Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.12 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: YOU EARNED IT??? - (nf) Message-ID: <29200125@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 10-Apr-84 20:25:00 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.29200125 Posted: Tue Apr 10 20:25:00 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 12-Apr-84 05:09:11 EST References: <1527@mit-eddi.UUCP> Lines: 26 Nf-ID: #R:mit-eddi:-152700:uiucdcs:29200125:000:1386 Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner Apr 10 19:25:00 1984 #R:mit-eddi:-152700:uiucdcs:29200125:000:1386 uiucdcs!renner Apr 10 19:25:00 1984 /**** uiucdcs:net.politics / iuvax!notes / 6:42 pm Apr 9, 1984 ****/ > Your argument that government does not stimulate the economy > by giving money to people (Financial Aid, Unemployment Insurance, etc.) > is incorrect. By taking idle money from the wealthy (money invested in > some form of savings) which creates no aggregate demand and giving it > to people who will (because of lack of money) need to spend it on goods > and services, you will increase aggregate demand and the money will > be cycled back to the public in the form of goods payed for. This line > of reasoning is another virtue of taxing the wealthy more heavily: to > put idle money to use. Don't they teach basic macroeconomics to undergraduates any more? If they do, then where does the myth that increased consumer demand is beneficial to the economy come from? It is capital investment -- what Mr. Conley sees as "idle money" -- that strengthens the economy, by increasing the capacity to produce goods. Government income transfer programs take money from those who produce and give it to those who do not, thereby increasing demand without increasing production. Welfare may be a fine humanitarian thing -- though if it is so fine, why the need to force people to contribute? -- but as an economic policy it is basically counterproductive. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner