Many do. Not the sectarian economists hired to develop capitalist theology, but the ones you take seriously when you need to run a real capitalist economy. Here's a lucid explanation:
"If you take an economics course, they’ll teach you, correctly, that if the government spends n dollars to stimulate the economy, it doesn’t really matter what it’s spent on: they can build jet planes, they can bury it in the sand and get people to dig for it, they can build roads and houses, they can do all sorts of things—in terms of stimulating the economy, the economic effects are not all that different.² In fact, it’s perfectly likely that military spending is actually a less efficient stimulus than social spending, for all kinds of reasons. But the problem is, spending for civilian purposes has negative side effects. For one thing, it interferes with managerial prerogatives. The money that’s funneled through the Pentagon system is just a straight gift to the corporate manager, it’s like saying, “I’ll buy anything you produce, and I’ll pay for the research and development, and if you can make any profits, fine.” From the point of view of the corporate manager, that’s optimal. But if the government started producing anything that business might be able to sell directly to the commercial market, then it would be interfering with corporate profit-making. Production of waste—of expensive, useless machinery—is not an interference: nobody else is going to produce B-2 bombers, right? So that’s one point."
Funnily enough Chomsky is implicitly assuming that government spending has a crowding out effect, which is an idea popular with economists who are "hired to develop capitalist theology," as you label them.
But, probably not. Even "social spending" opens up lots of procurement opportunities for the corporate manager. There might be some crowding out in real terms (government having political authority to exclude activity it deems to be an interference), but it'll be offset by the likely benefits of ensuing expansion, corporate welfare grants and workforce mobilization.
The problem with Chomsky here and many others is that they have the causality backwards. They see corporations as evil entities that spontaneously emerged from the ground to usurp the state, when in fact they were explicitly cultivated by states looking for economic growth.
> "They see corporations as evil entities that spontaneously emerged from the ground to usurp the state"
This is the problem in an HN culture where commenters don't support claims with cites. Chomsky frequently explains that corporations are creations of the state, and they share the same interests to a first approximation. You can find it in the book I referenced, or google for sources.
This comment seems to paint him as a liberal who favors the state (blaming everything on corporations), when of course he's an anarchist who sees both state & its corporate creations as illegitimate top-down power structures.
In an interview, he clearly states that he favors maximization of state power in some narrowly defined "short term," and largely believes that the only alternative to a state is anarcho-syndicalism. He's relying on it withering away. [1]
I know full well he isn't a liberal and never implied that he's one (in the modern Galbraith sense). Nonetheless, most analyses by the revolutionary left are definitely slanted towards a picture of painting the issue as being primarily one of corporate hegemony.
they’ll teach you, correctly, that if the government
spends n dollars to stimulate the economy, it doesn’t
really matter what it’s spent on
Forgive my ignorance on these matters - I know that if the government pays a work crew the work crew ends up with money in their pockets regardless of what specifically they build; but surely if you pay a work crew to build a useful freeway or a bridge (or a rail system if you prefer) you also get the economic benefits of that freeway, bridge or railway; whereas if you pay the same work crew to dig a useless hole you don't get those economic benefits?
It's a popular idea but not borne out by the truth. In any decent sized (ie, not tax haven) economy, even the most financially distorted economy still produces a lot more real good and services than finance services.
The issue is that, by having politicians decide where and when to build the bridge, you don't necessarily end up with the right bridges.
What you wrote is correct, the flaw is you put in the word 'useful'.
If it were just about bridges and railways, it wouldn't be so bad. But lately economic stimulus is used as the fig leaf for all types of whole scale wealth destruction like cash for clunkers, amongst countless other examples.
But building / updating bridges, roads, rail networks, dams, lead water pipes etc. would have the side effect of being useful to the economy once built / updated.
Where I live billions and billions was spent on water infrastructure. No actual improvements in supply were made- no additional catchments were built, because dams == bad. The money was spent in pipelines and a desalination plant that has never - and I mean never - been switched on. It's 5 years old and has never output water, because the cost is too high compared to dam water.
Now I have a 400% increase in water bills but no actual improvement in what I get. That money goes to paying the interest and running costs for that investment. That money goes out of my local economy. That, in aggregate, prevents and extra shop from opening, or causes an existing one to close. Most businesses run in thin margins and diverting cash away on pointless make work lingers long after the supposed boost happens.
The effect of burying cash in the sand and hiring teachers are pretty much the same? I get what he's saying but it's glib to the point of being meaningless. Government spending doesn't buy just anything. Outlays are specifies by Congress to be done in the most efficient manner they can agree to (I know they suck at it, but that doesn't mean the theory is wrong). Nor is interfering with profitable business a concern when production and employment are shrinking as they do during a recession.
"If you take an economics course, they’ll teach you, correctly, that if the government spends n dollars to stimulate the economy, it doesn’t really matter what it’s spent on: they can build jet planes, they can bury it in the sand and get people to dig for it, they can build roads and houses, they can do all sorts of things—in terms of stimulating the economy, the economic effects are not all that different.² In fact, it’s perfectly likely that military spending is actually a less efficient stimulus than social spending, for all kinds of reasons. But the problem is, spending for civilian purposes has negative side effects. For one thing, it interferes with managerial prerogatives. The money that’s funneled through the Pentagon system is just a straight gift to the corporate manager, it’s like saying, “I’ll buy anything you produce, and I’ll pay for the research and development, and if you can make any profits, fine.” From the point of view of the corporate manager, that’s optimal. But if the government started producing anything that business might be able to sell directly to the commercial market, then it would be interfering with corporate profit-making. Production of waste—of expensive, useless machinery—is not an interference: nobody else is going to produce B-2 bombers, right? So that’s one point."
— Noam Chomsky, "Understanding Power"
reply