Triggered by an appearance on Canadian TV, I asked yesterday why we should believe anti-sequester Keynesians. They want us to think that a very modest reduction in the growth of government spending will hurt the economy, yet Canada enjoyed rapid growth in the mid-1990s during a period of substantial budget restraint.
I make a similar point in this debate with Robert Reich, noting that the burden of government spending was reduced as a share of economic output during the relatively prosperous Reagan years and Clinton years.
Being a magnanimous person, I even told Robert he should take credit for the Clinton years since he was in the cabinet as Labor Secretary. Amazingly, he didn’t take me up on my offer.
Anyhow, these two charts show the stark contrast between the fiscal policy of Reagan and Clinton compared to Bush..
And there’s lots of additional information comparing the fiscal performance of various presidents here, here, and here.
For more information on Reagan and Clinton, this video has the details.
Which brings us back to the original issue.
The Keynesians fear that a modest reduction in the growth of government (under the sequester, the federal government will grow $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion) will somehow hurt the economy.
But government spending grew much slower under Reagan and Clinton than it has during the Bush-Obama years, yet I don’t think anybody would claim the economy in recent years has been more robust than it was in the 1980s and 1990s.
And if somebody does make that claim, just show them this remarkable chart (if they want to laugh, this Michael Ramirez cartoon makes the same point).
So perhaps the only logical conclusion to reach is that government is too big and that Keynesian economics is wrong.
I don’t think I’ll ever convince Robert Reich, but hopefully the rest of the world can be persuaded by real-world evidence.
[…] P.P.S. The big challenge for Keynesians is real-world evidence. […]
[…] They were wrong about Reagan in the 1980s. […]
[…] They were wrong about Reagan in the 1980s. […]
[…] They were wrong about Reagan in the 1980s. […]
I was under the impression that deficit spending increased under Reagan compared to Carter.
[…] They were wrong about Reagan in the 1980s. […]
[…] They were wrong about Reagan in the 1980s. […]
[…] They were wrong about Reagan in the 1980s. […]
[…] They were wrong about Reagan in the 1980s. […]
[…] They were wrong about Reagan in the 1980s. […]
[…] like it did better during the Reagan and Clinton years when there was spending […]
[…] like it did better during the Reagan and Clinton years when there was spending […]
[…] were wrong about Reagan in the […]
[…] Keynesians are always predicting bad consequences when there’s some sort of policy that limits government […]
[…] My second-favorite story about Keynesian economics involves the sequester, which big spenders claimed would cripple the economy, yet that’s when we got the only semi-decent growth of the Obama […]
[…] but I challenge any of them to justify their Keynesian argument after looking at evidence from the U.S. and Canada in the […]
[…] used data from nations such as Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States to show that bigger government generally hampers […]
[…] I specifically challenged Keynesians in 2013 to explain why automatic budget cuts were supposedly a bad idea given that the American economy […]
Contrary to what you say, I believe Keynesian economics would encourage the sequester. Deficits should be run when in a recession, but the other half of what Keynes said was that surpluses should be run when the economy is growing. Since we are growing now, cuts seem necessary. You also say the Reagan and Clinton era was better; while it is, you ignore the fact that in the past 14 years we endured two extremely painful recessions, whereas there were two weaker recessions through the 80s and 90s. With this information in hand, have I met your challenge, or is there something else that must be discussed?
[…] We have good evidence, for instance, of nations growing faster when government outlays are constrained, including Canada in the 1990s and the United States during both the Reagan years and Clinton years. […]
[…] Challenge for Keynesian Anti-Sequester Hysterics: Why Did America’s Economy Boom When Reagan and C… […]
[…] Yet we have good evidence of nations growing faster when government outlays are being controlled, including Canada in the 1990s and the United States during both the Reagan years and Clinton years. […]
[…] burden of government spending was reduced during the Reagan years and Clinton years, for instance, and the economy enjoyed good growth in both […]
Here in Ireland we have been implementing these spending cuts Republicans so desperately crave and the result has been disastrous. The economy is stagnating and unemployment is at 14.5%
“but hopefully the rest of the world can be persuaded by real-world evidence.”
Isn’t this really the issue? Either ignorant voter-lemmings cannot be convinced due to either their ignorance and/or lack of concern OR people don’t want THEIR program cut. Add a Republican party that doesn’t behave fiscally responsible, despite their claims, and you can understand the mess we are in.
We cannot even use the correct terms to relay the news. These aren’t cuts at all! They are simply cuts to growth in spending! What a joke! This is why I’ve said for years that the best option to propose from a legislative perspective is a freeze in spending. You cannot confuse a “freeze in spending” with cuts. You can try, but they you have to explain inflation and other things that ignorance voter-lemmings won’t understand.
Once a spending freeze is in place, say 3 to 5 years, then you can specifically eliminate government departments to hold down spending. Obviously, I understand any such freeze would not include entitlements and they would require separate work.
Lose the “y” before convince.
[…] Challenge for Keynesian Anti-Sequester Hysterics: Why Did America’s Economy Boom When Reagan and C… […]