The burden of government spending has skyrocketed during the Bush-Obama years. Many politicians claim that all this new spending represents necessary “investments” to boost economic growth. But as this new video explains, both cross-country comparisons and empirical analysis suggest government is far too big – not only in Europe, but also in America.
This is the second of a two-part series. The first installment, which focuses on eight theoretical reasons why excessive government undermines growth, can be viewed here.
[…] The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used tofinance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] not good that debt goes up, of course, but that’s a symptomof the bigger problem, which is government consuming a greater share of the nation’s […]
[…] not good that debt goes up, of course, but that’s a symptomof the bigger problem, which is government consuming a greater share of the nation’s […]
[…] not good that debt goes up, of course, but that’s a symptom of the bigger problem, which is government consuming a greater share of the nation’s […]
[…] based our results on a wide range of economic research, especially a scholarly study from the Congressional Budget Office, and found a big drop in […]
[…] The Tax Foundation model only measures the economic damage of higher taxes. If you also measure the harmful impact of more spending, the estimates of foregone economic output are much […]
[…] The Tax Foundation model only measures the economic damage of higher taxes. If you also measure the harmful impact of more spending, the estimates of foregone economic output are much […]
[…] based our results on a wide range of economic research, especially a scholarly study from the Congressional Budget Office, and found a big drop in […]
[…] based our results on a wide range of economic research, especially a scholarly study from the Congressional Budget Office, and found a big drop in […]
[…] The Tax Foundation model only measures the economic damage of higher taxes. If you also measure the harmful impact of more spending, the estimates of foregone economic output are much […]
[…] The Tax Foundation model only measures the economic damage of higher taxes. If you also measure the harmful impact of more spending, the estimates of foregone economic output are much […]
[…] very skeptical when politicians and interest groups plead for more funding (needless to say, evidence tells us we should be skeptical of any requests for bigger government, not just those for more R&D […]
[…] be very skeptical when politicians and interest groups plead for more funding (needless to say, evidence tells us we should be skeptical of any requests for bigger government, not just those for more R&D […]
[…] good folks at the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal allowed me to explain the fiscal and economic benefits that accrue when nations limit the growth of […]
[…] past weekend about the economy and fiscal policy, and I made my usual points about government being too big and warned that the problem would get much worse in the future because of demographic change and […]
[…] so many factors doubtlessly contributed to the nation’s superior performance. Both theory and evidence, however, suggest that fiscal discipline is good for […]
[…] that red ink isn’t good news, but I’m much more concerned (and genuinely so) about this line from CBO’s forecast. In just 10 years, the burden of federal […]
[…] that red ink isn’t good news, but I’m much more concerned (and genuinely so) about this line from CBO’s forecast. In just 10 years, the burden of […]
[…] understand and accept the argument that ever-rising fiscal burdens are bad for a nation’s economic and moral health, but they are afraid that voters and interest groups will kick them out of office […]
[…] a video on why big government is theoretically bad for an economy, another video looking at the empirical evidence on government spending and economic performance, and also a video on the growth-maximizing size of the public […]
[…] point out that very few problems can be solved with more government spending. Indeed, that’s usually a recipe for making a problem worse (the welfare state, for example). But the most glaring flaw with […]
whoa this blog is fantastic i like reading your posts.
Keep uup the great work! You understand, many persons are hunting around for this info, you could aid them greatly.
[…] statists want large welfare states with lots of redistribution. And those are the policies that lead to less prosperity. And perhaps even fiscal […]
[…] statists want large welfare states with lots of redistribution. And those are the policies that lead to less prosperity. And perhaps even fiscal […]
[…] statists want large welfare states with lots of redistribution. And those are the policies that lead to less prosperity. And perhaps even fiscal […]
[…] statists want large welfare states with lots of redistribution. And those are the policies that lead to less prosperity. And perhaps even fiscal […]
[…] Il y a deux raisons à la confusion du CRFB. Premièrement, il semble accepter l’argument keynésien selon lequel un État obèse avec des déficits encourage la croissance, même s’il va sans dire que tous les signaux prouvent le contraire. Deuxièmement, il n’arrive pas à distinguer la bonne austérité de la mauvaise austérité. Si l’austérité signifie des impôts plus élevés, comme cela a souvent été le cas en Europe, alors c’est clairement mauvais pour la croissance. Mais, si cela signifie une limitation dans les dépenses (voire même une baisse des dépenses), alors c’est clairement bon pour la croissance. Il peut y avoir des perturbations à court terme puisque les ressources ne sont pas instantanément réallouées, mais les profits à long terme sont énormes car le travail et le capital sont utilisés de manière plus productive par le secteur privé. […]
[…] There are two reasons for CRFB’s confusion. First, they seem to accept the Keynesian argument about bigger government and red ink boosting growth, notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary. Second, they fail to distinguish between good austerity and bad austerity. If austerity means higher taxes, as has been the case so often in Europe, then it is unambiguously bad for growth. But if it means spending restraint (or even actual spending cuts), then it is clearly good for growth. There may be some short-term disruption since resources don’t instantaneously get reallocated, but the long-term benefits are enormous because labor and capital are used more productively in the private economy. […]
[…] As an economist, my primary objection to excessive government is – or at least should be – based on foregone growth. After all, government spending (whether it is financed by taxes or borrowing) diverts resources from the productive sector of society and results in the misallocation of labor and capital. […]
[…] any event, the point I’m making is that some governments seem semi-competent, but there also seems to be a relationship between the size and scope of government and the failure of […]
[…] any event, the point I’m making is that some governments seem semi-competent, but there also seems to be a relationship between the size and scope of government and the failure of […]
[…] nitpicking. The point I’m trying to make is that we have a bloated federal government that is sapping the economy’s vitality and undermining social […]
[…] numbers. Which perhaps explains why Keynesian economics has a long track record of failure. …The ongoing damage of counterproductive government outlays is much larger and more serious than the Transitory costs of redeploying resources when spending […]
[…] Which perhaps explains why Keynesian economics has a long track record of failure. …The ongoing damage of counterproductive government outlays is much larger and more serious than the transitory costs of redeploying resources when spending […]
