I must not make myself clear. Oversight is always needed. I have children, and I work with people that will get away with whatever they can. I know people don't always play nice without someone to make them do so.
What I'm saying is, the more layers of government you add, the more you add to costly and inefficient bureaucracy. At least I thought I said that.
I had no intention of saying it's an all or nothing situation. I understand there is oversight.
I think you are overlooking the areas where the free market fails, namely in the arenas of public goods (roads, national defence, etc), externalities, market power abuses, and equity issues. Lack of oversight and a laissez faire attitude about economics brought about the Great Depression - and gave rise to Keynesian economics, which you seem to dismiss pretty handily. ... Of course, what do I know? I am just an economics teacher with an bachelor's degree in accounting, an MBA and a lot of economic coursework underneath my belt.
OK, so you have an economics degree. And I said before I don't know economics. In my mind, there is a place for spending and a place for saving. There is a use for credit but credit should not be abused. As far as family economics go, it seems best to steer a middle course; don't overspend but don't just save. This seems prudent to extrapolate to all levels of economics.
As for Keynesian econommics, according to what I found below, it's a theory and is one of many economic theories. So, what are you saying? Are you saying it is the one true theory? And thus taxes should be manipulated to control the economy? If so, then the spending programs have to be manipulated, yet when a spending program is set up, it's done so with the intent of making it permanent. How can you expect to change taxing when your spending budget is nearly rock solid? This seems like a poor economic plan to a dunce like me.
Keynesian economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't espouse laissez faire in economics nor foreign policy. But I do think that it's easy to have the attitude that something has to be done, just to do something!
APewty, your argument shows a glaring contradiction: You say be wary of giving your money to other people and be reluctant to expect them to use it wisely, yet you also decry regulation. However, isn't regulation as close as we can come to making sure our government and economy operate responsibly with our money?
The more regulation and the more bureaucracy, the tougher it is to affect one's money. One must jump through hoops in almost any transaction when not satisfied. Simple oversight is not the same as regulation. Regulations creates complex rules that are not easily understood or dealt with. Reference the so-called bailout. How could people be allowed to borrow money that couldn't afford it? Did this happen because there was not enough oversight? Or was it because of burdensome regulations that pushed organizations to make poor business decisions?
I believe in things like the USDA. The IRS is necessary for it's function, even if I think the tax law is too complex and takes too much money. The need for the organization is not in question, it's the level of red tape at all stages and the fact that it keeps getting thicker that I am against.
