Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Stimulus Package important

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 11 Replies | 6 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
289 Posts
Points 9,530
Kenneth posted on Sat, Feb 13 2010 11:43 AM

I argue that stimulus package doesn't work because it misallocates capital from the sectors that need them to the unproductive sectors. Socialist says government investments in education, health care, and infrastructure are very important as these are all basic to an economy. How can you say these are unproductive!? He says.

 

How do you counter the argument that health care, education, and infrastructure are very important so government must invest in those to heal the economy?

 

All Replies

Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,255 Posts
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
263 Posts
Points 5,075
Moderator

Don't let him be on the offense in discussions like this. Turn it right back on him. If education, health care and infrastructure are so important, then government MUST not be involved with them.  Government can't calculate. Government can't economize. Government can't determine what is most valuable. It will always be more wasteful with scarce resources than the market. As with all monopolies, government causes higher prices and lower quality.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
2,966 Posts
Points 53,250
Answered (Not Verified) DD5 replied on Sat, Feb 13 2010 12:37 PM

 

 

Kenneth:
Socialist says government investments in education, health care, and infrastructure are very important as these are all basic to an economy.

And all such investments must be coordinated by the market in order for them to be productive, that is, they must add something to the wealth available without impairing the satisfaction of wants that are considered to be more urgent by consumers.  The market coordinates production according to consumer demand. Such coordination is only possible by resorting to economic calculation.  Profits signal to entrepreneurs that consumers approve of their action (efficient use of resources) and losses signal to them that consumers disapprove.  

Government does not operate by profit and loss so it lacks the above method of calculation.  There is no possible method by which the government can utilize those same resources more efficiently even if they all tried very hard.  All government spending does is divert capital (scarce resources) from the productive process described above, to the hands of politicians who now arbitrarily, or more accurately, according to their own political considerations, must decide on how to utilize those resources.  Whatever amount government spends, the same amount must be subtracted from the private sector.  They spend 1 Billion on a highway or whatever, that is 1 Billion less of stuff that that market would have made in order to satisfy consumers.  All government spending does is substitute the value judgement of politicians for the value judgement of consumers.  

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,249 Posts
Points 70,775

Walter Block has argued that food is much more vital than anything else. Yet no one is demanding that govt take over the food market.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
2,956 Posts
Points 56,800

Smiling Dave:

Walter Block has argued that food is much more vital than anything else. Yet no one is demanding that govt take over the food market.

You can bet someone would argue for that if starvation became a national problem.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
4,532 Posts
Points 84,495

Smiling Dave:

Walter Block has argued that food is much more vital than anything else. Yet no one is demanding that govt take over the food market.

They did back in war time, but food controls literally leave a bad taste in your mouth, so ultimately they have to be abandoned.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
289 Posts
Points 9,530

But doesn't your argument only apply to government TAKEOVERS of health care, education, and infrastructure? Stimulus packages only give money to private firms in the chosen sector. So they can still somewhat calculate since they are part of the free market.

Top 50 Contributor
2,360 Posts
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Sat, Feb 13 2010 7:50 PM

Kenneth:

But doesn't your argument only apply to government TAKEOVERS of health care, education, and infrastructure? Stimulus packages only give money to private firms in the chosen sector. So they can still somewhat calculate since they are part of the free market.

A bureaucrat giving calculated capital to anybody is exactly what the Calculation Problem argues against, and by no means can that be a part of any free market

Z.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
263 Posts
Points 5,075
Moderator

Kenneth:

But doesn't your argument only apply to government TAKEOVERS of health care, education, and infrastructure? Stimulus packages only give money to private firms in the chosen sector. So they can still somewhat calculate since they are part of the free market.

DD5:

All government spending does is divert capital (scarce resources) from the productive process described above, to the hands of politicians who now arbitrarily, or more accurately, according to their own political considerations, must decide on how to utilize those resources.  Whatever amount government spends, the same amount must be subtracted from the private sector.  They spend 1 Billion on a highway or whatever, that is 1 Billion less of stuff that that market would have made in order to satisfy consumers.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
289 Posts
Points 9,530

I agree but it's just hard to convince someone that things like health care and education are not wanted by the consumer.

Top 150 Contributor
Male
694 Posts
Points 11,400
Joe replied on Mon, Feb 15 2010 5:13 AM

Kenneth:

I agree but it's just hard to convince someone that things like health care and education are not wanted by the consumer.

I have a good feeling that in a free market, there would still be a demand (and a supply) for them Big Smile

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (12 items) | RSS