Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
With so many graduates of "Economics 101" posting in this thread, I'm surprised that more posters aren't familiar with the classic economic case for government spending to stimulate a sluggish economy. Agree with it or not, it's not some crazy, novel idea.
|
Stimulating the economy with deficit spending is usually targeted in specific spheres with the goal to nurture, develop the base economy with the hope that it grows to strengthen the tax base and ultimately create a rising tide to bring it out of a recession.
The mere act of spending more than you have isn't stimulating the economy. The government isn't spending $11 billion in infrastructure, investing it in start up businesses, new business incentives, nurturing fledgling companies or investment. The Alberta overspending is just to keep operating, it's a structural deficit. It's not a capital investment, it's just keeping the dang lights on.
Again, to drag out the dual income family scenario with the recent layoff example - it's like that person taking out a short term loan to go back to school to get new skills and ultimately employment in a higher paying field. Not the current government scenario of continuing on the exact same unsustainable spending path of hookers and blow, paycheck to paycheck. That is not stimulating the economy (the hookers, maybe).
If it were, you might as well literally borrow another $11 billion and dump it on the street for people to pick up or just give cheques to every Albertan for $3,000 tomorrow.
