It's been quite a few years since I took economics so I only recall a scattering of the details behind the concept of the multiplier effect of govt. spending. My point being that I'm not equipped to defend it or debate it, so you may very well have good points. Not to mention the actual value of so-called economic theories is open for debate. It's not like economists have had a great track record after all.
I do think, however, that it's probable and reasonable to assume that there's value in money circulating in the local economy. Certainly govt. spending is not 100% efficient as you point out, but all you need is it to be better 51% of the time for there to be gains over the longer term.
It's been quite a few years since I took economics so I only recall a scattering of the details behind the concept of the multiplier effect of govt. spending. My point being that I'm not equipped to defend it or debate it, so you may very well have good points. Not to mention the actual value of so-called economic theories is open for debate. It's not like economists have had a great track record after all.
I do think, however, that it's probable and reasonable to assume that there's value in money circulating in the local economy. Certainly govt. spending is not 100% efficient as you point out, but all you need is it to be better 51% of the time for there to be gains over the longer term.
(post is archived)