A couple of weeks ago, I proposed a “Golden Rule of Fiscal Policy” that was probably a bit too wordy.
Good fiscal policy exists when the private sector grows faster than the public sector, while fiscal ruin is inevitable if government spending grows faster than the productive part of the economy.
In some recent speeches, I’ve been experimenting with how to discuss this concept, and I’ve decided to be more concise.
I’ve also decided to be self-aggrandizing and call this Mitchell’s Golden Rule.
In some sense, this Golden Rule is a way of trying to help people understand why it is important to limit the growth of federal spending. And based on my recent speeches, it appears that linking government growth and private sector growth is very helpful.
Especially when I point out that the fiscal crises in nations such as Greece are the result of the opposite approach – letting the public sector grow faster than the productive sector of the economy.
Another advantage of the Golden Rule is that it doesn’t matter whether 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 problem.
Following the Golden Rule doesn’t prohibit tax increases, but it certainly means they will be far less likely. Simply stated, tax revenues tend to track economic performance. So if the private sector is growing faster than the government, that means tax revenues will be growing faster than government spending. So why raise tax rates?
————————–
P.S. Regular readers know that I’ve already tried to create a legacy with the not-so-famous Mitchell’s Law, which points out that politicians often propose to expand government to ostensibly solve the messes created by previous expansions of government.
But there’s nothing new about Mitchell’s Law. Great economists such as Mises wrote about how one misguided government intervention often becomes the excuse for another foolish government intervention. I simply coined a phrase in hopes of helping to popularize the notion that one government mistake is often a precursor for another government mistake.
I’m not aware, however, of anybody that has stated that the key to good fiscal policy is restraining government spending so it grows slower than the private sector. Hence, my narcissistic decision to label this concept Mitchell’s Golden Rule.
[…] In other words, governments at all levels and in almost all places have a hard time complying with fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] In other words, governments at all levels and in almost all places have a hard time complying with fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] In other words, governments at all levels and in almost all places have a hard time complying with fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] in this interview for Fox Business News, is that nations get in trouble because they violate Mitchell’s Golden Rule. In other words, the burden of government spending climbs faster than the private sector’s […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] taxes usually are a substitute for the real solution of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an […]
[…] a big-picture economic perspective, it’s bad fiscal policy to allow the burden of government spending to grow faster than the private […]
[…] his eight years in office, he violated fiscal policy’s golden rule by increasing the burden of government spending at three times the rate of […]
[…] his eight years in office, he violated fiscal policy’s golden rule by increasing the burden of government spending at three times the rate of […]
[…] his eight years in office, he violated fiscal policy’s golden rule by increasing the burden of government spending at three times the rate of […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] a big-picture economic perspective, it’s bad fiscal policy to allow the burden of government spending to grow faster than the private […]
[…] a big-picture economic perspective, it’s bad fiscal policy to allow the burden of government spending to grow faster than the private […]
[…] d’un frein à l’endettement similaire à celui appliqué en Suisse afin que les dépenses publiques n’augmentent pas à un rythme supérieur à la croissance de la produ…ce qui leur permettraient de baisser en proportion du PIB et de préférence, fixer un taux maximal […]
[…] conservatives, the goal is to shrink the burden of government. This means a cap that fulfills my Golden Rule of having government grow slower than the private […]
[…] conservatives, the goal is to shrink the burden of government. This means a cap that fulfills my Golden Rule of having government grow slower than the private […]
[…] In other words, we get good results when policy makers follow fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] that maintain this Golden Rule for extended periods of time shrink the relative burden of government spending, thus enabling more […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] In other words, we get good results when policy makers follow fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] In other words, we get good results when policy makers follow fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] spending grows by less than total spending, thus satisfying my Golden Rule. And, as a result, there’s far less government […]
[…] stated, North Carolina politicians embraced the Golden Rule of spending […]
[…] stated, North Carolina politicians embraced the Golden Rule of spending […]
[…] taxes usually are a substitute for the real solution of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an […]
[…] taxes usually are a substitute for the real solution of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an […]
[…] taxes usually are a substitute for the real solution of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an […]
[…] taxes usually are a substitute for the real solution of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an […]
[…] than the private sector (with the kind of humility you only find in Washington, I call this “Mitchell’s Golden Rule“). The entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget would be a good start, along with some much-needed […]
[…] In other words, we get good results when policy makers follow fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] By the way, inflation was higher in Hungary during the period, but a comparison based on inflation-adjusted numbers would make Denmark’s performance look even better since there was almost no “real” growth in the burden of spending last decade (yes, Denmark has followed my Golden Rule). […]
[…] In other words, we get good results when policy makers follow fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] In other words, we get good results when policy makers follow fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] In other words, we get good results when policy makers follow fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] It’s a great case study showing the beneficial impact of my Golden Rule. […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] stated, this policy requires politicians to abide by fiscal policy’s Golden Rule, meaning that – on average – government spending grows slower than the private […]
[…] stated, this policy requires politicians to abide by fiscal policy’s Golden Rule, meaning that – on average – government spending grows slower than the private […]
[…] votes with other people’s money, I’m especially impressed by his frugality. He followed my Golden Rule about 90 years before I ever proposed the […]
[…] votes with other people’s money, I’m especially impressed by his frugality. He followed my Golden Rule about 90 years before I ever proposed the […]
[…] than the private sector (with the kind of humility you only find in Washington, I call this “Mitchell’s Golden Rule“). The entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget would be a good start, along with some much-needed […]
[…] That was an impressive result, and it adds to the collection of success stories showing what happens when governments obey fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] than the private sector (with the kind of humility you only find in Washington, I call this “Mitchell’s Golden Rule“). The entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget would be a good start, along with some much-needed […]
[…] than the private sector (with the kind of humility you only find in Washington, I call this “Mitchell’s Golden Rule“). The entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget would be a good start, along with some much-needed […]
[…] than the private sector (with the kind of humility you only find in Washington, I call this “Mitchell’s Golden Rule“). The entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget would be a good start, along with some much-needed […]
[…] than the private sector (with the kind of humility you only find in Washington, I call this “Mitchell’s Golden Rule“). The entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget would be a good start, along with some much-needed […]
[…] than the private sector (with the kind of humility you only find in Washington, I call this “Mitchell’s Golden Rule“). The entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget would be a good start, along with some much-needed […]
[…] Perhaps most important, the study endorses Mitchell’s Golden Rule! […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] taxes usually are a substitute for the real solution of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an […]
[…] other words, California politicians have routinely violated my Golden Rule for good fiscal policy. And when government grows faster than the productive sector of the economy […]
[…] than the private sector (with the kind of humility you only find in Washington, I call this “Mitchell’s Golden Rule“). The entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget would be a good start, along with some much-needed […]
[…] than the private sector (with the kind of humility you only find in Washington, I call this “Mitchell’s Golden Rule“). The entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget would be a good start, along with some much-needed […]
[…] you can see, the problem is that government spending is projected to grow too fast, violating the Golden Rule of fiscal […]
[…] bottom line is that nations enjoy success when they obey fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. Sadly, that doesn’t happen very often because politicians focus mostly on buying votes in […]
[…] fiscal probity – an example of my Golden Rule before I even invented the concept – paid big […]
