Why can't the federal government just invest more money

>>1777524
>Giving money to niggers
>Increasing the savings rate
It doesn't work like that.

>>1777526
muh keynesianism meme

>Surely it pays to inject capital investments into areas that are extremely impoverished and would increase the savings rates and, therefore, marginal efficiencies of the capital?

Yes, but with the caveat that it must be productive investment. Keeping people employed is productive in and of itself, but you have to weigh the value of propping up Detroit against the value of telling the niggers to buy a bus ticket to a less burned-out place and investing there.

This feels more like it belongs in /pol/

You raise a good point about productivity. The problem lies in where the direction of our investments in capital are going. If our investment in capital isn't returning us a profit through capital whose marginal efficiency is above the interest in terms of that good then why invest at all. Revenues built around service do give us a higher return on investment, but the problem is that the capital isn't giving us the return on investment, it's the sales and service fees that originate in the form of increased wages, not increased output. Service work is by its very nature non-productive, which means the money being utilized for it isn't returned, it's lost out of the cycle of productivity forever and in my opinion has to be replaced through additional capital injections eventually.

>>1777545
Think of it this way, if you have 100 dollars, and buy 1 machine which produces 1000 units which would normally cost 1 dollar to produce each, the return on this investment is higher than the interest rate and is productive, until we buy more machines and because of increasing leasing costs, maintenance, and employment will necessitate an increasing upkeep in addition to the amount of goods we have to buy from other entrepreneurs to even function in the first place. The marginal efficiency of the capital goes down over time, like how land being utilized for production does, but in this case it is because of the competition of the increased investment in the capital. The increased supply brings down the price of the good. Still though, these 1000 units are sold for a low markup and you still make a huge profit. You pay the laborers and the entrepreneur whatever division of wages and profit is thought applicable and move on, but unfortunately this is as good as it gets. As you add non-productive labor into the mix, the money you make out of that revenue is necessarily being given to sinecures and various positions which are inherently non-productive and service-based. They drag down the profit, which was all productive, into some productive wages and some non-productive wages, and then the wages given to the non-productive employees cannot be reinvested in capital or saved for future productive expenses, and is lost forever.

Now imagine a whole company like this. Every single employee is non-productive. The company is service based. Instead of driving the price of goods down through producing them, they drive it up by consuming them with increased wages. Doubly so, because they aren't producing.

>>1777546
All I'm saying, is that it would be best if every group of individuals organizing themselves under the cultural phenomenon of a company produced something. This thing doesn't have to be geared towards a particularly fast, or hedonistic lifestyle either, the investment and management of capital can be directed well. Just something to think about though.

>>1777524

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

lets think about this
Why is it that Detroit and Flint cant find any private investment? What do you suppose is the roi for anything other than chicken, hair extensions, crack, liquor, and firearms?

>>1777536
goddamn correlation and causation what do they mean???? LOL wat do u mean we cant just print money and subsidize dildos?

>>1777554
Perhaps what is needed at this stage is some government-headed investment.

>>1777551
That's more or less the core concept behind "invest in what you know". If the end result is a thing that you know people like, it doesn't matter whether you sweep the floors or move money around to finance a new building. Anything else is inefficient speculation on an unknown, and humans have found infinite ways to take advantage of speculation.
The upshot is that you need a concrete goal for what your investment is going to be used to create, or else you're throwing money away.

>>1777558
Poe's Law the post.

What should they invest in? Eugenics?

>>1777576
Not everything directed or even spearheaded by an authoritative position has to be something evil or genocidal.

>>1777634
Who said anything about evil or genocidal?

Its like the house on the property that lowers the value of the land. You can throw as much money you want into the house but property value wont increase. You need to remove the home anon. Nothing inherently evil about that.

>>1777524
Local government could solve a lot of problems if we had a federal job guarantee in place.

>>1777524
>just invest more money into impoverished areas like Flint or Detroit
you have to ask yourself, why are they poor in the 1st place? if the answer is an unforseeable shock to the local economy, it would help, iand if the answer is that people dont have skills and dont wana work you might aswell burn that money