I agree with your general conclusion that public spending is important and that "the good society" cannot do without it.
You will probably not disagree when I add that the public purse can
count itself lucky to be able to spend its money on the products and
services of private companies rather than exclusively on its own
agencies as used to be the case in the socialist world.
Potholes happen everywhere. They tend to be less of a problem when
government is able to employ firms from a vibrant private sector.
To the extent that potholes are a serious problem rather than a
passing nuisance, it would appear to me that government is not doing its
job properly – which might include collusion with corporate buddies. (I
sometimes wonder why it is that so little progress is being made in
producing materials that make for streets without potholes.)
While the belief in laissez faire is untenable, it is no less
problematic to absolve the public purse from commanding a huge potential
to harm the economy, such as spending massive amounts of money on
ruining a country’s energy industry, as appears to be happening in
Germany from where I write.
Among the things I appreciate in J.M. Keynes: unlike his detractors
(often laissez faire fans) and his zealous adepts (often fervent
anti-capitalists), he does not tend to favour one side of the mixed
economy’s equation at the expense of the other.