[…] But I’ve never been happy with the clunky wording of that challenge (just as I wasn’t happy with the original wording of fiscal policy’s Golden Rule). […]
[…] tireless (and probably annoying) campaign to promote my Golden Rule of spending restraint is bearing […]
[…] (relative to the economy’s productive sector). Even better, a spending cap should fulfill the Golden Rule of fiscal policy by slowly but surely reducing the size of […]
[…] But the situation is not hopeless. The problem can be fixed with some long-overdue and much-needed spending restraint. […]
[…] – Without question, the best fiscal system for a jurisdiction is a spending cap that fulfills my Golden Rule. Colorado’s constitution has such a policy, known as TABOR (the Taxpayer Bill of Rights). […]
[…] periodically discussed my Golden Rule, which says that good fiscal policy takes place when government spending grows slower than the […]
[…] caps are the most effective way of fulfilling my Golden Rule for fiscal […]
[…] In other words, Washington is violating my Golden Rule. […]
[…] happened in the United Kingdom is additional confirmation that my Golden Rule is the right approach to fiscal […]
[…] violates the Golden Rule of sensible fiscal […]
[…] chart looking at what will happen over the next 10 years. As you can see, Washington is violating my Golden Rule by allowing spending to grow faster than the private […]
[…] To be more specific, politicians are violating my Golden Rule. […]
[…] based on IMF and OECD data, policy makers in Denmark deserve a gold star. They followed my Golden Rule and limited the growth of government spending. As a result, there’s been a meaningful decline […]
[…] – especially genuine entitlement reform – designed to limit overall spending so that the budget grows slower than the productive sector of the […]
[…] both the 2001-07 period and 2009-19 period, Iceland followed my Golden Rule. Government spending (the orange bars) grew slower than the economy (the grey […]
[…] as it did back in 1988 means that politicians have been repeatedly (and vigorously!) violating my Golden Rule. (Good fiscal policy exists when the private sector grows faster than the public sector, while […]
[…] as it did back in 1988 means that politicians have been repeatedly (and vigorously!) violating my Golden Rule. (Good fiscal policy exists when the private sector grows faster than the public sector, while […]
[…] as it did back in 1988 means that politicians have been repeatedly (and vigorously!) violating my Golden Rule. (Good fiscal policy exists when the private sector grows faster than the public sector, while […]
[…] as it did back in 1988 means that politicians have been repeatedly (and vigorously!) violating my Golden Rule… Good fiscal policy exists when the private sector grows faster than the public sector, while […]
[…] Indeed, over the past 20 years, state spending has ballooned from $34 billion to $86 billion according to the Census Bureau. At the risk of understatement, the politicians in Springfield have not been obeying my Golden Rule. […]
[…] bottom line is that we know that the Golden Rule of spending restraint is good for growth, and we know spending restraint is the way to reduce red […]
[…] bottom line is that we know that the Golden Rule of spending restraint is good for growth, and we know spending restraint is the way to reduce red […]
[…] great video. I especially appreciate the indirect endorsement of my Golden Rule. The criticisms of former President Lula also are spot on, though I once expressed perverse […]
[…] economia, o benefício de um limite de gastos (assumindo que ele é bem projetado para satisfazer a Regra de Ouro de Mitchell) é que os aumentos orçamentários anuais são menores do que o crescimento médio de longo prazo […]
[…] solution is to follow my Golden Rule with a spending […]
[…] didn’t specify a specific number for a spending cap. Instead, I emphasized that the key goal is to make sure spending – over time – grows slower than the private […]
[…] Mitchell’s Golden Rule explains that when the private sector grows faster than government, prosperity increases and when government grows faster than the private sector, misery increases. In most major countries, including the US, government is growing faster than the private sector. Despite stirring political speeches, nothing much will change for them until they reverse the misery-to-prosperity ratio. […]
[…] my Golden Rule, it was wordy and clunky. I got some great suggestions and eventually produced a much better version. I’d like to do the same for overall economic […]
[…] specifically, I pointed out that the country was violating my Golden Rule, which meant that the burden of spending was rising relative to the private […]
[…] For all intents and purposes, Switzerland is getting good results because it is now complying with fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] For all intents and purposes, Switzerland is getting good results because it is now complying with fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] real gold standard for good fiscal policy is my Golden Rule. And the best way to make sure government doesn’t grow faster than the private sector is to have […]
[…] real gold standard for good fiscal policy is my Golden Rule. And the best way to make sure government doesn’t grow faster than the private sector is to […]
[…] to reduce the burden of government spending. Perhaps the government already has been complying with Mitchell’s Golden Rule and has slashed the budget, meaning that higher revenues are the only feasible option still on the […]
[…] Which is why I prefer the Swiss approach of simply allowing government to grow by a small amount every year. That seems more politically sustainable. But I’m happy with anything to fulfills my Golden Rule. […]
[…] Though the real problem is that spending is expanding faster than the private sector, which is the opposite of what is called for by my Golden Rule. […]
[…] in favor of that approach. Indeed, this guy is so fixated on that policy that he even created a “Rule” to give the concept more […]
[…] My bottom line is that we need some sort of spending cap so that the burden of government spending grows slower than the productive sector of the economy. In other words, comply with the Golden Rule. […]
[…] The bottom line is that Washington is violating my Golden Rule. […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] the United States over fiscal policy. This battle is inevitable because politicians are violating the Golden Rule of fiscal policy by allowing government spending to grow faster than the private sector (exacerbated by the recent […]
[…] the United States over fiscal policy. This battle is inevitable because politicians are violating the Golden Rule of fiscal policy by allowing government spending to grow faster than the private sector (exacerbated by the recent […]
[…] the United States over fiscal policy. This battle is inevitable because politicians are violating the Golden Rule of fiscal policy by allowing government spending to grow faster than the private sector (exacerbated by the recent […]
[…] the United States over fiscal policy. This battle is inevitable because politicians are violating the Golden Rule of fiscal policy by allowing government spending to grow faster than the private sector (exacerbated by the recent […]
[…] spending with earmarks if they’ll agree to a comprehensive spending cap that complies with the Golden Rule and slowly but surely shrinks the overall burden of federal […]
[…] with earmarks if they’ll agree to a comprehensive spending cap that complies with the Golden Rule and slowly but surely shrinks the overall burden of federal […]
[…] debts and restore prosperity. After all, it’s simply a matter of obeying fiscal policy’s Golden Rule and reforming a suffocating tax […]
[…] all, it’s simply a matter of obeying fiscal policy’s Golden Rule and reforming a suffocating tax […]
[…] I’ll close by observing that we shouldn’t fixate on balancing the budget in any particular year. It’s much more important to shrink the burden of government spending. And that happens when the private sector grows faster than the federal budget. […]
[…] I’ll close by observing that we shouldn’t fixate on balancing the budget in any particular year. It’s much more important to shrink the burden of government spending. And that happens when the private sector grows faster than the federal budget. […]
[…] have been increasing by an average of less than 2 percent annually. And because this complies with my Golden Rule, that means a shrinking burden of […]
[…] have been increasing by an average of less than 2 percent annually. And because this complies with my Golden Rule, that means a shrinking burden of […]
[…] since the private economy has expanded at a faster pace, this period of restraint has satisfied my golden rule. In other words, the public sector – though still very large – is now a smaller burden on the […]
[…] Since 2010, the burden of government spending has expanded by an average of about 1.6 percent annually. Spending is still growing, needless to say, but the private sector has been growing faster, so British policymakers have been satisfying my golden rule. […]
[…] And since the private economy has expanded at a faster pace, this period of restraint has satisfied my golden rule. In other words, the public sector – though still very large – is now a smaller burden […]
[…] Ever since 2010, the burden of government spending has expanded by an average of about 1.6 percent annually. Spending is still growing, needless to say, but the private sector has been growing faster, so British policymakers have been satisfying my golden rule. […]
[…] Ever since 2010, the burden of government spending has expanded by an average of about 1.6 percent annually. Spending is still growing, needless to say, but the private sector has been growing faster, so British policymakers have been satisfying my golden rule. […]
[…] Rule – If government spending grows slower than the private sector, that reduces the relative burden of government spending (the underlying disease) and also reduces […]
[…] lower tax rates generally are fighting to reduce the growth of government, preferably so it expands slower than the private sector. Advocates of tax hikes, by contrast, want to enable a larger burden of government spending. What […]
[…] In a recent interview on the new Trump budget, I hit on some of my usual topics such as growth, real-world fiscal numbers, tax reform, fake budget cuts, entitlement reform, and my Golden Rule. […]
[…] Third, because the private economy is projected to grow by an average of about 5 percent per year (in nominal terms), Trump’s budget complies with the Golden Rule of fiscal policy. […]
