Political Economics-Things you should know pt 1

WrittenMemory's picture

Economics is an odd study, as common sense seems to be a backwards notion. For an example, the idea of taxes is a strange one, as no one wants to pay more money than what's marked on that pretty little bar code, however, the government can't make money in many other ways. Taxes aren't just used for governmental revenue, as a large tax creates a tremendous dead loss in revenue, which can be used by the government to regulate "sinful" items in our culture (one common example of this is the tax on tobacco) by encouraging the public not to buy such items.
As a nation, we are currently in an "economic recession" where the value of the dollar has decreased and the price of goods has increased. Internationally, the dollar has hit an all-time low! Why is this happening? Well, in the case of The Great Depression, the American public hoarded their money, and by not spending money, it wasn't able to circulate and build the economy. In my humble opinion, this is exactly what is happening, or going to happen, to the economy. The public is worried that times are going to get harder, and so they save money and spend less, causing the amount of money in circulation less, and therefore creating an economic recession. Should the government have told the public about the "looming recession"? Morally and ethically, yes, however, morality and ethics are hard to equate into economics, and any good economist would have not said a single thing. If the people simply spent their income normally, rather than saving much more than normal, then the recession would not have or will not occur. Therefore, one can conclude that in regards to economics, ethics, and morality, there is a Catch-22: lie to the people and have everything turn out okay, or tell them everything and have things fall apart?
Now, lets look at exactly what a politician may say to people to get them riled up before election day: "Lower taxes on the middle class!", etc... Now, if you ask me, I wouldn't touch the taxes on the middle class, as they aren't terrible. The government does need money to run programs. I would, however, raise taxes on the poor; am I evil? No, I'm simply giving incentive to the economically instable portion of America to save their money. If they saved their money, they could get off of welfare, maybe get a job or two, and build get out an economic whole. Also, I'd lower the taxes on the richer portion of Americans, as they spend about one third of the gross spent money, however, they populate only about four percent of the population. Should they have higher taxes, as many people would like (as they do technically have the money to pay the higher taxes), they would slowly start to spend less money. If they don't spend their money, then our economy would simply sink to the bottom of the ocean.
Now, when we started studying taxes in school, I decided that I loathed them. Most people would answer yes if you were to poll the question, "Should taxes be abolished?" I would want to abolish them, as they are a nasty little way to spend more money than you truly want to, but then... How would government make money? Well, it should sell things: clothes, weapons, utilities, services, etc. If our government were to run itself the same way that Microsoft or Paramount Studios did, it'd make beyond enough money to put an end to any leaky faucet deficit that should spring up from war, natural disaster, or any other tragedy.

engkatiemarie's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

... the government is not a manufacturing business. It does not exist to create revenue, and wouldn't be able to make enough to cover our more than $2.9 trillion budget. In comparison, the largest US company by revenue, ExxonMobil, only made $375.878 billion in 2005.

WrittenMemory's picture

Thank for the lovely observation that the government is not indeed a manufacturing business. I was stating that, hypothetically, they could make more money than they do now. Now, lets take the amount of money that ExxonMobil made in 2005 (which would be a lower revenue simply due to the fact that prices are growing rather quickly) of $375.878 billion dollars and divide it into $2.9 trillion. Should the government put that amount of money per year in order to pay off the budget deficit, it'd take around 8 or 9 years.
Had the government not dipped its hand into the Social Security fund, and that amount (although quite small) never repaid, years ago, the deficit would not be as large. To be honest, I think that the US should look at things more economically than socially or politically because without the money, nothing else can get done. Unless, of course, Uncle Sam decides that we should go further and further into debt. By borrowing more and more money, we not only teach the up and coming generations that it's okay to go that far into debt (proportionally, of course), we create an even larger deficit! It's not a slippery-slope of a logical fallacy, it's true...

engkatiemarie's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

I again say: The government is not a business.

If you want it's employees to maintain your roads, educate your children, and otherwise maintain social standards, then you will have to understand the government can not be focused on the typical functions of a business.

Therefore, we pay taxes to pay for those services we expect to receive. People like myself, who would like to see a smaller number of social welfare programs and a smaller government, can speak of lowering taxes and cutting programs, but I do not thinking turning the government into a monopolizing T-Shirt making ExxonMobil is the answer.

WrittenMemory's picture

You say that we should keep the government in order to maintain the roads and keep up education...? Well, if no one has noticed, our education system is seriously lacking. Compared to countries with education systems, like France or Japan, where the government plays only a minor role in the functions of the schools, we are behind. Take into account that our teachers are paid by far a fraction of theirs, you've got a vastly imperfect system.
Now, if we were to have a competitive market for roads, schools, parks, etc then the quality would be much greater, we'd just have to pay a little more. But which is greater, the opportunity cost of a mediocre educational system that's free or one that costs a little (obviously with financial aid for those who need it) more money and is phenomenal?
The government, with its plethora of layers, works pretty well as is. If the government were to create a monopoly on a certain item, and not something as silly as a clothing line, then it could pay off the debt that it has accumulated. Plus, it could function as a fusion with a business and a nonbusiness aspect. This could create more job opportunities for up and coming entrepreneurs! Seriously, it wouldn't be a bad thing to consider.

engkatiemarie's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

... *sigh*

I really don't feel like arguing with you about this. It's obvious you have made up your mind.

When a government (small or large) starts selling trinkets (Go Quatar!) to fund it's activities... then maybe I will believe you. But considering reality, I think this would just make our government even more dysfunctional than it already is.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.