Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (24703)	8/24/2012 8:45:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

No faith based economics involved, or even really economics at all. Its just a look at the budget numbers and then some simple arithmetic. Look at the cost for non-military government spending. Look at the budget deficit. The former has increased more than the later. If non-military spending didn't increase, but everything else was the same, we would be having surpluses now, even with the increase in military spending and the soft economy. Now moving to something that's a little more like economics - Its unlikely everything else would have stayed the same. The point behind "everything else staid the same" arguments is to tease out the effect of the one change your considering, not to portray realistic scenarios. Its likely that the effect of such a restraint on spending would have been more economic growth. The evidence, and common sense, suggests it is so, but such evidence isn't as solid as the statement I made above (which is true by a matter of simple math), its a matter or theory, and analyzing history, not logical or mathematical certainty.