[…] Third, because the private economy is projected to grow by an average of about 5 percent per year (in nominal terms), Trump’s budget complies with the Golden Rule of fiscal policy. […]
[…] need to invoke my Golden Rule so that government grows slower than the private sector. In the long run, that will require genuine […]
[…] need to invoke my Golden Rule so that government grows slower than the private sector. In the long run, that will require genuine […]
[…] also notice, right at the end of the interview, that I made sure to sneak in a reference to fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. Gotta stay on […]
[…] Indeed, tax hikes presumably will accelerate the problems by weakening economic performance, creating an even bigger gap between the growth of government spending and the growth of productive output. Sort of a double violation of my Golden Rule. […]
[…] with the 2010-2011 fiscal year, however, officials started complying with my Golden Rule and outlays since then have grown by an average of 1.6 percent per […]
[…] Though the real problem is that spending is expanding faster than the private sector, which is the opposite of what is called for by my Golden Rule. […]
[…] They just need to comply with my Golden Rule. […]
[…] and put in place some sort of spending cap (a good one that ensures that the burden of government expanded slower than the private sector), then red ink quickly would fall and investors would be much less fearful […]
[…] happens if there is a modest bit of spending restraint? What if politicians decide to comply with my Golden Rule and limit how fast the budget grows every […]
[…] spending caps in Brazil – I’m a big believer that good fiscal policy is achieved when government spending grows slower than the private economy. […]
[…] save ourselves from that fate. And it’s not complicated. Just make sure government spending grows slower than the private economy, which will only be possible in the long run if lawmakers reform […]
[…] been rising far faster than the growth of the private sector (thus violating fiscal policy’s Golden Rule), I view the spending cap as a long-overdue […]
[…] other words, they’ve been violating my Golden Rule. And when that happens, it just a matter of time before there’s pressure for big tax […]
[…] favor of that approach. Indeed, this guy is so fixated on that policy that he even created a “Rule” to give the concept more […]
[…] and the economy, the benefit of a spending cap (assuming it is well designed so that it satisfies Mitchell’s Golden Rule) is that annual budgetary increases are lower than the long-run average growth of the private […]
[…] percent annually according to IMF data. And because that complies with my Golden Rule (meaning that government spending is growing slower than the private sector), the net result according to OECD data is that the burden of government spending is shrinking […]
[…] and put in place some sort of spending cap (a good one that ensures that the burden of government expanded slower than the private sector), then red ink quickly would fall and investors would be much less fearful […]
[…] Though the real problem is that spending is expanding faster than the private sector, which is the opposite of what is called for by my Golden Rule. […]
[…] Though the real problem is that spending is expanding faster than the private sector, which is the opposite of what is called for by my Golden Rule. […]
[…] Though the real problem is that spending is expanding faster than the private sector, which is the opposite of what is called for by my Golden Rule. […]
[…] why I keep promoting my Golden Rule. If government grows slower than the private sector, that means the burden of spending (measured as […]
[…] I write over and over again on topics such as the flat tax and spending caps (and don’t forget my Golden Rule!), though I hope each time I bring something new to the […]
[…] write over and over again on topics such as the flat tax and spending caps (and don’t forget my Golden Rule!), though I hope each time I bring something new to the […]
[…] key is to make sure that government grows slower than the private sector. And the more spending is restrained (especially if it’s actually cut 1 percent each year), […]
[…] Both Sweden and Denmark have been good examples for my Golden Rule, albeit only for limited […]
[…] Both Sweden and Denmark have been good examples for my Golden Rule, albeit only for limited […]
[…] Both Sweden and Denmark have been good examples for my Golden Rule, albeit only for limited […]
[…] is why it’s far better to have spending caps so that government grows slower than the private sector. A rule that limits the annual growth of government spending is both understandable and […]
[…] Greece and so many other governments, it did the opposite of Mitchell’s Golden Rule. Instead of a multi-year period of spending restraint, it allowed the budget to expand faster than […]
[…] The solution is to follow the Golden Rule. […]
[…] en si viola la regla dorada de política fiscal promovida por Daniel J. Mitchell del Instituto Cato: “La buena política fiscal existe cuando […]
[…] while I like anything that builds support for the Golden Rule, I’m not sure it’s a sufficient condition for good […]
[…] spoke on the economics of fiscal policy and talked about issues such as my Golden Rule and the Laffer Curve, but today’s post is about what I learned, not what I […]
[…] allowing the burden of government spending to grow faster than the private economy, thus violating my Golden Rule, honest leftists will admit that’s true but then challenge me on what should happen […]
[…] But hopefully Hong Kong will abide by Article 107 of its Basic Law (its constitution) and limit government spending so that it doesn’t grow faster than the private economy. […]
[…] But hopefully Hong Kong will abide by Article 107 of its Basic Law (its constitution) and limit government spending so that it doesn’t grow faster than the private economy. […]
[…] But hopefully Hong Kong will abide by Article 107 of its Basic Law (its constitution) and limit government spending so that it doesn’t grow faster than the private economy. […]
[…] guess the President doesn’t have any interest in complying with Mitchell’s Golden Rule, […]
[…] First, government is growing faster than the private sector. The fact that government spending now consumes twice as much of the economy’s output today as it did back in 1988 means that politicians have been repeatedly (and vigorously!) violating my Golden Rule. […]
[…] So let’s focus on New Zealand, which is yet another case study showing the value of Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] And kudos to the IMF for supporting market-driven competition. Even more important, though, the international bureaucracy recognizes that the key is to limit the government’s health care spending to the growth of the private economy (sort of a a healthcare version of Mitchell’s Golden Rule). […]
[…] So no wonder lots of people and institutions are joining forces in the campaign to create a successful enforcement mechanism for fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] other words, politicians in Alaska were not following Mitchell’s Golden Rule, which would have required them to limit spending so that it grew slower than the private […]
[…] Perhaps most important, the study endorses Mitchell’s Golden Rule! […]
[…] advisers also understand. Take a look at these passages from their report. Citing a version of my Golden Rule, they point out that huge savings are possible simply by reducing how fast the government’s […]
[…] Perhaps most important, the study endorses Mitchell’s Golden Rule! […]
[…] Genuine spending cuts would be very desirable, of course, but we move in the right direction so long as government spending grows slower than the private sector. […]
[…] dans les décennies d’après-guerre. Ils ne respectaient même pas la « règle de Mitchell » sur la dépense. Mais ces deux pays sont au moins parvenus à réduire le poids […]
[…] reasons and narcissism, I wish the most popular item ever posted on International Liberty was Mitchell’s Golden Rule. But that guide to sensible fiscal policy isn’t even in the top […]
[…] For both policy reasons and narcissism, I wish the most popular item ever posted on International Liberty was Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] Kingdom had great economic policy during the post-war decades. They didn’t even comply with Mitchell’s Golden Rule on […]
[…] Kingdom had great economic policy during the post-war decades. They didn’t even comply with Mitchell’s Golden Rule on […]
[…] see whether government spending is falling as a share of economic output (i.e., are they following Mitchell’s Golden Rule). But you can’t cherry pick the data. For instance, look at this chart from Eurostat. If 2009 is […]
[…] see whether government spending is falling as a share of economic output (i.e., are they following Mitchell’s Golden Rule). But you can’t cherry pick the data. For instance, look at this chart from Eurostat. If 2009 […]
[…] other words, Puerto Rico is in trouble because it violated the Golden Rule and let government grow faster than the private sector over a sustained period (just like Greece, […]
[…] The bottom line is that Greek politicians and interest groups are trying to impose an upside-down version of my Golden Rule. […]
[…] I would like to think I played a very tiny role in this development. My friend Mads Lundby Hansen from Denmark’s free-market think tank (CEPOS) took part in a debate before the election and promoted the Golden Rule. […]
[…] of course, politicians can be convinced to follow my Golden Rule and exercise some much-needed spending […]
[…] In other words, Greece wouldn’t be in trouble today had politicians simply obeyed my Golden Rule. […]
[…] In other words, Greece wouldn’t be in trouble today had politicians simply obeyed my Golden Rule. […]
[…] activities to unproductive. The economist Dan Mitchell has proposed what he calls the “Golden Rule of Fiscal Policy,” which is: “The Private Sector should Grow Faster than Government.” This is not […]
[…] My purpose was to show that some sort of long-run spending cap (such as limiting outlays so they can’t grow faster than population plus inflation) is the best way of achieving good fiscal outcomes. […]
“A government that grows/spends more than its private sector cannot by any stretch of the imagination be a Republic; it is something much more sinister and oppressive.” –Doktor Thomas’ re-iteration of the blatantly obvious often confounded as appearing forgotten, invisible or unimportant, especially to pro(re)gressives.
