What do you think about Modern Monetary Theory?

[136or142]

It's the economic equivalent of either alchemy or a perpetual motion machine, and we know how (im)possible those things are.

[136or142]

Flawed but not the worst theory out there.  Certainly a more realistic theory than the idiots like Paul ‘Smart Guy’ Ryan tries to peddle.

When Paul Ryan argues in favor of tax cuts: 'deficits don't matter' he is using Modern Monetary Theory.

[136or142]

Operates off of the assumption that government will make good investments, which often isn't the case, even in areas where I think government ought to invest.

Soooo....you’re the expert?  I’m so sure.

What I meant: Even when government invests in vital things (military, infrastructure), it often does so in stupid ways. Military boondoggles are common, especially when it comes to bases that support jobs in this or that congressional district. On the state level, the government often tries to find the cheapest contractors in infrastructure (the new Bay Bridge in my county is a good example of this), which leads to a worse/more unsafe final product.

Regardless, your snarky response is much appreciated. Have you given any thought to how you might contribute to this thread, aside from making moronic jabs at those who clearly are much more well-informed than you are? Probably not.

If you are (much) more well-informed why then don't you show it?  All you've shown is a local anecdote and what appears to me buying in-to the sensationalist major media narrative "governments are wasteful...."  You haven't presented any actual compelling evidence yourself.

I would tend to agree on the military, this is why there were the base closing commission decisions that Congress could only vote up or down on, but on public infrastructure projects, if you have evidence beyond a local anecdote, then present it.

What you have actually argued based on is a logical fallacy known as 'argument from incredulity' which asserts that because something is so incredible or difficult to imagine, it is wrong.  "Government spending isn't wasteful?  I can't believe that!"

For example, I heard an interview with an author on the NASA Apollo Missions and the quote attributed to John Glenn: ‘I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of 2 million parts — all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract' was brought up, and the author replied "Yes, it was the lowest cost bidder, but that didn't mean that the bidders didn't have to meet various safety requirements and that all the parts weren't thoroughly tested."

It seems nobody actually knows when or where John Glenn said this, hence the 'attributed to.'

Of course, I'm not claiming that you're correct or that you're wrong, only that you actually haven't provided evidence to back up your claim.  I have my own problems with MMT, which I've mocked here and elsewhere, especially Chartalism, which essentially argues that government deficit spending is the cause of long run growth.  I'm sure this is a logical fallacy as well, but it's easy to mock: nobody actually has to work hard or innovate, just have the government engage in deficit spending and everybody will be wealthy!  Three Chickens in Every Pot!

[136or142]

Operates off of the assumption that government will make good investments, which often isn't the case, even in areas where I think government ought to invest.

Soooo....you’re the expert?  I’m so sure.

What I meant: Even when government invests in vital things (military, infrastructure), it often does so in stupid ways. Military boondoggles are common, especially when it comes to bases that support jobs in this or that congressional district. On the state level, the government often tries to find the cheapest contractors in infrastructure (the new Bay Bridge in my county is a good example of this), which leads to a worse/more unsafe final product.

Regardless, your snarky response is much appreciated. Have you given any thought to how you might contribute to this thread, aside from making moronic jabs at those who clearly are much more well-informed than you are? Probably not.

If you are (much) more well-informed why then don't you show it?  All you've shown is a local anecdote and what appears to me buying in-to the sensationalist major media narrative "governments are wasteful...."  You haven't presented any actual compelling evidence yourself.

I would tend to agree on the military, this is why there were the base closing commission decisions that Congress could only vote up or down on, but on public infrastructure projects, if you have evidence beyond a local anecdote, then present it.

What you have actually argued based on is a logical fallacy known as 'argument from incredulity' which asserts that because something is so incredible or difficult to imagine, it is wrong.  "Government spending isn't wasteful?  I can't believe that!"

For example, I heard an interview with an author on the NASA Apollo Missions and the quote attributed to John Glenn: ‘I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of 2 million parts — all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract' was brought up, and the author replied "Yes, it was the lowest cost bidder, but that didn't mean that the bidders didn't have to meet various safety requirements and that all the parts weren't thoroughly tested."

It seems nobody actually knows when or where John Glenn said this, hence the 'attributed to.'

Of course, I'm not claiming that you're correct or that you're wrong, only that you actually haven't provided evidence to back up your claim.  I have my own problems with MMT, which I've mocked here and elsewhere, especially Chartalism, which essentially argues that government deficit spending is the cause of long run growth.  I'm sure this is a logical fallacy as well, but it's easy to mock: nobody actually has to work hard or innovate, just have the government engage in deficit spending and everybody will be wealthy!  Three Chickens in Every Pot!

Just read this article if you're really having trouble with this:

https://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2012/06/04/lohfeld-low-price-technically-acceptable.aspx

Government contracts are typically awarded to the lowest bidder in everything from low-cost expertise work to massive infrastructure projects. This is called low-price contracting and every state government does it, simply because they want to be able to tell the taxpayers that they "got a good deal" on whatever the project was.

The problem is that when these projects are meant to last a long time (bridges, dams, other major infrastructure), the cost of upkeep on lower-quality construction often ends up exceeding what the cost would've been for a higher-quality builder. And this isn't even getting into how often these projects run over-budget, even the ones that are meant to be cheaper. To come back to my example, the new Bay Bridge needed extra retrofitting after just a brief period of operation, while the Golden Gate Bridge (which was over-engineered to the point that it can withstand earthquakes of almost any known magnitude) only needs upkeep once in a while and hasn't suffered any serious problems in its 75+ years of operation.

Your example regarding the Apollo Mission doesn't apply, because the vast majority of systems built for those rockets were used only once, and were not subjected to the years of wear-and-tear that infrastructure projects go through. Sure, those rockets functioned fine (for the few days they had to). You can't then port that argument over to something like a bridge, which needs to be durable over a long period of time to prevent upkeep costs from running up the price for the taxpayers.

Regardless, you're also proving yourself to be a pedantic tool by acting as though my "anecdote" was meant to definitively prove that all government projects are wasteful and therefore we should revert to an anarcho-capitalistic utopia (or whatever you were trying to imply with your deliberate misinterpretation of my comment). That was not my intention, as is obvious to virtually anyone with the capacity for reading comprehension. I was not making an "argument from incredulity" whatsoever. Altogether, I don't know what the point of your comment was.

1.The point of my comment was only to point out that you hadn't backed up your comment with evidence. You have now done so.

I think it would have helped your argument if you had linked to that article in the first place rather than just assume that everybody would be aware of these things that you're aware of.

2.The purpose of me bringing up the Apollo Mission is because that's the quote that people, at least of a certain age, are most familiar with when it comes to lowest cost bidders.  I was not trying to draw any conclusions from that, only to show that, at least with this mission, that lowest cost bidder does not necessarily imply lack of safety or quality.