You say "Sounds like..." and "You imply..." a lot.
Maybe you could try reading what I wrote and taking it at face value, or at least responding to it directly, instead of replying to some vague interpretation you drew from it.
Maybe I can choose whatever words that I want in order to most reasonably reflect what I would like to say?
What about that?
I am not an anarchist, and I am, for the most part, not inclined to generalization, but your every response seems to assume such of me, while at the same time not providing much, other than hand-wavy generalization as support for your own argument - if you really have any thing to say other than "Government is good. You are a fool not to blindly accept it as your savior, as I have".
The burden is NOT upon me to provide examples regarding how if or in what ways the government is good.
If you are making suggestion that we need to change some institutions in the status quo set up and you have some vision about why too much government is bad in such set up, then buren is upon you to describe your vision of how we get from point A to point B, not me.
As far as multiplier effects go, I recently read a study done by an economist at the San Francisco branch of the Federal Reserve, who attempted to measure the "jobs multiplier" of the stimulus package promoted by the incoming Obama administration back in 2009. He determined that the president's claim that the stimulus had 'created or saved' ~2,000,000 jobs was an accurate claim. He also noted that this represented a cost of ~$400,000 per job. I think this is fairly representative of the multiplier effects I have seen from the government attempting to do the job of the private sector.
Sounds as if you have a very limited knowledge of the concept of multiplier effect in terms of the various ways that government money can be spent... And, attempting to couple this with Obama's performance seems to be a bit narrow minded on the topic... and maybe even a distraction from my original comment, which was merely that much more societal wealth will be created when we find ways to distribute money more broadly.. so take from the rich and spread across the poor in various ways, rather than doing the opposite.. which would be, for clarification, taking from the poor and giving to the rich (which has largely been the case for at least the last 20 - 30 years).
Oh, and again - do you really believe Americans are poorer now than they were in the '30s? I have never seen the American standard of living decline in my lifetime. When I was a kid, we didn't even have a telephone, or air conditioning (in the deep south!). Now, even the poorest people I know have cellphones and HDTVs. Is it different where you live
In a couple ways, you are fucking amazing. 1st... I mentioned comparing the 1990s to 2014, and then second if you believe that cell phones, air conditioning and HDTVs are indications of wealth then you are likely looking at the situation too narrowly. I believe in one of my recent posts I took into account other considerations and that is how much we make and how many hours we work, but I was NOT tryin to get into the weeds on this. I do think, however, you are making a considerable assumption if you believe people are generally better off now than they were 25 years ago. Maybe you drank the Fox news coolaide? sounds like it.