Any government that takes/spends more than 5% of the income of its citizens is corrupt, morally, politically and criminally. Taxes are theft. (You can quote me on that.) ©2015
PS. The US fed.gov hasn’t been a republic for 100 years plus.
[…] In a display of humility that can only be found in Washington, DC, I call this Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] Mitchell’s Golden Rule simply requires that spending grow by less than the private sector, Senator Enzi’s Penny Plan […]
[…] and prevent government from becoming bigger than it is today. Sort of a watered-down version of Mitchell’s Golden Rule. The key is the right kind of entitlement […]
[…] slower than the economy’s productive sector back in 2009 even though I didn’t unveil Mitchell’s Golden Rule until two years […]
[…] slower than the economy’s productive sector back in 2009 even though I didn’t unveil Mitchell’s Golden Rule until two years […]
[…] slower than the economy’s productive sector back in 2009 even though I didn’t unveil Mitchell’s Golden Rule until two years […]
[…] In other words, compliance with my Golden Rule! […]
[…] In other words, compliance with my Golden Rule! […]
[…] First, there is no need to cut spending. It would be good to impose genuine spending cuts, to be sure, but progress is possible so long as spending grows slower than revenue. And the real goal should be to make sure that spending grows slower than the private sector. […]
[…] constrain the public sector so that it grows at 2.3 percent annually, we’ll be complying with my Golden Rule and the burden of government spending will continue to slowly but surely shrink as a share of […]
[…] to move policy in the right direction rather than the wrong direction. That’s why I developed my Golden Rule, which is designed to show that progress is possible so long as we simply make sure the private […]
[…] But the serious point to this post is that we will face a fiscal crisis at some point if government isn’t put on a diet. […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] relative to the productive sector of the economy. I wasn’t narcissistic enough to say “Mitchell’s Golden Rule” on air, but I did say that good fiscal policy occurs when government grows slower than the […]
[…] activities to unproductive. The economist Dan Mitchell has proposed what he calls the “Golden Rule of Fiscal Policy,” which is: “The Private Sector should Grow Faster than […]
[…] other words, California politicians have routinely violated my Golden Rule for good fiscal policy. And when government grows faster than the productive sector of the economy […]
[…] 2. Spending may be growing, but it would grow at a slower rate than nominal economic output, thus satisfying Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] of reforming entitlements and restraining the burden of government spending. So long as they follow Mitchell’s Golden Rule over an extended period of time, they can dig out of the […]
[…] since Mitchell’s Golden Rule merely requires that government grow slower than the private sector, Sweden did make […]
[…] at last decade’s fiscal data, you’ll see that our Teutonic friends actually followed my Golden Rule on fiscal policy for a four-year […]
[…] The libertarian fantasy world of a small central government is a very good goal, but it’s still possible to make significant progress if politicians follow Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] The libertarian fantasy world of a small central government is a very good goal, but it’s still possible to make significant progress if politicians follow Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] my Golden Rule explicitly targets the spending side of the budget. And I also came up with a “Bob Dole […]
[…] about the Ryan budget two days ago, praising it for complying with Mitchell’s Golden Rule and […]
[…] slowdown that substantially reduced government spending as a share of GDP. In other words, my Golden Rule was in effect! If we could maintain this approach for a few more years, we’d quickly have a […]
[…] Golden Rule, for those who have not endured my haranguing on the topic, is the common-sense notion that good […]
[…] has violated Mitchell’s Golden Rule, letting government spending grow faster than the productive sector of the […]
[…] even if we do it in a very gradual way by imposing some sort of spending cap that fulfills the Golden Rule requirement of having government grow slower than the productive sector of the […]
[…] but the underlying trend lines are unsustainable in the long run. This is a nation that violates my Golden Rule on a regular basis and that can’t end […]
[…] even if we do it in a very gradual way by imposing some sort of spending cap that fulfills the Golden Rule requirement of having government grow slower than the productive sector of the […]
[…] even if we do it in a very gradual way by imposing some sort of spending cap that fulfills the Golden Rule requirement of having government grow slower than the productive sector of the […]
[…] see from this chart, lawmakers in this island nation have done a reasonably good job of satisfying Mitchell Golden Rule over the past couple of years. Economic output has been growing by 6.1 percent annually, while […]
[…] spoke on the economics of fiscal policy and talked about issues such as my Golden Rule and the Laffer Curve, but today’s post is about what I learned, not what I […]
[…] spoke on the economics of fiscal policy and talked about issues such as my Golden Rule and the Laffer Curve, but today’s post is about what I learned, not what I […]
[…] of economic output – should be the goal of fiscal policy. That’s simply another way of stating my Golden Rule. And there’s a growing body of academic evidence showing that reducing the size of government is […]
[…] output – should be the goal of fiscal policy. That’s simply another way of stating my Golden Rule. And there’s a growing body of academic evidence showing that reducing the size of government […]
[…] totally irrational. I’ve pointed out, for instance, that we can make progress if we simply restrain the growth of government so that it expands slower than the private sector. Surely that’s not asking too much, right? Heck, we’ve done that for the past two […]
[…] spending grows faster than the private economy (sort of Obama’s Golden Rule rather than Mitchell’s Golden Rule), bad things inevitably will […]
[…] should worry anybody who cares about the future of the nation, starting with an inverse version of Mitchell’s Golden Rule. Handouts have been growing twice as fast as overall personal […]
[…] have to admit that made my day. Sort of like when Chairman Brady mentioned Mitchell’s Golden Rule in his opening statement when I testified last week to the Joint Economic […]
[…] you achieve good fiscal policy by following “Mitchell’s Golden Rule” so that government grows slower than private sector economic […]
[…] things happen when you follow my Golden Rule for fiscal […]
[…] taxes usually are a substitute for the real solution of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an […]
[…] this happens when policy makers follow my Golden Rule and restrain spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] this happens when policy makers follow my Golden Rule and restrain spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] hardly libertarian Nirvana, to be sure, but let’s remember the golden rule, which is that fiscal policy is headed in the right direction so long as the private sector grows […]
[…] hardly libertarian Nirvana, to be sure, but let’s remember the golden rule, which is that fiscal policy is headed in the right direction so long as the private sector grows […]
[…] No, I’m not talking about creating a libertarian Nirvana, with the federal government consuming only three percent of economic output. But I think we can at least hold the line and prevent government from becoming bigger than it is today. Sort of a watered-down version of Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] to have government grow slower than the private sector. To determine whether states are satisfying my Golden Rule, you need the Tax Foundation data on spending, but it needs to be augmented by similar data for […]
[…] to have government grow slower than the private sector. To determine whether states are satisfying my Golden Rule, you need the Tax Foundation data on spending, but it needs to be augmented by similar data for […]
[…] sector – Okay, that’s an exaggeration, but regular readers know that I hope “Mitchell’s Golden Rule” will be my legacy to fiscal policy. To be more specific, good things happen in the long run […]
[…] been advocating the Baltic approach for a couple of years. And it turns out that nations following my Golden Rule get good […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] pace and some at a slower pace. But all of them are in deep trouble because they don’t follow my Golden Rule about restraining the burden of government spending so that it grows slower than the private […]
