"The country as a whole was hurt by the stimulus, despite the observed effects of the spending." -- Letter to the New York Times.
Let's see. That translates to: Government spending helped stimulate the economy, but the economy was hurt by government spending to help stimulate the economy.
It is true that government borrowing to stimulate the economy can "crowd out" private sector borrowing, but if the private sector is not borrowing, they are by definition not being crowded out.
A job is a job is a job, whether the paycheck comes from a private firm or from government. It sounds good to say, "Cut government payrolls" and to say "We need jobs" and that "The private sector will supply jobs."
But cutting a government payroll means putting people out of work, which contravenes the need for jobs. Yes, the private sector eventually will supply jobs. But when? In a couple of years, when the economy recovers on its own?
The 19th Century notion that left alone, in the long run the economic body will heal itself, is long outdated. But it's still here. A job for food, clothing and shelter is needed now, not in three years time.
And since when did the private sector employ teachers, police and firefighters? Road and bridge construction workers are employed by firms under contract to government.
In a crisis, someone must act. It matters not who. If private investors will not, government must.
No comments:
Post a Comment