"Tourism" is very Keynesian in that it is short sighted.
For example, Obama, all of economic academia, the council of economic advisors, and the entire management of the federal reserve really do believe, like Christians do a guy nailed to a plank of wood, that government stimulus will "increase aggregate demand" and with a "multiplier effect," blabbity blah blah blah.
Is it working?
No, of course not. Average economic growth is the lowest it's been ever, especially considering the INSANE Keynesian-wet-dream-of-a-deficit we've been running these past 6 affirmative action years.
But the reason it isn't working is because the smart money sees what's going on. The government is merely borrowing money from future producers to pay for current day parasites. Who would invest in such a system, even with (I know, *giggle* for the idiot naive Keynesians) "low interest rates" and "low taxes?"
But that is PRECISELY the same concept of tourism.
You are taking money from one group of people and moving it to another group of people.
However, instead of Obama's KWD (Keynesian Wet Dream) where we take money from the future and give it to the
For example, when I lived in Wyoming, there was no shortage of middle aged men motorcycling through town living their motorcycle dream of driving cross-country. Certainly admirable, certainly something I'd recommend, but whereas Krugman and his Fucktard Keynesians (it's a band of government-quality music) would claim this is "economic growth" or "economic stimulus" in the end it is nothing more than taking money from one area of the country and placing it in another.
The money those motorcycling men spent on gas did indeed go to local economy in Wyoming, but that by mathematical necessity withdrew money that would have gone to their hometown economy in Pennsylvania.
The money those mid-life crisis men spent on booze at the Occidental Hotel (which I highly recommend) did in fact benefit the local economy in Buffalo, Wyoming, but at the expense of Saskanoose, Michigan.
In other words, the overall economic impact of "tourism" is a zero sum game. You are merely taking dollars from one area of the country to spend on another.
This then presents an interesting local-economy-war game where different localities and municipalities must advertise and duke it out for tourism dollars. This is why you see advertisements to come visit some place or another. Advertisements to live your dream. Advertisements where *SNARK* the parasite state of California wants outside money constantly to bail their pathetic asses out (hey California was cool in the 80's! Come visit us, please...we're umm...totally relevant dude!) It also explains why local taxpayers spend billions every year subsidizing professional sports and marginal teams by building them palaces to throw the spheres into hoops or hit spheres with sticks, or are stupid enough to vie for the Olympics.
Regardless, in the end you have what is invariably leftist local politicians fighting against other local leftist politicians for other people's disposable income in the form of out of state tourism dollars. The next national gain is zero, but the local gain can be enormous. But something tells me the leftist politicians and economists we have in our institutions of leadership can't tell the difference.