3 ms·
There is no way to easily show the electorate that the policies are responsible for 2% less growth per year. The policies that affect growth are instituted grad
by aminok 10y ago
There is no way to easily show the electorate that the policies are responsible for 2% less growth per year. The policies that affect growth are instituted gradually over the course of many decades. It is not obvious that the growth rates would be higher if those policies were not in place and there are huge vested interests who spend considerable amounts of resources on propaganda to convince people that those policies are not responsible for slowing growth. So the electorate is not going to necessarily be motivated to repeal those policies.
>You're arguing that minute interventions have enormous effects
First of all, not all the interventions are minute. Social Security or Medicare redistribution, is not minute. But the effects take a long time to manifest themselves. Lower levels of private sector investment only manifest themselves as less growth in GDP statistics years later, and can even boost GDP statistics in the short run.
Second, thousands of minute interventions over the course of decades do have enormous effects.
- dpark 10y ago> It is not obvious that the growth rates would be higher if those policies were not in place You're right. It's extremely nonobvious, because you're not making an argument from a position of fact but from a position of principle. Which is my point. If GDP is 80% lower than it should be, I think you'd be able to demonstrate that. You know who had experienced absurd GDP growth? China. Not that I think the Chinese model is what we should strive for, but I don't know how interventionism is clearly bad when interventionist governments like China have been growing so aggressively.
- aminok 10y ago>It's extremely nonobvious, because you're not making an argument from a position of fact but from a position of principle. Which is my point. It is not obvious because it would require a person reading many pages of dense economic data. Obviously the average voter is not going to do that. >but I don't know how interventionism is clearly bad when interventionist governments like China have been growing so aggressively. China's economic growth increased substantially after it instituted pro-market reforms in the early 1980s. It also imposes far lower levels of income redistribution in the form of social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP.