Just like in the United States, politicians in the United Kingdom use the deceptive practice of “baseline budgeting” as part of fiscal policy.
This means the politicians can increase spending, but simultaneously claim they are cutting spending because the budget could have expanded at an even faster pace.
Sort of like saying your diet is successful because you’re only gaining two pounds a week rather than five pounds.
Anyhow, some people get deluded by this chicanery. Paul Krugman, for instance, complained in 2011 that “the government of Prime Minister David Cameron chose instead to move to immediate, unforced austerity, in the belief that private spending would more than make up for the government’s pullback.”
This was nonsense. There have not been any genuine budget cuts in the United Kingdom. Heck, just compare what’s happening today in the United Kingdom and what happened in Canada in the 1990s to see the difference between gimmickry and real fiscal restraint.
Now we have some new numbers that confirm that the UK economy is suffering because of a heavy burden of government spending.
Here’s some of what Allister Heath, the Editor of City A.M., wrote for the UK-based Telegraph.
The public finances are deteriorating again, making a mockery of the Coalition’s core purpose. Osborne’s fatal problem is that he is proving unable to deliver any meaningful reduction in the size of the state. The extent of his failure will come as a shock to many. Remarkably, public spending actually went up last year as a share of our national income… public spending hit 49pc of UK GDP last year, a shocking increase on the 48.6pc of GDP spent by the state in 2011. Even with a stagnant economy, this implies that Osborne has lost control of public spending.
Gee, doesn’t sound like much budget cutting to me.
Heck, the burden of government spending is worse than it is in Germany (45 percent of GDP). Or even Spain (44 percent) or Portugal (47.4 percent).
Perhaps the most shocking number is the one showing that the UK has radically veered in the wrong direction this century.
Public spending as a share of GDP hit a trough of just 36.6pc in 2000.
Allister hits the nail on the head.
…after all the rows about “slashing spending to the bone”, and following almost three years of coalition government, the state is still spending around half of national income. …it beggars belief that a government that remains so large, so bloated cannot provide much better quality services, and that we have a public debate in this country that exaggerates beyond all recognition the extent of the state’s downsizing.
But there has been some “austerity,” but only for taxpayers.
…real austerity is only biting on the tax side: total UK government revenues increased from 40.3pc of GDP in 2011 to 42.4pc in 2012, the OECD estimates. It’s getting increasingly hard for the Chancellor to extract revenues, with taxes on income and wealth falling to £194.3bn over 2012 as a whole, 2.7pc lower than in 2011, when they stood at £199.7bn, according to separate figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research.
That last sentence, by the way, shows the Laffer Curve in action. The supposedly Conservative government of Cameron and Osborne has raised the tax burden, yet revenues aren’t materializing.
Allister also echoes the argument of Veronique de Rugy about choosing the right kind of austerity and reining in the public sector.
Not all kinds of austerity were created equal: cutting current expenditure, such as benefits, is good for growth; but hiking taxes is bad for it… There is also lots of evidence that elevated levels of public spending and large government debts are bad for GDP; no wonder, therefore, that growth is failing to materialise.
So what’s the bottom line? Well, as Allister stated, the real problem is that government is too big and spending too much.
And until Cameron and Osborne are willing to tackle that problem, don’t expect much positive from the United Kingdom.
