Home | About | Donate

Revealed: Americans Care More About Social Needs Than Deficits

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/11/revealed-americans-care-more-about-social-needs-deficits

Gee, it’s almost like home economics and Homeland economics are two different things. Perhaps the answer lies in the location of the printing presses. I’ve looked all around my home and have yet to find one.

“When the policymakers and central bankers of the 1% are willing to break every rule in the economics textbook to protect and expand an unequal status quo, we shouldn’t be afraid to demand basic economic human rights first, and leave it to the economists to invent a way to pay for it.”

I might strengthen that a bit. In terms of our basic humanity it is our RESPONSIBILITY to DEMAND that the DEFICIT, present and future, that has been generated by the legacy predation practices be recognized, detailed and documented utilizing all tools for analysis we possess.

The non-profit sector has, since Citizens United, become a vast laundry operation for manipulation of policy. For any who might be interested in bookmarking its trove, ProPublica has the Non-Profit Explorer.

The problem is not really the understanding of the 90% or so that would care. The problem is the 1% and their hangers on (in the top 10%) who don’t - and they couldn’t give a rats ass for the vast majority of us.

Deficits are like black holes. Everyone has heard of them, but no one knows much about them. And few really are concerned about them. Ignorance is bliss I’ve heard.

Let’s get this straight. Whatever expenditure…must inject a hard item (like a road) or a service, that is inject into the overall US economy AN ITEM THAT IS OF VALUE TO THAT ECONOMY…that fosters said economy. Bolton & Pompeo want the exact opposite. F-35s are lemons. A war on Iran would not help the economy (ONLY Raytheon & Lockheed Martin). A war on Iran would be a lemon. The same goes for Trump’s border wall. And for under-performing private schools (and the reverse, shutting down public schools). The reverse also is laying off gov inspectors, and letting Monsanto inspect itself (for example). Money created for these things (not the policy change-arounds/reversals) would inflate my dollars. But the initial layout for Single Payer health insurance would, over time, NOT inflate my dollars, but enable them to BUY MORE…just like all the things the CCC built.

"Keynes still believed, and the empirical evidence confirms, that under depression conditions an increase in government spending can result in an increase in total output larger than the initial spending increase (a multiplier greater than one).

Of Spending and Multipliers

"In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, conservative economist Robert Barro declares, as a “plausible starting point,” that the multiplier actually equals zero. That’s what the dollar-for-dollar crowding-out theory means—an increase in government spending will be matched by equal decreases in private spending, and so will have zero effect on real GDP. When it comes to estimating the multiplier, based on historical data from 1943-1944, however, Barro finds that it is not zero, but 0.8.

“First, contrary to Barro’s intent, this is actually a disproof of dollar-for-dollar crowding out. It means that increased government spending brought about increased real GDP, though not by as much as the spending increase. It increased the production of public-sector goods by (much) more than it reduced the production of private-sector goods. Unless one views private-sector goods as intrinsically more valuable than public-sector goods, this is not an argument against government spending.” http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0509reusskeynespartI.html