[…] spending grows faster than the private economy (sort of Obama’s Golden Rule rather than Mitchell’s Golden Rule), bad things inevitably will […]
[…] even if these nations merely abide by Mitchell’s Golden Rule and restrain spending so that it grows slower than the private sector, that would be […]
[…] other words, California politicians have routinely violated my Golden Rule for good fiscal policy. And when government grows faster than the productive sector of the economy […]
[…] other words, California politicians have routinely violated my Golden Rule for good fiscal policy. And when government grows faster than the productive sector of the economy […]
[…] hope you’ll agree this is a nice addition to Mitchell’s Golden Rule, Mitchell’s Bleeding Heart Guide, and Mitchell’s […]
[…] need to come up with something akin to Mitchell’s Law and Mitchell’s Golden Rule, but in this case say something like “Politics is the art of redistributing to the corrupt while […]
[…] amazing how good things happen when you follow the Golden Rule of fiscal […]
[…] burden of government spending. I want politicians to cut spending (or at least make sure it grows slower than the productive sector of the economy). And rather than increasing the tax burden, I want them to lower rates and reform punitive tax […]
[…] burden of government spending. I want politicians to cut spending (or at least make sure it grows slower than the productive sector of the economy). And rather than increasing the tax burden, I want them to lower rates and reform punitive tax […]
[…] been advocating the Baltic approach for a couple of years. And it turns out that nations following my Golden Rule get good […]
[…] neighbors to the north have been role models on how to fulfill my Golden Rule, imposing genuine fiscal restraint during the 1990s. The Canadians even privatized their air […]
[…] relative to the productive sector of the economy. I wasn’t narcissistic enough to say “Mitchell’s Golden Rule” on air, but I did say that good fiscal policy occurs when government grows slower than the […]
[…] relative to the productive sector of the economy. I wasn’t narcissistic enough to say “Mitchell’s Golden Rule” on air, but I did say that good fiscal policy occurs when government grows slower than the […]
After applying Bernanke logic (the tail wagging the dog):
If we grow government business will grow even more.
[…] very easy for me to bluster about “all that’s required” to satisfy this Golden Rule. It’s much harder to convince politicians to be frugal. Yes, it happened during the Reagan […]
[…] words, the government growth rate has been faster than that of the private sector, going counter to Mitchell’s Golden Rule. The fundamental flaw in this model is the fatal conceit of politicians who believe that they can […]
[…] wise fiscal policy, needless to say, is to follow Mitchell’s Golden Rule. If the burden of government spending grows slower than the private economy, any nation can climb […]
[…] The moral of the story, needless to say, is that good things happen when governments comply with Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] since Mitchell’s Golden Rule is based on the very modest goal of having government grow slower than the private sector, it’s […]
[…] If a nation obeys Mitchell’s Golden Rule for a long enough period of time, government spending as a share of GDP asymptotically will […]
[…] But the serious point to this post is that we will face a fiscal crisis at some point if government isn’t put on a diet. […]
[…] But the serious point to this post is that we will face a fiscal crisis at some point if government isn’t put on a diet. […]
[…] is the chart I created a couple months ago to show that relationship. For those unfamiliar with Mitchell’s Golden Rule, “the private sector should grow faster than the government”. I still prefer the stronger form […]
[…] wrote about the Ryan budget two days ago, praising it for complying with Mitchell’s Golden Rule and reforming Medicare and […]
[…] wrote about the Ryan budget two days ago, praising it for complying with Mitchell’s Golden Rule and reforming Medicare and […]
[…] That’s all fine and well, but good fiscal policy is achieved by reducing the burden of government spending, and that means that restraining the budget so that federal outlays grow slower than the private sector. […]
[…] simple way to achieve this goal is to adhere to Mitchell’s Golden Rule and and make sure the private sector grows faster than the public […]
[…] the burden of government spending grows slower than the economy’s productive sector (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule), then deficits and debt fall. To be blunt, if you cure the disease, the symptoms automatically […]
[…] is clearly doing better on jobs, and it’s easy to avoid higher taxes when you obey Mitchell’s Golden Rule and restrain the burden of government […]
[…] in Slovenia where I just finished indoctrinating educating a bunch of students on the importance of Mitchell’s Golden Rule as a means of restraining the burden of government […]
[…] few comments on the debate. I channel the wisdom of Mitchell’s Golden Rule by saying the most important goal is restraining the growth of federal […]
[…] is clearly doing better on jobs, and it’s easy to avoid higher taxes when you obey Mitchell’s Golden Rule and restrain the burden of government […]
[…] But what they do show is that the nation’s fiscal problems easily can be addressed with some modest spending restraint. Sort of a practical application of Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] should worry anybody who cares about the future of the nation, starting with an inverse version of Mitchell’s Golden Rule. Handouts have been growing twice as fast as overall personal […]
[…] should worry anybody who cares about the future of the nation, starting with an inverse version of Mitchell’s Golden Rule. Handouts have been growing twice as fast as overall personal […]
[…] The key variable is making sure spending doesn’t consume ever-larger shares of economic output. In other words, follow Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] even if these nations merely abide by Mitchell’s Golden Rule and restrain spending so that it grows slower than the private sector, that would be […]
[…] even if these nations merely abide by Mitchell’s Golden Rule and restrain spending so that it grows slower than the private sector, that would be […]
[…] taxes usually are a substitute for the real solution of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an […]
[…] budget if we merely limit federal spending so that it grows 2.5 percent annually. In other words, Mitchell’s Golden Rule leads to good […]
[…] does create jobs? I explain we need to shrink the burden of government and I cite my favorite Golden Rule about the importance of making sure the productive sector of the economy grows faster than the […]
[…] spending grows faster than the private economy (sort of Obama’s Golden Rule rather than Mitchell’s Golden Rule), bad things inevitably will […]
[…] No, I’m not talking about creating a libertarian Nirvana, with the federal government consuming only three percent of economic output. But I think we can at least hold the line and prevent government from becoming bigger than it is today. Sort of a watered-down version of Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] to slay the monster in today’s cartoon, we need to copy the very successful Swiss Debt Brake and restrain the growth of government spending. And to make sure we abide by that cap, we’ll need some sensible entitlement […]
[…] slay the monster in today’s cartoon, we need to copy the very successful Swiss Debt Brake and restrain the growth of government spending. And to make sure we abide by that cap, we’ll need some sensible entitlement […]
reply to Dennis Edwall
“Good in principle, but the problem is that these things are difficult to measure.”
Wrong, a very simple measure already exists. It is the % of Gov spending vs GDP. It that measure goes up, it means gov is expanding faster than the economy. Right now under Obama it is grossly and historically bloated, at the highest level since WW2, at 24%. Under Bush it was a more healthy 20%, and under Clinton it was at a very healthy 18%. It should also be noted that when it was at 18% we had both a healthy economy and a balanced budget.
Romney proposed in his campaign to cut spending enough to bring it back to a healthier 20% in 4 yrs, but he lost. Now Obama is increasing taxes, with zippo in spending cuts, in the final fiscal cliff deal, and promisses more spending hikes to come. We were foolish enough to elect Obama, he will do nothing but spend, and when we follow Greece, the dems will probably still be blaming Bush.