[…] this means. The IMF is hurting global growth by distorting the allocation of capital. It’s hurting Albanian growth by enabling more government spending. And it’s hurting Albanian growth by forcing higher tax […]
[…] these caveats aren’t arguments for more spending. The ongoing damage of counterproductive government outlays is much larger and more serious than the transitory costs of redeploying resources when spending is […]
[…] making government bigger is good for the poor. Redistribution traps the poor in dependency and a larger public sector hinders economic growth, making life even more difficult for the less […]
[…] symptoms, I’m almost always seeking to help people understand why it’s important to focus on the problem of government spending rather than the side-effect of government […]
[…] isn’t a trick question. Even though I’ve presented both theoretical and empirical arguments against government spending, that doesn’t mean every government program is a […]
[…] I’m almost always seeking to help people understand why it’s important to focus on the problem of government spending rather than the side-effect of government […]
[…] Not surprisingly, I argue that more revenue in Washington will exacerbate the real problem of a federal government that is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] Here’s one that’s quite appropriate for today since the politicians are busy negotiating over how to raise taxes while failing to address the real problem of a federal government that is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] isn’t a trick question. Even though I’ve presented both theoretical and empirical arguments against government spending, that doesn’t mean every government program is a […]
[…] argument is that Obama’s policies are impeding growth. Simply stated, higher tax rates, a heavier burden of government spending, and other forms of intervention are not exactly the right recipe for growth and […]
[…] Not surprisingly, I argue that more revenue in Washington will exacerbate the real problem of a federal government that is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] Henry Payne has a similar message in his cartoon, and I like it even better because it’s obvious that the problem is that government is too big. […]
[…] continued spending restraint is vital. The burden of government spending is still far too high in the PIIGS nations, even when merely compared to pre-crisis spending […]
[…] nitpicking. The point I’m trying to make is that we have a bloated federal government that is sapping the economy’s vitality and undermining social […]
[…] nitpicking. The point I’m trying to make is that we have a bloated federal government that is sapping the economy’s vitality and undermining social […]
[…] moral of the story is that reducing the burden of government spending is the right recipe for sustainable and strong growth. Growth also is far more likely if lawmakers […]
[…] the real fiscal problem in most nations is the size of government. Excessive government spending is bad for prosperity, regardless of whether it is financed by taxes or […]
[…] need a lot of time to figure out whether class-warfare tax policy is desirable, whether the federal government is too big, or whether government should be throwing people in jail for victimless […]
[…] second Allie cartoon is so good. Even when government does something that is theoretically good, it causes a lot of collateral damage because of the excessive size and scope of the welfare […]
[…] Henry Payne has a similar message in his cartoon, and I like it even better because it’s obvious that the problem is that government is too big. […]
[…] is that Obama’s policies are impeding growth. Simply stated, higher tax rates, a heavier burden of government spending, and other forms of intervention are not exactly the right recipe for growth and […]
[…] Here’s one that’s quite appropriate for today since the politicians are busy negotiating over how to raise taxes while failing to address the real problem of a federal government that is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] Not surprisingly, I argue that more revenue in Washington will exacerbate the real problem of a federal government that is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] I’m not familiar with this cartoonist, but he or she deserves kudos for recognizing the problem is spending. Deficits and debt are merely symptoms of the disease of excessive government. […]
[…] second Allie cartoon is so good. Even when government does something that is theoretically good, it causes a lot of collateral damage because of the excessive size and scope of the welfare […]
[…] Here’s one that’s quite appropriate for today since the politicians are busy negotiating over how to raise taxes while failing to address the real problem of a federal government that is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] don’t like bloated government. It undermines economic performance by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy and often leads to destructive tax […]
[…] don’t like bloated government. It undermines economic performance by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy and often leads to destructive tax […]
[…] fiscal nightmare in Europe should be all the proof that’s needed about the dangers of wasteful spending and punitive tax rates. Unfortunately, if his proposals for bigger government and class-warfare tax […]
[…] mixed bag, depending on whether governments make wise decisions. The bad news, though, is that the vast majority of current government spending is diverted for what is called transfer and consumption…, and these forms of redistributive outlays are associated with weaker economic […]
[…] second Allie cartoon is so good. Even when government does something that is theoretically good, it causes a lot of collateral damage because of the excessive size and scope of the welfare state. Like this:LikeBe the first to like […]
[…] second Allie cartoon is so good. Even when government does something that is theoretically good, it causes a lot of collateral damage because of the excessive size and scope of the welfare state. Rate this:Share […]
[…] when policy makers addressed the underlying disease of too much government spending, they solved the symptom of red ink. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this. By Everette […]
[…] that the left would oppose. Heck, it’s almost enough to make you think that it would be a good idea to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] fiscal nightmare in Europe should be all the proof that’s needed about the dangers of wasteful spending and punitive tax rates. Unfortunately, if his proposals for bigger government and class-warfare tax […]
[…] Most recently, though, I’ve been bragging about Estonia (along with Latvia and Lithuania, the other two Baltic nations) for implementing genuine spending cuts. I’ve argued that Estonia is showing how a government can reignite growth byreducing the burden of government. […]
[…] Most recently, though, I’ve been bragging about Estonia (along with Latvia and Lithuania, the other two Baltic nations) for implementing genuine spending cuts. I’ve argued that Estonia is showing how a government can reignite growth byreducing the burden of government. […]
[…] Most recently, though, I’ve been bragging about Estonia (along with Latvia and Lithuania, the other two Baltic nations) for implementing genuine spending cuts. I’ve argued that Estonia is showing how a government can reignite growth by reducing the burden of government. […]
