"The US spends too much"

[Seattle]

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy..."
attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler
However, he, most likely, never said these exact words
However------worth thinking about?

Yes, it's a known weakness. Aristotle wasn't a fan, one of our founding fathers (can't remember which one or the exact wording) said something to the effect that for a Democracy to work the voters had to work hard to be educated on the issues or it wouldn't work out well. There was also the idea that voters should be "qualified" voters as in land owners or those who had something at stake.

 

[pjdude1219]

Definitely agreed there. Higher taxes result in more government spending, which does stimulate the economy to an extent. But it is not efficient stimulus; there are entire industries out there now who specialize in bilking the government out of money. (I worked for one for a few years before I couldn't take it any more.) So the end result is lower productivity and lower overall economic output.

I think there is a reasonable argument for some government-spending stimulus during severe economic downturns. But that has to be countered by reduced spending when the economy is doing well, so the net result is not crushing debt.

id find that viewpoint a whole lot more tenable if it wasn't for the fact things that are best for the economy are first things anyone wants to cut. money for the poor

 

[billvon]

id find that viewpoint a whole lot more tenable if it wasn't for the fact things that are best for the economy are first things anyone wants to cut. money for the poor

"Money for the poor" sufficient to allow the poor not to work has a pretty disastrous economic effect. In a very real sense, all wealth is based on labor of one form or another. Reduce the labor in a society and the total output of that society decreases.

There is a misconception that some people have that rich people have this money machine that just cranks out more and more money, thus you can build a pipeline that goes money machine -> rich people -> government -> poor people. And you can try to set that up, but it's missing the fact that those poor people play an integral role in the economy. Factory workers build cars. Retail workers sell stuff. Agricultural workers harvest crops. Clerical and admin staff keeps companies running. (And of course not all of them are poor, but that's often who performs those jobs.)

To put it another way, they do have that money machine, but it's based on an entire economic system. Pull out the foundations and the system slows down, and there's not as much money to be had any more. (And if you continue it you start a vicious cycle of declining economic output.)

Now, you can certainly argue that the way money is being spent right now is not very efficient, and you could do more to help the poor. Definitely agreed there. But I am not a fan of solutions like UBI. It has too many downsides.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

"Money for the poor" sufficient to allow the poor not to work has a pretty disastrous economic effect. In a very real sense, all wealth is based on labor of one form or another. Reduce the labor in a society and the total output of that society decreases.

There is a misconception that some people have that rich people have this money machine that just cranks out more and more money, thus you can build a pipeline that goes money machine -> rich people -> government -> poor people. And you can try to set that up, but it's missing the fact that those poor people play an integral role in the economy. Factory workers build cars. Retail workers sell stuff. Agricultural workers harvest crops. Clerical and admin staff keeps companies running. (And of course not all of them are poor, but that's often who performs those jobs.)

To put it another way, they do have that money machine, but it's based on an entire economic system. Pull out the foundations and the system slows down, and there's not as much money to be had any more. (And if you continue it you start a vicious cycle of declining economic output.)

Now, you can certainly argue that the way money is being spent right now is not very efficient, and you could do more to help the poor. Definitely agreed there. But I am not a fan of solutions like UBI. It has too many downsides.

Isn't one of the goals of civilization is to make labor irrelevant? To get Artificial Intelligence to think for us? To instruct Data from Star Trek to make donuts for the rest of his existence? (Oh, and, many other things.)

 

[pjdude1219]

"Money for the poor" sufficient to allow the poor not to work has a pretty disastrous economic effect. In a very real sense, all wealth is based on labor of one form or another. Reduce the labor in a society and the total output of that society decreases.

There is a misconception that some people have that rich people have this money machine that just cranks out more and more money, thus you can build a pipeline that goes money machine -> rich people -> government -> poor people. And you can try to set that up, but it's missing the fact that those poor people play an integral role in the economy. Factory workers build cars. Retail workers sell stuff. Agricultural workers harvest crops. Clerical and admin staff keeps companies running. (And of course not all of them are poor, but that's often who performs those jobs.)