[…] taxes usually are a substitute for the real solution of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an […]
[…] taxes usually are a substitute for the real solution of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an […]
[…] part of my self-serving efforts to promote Mitchell’s Golden Rule, I’ve been advocating for spending caps in the United States, and I’ve favorably cited […]
[…] amazing how good things happen when you follow the Golden Rule of fiscal […]
[…] P.P.P.S. There are some good lessons to be learned from other nations, as shown in this video. And if you pay attention to the details in that video, you’ll notice that the key to good fiscal policy is…drumroll please…following Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] P.P.P.S. There are some good lessons to be learned from other nations, as shown in this video. And if you pay attention to the details in that video, you’ll notice that the key to good fiscal policy is…drumroll please…following Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
Government must decrease that the productive may increase.
[…] amazing how good things happen when you follow the Golden Rule of fiscal […]
[…] amazing how good things happen when you follow the Golden Rule of fiscal […]
[…] other words, the solution is to followMitchell’s Golden Rule. That’s the only way to make sure that theburden of government spending shrinks relative to […]
[…] other words, the solution is to follow Mitchell’s Golden Rule. That’s the only way to make sure that the burden of government spending shrinks relative to […]
[…] P.S. Don’t forget that revenues also are projected to rise dramatically over the next 10 years, even if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent. All that’s actually needed to balance the budget is modest spending restraint, restraining outlays so they grow by an average of 2.5 percent. In other words, good things happen if policy makers comply with Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] My message, by the way, was very simple. Higher taxes won’t work. The “growth” vs. “austerity” debate in Europe is really a no-win fight between those who want higher spending vs. those who want higher taxes. The only good answer is to restrain spending with…you guessed it, Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] fait l’avocat de l'approche Baltique depuis deux ans. Et il s'avère que ces nations ont suivi ma règle d'or pour de bons […]
[…] than the private sector (with the kind of humility you only find in Washington, I call this “Mitchell’s Golden Rule“). The entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget would be a good start, along with some much-needed […]
[…] maybe, with enough pressure, we can convince politicians to comply with my Golden Rule. After 12 years of excessive spending, it’s time to let the private sector grow faster than […]
[…] Golden Rule of fiscal policy is that government spending should grow slower than economic output. Nations that follow that rule […]
[…] in this interview for Fox Business News, is that nations get in trouble because they violate Mitchell’s Golden Rule. In other words, the burden of government spending climbs faster than the private sector’s […]
[…] about a “golden rule,” they mean limits on deficits and debt. Instead, they should be following Mitchell’s Golden Rule, which requires that government spending grow slower than the private […]
[…] in this interview for Fox Business News, is that nations get in trouble because they violate Mitchell’s Golden Rule. In other words, the burden of government spending climbs faster than the private sector’s […]
[…] in this interview for Fox Business News, is that nations get in trouble because they violate Mitchell’s Golden Rule. In other words, the burden of government spending climbs faster than the private sector’s […]
[…] Mitchell’s Golden Rule « International Liberty. Share this:TwitterFacebookLinkedInStumbleUponEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Dan Mitchell, Economics by michaelacummings. Bookmark the permalink. […]
[…] because neither candidate seems serious about following Mitchell’s Golden Rule, their assertions about middle-class tax relief almost surely are […]
[…] concern is long-term trends. Politicians should be complying with Mitchell’s Golden Rule, which means reducing government spending as a share of GDP (to put it in terms that make […]
[…] Indeed, Canada is my main example when I explain why the United States should follow my Golden Rule of fiscal policy. […]
[…] Indeed, Canada is my main example when I explain why the United States should follow my Golden Rule of fiscal policy. […]
[…] the burden of government spending grows slower than the economy’s productive sector (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule), then deficits and debt fall. To be blunt, if you cure the disease, the symptoms automatically […]
[…] in Slovenia where I just finished indoctrinating educating a bunch of students on the importance of Mitchell’s Golden Rule as a means of restraining the burden of government […]
[…] in Slovenia where I just finished indoctrinating educating a bunch of students on the importance of Mitchell’s Golden Rule as a means of restraining the burden of government […]
[…] in Slovenia where I just finished indoctrinating educating a bunch of students on the importance of Mitchell’s Golden Rule as a means of restraining the burden of government […]
[…] in Slovenia where I just finished indoctrinating educating a bunch of students on the importance of Mitchell’s Golden Rule as a means of restraining the burden of government […]
[…] I agree with much of the column, particularly the credit to the Tea Party and the indirect reference (“restraining governments that were growing far more rapidly than the private economy”) to Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] the burden of government spending grows slower than the economy’s productive sector (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule), then deficits and debt fall. To be blunt, if you cure the disease, the symptoms automatically […]
[…] I’ve been calling it Mitchell’s Golden Rule, but I couldn’t bring myself to be that narcissistic and self-aggrandizing on the nation’s most […]
[…] I’ve been calling it Mitchell’s Golden Rule, but I couldn’t bring myself to be that narcissistic and self-aggrandizing on the […]
[…] few comments on the debate. I channel the wisdom of Mitchell’s Golden Rule by saying the most important goal is restraining the growth of federal […]
[…] the CALPERS report that said that they had 1-year return of only 1%, sequestration, and Mitchell’s Golden Rule. For those unfamiliar with Mitchell’s Golden Rule it states that “the private sector should […]
[…] does create jobs? I explain we need to shrink the burden of government and I cite my favorite Golden Rule about the importance of making sure the productive sector of the economy grows faster than the […]
[…] https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/mitchells-golden-rule/ […]
[…] to grow faster than the government. I’ve humbly decided to refer to this simple principle as Mitchell’s Golden Rule, and have pointed out that bad things happen when governments violate this common-sense […]
[…] to grow faster than the government. I’ve humbly decided to refer to this simple principle as Mitchell’s Golden Rule, and have pointed out that bad things happen when governments violate this common-sense […]
[…] to grow faster than the government. I’ve humbly decided to refer to this simple principle as Mitchell’s Golden Rule, and have pointed out that bad things happen when governments violate this common-sense […]
[…] Golden Rule of fiscal policy is that government spending should grow slower than economic output. Nations that follow that rule […]
[…] Even though I favor radical reductions in the burden of government, I’ve made the point that good fiscal policy merely requires that government spending grow slower than the private sector – what I call Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
15 years after I left, people at my company still quote Mason’s Rule: All problems are caused by solutions.
[…] – as I explained in my post about Cyprus – that bad things happen sooner or later if government spending grows faster than the economy’s productive sector. Daniel J. Mitchell • July 11, 2012 @ 1:53 pm Filed under: Government and […]
[…] – as I explained in my post about Cyprus – that bad things happen sooner or later if government spending grows faster than the economy’s productive sector. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] does create jobs? I explain we need to shrink the burden of government and I cite my favorite Golden Rule about the importance of making sure the productive sector of the economy grows faster than the […]
[…] than the private sector (with the kind of humility you only find in Washington, I call this “Mitchell’s Golden Rule“). The entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget would be a good start, along with some much-needed […]
[…] readers know about Mitchell’s Golden Rule, which is the simple – but essential – notion that the burden of government spending […]
[…] Golden Rule of fiscal policy is that government spending should grow slower than economic output. Nations that follow that rule […]
[…] Golden Rule of fiscal policy is that government spending should grow slower than economic output. Nations that follow that rule […]
[…] has violated Mitchell’s Golden Rule, letting government spending grow faster than the productive sector of the […]
[…] means that policy moves in the right direction when government grows more slowly than the private sector, as it did under Reagan and […]
[…] than the private sector (with the kind of humility you only find in Washington, I call this “Mitchell’s Golden Rule“). The entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget would be a good start, along with some […]
[…] means that policy moves in the right direction when government grows slower than the private sector, as it did under Reagan and […]
[…] My message, by the way, was very simple. Higher taxes won’t work. The “growth” vs. “austerity” debate in Europe is really a no-win fight between those who want higher spending vs. those who want higher taxes. The only good answer is to restrain spending with…you guessed it, Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] My message, by the way, was very simple. Higher taxes won’t work. The “growth” vs. “austerity” debate in Europe is really a no-win fight between those who want higher spending vs. those who want higher taxes. The only good answer is to restrain spending with…you guessed it, Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] ad nauseam, that the single most important goal of fiscal policy is (or should be) to make sure the private sector grows faster than the government. This “golden rule” is the best way of enabling growth and avoiding fiscal crises, and […]
[…] as Spain!), the first priority is to figure out some way of moving back in the right direction by restraining government so it grows slower than the private sector. Daniel J. Mitchell • February 9, 2012 @ 2:59 pm Filed under: General; […]
Awesome and profound! Wisdom is not just knowing what is right, but communicating it in an efficient way that everyone can understand.