[…] may explain why he is willing to pursue misguided policies such as class-warfare taxation and wasteful government spending. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] of makes you wonder whether there’s a lesson to be learned. Maybe, just maybe, bigger government means weaker economic performance. Share this:SharePinterestFacebookEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
[…] of makes you wonder whether there’s a lesson to be learned. Maybe, just maybe, bigger government means weaker economic performance. Daniel J. Mitchell • June 1, 2012 @ 9:42 am Filed under: General; […]
[…] of makes you wonder whether there’s a lesson to be learned. Maybe, just maybe, bigger government means weaker economic performance. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] fiscal nightmare in Europe should be all the proof that’s needed about the dangers of wasteful spending and punitive tax rates. Unfortunately, if his proposals for bigger government and class-warfare tax […]
[…] This is one of the reasons why the economy is weak. For further information, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. […]
[…] The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used tofinance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] we’re back to the hard-to-answer questions. When is government too big and when does it impose so many demands that people are justified in evading taxation? I’m not […]
[…] The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used tofinance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much […]
[…] This is one of the reasons why the economy is weak. For further information, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. […]
[…] are two very interesting takeaways from this new research. First, the evidence shows that the problem is government spending, and that problem exists regardless of whether the budget is financed by taxes or borrowing. […]
[…] are two very interesting takeaways from this new research. First, the evidence shows that the problem is government spending, and that problem exists regardless of whether the budget is financed by taxes or borrowing. […]
[…] all, the federal government is too big, and the damage to the economy would still exist even if the deficit disappeared because $1 trillion of new revenue magically […]
[…] can stick to their no-tax promise, generating significant budgetary savings with a sequester, and boosting economic performance by restraining the burden of government. jQuery('#lazyload_post_0 img').lazyload({placeholder: […]
[…] can stick to their no-tax promise, generating significant budgetary savings with a sequester, and boosting economic performance by restraining the burden of government. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much […]
[…] The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] though the world is filled with evidence that smaller government is good for prosperity (and even more evidence that big government is bad for growth), statism is not […]
[…] though the world is filled with evidence that smaller government is good for prosperity (and even more evidence that big government is bad for growth), statism is not […]
[…] the government gets bigger, this hinders growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy. The damage is then compounded by the fact that the two main ways of financing the public sector […]
[…] the government gets bigger, this hinders growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy. The damage is then compounded by the fact that the two main ways of financing the public sector […]
[…] But Bruce is making it seem as if the conservative position is maximum deficit reduction when the real goal is restraining the size of government. By Bruce’s absurd logic, doubling all taxes would be the conservative choice since “deficit […]
[…] But Bruce is making it seem as if the conservative position is maximum deficit reduction when the real goal is restraining the size of government. By Bruce’s absurd logic, doubling all taxes would be the conservative choice since […]
[…] Isn’t that wonderful. A $600 million disbursement of tax dollars, getting absolutely nothing in exchange. Though I suppose that’s better than some other federal expenditures that have negative rates-of-return. […]
[…] This is one of the reasons why the economy is weak. For further information, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. […]
[…] I’m one of those “reality-challenged” people who prefer smaller government, I obviously disagree with his analysis. But his reference to Hoover set off alarm bells. As I have […]
[…] I’m one of those “reality-challenged” people who prefer smaller government, I obviously disagreed with his analysis. But his reference to Hoover set off alarm bells. As I […]
[…] The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] 1. The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] 1. The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] 1. The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] 1. The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] This is one of the reasons why the economy is weak. For further information, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. […]
[…] This is one of the reasons why the economy is weak. For further information, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. […]
[…] Unless the Washington Post story is completely inaccurate, the Obama Administration is not changing course. There may not be any major initiatives to expand the burden of government, like the failed stimulus or the budget busting government-run healthcare scheme, but it certainly does not seem like there are any plans to reverse direction and shrink the burden of government. […]
[…] healthcare scheme, but it certainly does not seem like there are any plans to reverse direction and shrink the burden of government. jQuery('#lazyload_post_0 img').lazyload({placeholder: […]
[…] Unless the Washington Post story is completely inaccurate, the Obama Administration is not changing course. There may not be any major initiatives to expand the burden of government, like the failed stimulus or the budget busting government-run healthcare scheme, but it certainly does not seem like there are any plans to reverse direction and shrink the burden of government. […]
[…] economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America's fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much […]
[…] economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too […]
[…] economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much […]
[…] economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too […]
[…] economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too […]
[…] I’m not a big fan of central banks, and I definitely don’t like multilateral bureaucracies, so I almost feel guilty about publicizing two recent studies published by the European Central Bank. But when such an institution puts out research that unambiguously makes the case for smaller government, it’s time to sit up and take notice. And since these studies largely echo the findings of recent research by the International Monetary Fund, we may have reached a point where even the establishment finally understands that government is too big. […]
[…] January 21, 2011 by Dan Mitchell I’m not a big fan of central banks, and I definitely don’t like multilateral bureaucracies, so I almost feel guilty about publicizing two recent studies published by the European Central Bank. But when such an institution puts out research that unambiguously makes the case for smaller government, it’s time to sit up and take notice. And since these studies largely echo the findings of recent research by the International Monetary Fund, we may have reached a point where even the establishment finally understands that government is too big. […]