To put it another way, they do have that money machine, but it's based on an entire economic system. Pull out the foundations and the system slows down, and there's not as much money to be had any more. (And if you continue it you start a vicious cycle of declining economic output.)

Now, you can certainly argue that the way money is being spent right now is not very efficient, and you could do more to help the poor. Definitely agreed there. But I am not a fan of solutions like UBI. It has too many downsides.

except for the fact UBI doesn't cause less people to work. in the experiments done it increased work the preceived down sides of UBI are more the fantasies of rightwing talking points than anything factual. but you missed the entire point which is its alway welfare and money for the poor thats the first thing to be cut in the name of we spend to much which is money that actually boosts the economy. the stuff that gets kept does fuck all for the economy.

 

[Seattle]

except for the fact UBI doesn't cause less people to work. in the experiments done it increased work the preceived down sides of UBI are more the fantasies of rightwing talking points than anything factual. but you missed the entire point which is its alway welfare and money for the poor thats the first thing to be cut in the name of we spend to much which is money that actually boosts the economy. the stuff that gets kept does fuck all for the economy.

Transferring money from the government to the poor doesn't do much for the economy. It may be necessary but it's not boosting the economy.

I like the experiments that have been done regarding UBI. That's how most projects should be started rather than just guessing that something might work or be a good idea.

UBI can mean many things to many people. To some it means paying people not to work. That's not a good idea unless it turns out (in the future) that more jobs are being displaced by AI and automation than are being created.

Usually more jobs are created by new technology. It is possible that in the future that won't be the case, who knows? If that were to be the case then there might be a place for some type of UBI. Technology is deflationary. If technology were to become so pervasive that net jobs were being permanently lost then the cost of UBI would be less as well since the cost of everything would be going down as well.

The experiments in UBI that I'm aware of (aren't conclusive as there isn't enough data yet) are cases where a small group are given a small amount of money with no strings attached (which I also think is the right approach) and at the end of the experiment people tend to have more money thus indicating that they didn't just take the money and work less.

When the amount of money is targeted to the right groups and when the amount is kept small enough, it does tend to show people who continue to work hard, have less stress and it can give them a breather to maybe quit a second job, enroll in some educational programs, start a sideline business, etc.

I think the experiments in UBI are a positive thing. When populism, politics and emotionalism gets involved it may just turn into another wasteful government program but any experiments that are thoughtful and rigorous are a good thing IMO.

Regarding cutting government spending, that's always a good idea when we are running large deficits. Arguing that one party only wants to cut when the other party is in power is beside the point. That's what parties do. No one is arguing that either political party has a clue.

The answer to poverty, to the extent that there is one, isn't more money from the government. It's largely an individual thing. The reason that some people are poor isn't because the government isn't giving them enough money.

This idea that giving poor people money is helping the economy more than letting those who earn that money keep more of it is ridiculous. Rich people (as a whole) aren't "wasting" money. They are the source of more of it (by definition).

Those who are wealthier than average tend to be better allocators of resources than the average person. That's a good thing and not something to change.

 

[billvon]

except for the fact UBI doesn't cause less people to work. in the experiments done it increased work

I have seen several of those studies, and have seen studies that show both results i.e. UBI does not cause lower employment or higher inflation, vs. studies that show it causes both. It would also require truly massive increases in taxation (as in doubling of current tax rates.) Like I said, I am not a fan. There is absolutely value in programs that support people who have lost their jobs, and I support both existing programs that provide assistance for that and for changes/additions to those programs.

One of the problems inherent to all those studies is that they are limited. They will provide UBI to (say) 125 people in a community for a year to see what happens. That's not a good representation of what would happen society-wide if such a scheme were implemented, because economic effects (inflation, reduction of labor, change in allocation of healthcare resources) are not seen.

UBI can have some good outcomes for many people. But there are better ways to get the desired outcomes of UBI (better health care, reduction of poverty, increase in availability of education.)

