Never did I say it was a random coincidence. In fact, I provided a rather detailed account of the confounders that I believe to be at play. PS While I don’t find your insult of my intellectual understanding necessary, I at least find it more relevant to the topic than your implied attack on my character, for which I cannot fathom a reason.
I am giving you an economic centric POV - which I would assert that is largely fact driven. You can debate how effective any particular govt program/spending is, and you can debate whether a govt program/spending has a positive net present value, but it is a fact that some government spending has positive NPV (as well as some spending that has negative NPV). When I am saying NPV, I am including the cost and the opportunity cost of the taxes that are collected that would be saved or spent elsewhere in the private sector. You, on the other hand, can’t get past the ideological POV that taxes are “bad” and government is “bad”. Everything after that just stops. What I am saying is not a “libbie” thing, it is standard ECON 101. What is debatable is which programs/spending generates net positive NPV, and which ones generate negative. Also, at some point, the sheer size of government spending, and applicable tax burden, may lead to marginal negative NPV of even otherwise positive NPV projects. What size of government and what degree of taxes are the most optimal is a subject for debate and tends to be influenced heavily by ideology.
Tilly, dude, what are you proposing to do with the baby born addicted because their mother didn't care? There have been plenty of other scenarios mentioned on Too Hot. I know you agree that there is no safety nets in place for these forced birthed children. I'm sure it's a horrific thing for a two year old who is looking for a parent's love only to get beatings until they die from physical damage or starvation. This is a slippery slope that will result in more deaths, not less. Taking away rights is wrong. Did we not learn anything from the history of abortion bans? Sigh, I guess not.
While govt can indirectly influence and generate wealth….I remain unconvinced. It cannot directly create wealth. I can get past the idea of paying taxes. See up thread my comments with dangole. You have skipped over the all important piece of how government is funded. What it does next with our tax dollars is ancillary to the point. It cannot first exist without private enterprise.
How about we try this? Why don’t you just give me 100,000.00 every year and I’ll play with it, invest it and see what happens. And I’ll keep receiving this money no matter how successful or unsuccessful I am….I’ll probably hit on some of my investments and then I can say hey, look! I created wealth! Lol. I could also invest in a daycare/preschool….some of these children will do well with the education I provided. Boom, I created wealth. This is about as absurd as you thinking govt creates wealth.
I am not sure how, nor is it my job to “convince” you. You seem to be playing word games as to what government is. That is why i usually say government spending. No one is proposing that 100% government run economy is going to generate net wealth. Most successful economies are a hybrid of private sector with a public sector component. I’d ask the question - do you think if we had NO government at all, none, we would collectively be wealthier? If your answer is no, then you have proved my point. If your answer is yes then no further conversation is even productive.
You’re going philosophical to cover your ass. I already covered this question with dangole and river, yes we need some government. But for some odd reason you aren’t talking about how govt is funded. How it spends is the next piece and I’m not discussing that. It’s okay to admit that govt cannot exist, cannot pay its teachers, fire fighters or any other bureaucrat without taking taxes from individuals and businesses.
It's the result of right-wing brain washing. Atlas Shrugged is the bible to some. We see it on the left too. There is dogma on both sides that people cling to without critically thinking about it.
You are using an assumptive extreme rare case to justify a common wrong. Most unwanted children dont get beat to death and a great many end up being wanted and loved. At least have a better argument than we should abort millions of humans to protect the few that may get beaten. I mean I can make that argument among wanted children. They get beaten to death too.
You clearly have no understanding of economics (which is excusable) and zero willingness to learn (which isn’t )
I know many intelligent, successful people. None who made any money from the govt. They all say what I am saying. Maybe you’re points about government are best suited for the classroom and not in real life.
And there it is. Some folks over value the basic shit government can do. After all, it cannot generate a revenue stream without the amazing working folks. Why anyone would praise bureaucracy over the private sector is extremely telling. Sad.
1. Do you disagree with the trucking statement? 2. Who exactly is praising bureaucracy over the private sector?
Your first question is answered by your second question. You seem to be enthusiastic about those amazing govt roads. But you already knew this.
Because who in their right mind brags about who built the roads? Lol. It’s not wrong, it’s interesting to me that you thought to say it. I guess if you’re a bureaucrat,or a govt buddy, that’s a pretty significant accomplishment. You took in other peoples earnings, and hired competent people to build something that has been done over many times. Sure that’s awesome.
