15 January 2016

Poorly Argued Economics

Over at the American Enterprise Institute, we find some poorly argued economics.  Steve Conover suggests there are four schools of economic thought.  But in his Far Left school of thought, he not only creates a straw man, he also creates a logical error.

Paul Krugman does not say we should spend money on Bridges to Nowhere.  He (and Keynes) say spending money on a Bridge to Nowhere is better than doing nothing.  You at least put pay into the pockets of the people who are building the bridge and they will go out and spend that income on something useful.  Still, Krugman and Keynes would far rather build a Bridge to Tomorrow and get both the benefits of paying workers as well as the benefits of creating wealth that produces a public return on investment.

Also, wasteful defense spending is a perfectly good Bridge to Nowhere.  If you believe that Paul Krugman would be happy to spend money on a Bridge to Nowhere, then you have to believe that he would be happy to keep wasteful defense spending.

And while we're here...  The real Statesmen will prefer to cut wasteful defense spending and build the Bridge to Tomorrow because that will increase GDP and allow more money to be spent on defense.  As Eric Schmidt, Google's Executive Chairman, likes to say: more revenue solves all problems.


Post a Comment

<< Home