• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does governnent spending produce economic growth?

Does governnent spending produce economic growth?


  • Total voters
    46

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In addition to my regular job, I have been trying to develop a business. I have noticed two years in a row now that I experience a great boost in sales after people get income tax refunds. Now I realize that in that case, mostly people are simply getting back their own money. But it makes me wonder, does government spending produce economic growth? If I understand them correctly, some say that this is never true. What do you think?
 
Sounds to me like getting a tax refund every month would be a boon to your business. The way to do that might be not to tax so much to start with and avoid the whole refund thing, which sounds suspiciously inefficient.
 
Start selling arms to the military. Big growth industry.
 
In addition to my regular job, I have been trying to develop a business. I have noticed two years in a row now that I experience a great boost in sales after people get income tax refunds. Now I realize that in that case, mostly people are simply getting back their own money. But it makes me wonder, does government spending produce economic growth? If I understand them correctly, some say that this is never true. What do you think?

When W gave out those bonus returns, we bought a lawn tractor. We likely would have not bought one at that time if not for the bonus.

I'd call it temporary economic stimulus. [BTW: any government spending is still your money or chalked up as your debt]
 
Thanks to ObamaCare, those refunds will be a lot smaller [or nonexistent] for some.
 
The question is not whether it produces economic growth, the question is....is it the most efficient way to produce economic growth?
 
In addition to my regular job, I have been trying to develop a business. I have noticed two years in a row now that I experience a great boost in sales after people get income tax refunds. Now I realize that in that case, mostly people are simply getting back their own money. But it makes me wonder, does government spending produce economic growth? If I understand them correctly, some say that this is never true. What do you think?

Of course.
 
Yes, which explains well why government spending is part of the calculation for GDP, Aggregate Demand, etc.

However to the OP question, tax refunds are not an example of government spending in these types of equations. All that is happening is people have more available funds to spend once they get their income tax return, and predictably there is an immediate effect on the economy over the 1st quarter and into the 2nd (close to that income tax deadline.) It is just enough to suggest certain business models try to capitalize on that additional income. Anyway, in economics that spending increases from a tax refund falls under consumer spending.

A better example of government spending equating to increased GDP is an infrastructure or technology investment project. Then the math is applied where you think it would be.
 
Yes, which explains well why government spending is part of the calculation for GDP, Aggregate Demand, etc.

However to the OP question, tax refunds are not an example of government spending in these types of equations. All that is happening is people have more available funds to spend once they get their income tax return, and predictably there is an immediate effect on the economy over the 1st quarter and into the 2nd (close to that income tax deadline.) It is just enough to suggest certain business models try to capitalize on that additional income. Anyway, in economics that spending increases from a tax refund falls under consumer spending.

A better example of government spending equating to increased GDP is an infrastructure or technology investment project. Then the math is applied where you think it would be.

The EITC is the second largest welfare program in the country so it is really off the books spending.
 
In addition to my regular job, I have been trying to develop a business. I have noticed two years in a row now that I experience a great boost in sales after people get income tax refunds. Now I realize that in that case, mostly people are simply getting back their own money. But it makes me wonder, does government spending produce economic growth? If I understand them correctly, some say that this is never true. What do you think?

Wealth and economic growth are produced by industry, by converting labor and raw materials into goods and services that are worth more than what it cost to produce them.

Government very rarely does that. Government very rarely does anything better, economically, that moving wealth around, consuming some of it in the process. Any wealth that anyone gets from government, is wealth that government took from someone else. Any economic activity that is stimulated in one part of the economy, is at least matched by a suppression of economic activity somewhere else.

As you correctly understand, the tax returns that that people receive, that spur them to buy stuff, is their own money that government previously took from them. Though it means, at that part of the year, that these people have a sudden short burst of money, stimulating a short burst of spending and economic activity, that is that much less money that they had the rest of the year, reducing by that amount the more steady spending and economic activity in which they would have engaged.
 
