Steve Forbes is 100 percent correct, as was Milton Friedman. Bloated and wasteful government spending is the problem, not inadequate revenue. Deficits are merely a symptom of over-spending:
The late Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once famously observed that he would prefer a federal government budget of $1 trillion (this was when a trillion bucks was real money) with a big deficit to a federal budget of $2 trillion that was balanced. His obvious point was that the bigger Washington is, the more of a burden it puts on the economy, whether it finances its spending via taxation, borrowing or printing money. So it’s not President Obama’s mind-numbing, from-here-to-eternity deficits that we should be worrying about but the increasing deadweight put on the rest of us by Washington’s burgeoning budget bloat. Senate Republicans were right to put the kibosh on the formation of a formal bipartisan deficit-fighting commission. Those things always end up increasing taxes while doing little to reduce spending. …One of the biggest economic myths since the Great Depression is that governments can ameliorate or counteract the ebbs and flows of free markets. Government spending has never worked as a trigger for sustained and vibrant economic growth. Ever. Scholarship has demonstrated that the New Deal perpetuated the Depression rather than cured it. On the eve of the Depression the U.S. had the lowest unemployment rate among developed nations. But a decade later, despite six years of FDR’s New Deal, our unemployment rate was one of the highest among developed economies. Japan’s serial stimulus programs over the past two decades have repeatedly underscored this truth. The more the government takes as a proportion of the economy, the worse equity markets do and the higher the unemployment rate.
If all this seems familiar, it’s because many of these points were stressed in this video.
[…] As already stated, I think the real problem is the spending and the debt is the symptom. […]
[…] that’s nonsense. As I’ve repeatedly explained, red ink is best viewed as a symptom. The real problem is excessive government […]
[…] that’s nonsense. As I’ve repeatedly explained, red ink is best viewed as a symptom. The real problem is excessive government […]
[…] As already stated, I think the real problem is the spending and the debt is the symptom. […]
[…] As already stated, I think the real problem is the spending and the debt is the symptom. […]
[…] some people seem convinced that deficits and debt are the real problem. While I think that focus is a bit misguided, I certainly agree that there is something utterly immoral about spending today and imposing a […]
[…] some people seem convinced that deficits and debt are the real problem. While I think that focus is a bit misguided, I certainly agree that there is something utterly immoral about spending today and imposing a […]
[…] other words, you can get rid of symptoms (red ink) when you cure the underlying disease (big […]
[…] prestado para financiar ese nuevo gasto. Creo que es una visión errónea, ya que se centra en un síntoma (tinta roja) en lugar de la enfermedad subyacente (gasto […]
[…] borrow to finance that new spending. I think that’s a mistaken view, since it focuses on a symptom (red ink) rather than the underlying disease (excessive […]
[…] this video to explain that America’s real fiscal problem is too much spending and that red ink is best viewed as a symptom of that […]
[…] government borrowing is undesirable, but it’s important to understand that red ink is the symptom and government spending is the underlying disease. Treat the disease and the symptoms automatically […]
[…] sometimes differ with the folks at the CRFB because they’re too fixated on debt rather than the size of […]
[…] since spending is the problem and red ink is the symptom, it naturally follows that the United States would have a deficit this year of about $370 billion […]
[…] this spending restraint also generated some data that’s even more important – the burden of government spending has dropped from more than 48 percent of economic output […]
[…] the way, I don’t even think balance should be the goal. It’s far more important to focus on reducing the burden of government spending. After all, the economy is adversely […]
[…] I constantly explain that spending is what diverts resources from the productive sector of the economy, regardless of […]
[…] Yes, it is possible that a country can get in trouble because of deficits and debt, but it’s far more important to look at what’s happening with government […]
[…] A spending cap puts the focus on the real problem of excessive growth of government. And if you impose some sort of cap that complies with the Golden Rule, you simultaneously address the real problem of too much spending and the symptom of red ink. […]
[…] A spending cap puts the focus on the real problem of excessive growth of government. And if you impose some sort of cap that complies with the Golden Rule, you simultaneously address the real problem of too much spending and the symptom of red ink. […]
[…] too much about deficits and debt. Red ink isn’t desirable, to be sure, but I pointed out that the real problem is government […]
[…] For what it’s worth, I think she’s focusing on the symptom or red ink when it would be better to focus on the underlying disease of excessive spending. […]
[…] την λήψη των πολιτικών αποφάσεων αντιμετώπισαν την βαθύτερη ασθένεια των υπερβολικών δαπανών, μπόρεσαν έτσι και να εξαλείψουν το σύμπτωμα των […]
[…] because policy makers dealt with the underlying disease of too much spending, that also meant eliminating the symptom of red ink. In other words, a big deficit became a big […]
[…] because policy makers dealt with the underlying disease of too much spending, that also meant eliminating the symptom of red ink. In other words, a big deficit became a big […]
[…] between spending restraint and deficit reduction. Nobody 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 […]
[…] between spending restraint and deficit reduction. Nobody 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 […]
[…] Golden Rule – If government spending grows slower than the private sector, that reduces the relative burden of government spending (the underlying disease) and also reduces red ink (the symptom of the underlying disease). […]
[…] I can’t resist pointing out yet again that we shouldn’t fixate on balancing the budget. The real goal should be to shrink the burden of federal spending so more resources are allocated […]
[…] the way, it’s worth pointing out that the primary objective of good fiscal policyshould be reducing the burden of government spending, not balancing the budget. However, if you […]
[…] the way, it’s worth pointing out that the primary objective of good fiscal policy should be reducing the burden of government spending, not balancing the budget. However, if you […]
[…] debt is fine. Capping spending would be far […]
[…] For reasons that I’ve already covered, I didn’t like being called a “deficit hawk” by the […]
[…] editorial writers at the Post, like so many people in Washington, make the mistake of fixating on the symptom of red ink instead of the underlying disease of excessive […]
[…] Debt is a symptom and the real problem is too much spending. […]
[…] the right, inevitably raise the issue of deficits and debt and assert that Reagan failed. I think red ink is the wrong measure, but even for those who fixate on that variable, it’s worth noting that deficits were relatively […]
[…] the right, inevitably raise the issue of deficits and debt and assert that Reagan failed. I think red ink is the wrong measure, but even for those who fixate on that variable, it’s worth noting that deficits were […]
[…] address the underlying problem of excessive government spending, you automatically ameliorate the symptom of red ink, as shown in the final column of […]
[…] address the underlying problem of excessive government spending, you automatically ameliorate the symptom of red ink, as shown in the final column of […]
[…] I’ve made that point many times before, so instead I’ll merely observe that Ms. Rampell is either shockingly […]
[…] I’ve made that point many times before, so instead I’ll merely observe that Ms. Rampell is either shockingly […]
[…] so there’s still “austerity” regardless of whether we’re looking at the underlying disease of government spending or the symptom of red […]
[…] My peculiar focus on the size and scope of government can be seen in this video, which explains that spending is the disease and deficits are just a symptom. […]
[…] a nation has a budget deficit or a budget surplus. As I’ve explained on several occasions, the fiscal problem in most nations is that government is too big. Deficits and debt are just a symptom of that […]
[…] some people seem convinced that deficits and debt are the real problem. While I think that focus is a bit misguided, I certainly agree that there is something utterly immoral about spending today and imposing a […]
[…] some people seem convinced that deficits and debt are the real problem. While I think that focus is a bit misguided, I certainly agree that there is something utterly immoral about spending today and imposing a […]
[…] some people seem convinced that deficits and debt are the real problem. While I think that focus is a bit misguided, I certainly agree that there is something utterly immoral about spending today and imposing a […]