There’s one question here

Re the Biden plans we’re told:

Third, nor has anyone said anything about the substantial multiplier effects of such spending which likely mean that this package will more than pay for itself. Again, why not?

If that’s true then why is there a national debt?

15 thoughts on “There’s one question here”

  1. If you are told there is a greater than 100% return on capital the first question is “why haven’t you done it already/before?” You could pawn your grandfather’s gold watch to get yourself started.
    So it’s obviously a con.

  2. which likely mean that this package will more than pay for itself

    Yeah, but it’s a spud-u-“likely”. In other words, about as likely as farting a golf-ball into orbit.

  3. If government spending pays for itself, then given that governments have been spending since forever, why are we paying taxes instead of reaping the rewards?

  4. Ah the fabled multiplier whose existence involves believing that governments never ever spaff money up a wall.

    Now, onto the £37billion spent on the UK’s track and trace system.

  5. “about as likely as farting a golf-ball into orbit” – not a phrase I’ve heard before. Consider it stolen.

  6. Rule elebenty gazillion of Leftism – only future spending ‘pays for itself’, never spending thats already been done.

  7. Now they want spending only on ‘soft infrastructure’ like childcare as roads, rail and physical infrastructure is racist apparently

  8. “If that’s true then why is there a national debt?”

    That’s easy. Tax revenues almost always exceeds revenue in any given year. If there isn’t a surplus that can be used to pay off debt then the debt never goes away.

    Given the sparsity of details I don’t know how anyone can claim any knowledge of the infrastructure bill’s net effect on the debt. What I do know is future politicians will spend/cut taxes before any theoretical nominal gains can be realized.

  9. Any fictional multiplier effect is vastly outweighed by the frictional costs incurred when money sloshes about a government.

  10. Barks,

    That depends on how many bureaucrats contribute to overhead costs, the marginal propensity to consume of those taxed and those who benefit, and a whole lotta buncha other factors I am still striving to understand.

    Now if someone would be so kind as to give me a formula for the ‘Good Charlotte’ opportunity costs/benefits ratio for different classes of wealth redistribution I’d be much obliged. If you don’t get the cultural reference here is the link to the music video that describes the twenty-first century version of the French revolution solution:

    After a listen I’m sure you’ll agree some minimal amount tax is preferable to having to endure the ‘Good Charlotte’ solution at mass scale.

  11. You’re not thinking long term enough Tim.

    All government spending obviously pays for itself. It’s a matter of faith.
    It may take time to realise the results, however, so in the meantime it requires debt to pay for.
    If a project hasn’t paid for itself yet, then the real gains are somewhere in the future and you’re a heretic for suggesting that those gains may not realise in the future.

  12. It’s not just that we’ve seen over a century of failure from state-planned economies. It’s that we also saw these same kinds of failed investments under Obama, as recently as 5 years ago.

    You see, when a liberal’s life is consumed by news media, they begin to lose their long-term memory and forget about those “shovel-ready jobs” and the Solyndra scandal – both of which should be fresh in your mind if you’re an American over the age of 30.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *