Government Spending Will Not Save The Economy

New Year. New Administration. New Stimulus Packages.

I've taken a few weeks off constant news consumption, but today it hit me: more stimulus is coming. Well, continuing. The stimulus efforts of our government have been carrying on at a steady pace with no signs of slowing; and we all seem to be getting used to it. We are growing more comfortable with the growth of government control and diminishing economic results.

Bickering in Washington between Republicans and Democrats is going something like this:

Democrats: We need a $775 billion package.

Republicans: That's too much.

Democrats: Okay, how about $600?

Republicans: That sounds better, as long as you throw in a little extra for Wall Street.

Democrats: I think we can handle that, as long as you give us automotive, green energy, and infrastructure initiative spending concessions.

Republicans: Agreed!

And everyone walks away happy?

That fictious vignette is meant to make everyone laugh at a little at the tragedy of misconceptions floating around Congress about what will help the economy, but in reality, according to the Wall Street Journal, Democrats are pushing for "...spending as much as $850 billion over two years...'The weak economy demands quick action, and that is our intention,' House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) said in an interview Tuesday. 'But significant work remains to be done. We need to do this right and make wise investments...' "

Republicans are faring marginally better, hoping to merely tame the stimulus package plans. They should squash them in my opinion. The Wall Street Journal shows the GOPs bi-partisan solutions are simply PR repair tactics, "Top Republican lawmakers are positioning themselves for battle over President-elect Barack Obama's economic recovery plan, signaling Monday that they will cast themselves as guardians against excessive spending rather than outright opponents of the Democrats' stimulus package."

I don't know. I don't understand it. Money doesn't materialize from nowhere. If the government wants to stimulate the economy by putting more money into the hands of consumers and businesses, doesn't anyone realize that money is coming from somewhere else in the first place? The government has to either tax or borrow more - and neither activity creates wealth or economic growth, it simply shuffles the funds around so that any economic gain in one area will be offset by economic loss elsewhere.

So while there may indeed be isolated areas of the economy that are positively affected in the short term by such stimulus plans, it's a mere magic trick, because another area is suffering, but perhaps it's an area that is less politically important, and deemed worthy of sacrifice based on legislative manipulation. In other words, the government gets to pick the winners and losers. I'm not comfortable with that, and you should not be either.

The following video commentary by Dan Mitchell of the CATO Institute reveals the myths and realities of government stimulus programs. They fail theoretically and in reality.



After watching this video, reading articles about the stimulus package proposals make me cringe, because it is obvious the programs will not lead to the intended promises of true economic growth, despite whatever benefits may be won by politically powerful groups for their causes. But the great thing is, now you can cringe and know better too!

Be sure to pass this video on to anyone you know interested to know how proposed government policies are likely to turn out.




5 Comments:

  1. If you listen to most non-libertarian economists, they'll agree that in the current economic condition, fiscal stimulus in the way of increased government spending is the one thing that will work. Do we know the long-term effects? No, since the last time we did this we got a World War that changed everything.

    We have to take into consideration that we in the US are not the superpower that we used to be, nor will be ever be again. That ship has sailed, and Asia is poised to take over in the next 5-10 years. So investing in our countries infrastructure, stabilizing our economy and converting and diversifying our workforce is the only chance we have of ever being competitive.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Norcross,

    The US may not be the superpower it used to be, but Asia is hardly poised to 'take over', whatever that means. I wish people would retire the yellow-scare rhetoric, I've heard this all before back in the 80's. I know you may not mean it that way, but I've heard enough isolationist good old boys and "America needs humbling!" fantasists to make me sensitive to that type of language.

    The nice thing about trading partners is that the relationship is symbiotic. Asia doesn't require the US to fail in order to succeed economically. In fact, it will ultimately behoove the US to encourage their economic growth and development. Production is the only way to increase wealth. Wealthy capitalist countries tend to be peaceful countries.

    Anyway, Japan has seen some tough economic times since they were said to be 'taking over', I wonder how well their stimulus spending went?
    If anything, it's the sort of government meddling P.E. Obama proposes that has stalled Japan's economic growth.

    China has a massive demographic issue that will need to be addressed pronto, a problem that will dramatically slow their economic progress. It's a problem that was specifically caused by the manifestation of centrally-planned government-knows-best ideology.

    I digress, Milena's point is sound. The state will need to pay for infrastructure and for whatever it is that they claim will 'stabilize' the economy. (No really! This time I promise it'll work!) Where is the money coming from? The Government doesn't produce anything, so, are we borrowing it? Are we taking it? Are we printing it? None of these ideas sound stimulating to me.
    ReplyDelete
  3. I find part of this argument false. The government does create money out of nothing with their "stimulus/bailout" packages. I really wish they were just "redistributing" the wealth because that would be less harmful than what they air doing.

    The e-movie Zeitgeist explains how they do this very well. The end result is that the same thing is happening to us, that has happened to any country that creates money out of the ether to pay it's debt.

    Though I am happy that Obama won instead of McCain. This way people get to see how the current political parties and government, fail.
    ReplyDelete
  4. If only there would be a boycott and all monies returned from whence they came...
    ReplyDelete
  5. http://tinyurl.com/895hnz99015344

    Check it out!
    ReplyDelete

I'm curious to see what you are thinking...