Why do people seem to randomly hate on government works?

[GIGObuster]

@njtt

It is a huge lie, that benefits only large corporations and the very wealthy, and hurts most people and degrades the quality of their lives, but it is large corporations and the very wealthy who control the almost all the U.S. media, so that is the message that most people mostly hear. Many end up believing it.

Many of the ones disparaging government that way need to go back to school; the reality is that, sure, corporations are a big part of how America became a great power, but government did help and continues to help a lot.

So, all these new economic features–roads, canals, railroads, telegraphs, factories–they all required massive up-front capital investment. Like, you just can’t build a canal in stages as it pays for itself. So, without more modern banking systems and people willing to take risks, none of this would have happened. Some of these investments were facilitated by new business organizations, especially the Limited Liability Corporation, which enabled investors to finance business ventures without being personally responsible for losses other than their own. In other words, corporations can fail without, like, ruining their stockholders and directors.

People don’t always like that, by the way, but it’s been very good for economic growth in the last 180 years or so.

So having angered a bunch of people by talking about the important role that big businesses played in growing the American Economy in the 19th century, I will now anger the rest of you by talking about the important role that the state played.

In the 1830s, states began passing general incorporation laws, which made it easier to create corporations, and the Supreme Court upheld them and protected them from further interference in cases like Gibbons vs. Ogden, which struck down a monopoly that New York had granted to one steamboat company. And the Charles River Bridge case, which said that building a second bridge over the Charles River did not infringe upon the charter of the first bridge. In both those cases, the court was using its power to encourage competition. And this brings up something really important about the growth of American capitalism: Government. Helped. The federal government built roads and canals and its highest court protected businesses, and states issued bonds to build canals and offered sweetheart deals to companies that built railroads. And despite what we may believe about the heroic risk-taking entrepreneurs building the American economy through solitary efforts, without the government protecting their interests, they wouldn’t have been able to do much.

[bldysabba]

@GIGObuster

That is nice, it is still not the view of most experts.

Ideology and Economics - The New York Times

Er, thanks for the cite, since it bears out my side of the argument. I was responding to the claim that “those who oppose fiscal stimulus in the wake of the 2008 crash don’t understand economics.”
Your cite says effectiveness was agreed upon by 80% of the panel, but as to whether or not it was desirable? (I mean surely you agree that desirability of a measure ought to trump effectiveness?)

There was a lot more uncertainty over whether the Act was a good idea, but among those who did have a view, the yeas outnumbered the nays almost three to one.

So in a panel of top economists, quite a few think it is not clear whether or not the stimulus was desirable, and more than 1/4th of those who are willing to make a claim say that it wasn’t desirable. Yet, it’s ok to state that “those who oppose fiscal stimulus in the wake of the 2008 crash don’t understand economics.”?

ETA: In fact, that same article goes on to quote three Nobel prize winners in economics who do NOT advocate stimulus. I suppose we should regard these people as not understanding economics either, simply because they disagree with policy prescriptions that our side wants?

[bldysabba]

@Terr

I would say it is ok to tax on federal level in order to finance foreign policy (state dept), the military and the politicians’ salaries. On local/state level you can tax for whatever you want, because voting with your feet is a lot easier.

I urge you to consider other public goods that have large scale externalities which can operate at a national level. Vaccination for example. In general, a ‘public goods’ paradigm is very useful for thinking about taxation and its appropriate uses.

[knel3030]

If you are refering to the USA, then the current paradigm seems to be the Terrorists. Theyre everywhere! They’re in the library, working at the factory, hiding under every rock, hell, all those foreign nations are just chockfull of terrorists.
Monies can’t be spent on programs that can ensure a healthy and happy population that could actually explore the universe, or provide food to the starving, or provide a backbone for a culture with any hope of longevity, cause there’s TERRORISTS everywhere!
The only program I’ve actually ever felt happy to have my tax money go to is NASA, but now they’re really struggling to get enough funding for all their programs, cause of terrorists, and prisons, and guns.

[Terr]

@bldysabba

I urge you to consider other public goods that have large scale externalities which can operate at a national level. Vaccination for example. In general, a ‘public goods’ paradigm is very useful for thinking about taxation and its appropriate uses.

Some of the individual states in the US are bigger than most countries. Any such taxation can be done at state level. The taxation purposes that I suggested are federal, not state, interests.

[GIGObuster]

@bldysabba

ETA: In fact, that same article goes on to quote three Nobel prize winners in economics who do NOT advocate stimulus. I suppose we should regard these people as not understanding economics either, simply because they disagree with policy prescriptions that our side wants?