[…] January 21, 2011 by Dan Mitchell I’m not a big fan of central banks, and I definitely don’t like multilateral bureaucracies, so I almost feel guilty about publicizing two recent studies published by the European Central Bank. But when such an institution puts out research that unambiguously makes the case for smaller government, it’s time to sit up and take notice. And since these studies largely echo the findings of recent research by the International Monetary Fund, we may have reached a point where even the establishment finally understands that government is too big. […]
[…] results show that the American people understand big government is the problem. And Republicans probably deserve some credit since they’ve been making the right noises about […]
[…] results show that the American people understand big government is the problem. And Republicans probably deserve some credit since they’ve been making the right noises about […]
[…] is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] rather than private sector investments.That’s a very bad idea, unless you somehow think (notwithstanding all the evidence) that it is smart to make the public sector bigger at the expense of the private […]
[…] rather than private sector investments.That’s a very bad idea, unless you somehow think (notwithstanding all the evidence) that it is smart to make the public sector bigger at the expense of the private […]
[…] rather than private sector investments.That’s a very bad idea, unless you somehow think (notwithstanding all the evidence) that it is smart to make the public sector bigger at the expense of the private […]
[…] rather than private sector investments.That’s a very bad idea, unless you somehow think (notwithstanding all the evidence) that it is smart to make the public sector bigger at the expense of the private […]
[…] is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] And there is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] And there is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] And there is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] And there is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] at a higher level of spending. And since government spending, at current levels and composition, hinders economic growth by diverting labor and capital to less productive (or unproductive) uses, any proposal that enables higher levels of government spending will further undermine economic […]
[…] at a higher level of spending. And since government spending, at current levels and composition, hinders economic growth by diverting labor and capital to less productive (or unproductive) uses, any proposal that enables higher levels of government spending will further undermine economic […]
[…] at a higher level of spending. And since government spending, at current levels and composition, hinders economic growth by diverting labor and capital to less productive (or unproductive) uses, any proposal that enables higher levels of government spending will further undermine economic […]
[…] always been more concerned about the negative economic impact of government spending and the failure of Keynesian fiscal policy, but it’s also important to focus on waste and fraud. […]
[…] always been more concerned about the negative economic impact of government spending and the failure of Keynesian fiscal policy, but it’s also important to focus on waste and […]
[…] On the other hand, there’s been a long-term upward trend in the amount of cash companies are holding, so it’s a good idea to be cautious about drawing any sweeping conclusion from the recent jump. All we can say for sure is that bad policy reduces incentives for productive behavior. This is why bigger burdens of government are associated with slower growth. […]
[…] On the other hand, there’s been a long-term upward trend in the amount of cash companies are holding, so it’s a good idea to be cautious about drawing any sweeping conclusion from the recent jump. All we can say for sure is that bad policy reduces incentives for productive behavior. This is why bigger burdens of government are associated with slower growth. […]
[…] Regardless of whether it is a corrupt earmark or a squeaky-clean appropriation, all spending must be financed by taxes, debt, or printing money – and all these options are bad for economic performance. Here’s a video that gives the theoretical explanation of why govenrment spending harms economic performance, and here’s a follow-up video providing empirical evidence about the damaging impact of too much government. […]
[…] The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used tofinance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] not good that debt goes up, of course, but that’s a symptomof the bigger problem, which is government consuming a greater share of the nation’s […]
[…] not good that debt goes up, of course, but that’s a symptomof the bigger problem, which is government consuming a greater share of the nation’s […]
[…] not good that debt goes up, of course, but that’s a symptom of the bigger problem, which is government consuming a greater share of the nation’s […]
[…] based our results on a wide range of economic research, especially a scholarly study from the Congressional Budget Office, and found a big drop in […]
[…] The Tax Foundation model only measures the economic damage of higher taxes. If you also measure the harmful impact of more spending, the estimates of foregone economic output are much […]
[…] The Tax Foundation model only measures the economic damage of higher taxes. If you also measure the harmful impact of more spending, the estimates of foregone economic output are much […]
[…] based our results on a wide range of economic research, especially a scholarly study from the Congressional Budget Office, and found a big drop in […]
[…] based our results on a wide range of economic research, especially a scholarly study from the Congressional Budget Office, and found a big drop in […]
[…] The Tax Foundation model only measures the economic damage of higher taxes. If you also measure the harmful impact of more spending, the estimates of foregone economic output are much […]
[…] The Tax Foundation model only measures the economic damage of higher taxes. If you also measure the harmful impact of more spending, the estimates of foregone economic output are much […]
[…] than 12 years ago, I shared this video containing lots of data and research on the negative relationship between government spending and […]
[…] than 12 years ago, I shared this video containing lots of data and research on the negative relationship between government spending and […]
[…] that we should be surprised. Both theory and evidence tell us that bigger government is bad for […]
[…] that we should be surprised. Both theory and evidence tell us that bigger government is bad for […]
[…] does not bode well for American prosperity. Even the Congressional Budget Office recognizes this means lower living […]
[…] does not bode well for American prosperity. Even the Congressional Budget Office recognizes this means lower living […]
[…] here’s a video with some of the scholarly […]
[…] very skeptical when politicians and interest groups plead for more funding (needless to say, evidence tells us we should be skeptical of any requests for bigger government, not just those for more R&D […]
[…] be very skeptical when politicians and interest groups plead for more funding (needless to say, evidence tells us we should be skeptical of any requests for bigger government, not just those for more R&D […]
[…] for growth since resources are diverted from the productive sector of the […]
[…] good folks at the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal allowed me to explain the fiscal and economic benefits that accrue when nations limit the growth of […]
[…] bloated welfare state is a drag on economic performance, whether it’s financed by borrowing or […]
