5 ms·

Feds consumed <5% GDP during most non-war time between civil war and WW1. During which time standard of living and economy rose about as much during the post W

by ty6853 2y ago

Feds consumed <5% GDP during most non-war time between civil war and WW1. During which time standard of living and economy rose about as much during the post WW2 period of massively growing government and regulation. It's hard to take these apocalyptic premonitions about federal government reduction seriously.

someothherguyy 2y ago
I don't think appealing to the gilded age can be taken seriously. See for instance: https://www.investopedia.com/gilded-age-7692919 https://www.investopedia.com/gilded-age-7692919
- joyeuse6701 2y ago
  For better or for worse, that GDP boom was enabled by the massive spending and outcome of the Civil War, much like WW2. To point to these moments and ignore the immediate massive historical events that preceded it seems like a serious oversight in the analysis.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    You chastise the comparison but then admit they're much alike, did you think that a complete accident. Obviously two different times are two different times but it's hilarious the hypocrisy you often see of regulatory proponents talking up post WW2 gains as the regulatory apparatus spun up -- but when you point out other post war periods with lower federal burdens suddenly the narrative changes to 'not like that!'
bbor 2y ago
…youre saying that life was good from 1870-1910? Reconstruction and the gilded age?? I mean, there was technological and medical improvements, sure, and continued urbanization. But that’s… those are some of our nations most shameful, inequal, racist years in its entire history. The federal government as it exists now was just getting started after we realized we needed it thanks to the civil war, and many local democratic systems were completely broken. More relevantly, we didn’t have cancer researchers, epidemiologists, the NSF, or, most relevantly, nuclear weapons. Finally, a HUGE majority of the costs of the federal government are social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending. I doubt even the biggest libertarian on here could advocate cutting any those with a straight face, unless they’re young and don’t know anyone older than them, and/or advocates isolationism. Regardless, this exact story makes it clear that the goal isn’t cutting the size of the government at all — it’s politicizing the civil service, and bringing it under the exclusive control of a supreme executive. They’re not exactly ashamed of it!
- ty6853 2y ago
  >social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending. I doubt even the biggest libertarian on here could advocate cutting any those with a straight face Who says I don't advocate cutting those too, if you're asking? And I am grey haired, not sure about the ageism.
  - bbor 2y ago
    Well, all I'll say is this then: you are a tiny minority.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      Yet the public voted for someone openly stating they'd carry out DOGE. Majority is just a collection of tiny minorities, in this case my minority opinion partially aligns. As it turns out minority isn't aways what you think.
      - someothherguyy 2y ago
        This RMG survey reports 19% of all voters knowing what DOGE was in December of 2024. https://napolitannews.org/posts/19-percent-of-voters-know-what-doge-is https://napolitannews.org/posts/19-percent-of-voters-know-wh... (PDF) https://napolitannews.org/assets/pdfs/67633dc0cced7-gcm24-1209-mini-toplines-doge.pdf https://napolitannews.org/assets/pdfs/67633dc0cced7-gcm24-12...
        ty6853 2y ago
        Less than 19% knew what the nuclear safety team was, so be careful with the point you're making. There was probably more informed consent for DOGE than many eliminated positions.
        Hasu 2y ago
        You're moving the goalposts. People did not, in fact, vote for DOGE.
hobs 2y ago
Reverting to the world of 110 years ago in what way resembles today? This sound like you are deeply misplacing your confidence in your personal understanding of the world.
- Xunjin 2y ago
  Not only he is overconfident about his "history knowledge" but is extremely wrong. Comparing that GDP from 110 years ago with today is liking comparing the economics of indigenous tribes with their colonization people. It's not like comparing apples with oranges, it's literally comparing a bacteria with country.
James_K 2y ago
So you're telling me that government spending was continually going up, and while this happened our quality of life massively and suddenly improved? I feel like reversing this process is very bad.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Unless nirvana is at 100% it has to stop somewhere. What im saying is it didn't continually go up during periods of like growth, and it's not clear such high federal spending is necessary or helpful in improving the human condition.
  - James_K 2y ago
    The US government has very low spending (it just appears high due to the military budget) and correspondingly many people in the US have very poor human condition. It's abundantly clear that government spending is a necessity to combat inequality. When the functions of government are privatised, the poor will lose access to these amenities, and the rich will begin to profit from them. The result is a system more unequal in both wealth and allocation. Likewise the destruction of regulations serves mainly to increase the ability for corporations to exploit individuals. These are all clear negative effects, and I have yet to see a positive case for this action. What benefits might there be to decimating the government? The only suggestion I've heard is that the private sector will magically do the government's job better than it can, which is absurd because they could already attempt this and have decided it isn't possible.
  - lgdiva 2y ago
    Dude, maybe just admit that your edgelord libertarian fantasy of everything being a corporation is a bad idea. It's fine, you're allowed to change your mind.
  - intermerda 2y ago
    There may be a serious discussion to be had about government spending. But it seems that you believe Musk and the rest of the GOP are interested in it. If they were, the House GOP wouldn’t have released a budget that asks for 4 trillion debt limit increase while proposing 4.5 trillion tax cuts. Or SpaceX wouldn't be awarded another $40m contract. While it’s a drop in the bucket, serious people would at least raise questions about the massive conflict of interest. Musk and his ilk are interested in looting the treasury. It has nothing to do with government efficiency.
Hasu 2y ago
But that growth period also came after the largest Marxist redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor that's ever happened in America.
- ty6853 2y ago
  The mythos often presented is mass wealth inequality is incompatible with raising of living standards of the poor. The poor can gain something at least temporarily by taking it from the rich. Another less violent option is mutually beneficial voluntary interactions.
  - Hasu 2y ago
    I'm talking about Emancipation. So no, this isn't temporarily taking something from the rich, or something that could have been solved through "mutually beneficial voluntary action". The government told a bunch of rich people that the incredibly valuable people they owned were no longer their property, and gave money and land to the people who previously had nothing because they hadn't been considered people. That's what kicked off your Gilded Age
    - ty6853 2y ago
      You're literally talking about moving violence enforced slavery to something closer to voluntary trade of labor. That's far from exclusively Marxian, even most brands of ancapism advocate such philosophy.
      - Hasu 2y ago
        Yes, it's also a wealth transfer, and slaveholders (other than in DC) were not compensated. If you're ignoring that huge economic event in your analysis of the economics of the latter half of the 19th century, trying to replicate it today is going to be very rough. Given your other replies in this thread, you're not interested in arguing honestly and I'm not going to continue engaging.
        2y ago
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Maybe best not to invoke the period with the worst economic inequality in US history as some sort of example? You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of social unrest during that time because of that inequality (and as a result, the workers rights we enjoy today which largely arose from that period, and the Great Depression, though there have been great efforts to erode them).

