Economists at Goldman Sachs have faced criticism for their analysis on the potential impact of a government shutdown on the economy [dcbfd6cf]. The article argues that government spending is not additive to growth, but rather a cost that hinders economic progress [dcbfd6cf]. It suggests that if the federal government consumed less wealth annually, the US economy could be bigger and more dynamic [dcbfd6cf]. The author criticizes Goldman Sachs economists for not recognizing the value of profit-motivated individuals in allocating resources efficiently [dcbfd6cf]. The article also questions why reporters are easily fooled by claims that a government shutdown will have a significant negative impact on the economy [dcbfd6cf].
This critique of government spending and its impact on the economy is part of a broader debate on the role of government in driving economic growth [dcbfd6cf]. The author concludes that government spending is not a driver of economic growth, but rather a burden that hampers private sector productivity [dcbfd6cf].
It is important to note that this article is an opinion piece and does not represent the views of all economists or financial institutions [dcbfd6cf]. However, it highlights a different perspective on the potential impact of a government shutdown on the economy.
The notion that spending money for war boosts the economy is a fallacy. The economic activity that never happens because the government is manufacturing artillery shells in 12 states is ignored. The broken window fallacy is used to illustrate this point, where the visible effects of military spending are considered, but the unseen economic activity that could have occurred is not. The article argues that breaking a window or engaging in war does not make society better off. The cost to others must be considered, and the billions spent on wars could have been used for other purposes. The fundamental economic problem is that people are forced to pay for things they don't really want. The American people lose out on economic activity they would have preferred to partake in when they are forced to pay for weapons and equipment. The article concludes that military spending does not lead to growth, but rather a forced transfer of wealth to weapons companies. [e01bc88a]
The article discusses the false claim that spending money on weapons is good for the economy, which is regularly repeated by political leaders. The Biden administration has been promoting the economic benefits of military outlays, particularly in relation to providing aid to Ukraine. However, the article argues that the short-term gains from increased arms spending are outweighed by the long-term damage caused by crowding out new industries and diverting funds from other urgent national priorities. It highlights the opportunity costs of excessive military spending, such as neglecting housing, education, public health, and environmental protection. The article also questions the effectiveness of military spending as an anti-poverty program and emphasizes the need to invest in addressing non-military needs. It suggests that redirecting funds from the Pentagon to domestic programs would require a comprehensive approach, including changes in budget priorities, increased federal revenues, and a crackdown on waste and abuse. The article concludes by advocating for a shift in American priorities to better serve all Americans and build a world for future generations. [58727e75]
Joe Biden wants you to believe that spending money on weapons is good for the economy. The Biden administration promoted the economic benefits of military outlays, particularly in relation to providing aid to Ukraine. However, the long-term damage caused by crowding out new industries and innovations, as well as diverting funds from other urgent national priorities, outweighs any short-term gains. The United States currently accounts for the largest share of global military spending, more than the next 15 countries combined. Redirecting funds from the military to domestic programs could create more jobs and address basic needs. The military-industrial complex's claim of military-fueled prosperity is an illusion that neglects the needs of millions of people and hinders progress towards a better future. Shifting budget priorities and increasing federal revenues are necessary for comprehensive change. The Poor People's Campaign proposes investing in domestic needs by cutting Pentagon spending and increasing tax revenues from the wealthy. War should be the exception, not the rule, in U.S. foreign policy. Military service comes with significant risks and downsides, and fighting poverty should be done directly, not as a side-effect of militarization. Overspending on the Pentagon and the unwillingness to tax the wealthy have hampered federal efforts to address poverty and inequality. Shifting funds from the military to domestic programs would require a major political undertaking and effective spending. The article concludes by highlighting the need to prioritize the needs of society over the military economy and to challenge the narrative of military-fueled prosperity. [0404f153]
The article discusses the concept of the 'Taylor Swift effect' and the use of economic multipliers to justify taxpayer subsidies. It highlights that economic multiplier claims are often flawed and misleading, as they only focus on the benefits and ignore the costs. The article mentions examples such as Taylor Swift's world tour, county fairs, Hollywood movie production, public transportation, and green energy projects, where self-serving interest groups use economic multipliers to make their case for taxpayer funding. It emphasizes the need for skepticism and critical questioning of these claims, as taxpayer funding should be carefully evaluated for its true value and impact. The article is written by Jared Skorup, Vice President of Marketing and Communications, and James M. Homan, Director of Fiscal Policy, at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. [3d77b236]
Military spending does not necessarily benefit the economy. Every dollar spent on defense is not spent on other public services, which can exacerbate inequality in the long run. The belief that the U.S. benefits from arms sales is also debunked, as the overall effect on the economy is low. Defense spending combined with tax cuts led to a significant increase in the budget deficit and the national debt. This increased the economy's dependence on borrowed funds, resulting in higher interest rates and limiting investment and consumption. The defense sector is relatively small within the overall economy. Investments in armaments do not contribute to long-term economic growth. Betting on military acceleration over long-term economic growth is a mistake. The article does not provide a clear answer to whether military spending is good for the economy, but it highlights the negative impacts and challenges the belief that it is beneficial. [12f6e97d]
Willie Mays, the legendary baseball player, also provides an example of the economic impact of war. Mays believed that his military service during the Korean War deprived him of the opportunity to hit 80 home runs in two seasons, which would have significantly impacted his baseball career. The article argues that Mays's story is a rebuke to the popular view among economists that war stimulates economic growth. It challenges the notion that war boosts consumption and economic activity by highlighting the unseen economic activity that could have occurred if resources were not allocated to war efforts. The article emphasizes that war leads to economic contraction, as wealth creation takes a back seat to armaments creation. It also points out that war removes individuals from productive work and their most specialized pursuits, further hindering economic growth. The example of Mays serves as a reminder of the negative economic consequences of war and questions the belief that it brings growth and prosperity. [c46c0de7]