[…] that imposes costs on the economy’s productive […]
[…] past weekend about the economy and fiscal policy, and I made my usual points about government being too big and warned that the problem would get much worse in the future because of demographic change and […]
[…] numbers shouldn’t be a surprise. I narrated an entire video that listed study after study showing the same […]
[…] That’s not good news. […]
[…] so many factors doubtlessly contributed to the nation’s superior performance. Both theory and evidence, however, suggest that fiscal discipline is good for […]
[…] other words, the research clearly shows that shrinking the burden of government spending is a great recipe to promote greater prosperity. […]
[…] that red ink isn’t good news, but I’m much more concerned (and genuinely so) about this line from CBO’s forecast. In just 10 years, the burden of federal […]
[…] that red ink isn’t good news, but I’m much more concerned (and genuinely so) about this line from CBO’s forecast. In just 10 years, the burden of […]
[…] the bottom line is that most types of government spending are bad for an economy, regardless of whether they are financed by taxes or […]
[…] the bottom line is that most types of government spending are bad for an economy, regardless of whether they are financed by taxes or […]
[…] understand and accept the argument that ever-rising fiscal burdens are bad for a nation’s economic and moral health, but they are afraid that voters and interest groups will kick them out of office […]
[…] a video on why big government is theoretically bad for an economy, another video looking at the empirical evidence on government spending and economic performance, and also a video on the growth-maximizing size of the public […]
[…] bad for growth since resources are diverted from the productive sector of the […]
[…] point out that very few problems can be solved with more government spending. Indeed, that’s usually a recipe for making a problem worse (the welfare state, for example). But the most glaring flaw with […]
[…] should be surprised to see that the symptom of red ink shrinks when there’s a reduction in the underlying disease of too much government […]
[…] far more likely that the benefits are understated because government spending generates negative macroeconomic and microeconomic […]
[…] spending undermines growth by diverting labor and capital from more productive uses to less productive […]
[…] spending undermines growth by diverting labor and capital from more productive uses to less productive […]
[…] Here’s the empirical evidence on government spending and growth. […]
whoa this blog is fantastic i like reading your posts.
Keep uup the great work! You understand, many persons are hunting around for this info, you could aid them greatly.
[…] statists want large welfare states with lots of redistribution. And those are the policies that lead to less prosperity. And perhaps even fiscal […]
[…] statists want large welfare states with lots of redistribution. And those are the policies that lead to less prosperity. And perhaps even fiscal […]
[…] statists want large welfare states with lots of redistribution. And those are the policies that lead to less prosperity. And perhaps even fiscal […]
[…] statists want large welfare states with lots of redistribution. And those are the policies that lead to less prosperity. And perhaps even fiscal […]
[…] Il y a deux raisons à la confusion du CRFB. Premièrement, il semble accepter l’argument keynésien selon lequel un État obèse avec des déficits encourage la croissance, même s’il va sans dire que tous les signaux prouvent le contraire. Deuxièmement, il n’arrive pas à distinguer la bonne austérité de la mauvaise austérité. Si l’austérité signifie des impôts plus élevés, comme cela a souvent été le cas en Europe, alors c’est clairement mauvais pour la croissance. Mais, si cela signifie une limitation dans les dépenses (voire même une baisse des dépenses), alors c’est clairement bon pour la croissance. Il peut y avoir des perturbations à court terme puisque les ressources ne sont pas instantanément réallouées, mais les profits à long terme sont énormes car le travail et le capital sont utilisés de manière plus productive par le secteur privé. […]
[…] There are two reasons for CRFB’s confusion. First, they seem to accept the Keynesian argument about bigger government and red ink boosting growth, notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary. Second, they fail to distinguish between good austerity and bad austerity. If austerity means higher taxes, as has been the case so often in Europe, then it is unambiguously bad for growth. But if it means spending restraint (or even actual spending cuts), then it is clearly good for growth. There may be some short-term disruption since resources don’t instantaneously get reallocated, but the long-term benefits are enormous because labor and capital are used more productively in the private economy. […]
[…] As an economist, my primary objection to excessive government is – or at least should be – based on foregone growth. After all, government spending (whether it is financed by taxes or borrowing) diverts resources from the productive sector of society and results in the misallocation of labor and capital. […]
[…] any event, the point I’m making is that some governments seem semi-competent, but there also seems to be a relationship between the size and scope of government and the failure of […]
[…] any event, the point I’m making is that some governments seem semi-competent, but there also seems to be a relationship between the size and scope of government and the failure of […]
[…] nitpicking. The point I’m trying to make is that we have a bloated federal government that is sapping the economy’s vitality and undermining social […]
[…] next video examines the empirical evidence, citing both cross-country data and academic […]
[…] shared lots of data and evidence about the harmful economic impact of government […]
[…] this cartoon correctly focuses on the main problems of punitive taxation and excessive spending, not the lesser symptom of too much […]
[…] numbers. Which perhaps explains why Keynesian economics has a long track record of failure. …The ongoing damage of counterproductive government outlays is much larger and more serious than the Transitory costs of redeploying resources when spending […]
[…] Which perhaps explains why Keynesian economics has a long track record of failure. …The ongoing damage of counterproductive government outlays is much larger and more serious than the transitory costs of redeploying resources when spending […]
[…] he should peruse the compelling data in this video, which includes a comparison of the United States and […]
[…] this means. The IMF is hurting global growth by distorting the allocation of capital. It’s hurting Albanian growth by enabling more government spending. And it’s hurting Albanian growth by forcing higher tax […]
[…] these caveats aren’t arguments for more spending. The ongoing damage of counterproductive government outlays is much larger and more serious than the transitory costs of redeploying resources when spending is […]
[…] making government bigger is good for the poor. Redistribution traps the poor in dependency and a larger public sector hinders economic growth, making life even more difficult for the less […]
[…] I share additional compelling data in this video, including a comparison of the United States and […]
[…] symptoms, I’m almost always seeking to help people understand why it’s important to focus on the problem of government spending rather than the side-effect of government […]
[…] isn’t a trick question. Even though I’ve presented both theoretical and empirical arguments against government spending, that doesn’t mean every government program is a […]
