|
Post by brandt on Jan 19, 2012 1:26:53 GMT 10
That isn't ideological. The government has to be an actor in the economy under the Keynesian approach. If you want omission you would have to trust the free market and those pesky speculators.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 19, 2012 13:39:16 GMT 10
All governments are "actors" in their economies.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 19, 2012 14:58:58 GMT 10
They are now due to the implementation of Keynesian economics. Before it is brought up, having laws against force and fraud does not constitute a government being an actor in an economy.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 19, 2012 16:08:52 GMT 10
They are now due to the implementation of Keynesian economics. Before it is brought up, having laws against force and fraud does not constitute a government being an actor in an economy. Governments have always been "actors" in their economies (they gather and spend funds).
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 20, 2012 1:23:24 GMT 10
Yes, and they buy ink pens for their offices. Is it necessary for a government to manipulate an economy?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 20, 2012 4:02:01 GMT 10
Yes, and they buy ink pens for their offices. Is it necessary for a government to manipulate an economy? What do you think of strategically accumulating surpluses in times of growth and spending them in times of recession, thereby moderating the boom / bust extremes of the economic cycle?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jan 20, 2012 7:55:06 GMT 10
If that were the case then intervention in the form of the printing press would be a silent confiscation would it not? Or silent taxation (like bracket creep) by governments (military adventures need to be paid for somehow). The largest non-discretionary expenditures in our government are for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 20, 2012 8:42:19 GMT 10
The largest non-discretionary expenditures in our government are for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Rightly so, and there is still a long way to go. They'd be affordable too, if not for the huge US military budget (about 40% of all global military spending).
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jan 20, 2012 8:52:04 GMT 10
The largest non-discretionary expenditures in our government are for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Rightly so, and there is still a long way to go. They'd be affordable too, if not for the huge US military budget (about 40% of all global military spending). No, they would have plenty of funds if, in the 1960's, the Democrats in charge of spending hadn't figured out they could rob the SS fund by putting the money into the General Fund and put an IOU in the SS fund. That being said, I'd like to see a cut back on military spending, as in not getting involved in other people's business and letting the rest of the world, who don't appreciate it anyway, fend for themselves. Europe wouldn't have had the luxury of their socialistic pipe dreams that have landed them in the poor house if they had had to fend off the Soviets all those years.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 20, 2012 12:12:56 GMT 10
Who accumulates the surpluses or decides what the surpluses are?
You may be surprised but I don't think that it is the place of government to redistribute wealth. It seems to be nigh impossible to do without taking it from others by force. Nobody has yet been able to explain to me how it is immoral to steal from your neighbor but it is the highest morality to use force through proxy to do so.
|
|