The danger of big government.

[edward777]

We all know the problems associated with socialism with the USSR but here is an example of how "soft-socialism" also hurts a society:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2012/06/RIR-120617.php

[il Padrino Ute]

This is an article written two years ago that was linked from the site in your link.

Apparently, Sweden isn't all that, as so many think it is.

[wuapinmon]

I thought this was Il Padrino Ute's Ellis Island thread.

[il Padrino Ute]

I thought this was Il Padrino Ute's Ellis Island thread.

No way. If I had an Ellis Island thread it would begin with a tale of La Segua, Bill Clinton, a pair of forceps and a broken thermostat from a 1997 Dodge Neon.

[UtahDan]

What is big government? I hear that term used a lot but I don't think I know what people mean when they say it.

[Indy Coug]

What is big government? I hear that term used a lot but I don't think I know what people mean when they say it.

It depends where on the communist -> socialist -> libertarian -> anarchist spectrum you reside.

[creekster]

What is big government? I hear that term used a lot but I don't think I know what people mean when they say it.

Its like assault weapons; who needs a definition?

[pellegrino]

Its like assault weapons; who needs a definition?

nice one.

[Goatnapper'96]

What is big government? I hear that term used a lot but I don't think I know what people mean when they say it.

Big is a relative term but I don't know what "big government" is but I am wary of government influencing more and more of the economy. This happens through two methods primarily, but others I am sure. The first is when the government begins to take over more and more functions that could be done by the private sector and thus crowding out civil society. Toll roads versus freeways. Socialized health care versus the private health care. In my perspective the best way to allocate resources and find price points is through a free market system. When the government gets involved that flexibility is lost and decisions could be made with certain political friends' best interests as the compelling priority. The second issue is when excessive government regulation is used to distort the economy. My example of this is the fact that the current administration is not a fan of bio-fuels and uses every regulatory opportunity to give advantages to renewable energy sources because of political goals. FTR, I think the invisible hand is going to kick their ass regardless of their political ambitions in this arena. The money is going to increasing flow to the bio-fuels for the next 50 years and while the greenies already involved will be protected - I don't see the industry growing much more in the future.

Now no economic system will be free from these concerns and there are certain industries where government might be the only entity capable of administering what needs to be done. But I believe that economic growth is lost each time governments administer these types of tasks because government has no incentive to be effecient or effective - especially when the litmus test of effective government is votes instead of financial bottom lines. Hence when you read the term big government you can likely interpret it to mean "increasing government control over the economy and decreasing market control."

At least that is how I read it.

[PaloAltoCougar]

What is big government? I hear that term used a lot but I don't think I know what people mean when they say it.

I've always been assured that size doesn't matter. But I believe it's indisputable that government is getting bigger and I wonder what it portends for the future. Consider government spending as a percentage of GDP over the past century:



Certainly government plays a much more pervasive role in our lives today than it did during the McKinley administration, and that's not entirely a bad thing. I like a lot of the services government provides. But where is this going to end? Unfortunately (I think), there is nothing to suggest that the trend will ever stop, much less be reversed.

The populace says it wants to reduce debt, and yet nearly 80% oppose any reduction in entitlements, the biggest element of that debt. Conclusion: the government is going to get bigger.

[Goatnapper'96]

I've always been assured that size doesn't matter. But I believe it's indisputable that government is getting bigger and I wonder what it portends for the future. Consider government spending as a percentage of GDP over the past century:



Certainly government plays a much more pervasive role in our lives today than it did during the McKinley administration, and that's not entirely a bad thing. I like a lot of the services government provides. But where is this going to end? Unfortunately (I think), there is nothing to suggest that the trend will ever stop, much less be reversed.

The populace says it wants to reduce debt, and yet nearly 80% oppose any reduction in entitlements, the biggest element of that debt. Conclusion: the government is going to get bigger.

My issue is the undeniable fact that government can go into such debt. As government provides more and more services the debt issue gets worse and worse. The fact of the matter is as long as the Federal Government can go into debt without making anyone uncomfortable in the short term future it will. Providing services is a way of getting votes. Hence, above and beyond the argument of government inneffeciency, we should seek to limit what government does for us. I think the capacity to go into debt and thus provide services without asking the consumer to pay for those services does more to distort the economy than any other economic shortcoming of growing government.

[UtahDan]

Its like assault weapons; who needs a definition?

Well played.

[UtahDan]

I've always been assured that size doesn't matter. But I believe it's indisputable that government is getting bigger and I wonder what it portends for the future. Consider government spending as a percentage of GDP over the past century:



Certainly government plays a much more pervasive role in our lives today than it did during the McKinley administration, and that's not entirely a bad thing. I like a lot of the services government provides. But where is this going to end? Unfortunately (I think), there is nothing to suggest that the trend will ever stop, much less be reversed.

The populace says it wants to reduce debt, and yet nearly 80% oppose any reduction in entitlements, the biggest element of that debt. Conclusion: the government is going to get bigger.

Interestingly, the European democracies with the exception of France have capped out in the 45-55% range.

[UtahDan]

My issue is the undeniable fact that government can go into such debt. As government provides more and more services the debt issue gets worse and worse. The fact of the matter is as long as the Federal Government can go into debt without making anyone uncomfortable in the short term future it will. Providing services is a way of getting votes. Hence, above and beyond the argument of government inneffeciency, we should seek to limit what government does for us. I think the capacity to go into debt and thus provide services without asking the consumer to pay for those services does more to distort the economy than any other economic shortcoming of growing government.

What do you think the government should stop doing for us?

[Goatnapper'96]

What do you think the government should stop doing for us?

1.) Fix all entitlements, raise the age for retirment and means test.
2.) Hold social spending at current rates until debt is cut in half.
3.) Hold medicare spending at current levels until debt is cut in half.
4.) Establish a basic soclialized health system for everyone that focusses upon preventative and basic care but cap its growth at 3% per year - rationing if needed. Yes life is not fair and it is less fair to the poor. Those with more means can purchase private health insurance above. This program will replace medicaid/medicare when up and running.
5.) Go forward with sequester cuts to DOD spending and continue cuts over 5 years until DOD tops out at $450 billion. Hold it htere until debt is cut in half.
6.) Return to the Clinton tax rates across the board. Establish a debt tax to income above $500,000 of 1.5%.

It would result in a recession and slow growth for a decade but would be legitimate after that. Do you think I could win an election?