In addition to my regular job, I have been trying to develop a business. I have noticed two years in a row now that I experience a great boost in sales after people get income tax refunds. Now I realize that in that case, mostly people are simply getting back their own money. But it makes me wonder, does government spending produce economic growth? If I understand them correctly, some say that this is never true. What do you think?

The spending will almost always increase economic growth, but the money must come from someone, who has less. That will decrease the GDP. Both sides of the Transaction have a multiplier one positive one negative. Also, both sides will impact over time.
 
It may grow the GDP but it also grows debt. The money had to come from somewhere and GDP growth does not always equate to a healthy economy.

Is it a smart and effective stategy for pulling a economy out of a slump ? Hell no.
 
In addition to my regular job, I have been trying to develop a business. I have noticed two years in a row now that I experience a great boost in sales after people get income tax refunds. Now I realize that in that case, mostly people are simply getting back their own money. But it makes me wonder, does government spending produce economic growth? If I understand them correctly, some say that this is never true. What do you think?

Yes. Government contracts and services create jobs.
 
Wealth and economic growth are produced by industry, by converting labor and raw materials into goods and services that are worth more than what it cost to produce them.

Government very rarely does that. Government very rarely does anything better, economically, that moving wealth around, consuming some of it in the process. Any wealth that anyone gets from government, is wealth that government took from someone else. Any economic activity that is stimulated in one part of the economy, is at least matched by a suppression of economic activity somewhere else.

As you correctly understand, the tax returns that that people receive, that spur them to buy stuff, is their own money that government previously took from them. Though it means, at that part of the year, that these people have a sudden short burst of money, stimulating a short burst of spending and economic activity, that is that much less money that they had the rest of the year, reducing by that amount the more steady spending and economic activity in which they would have engaged.

When the government prints money that it does not have, it can spur industry into converting raw material and labor into goods, thus creating jobs and increasing consumption. Of course this sort of Keynesian view can lead to debt. However, the U.S. government has accumulated quite a bit of debt and the economy still appears to be going. How do you explain that?
 
You pump enough capital into any economy and it will grow. That does not make it correct or sustainable.
 
The spending will almost always increase economic growth, but the money must come from someone, who has less. That will decrease the GDP. Both sides of the Transaction have a multiplier one positive one negative. Also, both sides will impact over time.

It doesn't necessarily have to come from someone. The U.S. government prints money all the time.
 
It may grow the GDP but it also grows debt. The money had to come from somewhere and GDP growth does not always equate to a healthy economy.

Is it a smart and effective stategy for pulling a economy out of a slump ? Hell no.

Why does it have to come from somewhere?
 
The question is not whether it produces economic growth, the question is....is it the most efficient way to produce economic growth?

I think the answer is a definite "sometimes".
 
You pump enough capital into any economy and it will grow. That does not make it correct or sustainable.

Yep. But the U.S. economy has been run in this way for a while so it can be sustainable for quite a while it seems.
 
When the government prints money that it does not have, it can spur industry into converting raw material and labor into goods, thus creating jobs and increasing consumption. Of course this sort of Keynesian view can lead to debt. However, the U.S. government has accumulated quite a bit of debt and the economy still appears to be going. How do you explain that?

The standard conservative answer is "collapse is just around the corner".

And even a broke clock is correct twice a day.
 
Yep. But the U.S. economy has been run in this way for a while so it can be sustainable for quite a while it seems.

It causes boom and bust cycles that can only be fixed through more pumping of capital and government bailouts. Eventually we are going to run out of money to do this.
 
Yep. But the U.S. economy has been run in this way for a while so it can be sustainable for quite a while it seems.

Only for the last two hundred and thirty seven years. Debt hawks tell me that two hundred and thirty seven years isn't long enough to prove anything, and hyperinflation and the collapse of the dollar is always just around the corner.
 
Back
Top Bottom