[…] I’m almost always seeking to help people understand why it’s important to focus on the problem of government spending rather than the side-effect of government […]
[…] Not surprisingly, I argue that more revenue in Washington will exacerbate the real problem of a federal government that is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] Here’s one that’s quite appropriate for today since the politicians are busy negotiating over how to raise taxes while failing to address the real problem of a federal government that is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] Too much government spending and the Laffer Curve are not a good combination. […]
[…] So what’s the bottom line? Well, as Allister stated, the real problem is that government is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] isn’t a trick question. Even though I’ve presented both theoretical and empirical arguments against government spending, that doesn’t mean every government program is a […]
[…] argument is that Obama’s policies are impeding growth. Simply stated, higher tax rates, a heavier burden of government spending, and other forms of intervention are not exactly the right recipe for growth and […]
[…] Not surprisingly, I argue that more revenue in Washington will exacerbate the real problem of a federal government that is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] since I’m not a fan of big government and I’ve mocked Detroit’s dysfunctional statism, you will understand why this poster made me […]
[…] if I can merely convince politicians to reduce the burden of government spending, I’ll be able to say 2013 was a good […]
[…] Henry Payne has a similar message in his cartoon, and I like it even better because it’s obvious that the problem is that government is too big. […]
[…] continued spending restraint is vital. The burden of government spending is still far too high in the PIIGS nations, even when merely compared to pre-crisis spending […]
[…] would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the […]
[…] nitpicking. The point I’m trying to make is that we have a bloated federal government that is sapping the economy’s vitality and undermining social […]
[…] nitpicking. The point I’m trying to make is that we have a bloated federal government that is sapping the economy’s vitality and undermining social […]
[…] moral of the story is that reducing the burden of government spending is the right recipe for sustainable and strong growth. Growth also is far more likely if lawmakers […]
[…] the real fiscal problem in most nations is the size of government. Excessive government spending is bad for prosperity, regardless of whether it is financed by taxes or […]
[…] need a lot of time to figure out whether class-warfare tax policy is desirable, whether the federal government is too big, or whether government should be throwing people in jail for victimless […]
[…] Too much government spending and the Laffer Curve are not a good combination. […]
[…] Too much government spending and the Laffer Curve are not a good combination. […]
[…] this cartoon correctly focuses on the main problems of punitive taxation and excessive spending, not the lesser symptom of too much […]
[…] this cartoon correctly focuses on the main problems of punitive taxation and excessive spending, not the lesser symptom of too much […]
[…] second Allie cartoon is so good. Even when government does something that is theoretically good, it causes a lot of collateral damage because of the excessive size and scope of the welfare […]
[…] Henry Payne has a similar message in his cartoon, and I like it even better because it’s obvious that the problem is that government is too big. […]
[…] is that Obama’s policies are impeding growth. Simply stated, higher tax rates, a heavier burden of government spending, and other forms of intervention are not exactly the right recipe for growth and […]
[…] So what’s the bottom line? Well, as Allister stated, the real problem is that government is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] So what’s the bottom line? Well, as Allister stated, the real problem is that government is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] if you watch all of them, you’ll realize that government is the problem, not the […]
[…] Here’s one that’s quite appropriate for today since the politicians are busy negotiating over how to raise taxes while failing to address the real problem of a federal government that is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] Not surprisingly, I argue that more revenue in Washington will exacerbate the real problem of a federal government that is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] I’m not familiar with this cartoonist, but he or she deserves kudos for recognizing the problem is spending. Deficits and debt are merely symptoms of the disease of excessive government. […]
[…] second Allie cartoon is so good. Even when government does something that is theoretically good, it causes a lot of collateral damage because of the excessive size and scope of the welfare […]
[…] Here’s one that’s quite appropriate for today since the politicians are busy negotiating over how to raise taxes while failing to address the real problem of a federal government that is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] don’t like bloated government. It undermines economic performance by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy and often leads to destructive tax […]
[…] don’t like bloated government. It undermines economic performance by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy and often leads to destructive tax […]
[…] since I’m not a fan of big government and I’ve mocked Detroit’s dysfunctional statism, you will understand why this poster […]
[…] fiscal nightmare in Europe should be all the proof that’s needed about the dangers of wasteful spending and punitive tax rates. Unfortunately, if his proposals for bigger government and class-warfare tax […]
[…] mixed bag, depending on whether governments make wise decisions. The bad news, though, is that the vast majority of current government spending is diverted for what is called transfer and consumption…, and these forms of redistributive outlays are associated with weaker economic […]
[…] when policy makers addressed the underlying disease of too much government spending, they solved the symptom of red […]
[…] if you watch all of them, you’ll realize that government is the problem, not the solution. Article source: […]
[…] if you watch all of them, you’ll realize that government is the problem, not the solution. Rate this:Share […]
[…] second Allie cartoon is so good. Even when government does something that is theoretically good, it causes a lot of collateral damage because of the excessive size and scope of the welfare state. Like this:LikeBe the first to like […]
[…] second Allie cartoon is so good. Even when government does something that is theoretically good, it causes a lot of collateral damage because of the excessive size and scope of the welfare state. Rate this:Share […]
[…] would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the […]
[…] when policy makers addressed the underlying disease of too much government spending, they solved the symptom of red ink. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this. By Everette […]
[…] when policy makers addressed the underlying disease of too much government spending, they solved the symptom of red ink. Share […]
[…] when policy makers addressed the underlying disease of too much government spending, they solved the symptom of red ink. Rate this:Share […]
[…] that the left would oppose. Heck, it’s almost enough to make you think that it would be a good idea to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] fiscal nightmare in Europe should be all the proof that’s needed about the dangers of wasteful spending and punitive tax rates. Unfortunately, if his proposals for bigger government and class-warfare tax […]