Bypassing your rule leads to fiscal corruption, bankruptcy and a dictatorship. Greece and Spain are losing their sovereignty to Germany, because they need someone to fund their unrestrained appetite. The United States is slowly losing their sovereignty to China.
[…] a basket case like Greece can put itself on a good path if it follows Mitchell’s Golden Rule and simply makes sure that government spending, in the long run, grows slower than the private […]
[…] need to come up with something akin to Mitchell’s Law and Mitchell’s Golden Rule, but in this case say something like “Politics is the art of redistributing to the corrupt […]
[…] ad nauseam, that the single most important goal of fiscal policy is (or should be) to make sure the private sector grows faster than the government. This “golden rule” is the best way of enabling growth and avoiding fiscal crises, and I’ve […]
[…] ad nauseam, that the single most important goal of fiscal policy is (or should be) to make sure the private sector grows faster than the government. This “golden rule” is the best way of enabling growth and avoiding fiscal crises, and I’ve […]
[…] ad nauseam, that the single most important goal of fiscal policy is (or should be) to make sure the private sector grows faster than the government. This “golden rule” is the best way of enabling growth and avoiding fiscal crises, and I’ve […]
[…] ad nauseam, that the single most important goal of fiscal policy is (or should be) to make sure the private sector grows faster than the government. This “golden rule” is the best way of enabling growth and avoiding fiscal crises, and I’ve […]
[…] ad nauseam, that the single most important goal of fiscal policy is (or should be) to make sure the private sector grows faster than the government. This “golden rule” is the best way of enabling growth and avoiding fiscal crises, and I’ve […]
[…] ad nauseam, that the single most important goal of fiscal policy is (or should be) to make sure the private sector grows faster than the government. This “golden rule” is the best way of enabling growth and avoiding fiscal crises, and I’ve […]
[…] ad nauseam, that the single most important goal of fiscal policy is (or should be) to make sure the private sector grows faster than the government. This “golden rule” is the best way of enabling growth and avoiding fiscal crises, and I’ve […]
[…] ad nauseam, that the single most important goal of fiscal policy is (or should be) to make sure the private sector grows faster than the government. This “golden rule” is the best way of enabling growth and avoiding fiscal crises, and I’ve […]
[…] ad nauseam, that the single most important goal of fiscal policy is (or should be) to make sure the private sector grows faster than the government. This “golden rule” is the best way of enabling growth and avoiding fiscal crises, and […]
[…] ad nauseam, that the single most important goal of fiscal policy is (or should be) to make sure the private sector grows faster than the government. This “golden rule” is the best way of enabling growth and avoiding fiscal crises, and […]
[…] Even though I favor radical reductions in the burden of government, I’ve made the point that good fiscal policy merely requires that government spending grow slower than the private sector – what I call Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] Even though I favor radical reductions in the burden of government, I’ve made the point that good fiscal policy merely requires that government spending grow slower than the private sector – what I call Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] Even though I favor radical reductions in the burden of government, I’ve made the point that good fiscal policy merely requires that government spending grow slower than the private sector – what I call Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] spending. He doesn’t mention that the solution is a spending cap (something akin to Mitchell’s Golden Rule), but that’s an implication of what he says. Moreover, I’m just glad that someone […]
[…] The President’s budget, for instance, projects that the burden of federal spending will expand by less than 1 percent next year. That sounds like good news since it would satisfy Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] A couple of weeks ago, I offered some guarded praise for Paul Ryan’s budget, pointing out that it satisfies the most important requirement of fiscal policy by restraining spending – to an average of 3.1 percent per year over the next 10 years – so that government grows slower than the productive sector of the economy (I call this my Golden Rule). […]
[…] A couple of weeks ago, I offered some guarded praise for Paul Ryan’s budget, pointing out that it satisfies the most important requirement of fiscal policy by restraining spending – to an average of 3.1 percent per year over the next 10 years – so that government grows slower than the productive sector of the economy (I call this my Golden Rule). […]
[…] A couple of weeks ago, I offered some guarded praise for Paul Ryan’s budget, pointing out that it satisfies the most important requirement of fiscal policy by restraining spending – to an average of 3.1 percent per year over the next 10 years – so that government grows slower than the productive sector of the economy (I call this my Golden Rule). […]
In the long run, this rule leads to the complete elimination of government. Is that your goal?
[…] growth, allowing the private sector to grow faster than the burden of government, thus satisfying Mitchell’s Golden Rule so that spending falls as a share of […]
[…] growth, allowing the private sector to grow faster than the burden of government, thus satisfying Mitchell’s Golden Rule so that spending falls as a share of […]
[…] In the same vein, but recognizing concepts rather than people, we also have “Mitchell’s Law” and “Mitchell’s Golden Rule.” […]
[…] growth, allowing the private sector to grow faster than the burden of government, thus satisfying Mitchell’s Golden Rule so that spending falls as a share of […]
[…] that I’m motivated to create another narcissistic poster (adding to Mitchell’s Law and Mitchell’s Golden Rule), which I’ll call Mitchell’s Guide to an Ethical Bleeding […]
[…] In the same vein, but recognizing concepts rather than people, we also have “Mitchell’s Law” and “Mitchell’s Golden Rule.” […]
[…] recognizing concepts rather than people, we also have “Mitchell’s Law” and “Mitchell’s Golden Rule.” Rate this: Share […]
[…] But after getting feedback, I realized that the rule was too wordy. So, after a bit of tweaking and market testing, I came up with “Mitchell’s Golden Rule.” […]
[…] with that in mind, I’m going to do something similar to Mitchell’s Law and Mitchell’s Golden Rule. But in this case, I’ll actually give credit to someone else. As shown in the picture, […]
[…] The President’s budget, for instance, projects that the burden of federal spending will expand by less than 1 percent next year. That sounds like good news since it would satisfy Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] The President’s budget, for instance, projects that the burden of federal spending will expand by less than 1 percent next year. That sounds like good news since it would satisfy Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] The President’s budget, for instance, projects that the burden of federal spending will expand by less than 1 percent next year. That sounds like good news since it would satisfy Mitchell’s Golden Rule. […]
[…] a new award. But unlike my other awards, which are exercises in narcissism (Mitchell’s Law, Mitchell’s Golden Rule), I’m naming this award after former Senator Bob […]
[…] a new award. But unlike my other awards, which are exercises in narcissism (Mitchell’s Law, Mitchell’s Golden Rule), I’m naming this award after former Senator Bob […]
[…] But since government in the United States is now consuming more than 40 percent of GDP (about as much as Spain!), the first priority is to figure out some way of moving back in the right direction by restraining government so it grows slower than the private sector. […]
[…] But since government in the United States is now consuming more than 40 percent of GDP (about as much as Spain!), the first priority is to figure out some way of moving back in the right direction by restraining government so it grows slower than the private sector. […]
[…] as Spain!), the first priority is to figure out some way of moving back in the right direction by restraining government so it grows slower than the private sector. jQuery('#lazyload_post_0 img').lazyload({placeholder: […]
[…] as Spain!), the first priority is to figure out some way of moving back in the right direction by restraining government so it grows slower than the private sector. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
Hmmmm…If taxes were tied to GDP then it would be in the interest of tax spenders (politicians) to facilitate an increase which would expand their power and influence while at the same time creating an environment conducive to business and entrepreneurship. WOW! That was easy.
