Anne Pettifor again

This is simply barkingly mad.

Unemployment has high costs, but productive government spending, unlike private spending, pays for itself by creating jobs that generate tax revenues and cut welfare benefits.

What?

I can think of theories that say that when the private sector isn\’t spending enough then the government must step up to the plate. I can think of theories that say that infrastructure spending creates more jobs than spending upon current consumption.

But a theory which states that public spending, purely and simply because it is public spending, creates more jobs than private spending?

Seriously? What theories is this woman inhaling the fumes of?

9 comments on “Anne Pettifor again

  1. …. have you never come across this before ?

    Lefties sucking at the public teat are always arguing this sort of thing.

    My favourite is the idea that it’s good to pay public sector workers because if you make them redundant you lose the money you get from their income taxes, and when they spend their wages.

    I don’t think they realise where the money comes from in the first place ; they think it’s this giant honeypot that never empties.

  2. “productive government spending”

    Now there is a term to conjure with !

    Invented by an oxy-moron ?

    Alan Douglas

  3. What a shame she isn’t an engineer! Perpetual motion would be here and the machine would be able to provide a (limitless) power take-off!

  4. “…. have you never come across this before ?”

    I have. Some dim lefty tried it in my comments a while back. Quite how they can believe that, or be stupid enough to think anyone else would believe that, and still operate a computer is beyond me…

  5. “unlike private spending”
    She seems to imply that private spending does not generate jobs or tax revenue at all.

    “government spending… pays for itself by creating jobs that generate tax revenue”

    Mad. Unless they’re paying more than 100% tax, there’s no way a worker funded by tax revenue can pay more tax than they cost.

    It’s certainly true, though, that if someone moves from the dole to a government job, the government is getting more for the money.

  6. “It’s certainly true, though, that if someone moves from the dole to a government job, the government is getting more for the money.”

    The Government may be, but it doesn’t follow that the people are; paying someone to dig holes and fill them in again results in no output of wealth, and the damage done by some public interests vastly exceeds their running costs.

  7. So the more the Government spends the richer we gets? Seems a simple hypothesis to prove or disprove (can we please try not it in the UK first?)

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.