Please Drew, read the bit I wrote about opportunity cost. Then go and read up on the concept. It is something which is completely non-controversial between all the schools of economic thought I'm familiar with.
Mate, I'm very aware of the concept of opportunity cost. The problem is you're starting from the point that the government should play absolutely no role in the economy except to allow free trade and markets to rule. Its the presupposition you use.
Consequently, you claim the government stifles those markets and trade whenever it dribbles its feet in the water. This is the opportunity cost; government jobs or free market jobs.
The issue is you've distorted an economic principle to suit your own view of how the economy should run. If I have an apple and an orange, and can only purchase one, the opportunity cost is I miss out on one to get the other. Its very simple. But you're suggesting the government, the purchaser, should not buy the apple or the orange and allow other people to buy them.
Where your argument falls down is someone needs to actually
buy the apple for the seller to get the money. You're suggesting it is better for free markets to determine it all, but I'm suggesting governments are a viable entity when run correctly and should be allowed the chance to buy the apple if it means it can pay someone or feed someone or contribute to the furthering of the society we live in.
After all, markets are only there to allow society to continue; they are not the sole entity from which everything circles.
Besides, no government = anarchy, and frankly I don't want that.
To address your specific example: the government has no funds of its own to build an airport. The government can only build said airport by confiscating the funds from the private sector (either in the form of tax or debt, or both). This siphoning of funds shrinks the economy, by definition. It slows growth, it costs jobs, it shrinks the overall wealth of the people. Now the government funds the airport, and the money flows back into the economy. The question is, what is the net overall benefit or cost of this transaction? Does it really stimulate more economic activity than it destroyed to obtain the funding?
Look at it this way: every dollar the government takes, no matter where it is redirected, would have been used for some activity or other in private hands (either now or in the future). The question is, who are the more productive, efficient directors of economic activity: private citizens, or bureaucrats? Who are better at investing wealth in ways that generate more wealth: the people or the government?
You do realise Adam Smith wasn't totally right, and Alan Greenspan was if not directly responsible for the GFC, then at the least a major reason for it? Complete government deregulation leads to market meltdown because noone can then control the greed of the super rich. Bloody hell, it is that simple.
You are so so so wrong on so many things. I honestly do not know if I have the time to invest in showing you why.
I will say one thing though.
Now the government funds the airport, and the money flows back into the economy. The question is, what is the net overall benefit or cost of this transaction? Does it really stimulate more economic activity than it destroyed to obtain the funding?
The market sees more consistent returns over the years BECAUSE the project was enacted. If the airport cost 1000 dollars, and there were 1000 citizens, and the average revenue was 5000 per year and the average wage per year 50 dollars, and the number of jobs created were 100, then
of course if makes sense for the government to tax the citizens 1 dollar each, to create 100 citizens a job, then tax the revenue of the airport so it can make FUTURE infrastructure investments that generate more jobs.
So in essence, yes - the government doing it is right. The issue is the current process is prone to greed
because of free markets and so the government isn't able to actually produce the airport for the right cost.
Have you read Lenin and Marx? Have you read Smith, Greenspan? Have you read Owen and Hayek? Economic thought is so varied and diverse and dependent on so many things. The West's fixation with capitalism and free markets have completely destroyed the natural economic movements a free market should have through greed and wealth hoarding.
You need to open your mind a bit. Government intervention in economic situation is, when applied correctly, a positive thing to market stimulation.
Shouldn't the respective, tax exempt churches pay for the ability to spread their religion to impressionable children? If we're talking counsellors, I'm all for it, but given who is in power, I sincerely doubt he's worried about something airy like 'feelings'.
Its more complicated than that [/QUOTE]
f**k me Labor supporters are blind. Both major parties routinely screw over their constituents. It is what political parties do. Labor are just more subtle and clever about it.
Rubbish. Both are as good as the other. Liberals maintained the longest two stretches of government (Menzies and Howard) through excellent propaganda machines.