[…] Most recently, though, I’ve been bragging about Estonia (along with Latvia and Lithuania, the other two Baltic nations) for implementing genuine spending cuts. I’ve argued that Estonia is showing how a government can reignite growth byreducing the burden of government. […]
[…] Most recently, though, I’ve been bragging about Estonia (along with Latvia and Lithuania, the other two Baltic nations) for implementing genuine spending cuts. I’ve argued that Estonia is showing how a government can reignite growth byreducing the burden of government. […]
[…] Most recently, though, I’ve been bragging about Estonia (along with Latvia and Lithuania, the other two Baltic nations) for implementing genuine spending cuts. I’ve argued that Estonia is showing how a government can reignite growth by reducing the burden of government. […]
[…] may explain why he is willing to pursue misguided policies such as class-warfare taxation and wasteful government spending. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] of makes you wonder whether there’s a lesson to be learned. Maybe, just maybe, bigger government means weaker economic performance. Share this:SharePinterestFacebookEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
[…] of makes you wonder whether there’s a lesson to be learned. Maybe, just maybe, bigger government means weaker economic performance. Daniel J. Mitchell • June 1, 2012 @ 9:42 am Filed under: General; […]
[…] of makes you wonder whether there’s a lesson to be learned. Maybe, just maybe, bigger government means weaker economic performance. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] fiscal nightmare in Europe should be all the proof that’s needed about the dangers of wasteful spending and punitive tax rates. Unfortunately, if his proposals for bigger government and class-warfare tax […]
[…] when I discuss my work on the economic impact of government spending, I often get the same […]
[…] This is one of the reasons why the economy is weak. For further information, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. […]
[…] The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used tofinance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] we’re back to the hard-to-answer questions. When is government too big and when does it impose so many demands that people are justified in evading taxation? I’m not […]
[…] next video examines the empirical evidence, citing both cross-country data and academic […]
[…] The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used tofinance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much […]
[…] when I discuss my work on the economic impact of government spending, I often get the same […]
[…] when I discuss my work on the economic impact of government spending, I often get the same […]
[…] when I discuss my work on the economic impact of government spending, I often get the same […]
[…] when I discuss my work on the economic impact of government spending, I often get the same […]
[…] when I discuss my work on the economic impact of government spending, I often get the same […]
[…] would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the […]
[…] we do have good evidence that economic growth suffers as government expands, this conclusion makes a lot more […]
[…] This is one of the reasons why the economy is weak. For further information, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. […]
[…] would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the […]
[…] are two very interesting takeaways from this new research. First, the evidence shows that the problem is government spending, and that problem exists regardless of whether the budget is financed by taxes or borrowing. […]
[…] are two very interesting takeaways from this new research. First, the evidence shows that the problem is government spending, and that problem exists regardless of whether the budget is financed by taxes or borrowing. […]
[…] would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the […]
[…] just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, bigger government is not good for the economy, regardless of how it is […]
[…] all, the federal government is too big, and the damage to the economy would still exist even if the deficit disappeared because $1 trillion of new revenue magically […]
[…] I also want to applaud Senator Sessions for focusing on America’s fiscal problem, which is a government that is too big and spending too much. […]
[…] can stick to their no-tax promise, generating significant budgetary savings with a sequester, and boosting economic performance by restraining the burden of government. jQuery('#lazyload_post_0 img').lazyload({placeholder: […]
[…] can stick to their no-tax promise, generating significant budgetary savings with a sequester, and boosting economic performance by restraining the burden of government. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much […]
[…] The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the […]
[…] just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, bigger government is not good for the economy, regardless of how it is […]
[…] though the world is filled with evidence that smaller government is good for prosperity (and even more evidence that big government is bad for growth), statism is not […]
[…] though the world is filled with evidence that smaller government is good for prosperity (and even more evidence that big government is bad for growth), statism is not […]
[…] the government gets bigger, this hinders growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy. The damage is then compounded by the fact that the two main ways of financing the public sector […]
[…] the government gets bigger, this hinders growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy. The damage is then compounded by the fact that the two main ways of financing the public sector […]
[…] But Bruce is making it seem as if the conservative position is maximum deficit reduction when the real goal is restraining the size of government. By Bruce’s absurd logic, doubling all taxes would be the conservative choice since “deficit […]
[…] But Bruce is making it seem as if the conservative position is maximum deficit reduction when the real goal is restraining the size of government. By Bruce’s absurd logic, doubling all taxes would be the conservative choice since […]
[…] Isn’t that wonderful. A $600 million disbursement of tax dollars, getting absolutely nothing in exchange. Though I suppose that’s better than some other federal expenditures that have negative rates-of-return. […]
[…] This is one of the reasons why the economy is weak. For further information, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. […]
[…] I’m one of those “reality-challenged” people who prefer smaller government, I obviously disagree with his analysis. But his reference to Hoover set off alarm bells. As I have […]
[…] I’m one of those “reality-challenged” people who prefer smaller government, I obviously disagreed with his analysis. But his reference to Hoover set off alarm bells. As I […]
[…] The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] 1. The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] 1. The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] 1. The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] 1. The money we send to Washington, which is a direct cost to our pocketbooks and also an indirect cost since the money often is used to finance counterproductive programs that further damage the economy. […]
[…] This is one of the reasons why the economy is weak. For further information, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. […]