Again, what you claim is ignoring what the consensus is; sure, you can say your position is is valid, but not well supported, there are **more **Nobel laureates that tell you that the Stimulus was a good idea.

[bldysabba]

@Terr

Some of the individual states in the US are bigger than most countries. Any such taxation can be done at state level. The taxation purposes that I suggested are federal, not state, interests.

I hear you, but there are many public goods that apply across land masses. Air pollution for instance, does not respect state borders. Since voting with your feet is easy, germs do not respect state borders either. There are other such examples.

Public goods that can be effectively controlled at local level definitely should be - as you point out, it allows easier monitoring by those who are being taxed and competition to allow the requisite dynamic adjustment in policy.

[bldysabba]

@GIGObuster

Again, what you claim is ignoring what the consensus is; sure, you can say your position is is valid, but not well supported, there are **more **Nobel laureates that tell you that the Stimulus was a good idea.

To the best of my knowledge, no such consensus exists. The Krugman article you link to only backs up what I know/think. Let me be clear though - I do not necessarily oppose the stimulus the US government brought in. I simply don’t know enough about it to have a very informed opinion on that matter. I do know enough about it however, to know that it is nowhere near as settled a question as Budget Cadet (and perhaps you?) seem to think.

[GIGObuster]

@bldysabba

To the best of my knowledge, no such consensus exists. The Krugman article you link to only backs up what I know/think. Let me be clear though - I do not necessarily oppose the stimulus the US government brought in. I simply don’t know enough about it to have a very informed opinion on that matter. I do know enough about it however, to know that it is nowhere near as settled a question as Budget Cadet (and perhaps you?) seem to think.

I don’t think is settled either, but the thing is if you are correct then no such stimulus would had been attempted, simple logic tells me that the majority recommended this and even the former administration did agree.

[bldysabba]

@GIGObuster

I don’t think is settled either, but the thing is if you are correct then no such stimulus would had been attempted, simple logic tells me that the majority recommended this and even the former administration did agree.

I can agree that a political near-consensus probably existed at the time of the recession to carry out a stimulus. Without one, you’re correct that it would not have been carried out. What economists think is good policy and what policy gets implemented usually have very little in common.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Magiver

I can show you cement box culverts from the WPA. Heck I can show you canal structures that held up 150 years.

Culverts don’t have the direct impact of fully loaded trucks running right on top of them.

Canals have only erosion to damage them. No reason they wouldn’t last.

[Northern_Piper]

@Martin_Hyde

This transcends all levels of government. If the DMV was a privately run business, open to competition, it would be bankrupt in a month because no one would put up with such horrific service if there was a competitor out there. But there isn’t, because it’s the DMV, and you also basically have to engage in those service interactions with the DMV if you want to drive.

All the complaints about the DMV have always puzzled me, since I’ve never had to experience it, here in Canada.

I live in a province where we are required to buy our basic car insurance from the government-onwed insurance Crown corporation. That Crown corp is also responsible for the licence plates and the driver’s licence. Based on the US experience, you’d think it would be a nightmare to get your car insurance, your plates and your driver’s licence, right?

No, actually. The government farms out the actual administration of the DMV functions to private enterprise. To buy the plates, and insurance, and renew the driver’s licence, we just go to any private insurance agency, just like any other insurance needs. In and out in 5 or 10 minutes, in my experience.

So why, here in the socialist paradise have governments realised that a mixture of government policy and private enterprise service delivery can be very efficient, but not in the free enterprise United States? I just don’t get it.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Martin_Hyde

Defense is a cost center, it can never operate in the black and it would be strange to expect it to do so.

Edit to add: Speaking in the modern sense. Back when your army could pillage and enslave a bunch of people for profit, I’d imagine operating in the black was the norm. I don’t see that happening due to the realities of modern society, though, and various international norms.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the, er, Sultan?, Emir?, of Kuwaut: “Yeah, we can get your country back for you but it’s gonna cost – let’s say 75% of your oil production for the next 50 years.”

[bump]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

Yet it does seem to be a society that is strangely out of whack when recreational facilities supposedly for public enjoyment are gated and expected to operate “in the black”, when no such requirement is placed on the vastly more expensive defense budget.

WTF are you talking about? TPWD does operate well in the black- my point was that the state legislature turns around and steals their surplus to roll into other programs, and TPWD is usually kind of cash-strapped to do large-scale improvements, etc… as a result of the pilferage.

What you said above is kind of dumb; parks and other places like that can generate revenue, while the only way things like the military could turn a profit, would be if they went Roman-style and started conquering other countries for , loot.