After last Monday’s session ended, I suggested to Scott that we discuss the proper purposes of the federal government. An opinion piece in today’s New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/27/opinion/elon-musk-industrial-policy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.kk4.vx7n.2Ag_Jo35qjd5&smid=url-share) made me think we could address a.narrow slice of that question:
Does (and should) the federal government make “investments”?
I won’t be there on 30 December since I’ll be helping to make soup for the Simmering Pot that morning, so maybe we could discuss this topic on 6 January.
To answer these questions, I think we’d need to address other questions, including the following:
What is an “investment”? Is the definition the same for the federal government as it is for the private sector? If not, how do the definitions vary, and why?
Have some federal government expenditures in the past been “investments” ( e.g., the Louisiana Purchase; the purchase of Alaska; the Erie Canal; the Panama Canal; the space program, to the extent it generated spin-offs like communications, weather, GPS, and other satellite programs; funding for medical research or development of the internet; the national highway program; the air traffic control system; military spending on drones, radar, and other technologies; tax subsidies and credits to mitigate climate change; funding for social safety net programs like food stamps; etc.). If some of these have not been “investments, why not and what were they?
What recent federal government expenditures that were labeled as “investments” were actually not investments? If not, why not and what were they?
Should the federal government articulate an “investment” policy? If so, what should it be?
Should the federal government only make “investments” that the private sector would not make on its own? How should that determination (a “but for” test) be made?
How should the federal government determine whether its “investments” have been “successful”?