[…] This is one of the reasons why the economy is weak. For further information, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. […]
[…] Unless the Washington Post story is completely inaccurate, the Obama Administration is not changing course. There may not be any major initiatives to expand the burden of government, like the failed stimulus or the budget busting government-run healthcare scheme, but it certainly does not seem like there are any plans to reverse direction and shrink the burden of government. […]
[…] healthcare scheme, but it certainly does not seem like there are any plans to reverse direction and shrink the burden of government. jQuery('#lazyload_post_0 img').lazyload({placeholder: […]
[…] Unless the Washington Post story is completely inaccurate, the Obama Administration is not changing course. There may not be any major initiatives to expand the burden of government, like the failed stimulus or the budget busting government-run healthcare scheme, but it certainly does not seem like there are any plans to reverse direction and shrink the burden of government. […]
[…] economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America's fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much […]
[…] economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too […]
[…] economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much […]
[…] economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too […]
[…] economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too […]
[…] would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the […]
[…] would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the […]
[…] would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the […]
[…] would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the […]
[…] would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the […]
[…] would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the […]
[…] would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the […]
[…] I’m not a big fan of central banks, and I definitely don’t like multilateral bureaucracies, so I almost feel guilty about publicizing two recent studies published by the European Central Bank. But when such an institution puts out research that unambiguously makes the case for smaller government, it’s time to sit up and take notice. And since these studies largely echo the findings of recent research by the International Monetary Fund, we may have reached a point where even the establishment finally understands that government is too big. […]
[…] January 21, 2011 by Dan Mitchell I’m not a big fan of central banks, and I definitely don’t like multilateral bureaucracies, so I almost feel guilty about publicizing two recent studies published by the European Central Bank. But when such an institution puts out research that unambiguously makes the case for smaller government, it’s time to sit up and take notice. And since these studies largely echo the findings of recent research by the International Monetary Fund, we may have reached a point where even the establishment finally understands that government is too big. […]
[…] January 21, 2011 by Dan Mitchell I’m not a big fan of central banks, and I definitely don’t like multilateral bureaucracies, so I almost feel guilty about publicizing two recent studies published by the European Central Bank. But when such an institution puts out research that unambiguously makes the case for smaller government, it’s time to sit up and take notice. And since these studies largely echo the findings of recent research by the International Monetary Fund, we may have reached a point where even the establishment finally understands that government is too big. […]
[…] results show that the American people understand big government is the problem. And Republicans probably deserve some credit since they’ve been making the right noises about […]
[…] results show that the American people understand big government is the problem. And Republicans probably deserve some credit since they’ve been making the right noises about […]
[…] is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] rather than private sector investments.That’s a very bad idea, unless you somehow think (notwithstanding all the evidence) that it is smart to make the public sector bigger at the expense of the private […]
[…] rather than private sector investments.That’s a very bad idea, unless you somehow think (notwithstanding all the evidence) that it is smart to make the public sector bigger at the expense of the private […]
[…] rather than private sector investments.That’s a very bad idea, unless you somehow think (notwithstanding all the evidence) that it is smart to make the public sector bigger at the expense of the private […]
[…] rather than private sector investments.That’s a very bad idea, unless you somehow think (notwithstanding all the evidence) that it is smart to make the public sector bigger at the expense of the private […]
[…] is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] And there is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] And there is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] And there is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] And there is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden. A rising burden of federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem, and this agreement exacerbates that […]
[…] at a higher level of spending. And since government spending, at current levels and composition, hinders economic growth by diverting labor and capital to less productive (or unproductive) uses, any proposal that enables higher levels of government spending will further undermine economic […]
[…] at a higher level of spending. And since government spending, at current levels and composition, hinders economic growth by diverting labor and capital to less productive (or unproductive) uses, any proposal that enables higher levels of government spending will further undermine economic […]
[…] at a higher level of spending. And since government spending, at current levels and composition, hinders economic growth by diverting labor and capital to less productive (or unproductive) uses, any proposal that enables higher levels of government spending will further undermine economic […]
[…] always been more concerned about the negative economic impact of government spending and the failure of Keynesian fiscal policy, but it’s also important to focus on waste and fraud. […]
[…] always been more concerned about the negative economic impact of government spending and the failure of Keynesian fiscal policy, but it’s also important to focus on waste and […]
[…] On the other hand, there’s been a long-term upward trend in the amount of cash companies are holding, so it’s a good idea to be cautious about drawing any sweeping conclusion from the recent jump. All we can say for sure is that bad policy reduces incentives for productive behavior. This is why bigger burdens of government are associated with slower growth. […]
[…] On the other hand, there’s been a long-term upward trend in the amount of cash companies are holding, so it’s a good idea to be cautious about drawing any sweeping conclusion from the recent jump. All we can say for sure is that bad policy reduces incentives for productive behavior. This is why bigger burdens of government are associated with slower growth. […]
[…] Regardless of whether it is a corrupt earmark or a squeaky-clean appropriation, all spending must be financed by taxes, debt, or printing money – and all these options are bad for economic performance. Here’s a video that gives the theoretical explanation of why govenrment spending harms economic performance, and here’s a follow-up video providing empirical evidence about the damaging impact of too much government. […]