“But if it’s not financed with higher taxes, and if it doesn’t drive up interest rates, it’s hard to see how it can destroy jobs.”
####
The economic ignorance is breathtaking.
Regardless of whether government spending can be traced specifically to “higher taxes”, government programs always, always, ALWAYS are at the expense of removing money from the efficiencies of even a relatively free market, where the rigor of competition ASSURES proper, judicious and productive use.
Gosh, can ANYONE get a column in the WSJ?
Beg to differ. Not all government spending is inefficient or counter-productive. Neither does all private spending generate new wealth.
On average private spending generates more wealth than public spending, but it is by no means ALWAYS the case.
Let's not get hyperbolic.
I was looking for “your” post.
This is exactly the answer -
government spending always always always takes wealth out of the inherent efficiencies of the free market and puts it into the inherently inefficient government sector.
They are "macro" economists from Princeton: they reject the law of supply of demand.
Supply and Demand is not just a good idea, it is the law. The government demand for loans increases the price. Even if the price of money is low, it is higher than it otherwise would be. Secondly, taking loans from China helps China keep its currency price low: They keep the demand for dollars high because they can buy dollars with RMB and loan them back to the U.S. Government. This hurts U.S. manufactures who compete with the Chinese thereby costing us Jobs.