and pay off the debt.
If you want to see the short-sighted no-debt effects, look at the third-world nations in recent decades with IMF and World Bank policies forced on them, as they were forced not to spend on stimulus, on education, on the infrastructure - but their very poor economies could reduce debt. There's a saying about socialism offering an equal share of very little to everyone; the same could be said of the misguided anti-stimulus policies.
Democrats have already suggested pay as you go' policies; where's the strong Republican support for that 'fiscal conservatism'?
Facebook
Twitter