Of course. But money ultimately
isn't. Or there wouldn't be inflation, would there?
I don't know, why not? What are "government resources"? If you're asking why gov't doesn't prioritise that from a limited pot of tax receipts, the answer is that gov't spending isn't limited by a pot of tax receipts.
I can buy my own building through the private sector - and it doesn't cost you anything. I don't know why a strong business need government help to buy a building.
Neither do I. But I can imagine why start-ups and marginal businesses might need help. Or why strong businesses might become weak in a downturn. Or public services that run at cost or provide non-profit public goods. Etc.
The SBA provides 504 loans. Those loans partner with a bank to lower the amount of equity a borrower needs. But those loans are paid back with interest. They don't cost the tax payer anything.
Neither does any other Federal govt spending. The currency issuer does not ultimately need currency users' money. Sounds like exactly the kind of b/s that should be scrapped in favour of explicit public funding.
..So TBC (because the above, though a fair question, is somewhat tangential), I'm advocating a
functional finance model where gov't creates most - or enough - of the money in the economy, debt-free.
It isn't even necessarily left wing or progressive. Right wing economists like
Milton Friedman and The Chicago School have proposed basically the same thing. Or centrists like
Martin Wolf and
Adair Turner.
It does, however, address the perennial question :
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR IT?.
Answer :
THE SAME WAY WE ALREADY PAY FOR PUBLIC GOODS.
Govt essentially spends the money into existence and taxes it out again to control inflation if necessary. The so-called "borrowing" (bond issues in excess current tax receipts) does not fund deficits, but offsets them with private sector savings and gives the central bank (eg Fed) a tool to control interest rates. The cumulative "debt" is just a record of the difference between what gov't has spent into and taxed out of the private sector. LOOK :
It's just the way our monetary systems
already work (i.e. US, UK, Australia, Japan, Canada etc. Not Eurozone members, and not developing/small economies which must spend/borrow in foreign currencies).
TLDR version : Unlike a household or firm,
the govt does not need to balance the budget, it needs to balance the economy, and already has the tools to do so.
The real constraint is inflation - ultimately productive capacity - not money. We can have all the nice things we can produce, but we are stunting growth with inequality and an artificial scarcity of money.