 

[billvon]

Isn't one of the goals of civilization is to make labor irrelevant?

?? Nope. It's to provide a common framework for supporting communities of people. Humans work at things; technology makes that work easier/more productive. The goal is not (and should not be) to eliminate that work.

 

[Seattle]

But there are better ways to get the desired outcomes of UBI (better health care, reduction of poverty, increase in availability of education.)

I'm not a proponent of UBI in general (just for the record). I'm just curious as to your thoughts on the "reduction of poverty" aside from UBI.

Do you think that reducing poverty is largely up to the government? Do think think that poverty is something that can be reduced past a certain point? Do you think that the individual has more responsibility for reducing poverty than the government?

There are societal reasons that have helped lead to poverty but there are individual reasons in general that play a greater role IMO.

What are your thoughts? Does an individual lead him/herself out of poverty or does it require the government generally speaking?

 

[billvon]

Do you think that reducing poverty is largely up to the government?

Two ways to answer that.

One is philosophical. Does the government have a responsibility to provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States? Per the Constitution, yes. Does that extend to reducing poverty? From precedents, yes; there have been a very large number of projects in the US intended to employ people and allow them to work. Does that extend to giving them a UBI? I would argue no, but I could also see arguments that it does - again, based on the Constitution and on other precedents.

The second is practical. If a UBI reduces the need for federal poverty programs, reduces crime, increases employment, increases tax revenue and reduces population growth, all those have values that you can calculate (or at least estimate.) If the value of those things exceeds the cost of the program, then it would be worthwhile from a practical viewpoint. I have doubts that that would happen. But if a good enough experiment could be proposed I would support the experiment, because then we could make better decisions on it.

What are your thoughts? Does an individual lead him/herself out of poverty or does it require the government generally speaking?

I think it's a curve. At one end there will be people who will always be poor even if you give them money. At the other end you will have people who will be successful no matter what life throws in their way. MOST people are able to lead themselves out. A few people (including some people I have met) simply do not have the resources.

Near the lower end there will be people whose lives are improved by a UBI, and such a program will get them out of poverty. It will be a fairly narrow slice, certainly smaller than the number of people living in poverty today (i.e. it won't work for everyone.) In the US about 11% of the population lives in poverty; let's say you can help 2/3 of them with a UBI. Is helping 6% of the population worth the cost? Again, hard to say since we don't have enough data on the results of such a program.

 

[Luchito]

This is not only about "spending" but also about "stealing"

One example.

Building a gas station in Afghanistan costs to any investor $450,000.

However, the news years ago said that building a gas station it did cost $45,000,000 to the army. One must understand when it says "the army" it involves the high range military and private contractors with the US government.

Later, the amount of the cost was reduced to $4.500,ooo, explaining that the former amount was a "typo".

Still, there is a huge difference between $4,500,000 and 450,000.

Somehow the army "overpaid" the US contractors to build such gas station.

However, when one realizes that is not twice the standard amount but 10 times more, then this is not called "over spending" anymore but "stealing legally".

The cost of $450,000the gas station includes everything, and is ready to start functioning right away. Same with the $4,500,000 gas station.

The situation is that the contractors went rich just by doing the contract with the US government, and this implies that people working in the US government are also taking their cut from those millions of dollars.

Another example is the building of the Air Force 1, which was in the billions dollars budget, but our beloved president Trump impeded for that kind of contract to be fulfilled at such a cost. Some ones in the Obama administration for sure received their cut from those billions of dollars, as well the company involved was to become way richer with such a contract.

I did work for government for about two decades and witnessed how the price of the cost of things was inflated at the time to make a new budget, and I understood that our agency was not over spending but some ones inside were stealing .

And this is what is going on in most of the government agencies, local, State and Federal, and nobody can stop them. No one makes auditions to check the amounts presented.

 

[Luchito]

And this is what is going on in most of the government agencies, local, State and Federal, and nobody can stop them. No one makes auditions to check the amounts presented.

The word is audits.