What's an optimal level of government spending?

Yes. And higher positive ROI pays even more. That's the point I'm making. It's a pretty elementary concept in finance -- like if there's an investment available that will get me 0.1% above inflation over the next 20 years, if I lock it up that long, even though that's technically a positive ROI, it's also a garbage investment, since I have lots of options likely to pay a lot better. So, I don't think it's enough to simply require that spending have a positive ROI for it to be optimal. We'd also need to know what the opportunity cost is, in terms of the private-sector spending that would have happened if the government weren't using the money.

Anyway, I think generally we under-invest, by way of government, so I think this is more of a theoretical issue in the US... but it could be a more significant problem in countries that may have too much government spending as a share of GDP (e.g., France or Denmark).

I think we agree except around the edges. I do agree there is opportunity cost associated with any investment. Can’t spend it in two places.
 
If you had any sense you would have noticed that our friend Mina suggested we coulld borrow money to DECREASE taxes.

Run along and let the grownups talk.

That’s not possible. But I understand the argument apparently you don’t. Sorry about that.
 
That’s not possible. But I understand the argument apparently you don’t. Sorry about that.

Apparently neither does that mina person.

TBH I think both of you motherfuckers are as full of shit as the day is long.

Probably both you motherfuckers have Platinum EBT cards. :laugh:
 
what's the inflation rate? gas prices? food prices?

Higher than normal. As in all economies, there are good features and bad.


too many to list here, but it would also stop paying for alot of unconstitutional agencies and programs as well

Unfortunately, conservatives tend to use "unconstitutional" as a way to refer to any program they don't personally happen to like.
 
About 25 to 30% of GDP. Anything more and you drag down the economy pretty severely.

wouldn't 0% be optimal?

government produces nothing and only takes from those that do produce

if we can find a solution where government no longer needs to take from the productive - how is that not optimal?
 
wouldn't 0% be optimal?

government produces nothing and only takes from those that do produce

if we can find a solution where government no longer needs to take from the productive - how is that not optimal?

It would be absolutely sub-optimal. It would be a financial disaster. Imagine a world where there are no roads to deliver goods. Imagine a world where there is no judicial system to decide disputes. To go to such a world would see GDP drop to almost nothing.
 
Back
Top