Where is the US economy headed?

Does the UK provide you with a "basic income grant" ? Would you like to see one established there? What have you done to bring it about?

Well this was an editorial, not a research paper or dissertation.

Rasmussen is out with a new poll today. I have the results but I wanted to see if any of you all would like to indicate how you would have responded if you had been called. I found the wording of the 5 questions that were asked. Wording in any poll* is a very critical issue.
1) Does the U.S. spend too much, too little or about the right amount on welfare and other programs to help those in need? Way too much on the bureaucratic process and not nearly enough on direct aid.
2) A proposal made calls on the federal government to spend $46Bn a year to hire people on a temporary basis. Do you favor or oppose this proposal? No. Not unless all of these jobs have a focus and direction that actually accomplishes something. I'm not opposed to direct infrastructure improvements or other tangible benefits to the public but I'm afraid it would create another government department to oversee the process.
3) Suppose the federal government created 1 million temporary government jobs in child care, elder care, education, public health, construction and maintenance, and recreation and the arts. How likely would most of these jobs be wasteful, make-work projects? Most? As in 51% or greater? Highly likely.
4) Another proposal would be for the federal government to provide everyone with a basic income grant. The idea would be that everyone would receive a modest amount regardless of whether they choose to work or not. Do you favor or oppose this proposal? fahgetaboutit!
5) Suppose someone has lost a job and has been looking for work for
a year or more. Should state governments offer such a worker a minimum wage job? Does the state have a minimum wage job that needs to be filled? Sure, if there are jobs that need doing and must be done by the public sector. Hell, no if they're make-work jobs.

*I didn't quote the wording exactly but I think, with a preposition or two, I am close. I see at least 3 words I would quibble with.

The actual results from the Rasmussen poll that led to this:
1) 45% responded "too much" while the rest came down on "too little," "about right" or "undecided."
2) 30% approve while 51% disapprove and
3) 56% believe that there will be a lot of waste.
4) 82% oppose. I question the wording "...regardless of whether or not they choose to work."
5) 62% say that they could support this. I didn't see it in the original question, but the summary says that the state provided minimum wage job would be in lieu of an unemployment check.

georgeob1 wrote:

Well this was an editorial, not a research paper or dissertation.

Nevertheless, when a commentator claims that government failure prolonged the Great Recession, I expect that he name the government failure (which Becker did). But he also needs to show evidence why it is indeed a failure, and that it did indeed prolong the recession. Becker doesn't show any evidence here.

Nevertheless, when a commentator claims that government failure prolonged the Great Recession, I expect that he name the government failure (which Becker did).

=> It is quite obvious that the current Administration has taken many actions that have the effect of reducing producer and consumer confidence in the future economic situation - and plausibly contributing to the continued stagnation. These include vastly expanded regulatory reach and discretion, enact6ed in an often hostile environment for both investors and entrepreneurs; threats of higher taxes coupled with the refusal of government to come to grips with an obvious looming crisis in entitlement spending and the public debt resulting from it - and in a world littered with prominent finsncial crises resulting from exactly the same problem; and finally, unnecessary actions to prevent and restrain the real-time production of domestic fossil fuels, at a time when we badly need to reduce our reliance on increasingly expensive imported fuels - and no economic alternatives to their use yet exist.

=> It is quite obvious that the current Administration has taken many actions that have the effect of reducing producer and consumer confidence in the future economic situation - and plausibly contributing to the continued stagnation. These include vastly expanded regulatory reach and discretion, enact6ed in an often hostile environment for both investors and entrepreneurs; threats of higher taxes coupled with the refusal of government to come to grips with an obvious looming crisis in entitlement spending and the public debt resulting from it - and in a world littered with prominent finsncial crises resulting from exactly the same problem; and finally, unnecessary actions to prevent and restrain the real-time production of domestic fossil fuels, at a time when we badly need to reduce our reliance on increasingly expensive imported fuels - and no economic alternatives to their use yet exist.

Our government has indeed declared the individual actions of economic actors in the private economy are the problem here, and that only massive government action (action that will entail significant loss of individual freedom) can save us. It has done this in a country and world replete with examples of the venality of government and itsall-too- common inability to come to grips with financial and economic problems of its own creation.

Quote:

and that only massive government action (action that will entail significant loss of individual freedom) can save us. It has done this in a country and world replete with examples of the venality of government and itsall-too- common inability to come to grips with financial and economic problems of its own creation.

=> It is quite obvious that the current Administration has taken many actions that have the effect of reducing producer and consumer confidence in the future economic situation - and plausibly contributing to the continued stagnation. These include vastly expanded regulatory reach and discretion, enact6ed in an often hostile environment for both investors and entrepreneurs; threats of higher taxes coupled with the refusal of government to come to grips with an obvious looming crisis in entitlement spending and the public debt resulting from it - and in a world littered with prominent finsncial crises resulting from exactly the same problem; and finally, unnecessary actions to prevent and restrain the real-time production of domestic fossil fuels, at a time when we badly need to reduce our reliance on increasingly expensive imported fuels - and no economic alternatives to their use yet exist.

blatant claims are useless in discussing anything.

It is possible that Mr Obama thinks, after taking expert advice from highly educated Americans, that greater private sector economic activity is dangerous at this stage. It isn't just a high sounding phrase. It might mean more Mexican jumping bean madness.

But George--I offered up for discussion, and an interesting one it would be, this thought--

Quote:

It is possible that Mr Obama thinks, after taking expert advice from highly educated Americans, that greater private sector economic activity is dangerous at this stage. It isn't just a high sounding phrase. It might mean more Mexican jumping bean madness.

I think that before enthusiastically promoting greater private sector economic activity it might be as well to consider such a notion and it would be a matter of concern if Mr Obama had not done so.

The origins of the financial crisis and the Great Recession are widely attributed to "market failure". This refers primarily to bad loans and and excessive risks taken by banks in the quest to expand their profits. The "Chicago School of Economics" came under sustained attacks from the media and the academy for its analysis for its analysis of the efficacy of competitive markets. Capitalism itself as a way to organize an economy was widely criticized and said to be in need of radical alteration.

Akthough many banks did perform poorly, government behavior also contributed to and prolonged the crisis. ...
...
...
The widespread demand after the financial crisis for radical modifications to capitalismtypically paid little attention to whether in fact proposed government substitutes would do better, rather than worse, than markets.

Government regulation and laws are obviously essential to any well-functioning economy. Still, when the performance of markets is compared systematically to government aalternatives , markets usually come out looking pretty darn good.

In short Gary Becker ( a Nobel Laureate in economics - for those who believe that is significant) is considering precisely the hypothesis you offered above.

I'm in no hurry to distance myself from a Nobel Laureate but I'm not sure that is true. My hypothesis is based on the perception that shortly before these bubbles burst we were all going clean round the bend due to private sector economic activity. I had got thinking that before the bubbles burst. Hence I think a restraining hand is now required. Or at least some thought given to the matter.

I think you are merely denying the obvious.