[…] and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes credit […]
[…] and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes credit […]
[…] already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes […]
[…] and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes credit […]
[…] And his ideological zeal leads him to make errors (often about U.S. data, but also about what’s happened in Canada, Germany, Estonia, the PIIGS, Denmark, and the United Kingdom). […]
[…] and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes credit […]
[…] already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes […]
[…] already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes […]
[…] and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes credit […]
[…] and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes credit […]
[…] and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes credit […]
[…] and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes credit […]
[…] and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes credit […]
[…] already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes […]
[…] and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes credit […]
[…] the United States, France, Canada, the United States, Estonia, Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom), he isn’t oblivious to […]
[…] the United States, France, Canada, the United States, Estonia, Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom), he isn’t oblivious to […]
[…] the United States, France, Canada, the United States, Estonia, Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom), he isn’t oblivious to […]
[…] Paul Krugman ha descuartizado números al escribir sobre política fiscal en países como Francia, Estonia, Alemania y el Reino Unido. […]
[…] Paul Krugman has butchered numbers when writing about fiscal policy in nations such as France, Estonia, Germany, and the United Kingdom. […]
[…] Paul Krugman has butchered numbers when writing about fiscal policy in nations such as France, Estonia, Germany, and the United Kingdom. […]
[…] Paul Krugman has butchered numbers when writing about fiscal policy in nations such as France, Estonia, Germany, and the United Kingdom. […]
[…] Paul Krugman has butchered numbers when writing about fiscal policy in nations such as France, Estonia, Germany, and the United Kingdom. […]
[…] Paul Krugman has butchered numbers when writing about fiscal policy in nations such as France, Estonia, Germany, and the United Kingdom. […]
[…] P.S. I’ve had some fun over the years by pointing out that Paul Krugman has butchered numbers when writing about fiscal policy in nations such as France, Estonia, Germany, and the United Kingdom. […]
[…] fiscal policy, Greek economics, U.S. and U.K. austerity, German fiscal policy, Estonian economics, British fiscal policy, inflation, European austerity, the financial crisis, and the Heritage […]
[…] fiscal policy, Greek economics, U.S. and U.K. austerity, German fiscal policy, Estonian economics, British fiscal policy, inflation, European austerity, the financial crisis, and the Heritage […]
[…] you enjoyed those examples, you can find more of the same by clicking here,here, here, here, here, here, here, and […]
[…] you enjoyed those examples, you can find more of the same by clicking here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and […]
[…] classes from Paul Krugman. If these examples (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) are any indication, they probably experience […]
[…] deserving his own special category for sloppiness, as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and […]
[…] deserving his own special category for sloppiness, as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, […]
[…] want additional examples of Krugman’s factual errors, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here, and […]
[…] examples of Krugman’s factual errors, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here, […]
[…] This isn’t the first time Krugman has mangled numbers when analyzing U.K. fiscal […]
[…] and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes credit […]
[…] and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the gold and try to give Keynes credit […]
[…] This isn’t the first time Krugman has mangled numbers when analyzing U.K. fiscal […]
[…] The main point of the interview was to explain that government spending hasn’t been cut in Europe, with the United Kingdom being a poster child for bad policy (you won’t be surprised thatPaul Krugman hasn’t bothered to look at the actual numbers). […]
[…] Why do statists make so many mistakes with data? Paul Krugman, for instance, has butchered numbers when writing about fiscal policy in nations such as France, Estonia, Germany, and the United Kingdom. […]
[…] services trimmed drastically.” Why is that passage biased and/or sloppy? Well, because as I had to explain to Paul Krugman, there hasn’t been any genuine austerity in the United […]
[…] Is Anybody Surprised that Krugman Was Wrong about U.K. Fiscal Policy? […]
[…] The main point of the interview was to explain that government spending hasn’t been cut in Europe, with the United Kingdom being a poster child for bad policy (you won’t be surprised thatPaul Krugman hasn’t bothered to look at the actual numbers). […]
[…] The main point of the interview was to explain that government spending hasn’t been cut in Europe, with the United Kingdom being a poster child for bad policy (you won’t be surprised that Paul Krugman hasn’t bothered to look at the actual numbers). […]
[…] this counts Paul Krugman’s mistakes, which are in a special category (see here, here, here, here, and here for a few […]
[…] P.S. You also won’t be surprised that Paul Krugman doesn’t do his homework when he writes about “austerity” in Estonia and the United Kingdom. […]
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
I think Krugman talks to hear his own voice. It surely can’t be to inform and educate.
Krugman has been slated to head President Obama’s new department of Perpetual Motion Machines. Economic contraptions and gimmicks that after initial stimulus provide effortless prosperity. Prosperity ten times the world average through ordinary work. Promises to numb western world populations with a bit of hope through their decline. The hippie dream lives, …the decline is accelerating.
I’m not a Keynes fan, but the poor chap must be spinning in his grave, seeing how his temporary stimulus manipulation suggestions — to break the presumed periodic deadlock of the “natural” business cycle — is used as perpetual policy to an ever expanding size of government and thus indirect collectivization of ever more economic activity, vitality and intellect. This trendline the developed world is on, won’t last long. It simply can’t. The emerging, still awakening, three billion souls of this planet will take no prisoners. Convergence will be swift. The world is moving ever faster and the western world is reverting to the old recipes of ever increasing mandatory collectivism. Reality has no soul or morals, interesting times of turmoil coming ahead for western world voter-lemmings…
I was going to add my own comment about Mr. Krugman, but you guys have said pretty much all that needs to be said.
Agreed. I’m so tired of hearing Kurgman’s name. This flavor of the month ‘economist’ is about as close as I can imagine to a real life Ellsworth Toohey out of an Ayn Rand novel. What a turd.
Krugman’s a moron. Why does anyone give him the time of day.