3 ms·

> Even in countries such as the United States that have relatively small, laissez-faire governments... What US is this article talking about??? The US governme

by roenxi 2y ago

> Even in countries such as the United States that have relatively small, laissez-faire governments... What US is this article talking about??? The US government makes up about half the US economy by GDP [0]. It is the largest government in the history of history. Arguably maybe 2nd to China in recent years. I quite like this article - it has two obvious implications. (1) Reduce the size and scope of government and (2) Maybe the US Democrats should experiment with nominating better candidates and policies. I'm not sure the situation is dire enough to justify either of those things, the Republicans have been in similar straits in the past and just kept on keeping on. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni...

fatuna 2y ago
Some quick googling tells me the US gov spends between 35 and 40% of the US GDP. Also, the article says 'relatively'. Compared to other nations, especially other developed nations, the US government can definitely be called 'relatively small'.
- scarab92 2y ago
  The government share of GDP is a silly thing to care about. The important questions are: 1. What services do voters want (enough to pay for) 2. How can we meet that need at the lowest cost The first has a broad range of valid answers, the second is something that everyone ignored until DOGE
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > The first has a broad range of valid answers, the second is something that everyone ignored until DOGE They cared plenty before, and there's no real indication to me of a difference with DOGE. Both pre- and post-DOGE, it's all about weird anecdotes like "this wrench cost $20,000! This toilet seat cost $600!"[0], which, even at their current rate of work, would only amount to a rounding error compared to the $2 trillion they talk about cutting. Which is probably for the best, because the $2 trillion goal — about the combined total of the entire US social security system plus all military pensions — is so large that "success" will cause a huge recession. [0] https://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/378125-myth-truth-behind-20-000-wrench.html https://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/378125...
- roenxi 2y ago
  That is the spending, then there'll be a bump up beyond the official figures because of regulation (ie, control of companies that would turn up in categories other than direct government spending). That gets it to most of the economy in my mind. And things like all the private businesses servicing government workers. Eg, in Washington - sure there'd be a lot there that isn't officially government spending but the ostensibly private infrastructure investment and consumption but really it is all supporting the operation of government. Once the official stats say the government has reached 40% of the economy, the practical influence is going to be a bit larger again. I'm still happy to say >50%. > Compared to other nations, especially other developed nations... I don't think the difference can be defended as important. The US is running a large modern mixed economy. It hasn't been a small-government country since the 70s; at best. That isn't a compelling case to say 40% of the economy is a small government. The ratio of government spending to private is getting pretty close to 1:1. I'd accept that it isn't "big" in the sense that some places manage to spend even more in % terms, but to call that behemoth "small" is a bridge too far. It is standard sized. Small governments don't control that much of the market. EDIT And if you want to lean on the "relatively small", in the sense the article is using it makes sense to compare the sizes related to each other, in which case the US government is much larger than every other contender except China. Relative to the German or French government, the US government is enormous. It is a corruption honeypot.
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
You're being misleading. You're including money that the government pays out in social security which is a retirement program and really nothing to do with government except that it's mandated. Ditto for health programs. In the absence of these programs insurance and investment companies would be doing the same. The real difference is how governments involve themselves in the day to day of the economy and that has to do with regulation and other government interventions. Small government is mostly ideological dogma since it makes no reference to what government is doing for you. Who wants a "small government" that provides no services to taxpayers? It's amazing, and quite stupid, that the discussion seems to be so much about the size of government rather than what people are getting for their money and if it is worth the cost.
- roenxi 2y ago
  All money the government pays out goes towards someone's lifestyle; objects don't use cash. I'm not sure what your complaint is there. The government paying someone to sit there and do nothing in retirement is at least as governmenty as paying someone to fill in holes in a road, for example. > Who wants a "small government" that provides no services to taxpayers? The people who are saying "I want a small government". That is what a small government is. A small government is one that doesn't do very much and that test is how you can tell the US government isn't one.

by roenxi 2y ago

fatuna 2y ago

Some quick googling tells me the US gov spends between 35 and 40% of the US GDP. Also, the article says 'relatively'. Compared to other nations, especially other developed nations, the US government can definitely be called 'relatively small'.

scarab92 2y ago
The government share of GDP is a silly thing to care about. The important questions are: 1. What services do voters want (enough to pay for) 2. How can we meet that need at the lowest cost The first has a broad range of valid answers, the second is something that everyone ignored until DOGE
- ben_w 2y ago
  > The first has a broad range of valid answers, the second is something that everyone ignored until DOGE They cared plenty before, and there's no real indication to me of a difference with DOGE. Both pre- and post-DOGE, it's all about weird anecdotes like "this wrench cost $20,000! This toilet seat cost $600!"[0], which, even at their current rate of work, would only amount to a rounding error compared to the $2 trillion they talk about cutting. Which is probably for the best, because the $2 trillion goal — about the combined total of the entire US social security system plus all military pensions — is so large that "success" will cause a huge recession. [0] https://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/378125-myth-truth-behind-20-000-wrench.html https://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/378125...
roenxi 2y ago
That is the spending, then there'll be a bump up beyond the official figures because of regulation (ie, control of companies that would turn up in categories other than direct government spending). That gets it to most of the economy in my mind. And things like all the private businesses servicing government workers. Eg, in Washington - sure there'd be a lot there that isn't officially government spending but the ostensibly private infrastructure investment and consumption but really it is all supporting the operation of government. Once the official stats say the government has reached 40% of the economy, the practical influence is going to be a bit larger again. I'm still happy to say >50%. > Compared to other nations, especially other developed nations... I don't think the difference can be defended as important. The US is running a large modern mixed economy. It hasn't been a small-government country since the 70s; at best. That isn't a compelling case to say 40% of the economy is a small government. The ratio of government spending to private is getting pretty close to 1:1. I'd accept that it isn't "big" in the sense that some places manage to spend even more in % terms, but to call that behemoth "small" is a bridge too far. It is standard sized. Small governments don't control that much of the market. EDIT And if you want to lean on the "relatively small", in the sense the article is using it makes sense to compare the sizes related to each other, in which case the US government is much larger than every other contender except China. Relative to the German or French government, the US government is enormous. It is a corruption honeypot.

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago

You're being misleading. You're including money that the government pays out in social security which is a retirement program and really nothing to do with government except that it's mandated. Ditto for health programs. In the absence of these programs insurance and investment companies would be doing the same. The real difference is how governments involve themselves in the day to day of the economy and that has to do with regulation and other government interventions. Small government is mostly ideological dogma since it makes no reference to what government is doing for you. Who wants a "small government" that provides no services to taxpayers? It's amazing, and quite stupid, that the discussion seems to be so much about the size of government rather than what people are getting for their money and if it is worth the cost.

roenxi 2y ago
All money the government pays out goes towards someone's lifestyle; objects don't use cash. I'm not sure what your complaint is there. The government paying someone to sit there and do nothing in retirement is at least as governmenty as paying someone to fill in holes in a road, for example. > Who wants a "small government" that provides no services to taxpayers? The people who are saying "I want a small government". That is what a small government is. A small government is one that doesn't do very much and that test is how you can tell the US government isn't one.