PDA

View Full Version : Article: Does Government Spending Bring Prosperity?




LibertyEagle
05-30-2009, 04:05 AM
Does Government Spending Bring Prosperity?
By Percy L. Greaves Jr. • June 1975

Professor Greaves is a free-lance economist and lecturer. His recent books include Understanding the Dollar Crisis and Mises Made Easier (Glossary for Human Action).

Many leaders in high places now promise us that our government will never again permit poverty and depression to devastate our land. They propose more government spending as a cure for every economic evil. And millions of people believe that such a program will work.

The underlying philosophy behind political spending is not new. Similar ideas have appeared throughout all history. They came to full flower shortly after the economic collapse of 1929, when unbalanced budgets were generally accepted as necessary economic measures for relieving those in distress. You could not let innocent people starve, could you?

People pointed to idle factories, unemployed workers and their unsatisfied wants. All we need to do, they said, is to get the government to start priming the pump. A little government spending would provide the would-be workers with the wherewithal to buy the things they desperately need. This would encourage businessmen to put the unemployed to work in the idle factories. This solution sounded so simple, and its political appeal was apparent. So we tried it.

People just plumb forgot all that economists had ever taught. Many desperate persons reached for whatever share they could get of the apparent prosperity that followed. Until war changed the picture, the price they paid was chronic unemployment by the millions. Are we now asking for a repeat performance?

Most people seem to forget that the government can pay out only what it borrows or collects in taxes. They also forget one of the most elementary facts of a free economy —men who will not accept going wage rates must remain unemployed. Likewise, they fail to understand the real causes of depressions. A logical examination of pertinent data would show them that it was Federal Reserve money manipulation that brought on the depression we all deplore. We Americans truly need to know some very simple economic facts.

No free man works, buys or sells unless he fully believes that such action will bring him greater satisfaction than he could enjoy if he did not take that action. This means that in a free economy no man ever takes a job at any wage unless he believes he is better off working at that wage than he would be if he did not take it. Likewise, no employer ever employs a man at any wage unless the employer feels that he will better his situation by employing that man at that wage. So, in a free economy, employees and employers believe that they have the best available terms. When they feel otherwise, they shift jobs or employees.

In the same vein, no woman ever buys a dress unless she believes that dress will bring her more satisfaction than any other use she could make of the same amount of money. On the other side of the transaction, no storekeeper ever sells a dress unless he places a higher value on the money he receives than he does on the dress he sells. As a result of the sale, both buyer and seller are happier.

Thus, in a free economy, every freely made transaction benefits all participants. Consequently, any interference with freely made transactions must result in a decrease in the satisfaction and happiness of all persons concerned. An economy that is free from restricting regulations thus permits its people to enjoy the greatest happiness they are capable of producing.

The Proper Sphere of Government

However, in order to enjoy the full pleasures of prosperity, it is necessary for peaceful people to be protected from all robbers, thieves and fraudulent schemers who seek something for nothing at the expense of their fellow-men. For this protective purpose, men have instituted governments. Governments, like all valuable assets, have a price. This price is collected in some form of taxes. Reasonable taxes are a legitimate expense for all protected persons, property and production. Taxes are like insurance premiums. In fact, a good government might be called a form of life, fraud and robbery insurance. It is as necessary for modern society as accident insurance is for every car driver of moderate means. Without it, the risk of living, owning property and driving might well involve financial risks that only a few could afford. Good governments permit people to pursue their pleasures and production while protected from the rascals who would infringe on their rights by force or fraud. Taxes paid for this protection are an investment which permits men to pursue their personal satisfaction and prosperity as each one sees fit.

If the government reduces both taxes and spending, it will leave more money in private hands. This money then can, and will, employ more people at higher real wages to make more of what people want most. The nation’s productive forces would be redirected toward satisfying the wants of productive persons, rather than satisfying those who were the recipients of government expenditures. In a free market economy, every worker and investor tends to seek those outlets which will produce what consumers want most, as indicated by the wages and prices consumers will pay. So workers and investors now engaged in satisfying political spending would soon find more profitable outlets satisfying the increased spending of private producers. Everyone would soon have more. That is not a depression. That is prosperity.

For the rest of the article:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/does-government-spending-bring-prosperity/

Objectivist
05-30-2009, 04:16 AM
To government employees it does.

Objectivist
05-30-2009, 04:19 AM
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before(1) and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I'm wrong... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good our promises.... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.... And an enormous debt to boot."

Words from the architect of the New Deal on May 9th, 1939.
His name, Henry Morganthau Jr. then Treasury Secretary and FDRs friend and neighbor.

ChaosControl
05-30-2009, 06:21 AM
Answer, no.

However with some ways they measure the economic growth, government spending is included. Take GDP, government spending is part of the equation. Okay so if government spends more than it taxes, GDP is going to increase simply because more is spent to produce in America, at the expense of the future of course. So you'll have an inflated GDP so that people in the future can look back and say "hey guys FDR was the man, GDP grew so much since he took over" and use that as "evidence" that it helps the economy.

In reality it doesn't, it provides perhaps a very short term lift, but then a long term slump follows. It is like most medicine, it treats the symptom (GDP) rather than the cause. We've seen it in other nations too where they'll spend more and in the short term it helps a bit, but in the long term it just brings around a long recession or even a depression.

The best I could see it doing is turning a short term depression into a long term recession. More likely I'd say it'd take a short term depression turn it into a recession for a little while that'll just go back into a longer depression.

Of course how they spend money is also a factor, and government is highly inefficient when it comes to spending money wisely. Things get better if the government stays out of it. If you really want to bring about prosperity, scale back government and let the free markets reign, that'll improve everyone's standard of living. As it is now, the government behaves much like robber barons of the past. The rich and elite can escape it through all the loopholes, the middle class and poor get screwed over in some way or another.

There is this person who seems to love FDR though as he always points out how fast GDP grew under him. He fails to realize that GDP is not ultimately a good measure since it includes government spending into the equation, a better reflection would be how the GDP was after the spending stopped to see if things really improved, but they never look at that data.