- Twenty years after reunification, Der Spiegel looks at the failure of vast levels of government spending to revitalize the East German economy. I previously blogged about this subject here.
- Mark Landsbaum on the linkage between jobs and government stimulus. And Russ Roberts looks at where some of the stimulus money actually goes.
- Does Wal-Mart deserve the Nobel peace prize?
- The Mercatus Center gives their take on states' budget plights.
- Ziad K. Abdelnour explains why we need the rich. And no, it isn't to fund government programs.
2 comments:
I don't understand what Hayek's beef with the Iowa State spending plan. With the exception of the $1.8 million for "bridge building," all of the funding will clearly keep people employed or otherwise drive economic growth. Spending on research equipment is a good example of funds well spent; without the stimulus funds the university would not buy that equipment this year. Instead, the equipment will be purchased and, in some part, keep the salespersonnel of the equipment manufacturer employed, the workers who actually construct the equipment, the administrative staff of the manufacturer, and on down the supply chain of raw materials and components. And, let us not forget, the other benefits of the spending--the equipment must be operated by someone, likely an undergraduate or a graduate research assistant. Some of these will be paid directly (work study) and other indirectly (assistanceships) and still others not at all. Regardless of remuneration, those research assistants will gain experience useful in their eventual careers and a skill--making them more likely to find future employment. These skills will, likely, drive future economic growth.
This all seems rather smart.
It is very smart to drive the economic growth, i.e. the comments via ben the university would not buy equipment. The materials needed for small business is crucial to expand which goes along with the supply chain. It his helpful for future economic growth in the long run.
Post a Comment