[logfromblammo]

You typically have to be a Keynesian (or related school of economics) to believe that.

Governments get their spending cash from taxation and political control of the monetary authority. In order to exert economic influence, they first have to take some away from the actual producers of marketable goods and services. Thanks to the way money works, if they don't expand the amount of currency in circulation by spending what they created by fiat, the value remains with the producers, who continue measuring their prices by the smaller amount in circulation. In metaphorical terms, no one can listen to what you want to say if you do not speak.

The one and only way that government spending can produce more growth than ordinary individual spending is by ordering construction or repair of capital infrastructure that benefits multiple businesses who would individually be unable to justify the expense of the improvement.

Business A and business B are competitors, and they would both benefit from roads that connect them to a highway network. A is unwilling to assume the expense of building a road to the highway unless A could exclude B from it. B feels the same way about A. If either notices the other building a road, they know that money is not available for other purposes, so whoever makes the first move could lose market share thanks to a strategic counter-move. Instead, government G takes somewhat less than the full amount needed for one road from each, to build a single public road that serves both equally. Both businesses get their road to the highway, but neither had to pay the full expense individually. Growth occurs by breaking the Nash equilibrium that was preventing it.

That's the ideal case. Usually, government spending is no smarter than handing a wad of cash to the village idiot, so it has no greater effect on growth than ordinary consumer spending, minus the deadweight loss. Also, if G takes a full road's worth of economic influence or more from both A and B, and builds only one complete road or just a partial road with it, neither A nor B is any better off. In order to promote growth, the government spending has to buy something of actual value to the public, at a lower cost than the sum of costs that individuals would pay for the bits of the "something" that benefit each of them most.

The public usefulness of a "something" is often a matter of opinion, so the "growth" thing is almost pointless to argue about.

[xenadu02]

Yours is an extremely simplistic and naive view of how the real economy works.

Government spending can be a net gain or drag on an economy but it can be a big boost in certain circumstances:

1) When the private market is retracting the government can offset that somewhat and create a "softer" landing. This prevents over-shooting on the underside (think the Great Depression). The lower interest rates are the better the bang-for-the-buck you get from government spending. When the world is clamoring to give you their money at negative interest rates (paying you to take a loan!) you'd be a fool not to pull the trigger on every capital project and bit of maintenance you can... which of course since we are so full of Republicans in the US we have been fools and haven't taken nearly as much advantage of the situation as we should have. As rates rise we'll end up doing the same projects in the future but pay higher interest rates to do them.

2) In an environment of excess capital (e.g. where the top 1% have most of the money) there is far too much cash looking for a productive place to invest and too few good investments. Again in that environment the government can do a lot of good by confiscating the capital (temporarily as you'll see) and giving it to the bottom 95%, ideally as free money with no strings attached. The vast majority of it will be spent, returning directly to the 1% who held it in the first place. The overall velocity of money will increase. This is the exact same thing as SF being dragged down by high rents writ large (if rent were reasonable I would personally create a job by hiring a nanny; instead that money goes to my landlord's retirement account where it chases all the other dumb money looking for yield)

Government spending (and high taxes) can be a drain under different circumstances:

1) If there is a deficit of capital to finance good ideas or productive businesses, the economy can benefit from lowering taxes on the 1% to free up capital. One could argue this was the case when income taxes were 90+% during the supposed "golden post war era" that today's idiots fondly recall with rose-colored glasses.

2) If spending is done via printing money or the overall debt load is too high then you can cause high inflation which has its own negative effects. If your debt is denominated in a currency you don't control (or in gold) then this can be a double-whammy and cause hyperinflation.

Government in general can be well-run and more efficient then the market when you are talking about absolute necessities and natural monopolies (like health care or roads), assuming you were willing to pay good salaries and benefits to attract the best workers and don't try to outsource everything. None of that applies to today's US or state governments... we pay like crap and purposefully use contractors for everything. It doesn't work well anywhere else, why would that work for government?

[logfromblammo]

You opened with an ad hominem; that's rude and unproductive. Besides that, I don't find what you say to be contradictory to my own views.

Boost 1 is an example of breaking Nash equilibria. In a contraction, the individual optimal play is to turtle up, but the overall optimum is to keep the spending going at a slightly lower rate. So the cartel enforcer takes from its members the amount that should be spent and spends it. The error made in practice is that most governments borrow from their central bank at interest rather than raising the cash directly via a capitation with deductions for actual consumer spending. Or they blow the cash on stupid purchases, forgetting that how the money is spent is usually more important than the size of the amount.

Boost 2 tends not to happen much in practice, thanks to government corruption and prophylactic bribes by the rich, but when it does, it may trigger capital flight. The Hollande 75% tax in France prompted a few celebrities to leave, but the reality is that rich people have been fleeing high French taxes for decades. Shuffling the currency around has little impact if it does not also change the ownership distribution of revenue-generating assets. If the poor people took their free money and bought shares of profitable businesses with it, that would help. But they tend to buy food, utilities, consumer goods, and rent instead. As such, this redistribution plan is a temporary improvement at best.

Drain 1 is not quite the polar opposite of boost 2. When you give rich people more disposable income, they tend to buy more revenue-generating assets, rather than more consumer goods. Once you have one luxury yacht, there isn't much of a reason to buy another. They don't charitably pay others to develop their good ideas; they buy them outright, and reap most of the benefits for themselves. They do very well, and that does not trickle down to the lower classes in practice. Investment does not circulate the currency down in the same way that spending does. Investment attaches burdens and obligations to the money before handing it off to someone else. It slows the money down. Think about how you might feel if someone handed you a $100 bill that was wet and sticky, with strings attached worth -$50 to you, in comparison to someone just handing you a clean, dry $50 bill, that you could use as you pleased.

Drain 2 is mostly accurate, except I would say that printing more of a fiat currency is always an absolute drain on the economy, when considered in isolation from whatever is done with the new cash. If you do it at all, you are starting in a hole and need to do a whole lot of good to even get back to ground level. Politically, you often see someone touting the good done with government spending, while if you pull back a bit, you see that it doesn't even make up for a small fraction of the damage done by the currency manipulations required to pay for it.

Government's primary value is as a cartel enforcer to break Nash equilibria, wherein the cartel members are forced to act in a way that is sub-optimal for themselves, but which results in an overall better outcome for all participants. Taxation always results in a deadweight loss, except when the good in question has zero or infinite slope on the supply or demand curves. Monetary inflation creates a value gradient in the currency that complicates calculation, and generally enriches those closer to the monetary authority at the expense of those further from it.

Government can also prevent tragedy of the commons, by restricting the exclusionary uses of public goods.

These functions typically result in greatest efficiency during the reign of the generation born to the revolutionaries. The true believers try to make the government work correctly and efficiently for everyone. But then, some time after, the rot sets in, and people start to use government as a means to promote their own rent-seeking behavior. You simply can't create a tool that only be used for good and never for evil. The dinner knife can spread shit just as well as it spreads butter.