"public goods and commons goods, the two known categories where "the government" is clearly more efficient than markets."
Could you give me a reference for that? I am not an expert in economics, and that claim seems very doubful to me. Unless you are saying governments are good in spending money - yes, they are (getting rid of money, I mean).
The rest of your post, I am not sure what you are going on about. Yes, property laws are political (and some countries famously got rid of them, which for now has to be considered a failure). But what does that have to do with Keynesian spending? Also I admit I am not an expert on Keynes, but I suspect that puts me on par with most other people who have an opinion on it and advocate to just print more money.
The rest of your post, I am not sure what you are going on about. Yes, property laws are political (and some countries famously got rid of them, which for now has to be considered a failure). But what does that have to do with Keynesian spending? Also I admit I am not an expert on Keynes, but I suspect that puts me on par with most other people who have an opinion on it and advocate to just print more money.
Actually, advocating printing money is not a Keynesian position, it's a Modern Monetary Theory position.
But anyway, I'm arguing against your assertion that political decisions cannot and should not be made about the economy.
I did not make that assertion, what I said is that the advocates of government spending only shift the burden of decision making and don't really propose anything at all. Or in other words, the claim "government spending can fix the economy" is trivially true but useless.
The link about public goods doesn't convince me that government spending on public goods is always the best choice, see example of too many roads.
As for printing money, isn't it kind of equivalent to taking on debt?
what I said is that the advocates of government spending only shift the burden of decision making and don't really propose anything at all.
Of course, advocates of privatization are doing the same thing: shifting the decision-making and not really proposing anything at all. Both markets and governments are voting mechanisms.
Difference is, in a market, the dollars vote, and in a government, the people vote.
Then we have to start talking about the signal/noise ratios of both mechanisms...
Of course, there is neither the perfect market nor the perfect government.
It seems to me that the potential for abuse is greater in the government, though. There is one vote every x years, and good tracking mechanisms of what is really being done don't exist yet.
Signal/noise - the difference is that in the market, participants can not simply spend other people's money. They have to come up with real money somehow, which might be a pretty strong signal.
Could you give me a reference for that? I am not an expert in economics, and that claim seems very doubful to me. Unless you are saying governments are good in spending money - yes, they are (getting rid of money, I mean).
The rest of your post, I am not sure what you are going on about. Yes, property laws are political (and some countries famously got rid of them, which for now has to be considered a failure). But what does that have to do with Keynesian spending? Also I admit I am not an expert on Keynes, but I suspect that puts me on par with most other people who have an opinion on it and advocate to just print more money.