[…] I developed “Mitchell’s Golden Rule” to underscore the importance of restraining the burden of government so that, over time, it […]
[…] I’ve been mulling this over and think I need to augment Mitchell’s Law and Mitchell’s Golden Rule with something like Mitchell’s Inverse Corollary of Taxation and Illegitimate Wealth. But […]
[…] I’ve been mulling this over and think I need to augment Mitchell’s Law and Mitchell’s Golden Rule with something like Mitchell’s Inverse Corollary of Taxation and Illegitimate Wealth. But […]
[…] “golden rule,” they mean limits on deficits and debt. Instead, they should be following Mitchell’s Golden Rule, which requires that government spending grow slower than the private […]
[…] because we had a period, beginning a couple of years earlier, during which politicians followed Mitchell’s Golden Rule and restrained government spending so that it grew slower than the private economy. The 1997 […]
[…] from this new ECB research is that lawmakers – at the very least – need to follow Mitchell’s Golden Rule and make sure government spending grows slower than the private sector. Fortunately, that can […]
[…] the very least, this means following Mitchell’s Golden Rule so that the private sector grows faster than government. This would slowly but surely shrink the […]
I think the “golden rule” is incorrect – in that the word “should” should be replaced with “must”, since the government produces nothing and “must” depend on the private sector for support.
[…] have added one more message. If nations want a return to fiscal sanity, they need to follow “Mitchell’s Golden Rule,” which simply states that the private sector should grow faster than the […]
[…] have added one more message. If nations want a return to fiscal sanity, they need to follow “Mitchell’s Golden Rule,” which simply states that the private sector should grow faster than the […]
[…] have added one more message. If nations want a return to fiscal sanity, they need to follow “Mitchell’s Golden Rule,” which simply states that the private sector should grow faster than the […]
[…] about 10 minutes. The key message was that government is too big and that the only solution is to limit government so that it grows slower than the private sector. GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); […]
[…] be fair, a budget that allows federal spending to jump by 8 percent over the next four years would satisfy Mitchell’s Golden Rule. Barring an unexpected downturn, the private sector would be growing faster than the […]
We need NO govt, we need a just, lawful, legal, legitimate court where those presiding are forbidden to take any bribes
[…] in a Single Picture: Politicians in Europe have spent decades creating a fiscal crisis by violating Mitchell’s Golden Rule and letting government grow faster than the private […]
[…] addthis_share = [];}Politicians in Europe have spent decades creating a fiscal crisis by violating Mitchell’s Golden Rule and letting the government grow faster than the private […]
[…] Politicians in Europe have spent decades creating a fiscal crisis by violating Mitchell’s Golden Rule and letting the government grow faster than the private […]
[…] in Europe have spent decades creating a fiscal crisis by violating Mitchell’s Golden Rule and letting the government grow faster than the private […]
[…] in Europe have spent decades creating a fiscal crisis by violating Mitchell’s Golden Rule and letting the government grow faster than the private […]
[…] in Europe have spent decades creating a fiscal crisis by violating Mitchell’s Golden Rule and letting the government grow faster than the private […]
[…] the cartoon in this post is one of my best creations, probably surpassing Mitchell’s Law and Mitchell’s Golden Rule. GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); […]
There is already a proposed constitutional amendment already out there to impliment your rule. It requires that fed gov spending can never exceed 19% of GDP.
Mitchell’s Golden Rule could be taken as a fundamental law of _prescriptive_ politics.
Unfortunately, the fundamental law of _descriptive_ politics is Parkinson’s Law, which one could rephrase as follows:
In the long term, the government always grows faster than the private sector.
The exceptions are state collapses due to revolution or foreign conquest.
This law was actually discovered by Ibn Khaldun (if not earlier) which means that it applied to early Islamic states.
It seems that it also applied to the Roman Empire, to most if not all Chinese dynasties, and to the European Renaissance states.
Unfortunately, so far there has been no American exceptionalism in this law.
“Business Must Grow Faster Than Government” would have more punch.
Back when Kennedy took office and signed an EO permitting govt workers to unionize, 1 person in 19 worked in the public sector. For five decades the left has been growing the public sector (at the expense of all the productive sectors) as fast as it can (the better to offer cushy jobs to their loyal foot soldiers) to the point that we now have 22 million govt workers and 8 million in public education out of a total workforce of 150 million (although that’s been slipping since the Congress went Dem in 07).
The problem is that all jobs are not the same. All pay taxes, but jobs in the public sector get their salaries, taxes and benefits covered by tax revenue–they are tax consumers. Ultimately, workers in the private sector are the only true taxpayers–they have to earn a salary to pay the taxes to pay the salary to pay the income, property, sales and other taxes of a public worker.
Back then, we needed the taxes of 2 earners to cover the public employee. That left 16 out of 19 taxpayers to pay for everything else–Social Security, schools and libraries, satellites, highways and so on. That’s sustainable.
Now it’s down to 1 in 5, but public salaries and especially pensions are way up. Now it take 3 earners to cover the non-earner. That leaves 1 taxpayer in 5 to cover everything else, and it simply cannot be done. That explains how and why the Dems have saddled us with this enormous debt while feeding us the fictions that the size of government is nothing more than a matter of taste and that a job in the public sector helps the economy rather than burdens it. It also means any attempt to rev up the economy before this enormous structural problem begins to be dealt with is doomed.
What we must do in reasonably short order is shift 20-million jobs from the public to the private sector while also keeping taxes low and slashing regulatory oversight in order to rev up the economy to cover those jobs plus another 10+ million to take care of the current un- and under-employed. Can you say “privatize”? “Deregulate”? “Tax reduction”? “Drill, baby, drill”?
As Marco Rubio proclaims, what we need is more taxpayers… more *true* taxpayers, that is–earners in the private sector. Privatize ’em. Cut ’em. Whatever it takes. But we cannot run a $3.8B govt budget on top of $11.2B in private-sector earnings–it’s like asking a juggler to put down his clubs and toss anvils instead.
Replace “should” with “must”. “Should” is a suggestion with little or no force. How many other Laws reference “should”? “One should not commit murder” vs. One must not commit murder”.
The Real Tax Burden
The late economist Milton Friedman pointed out a golden law of taxation. The real, current tax burden is government spending. Government borrowing (delayed taxes) is merely finance. Government spending directs current, real resources into wasteful projects, and denies a flow of resources to businesses which would like to produce more value than they consume (create a profit).
You might’ve figured that your English professor friend would want to critique your language, right?
So, change “should” to “must.” To me, “should” makes it sound like a matter of persuasion, almost as if you believe it to be a matter of morality. “Must,” OTOH, implies a matter of fate, or cause and effect. You should be nice to everyone. You must be nice to your boss.You should point the hose away from your face. You must pun the gun away from your face.
But then again, it’s your rule.
Might as well label it Mitchell’s Golden Whisltling in the Dark.
Shameless self-promotion ? … I like it 😉
Good. Intellectual property rights granted…
Now with the fundamentals better defined, can I build on it by deriving “Zorba’s Voter Suicide Index”?
“Zorba’s Voter Suicide Index” = The percentage of voters who believe that bypassing Mitchell’s Golden Rule is a shortcut to prosperity.
Yeah…ln my opinion there needs to be further revisement:
Since you’ve already identified which of the two is “productive”…the goal should be to completely *eliminate* the unproductive. No reason to continue to squander resources. Too many problems that need to be solved productively.
Good in principle, but the problem is that these things are difficult to measure.
I would allow for a further refinement of your rule. . .
“The private sector should grow; The government should diminish.”