by ty6853 2y ago

someothherguyy 2y ago

I don't think appealing to the gilded age can be taken seriously. See for instance: https://www.investopedia.com/gilded-age-7692919 https://www.investopedia.com/gilded-age-7692919

joyeuse6701 2y ago
For better or for worse, that GDP boom was enabled by the massive spending and outcome of the Civil War, much like WW2. To point to these moments and ignore the immediate massive historical events that preceded it seems like a serious oversight in the analysis.
- ty6853 2y ago
  You chastise the comparison but then admit they're much alike, did you think that a complete accident. Obviously two different times are two different times but it's hilarious the hypocrisy you often see of regulatory proponents talking up post WW2 gains as the regulatory apparatus spun up -- but when you point out other post war periods with lower federal burdens suddenly the narrative changes to 'not like that!'

bbor 2y ago

…youre saying that life was good from 1870-1910? Reconstruction and the gilded age?? I mean, there was technological and medical improvements, sure, and continued urbanization. But that’s… those are some of our nations most shameful, inequal, racist years in its entire history. The federal government as it exists now was just getting started after we realized we needed it thanks to the civil war, and many local democratic systems were completely broken. More relevantly, we didn’t have cancer researchers, epidemiologists, the NSF, or, most relevantly, nuclear weapons. Finally, a HUGE majority of the costs of the federal government are social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending. I doubt even the biggest libertarian on here could advocate cutting any those with a straight face, unless they’re young and don’t know anyone older than them, and/or advocates isolationism. Regardless, this exact story makes it clear that the goal isn’t cutting the size of the government at all — it’s politicizing the civil service, and bringing it under the exclusive control of a supreme executive. They’re not exactly ashamed of it!

ty6853 2y ago
>social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending. I doubt even the biggest libertarian on here could advocate cutting any those with a straight face Who says I don't advocate cutting those too, if you're asking? And I am grey haired, not sure about the ageism.
- bbor 2y ago
  Well, all I'll say is this then: you are a tiny minority.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Yet the public voted for someone openly stating they'd carry out DOGE. Majority is just a collection of tiny minorities, in this case my minority opinion partially aligns. As it turns out minority isn't aways what you think.
    - someothherguyy 2y ago
      This RMG survey reports 19% of all voters knowing what DOGE was in December of 2024. https://napolitannews.org/posts/19-percent-of-voters-know-what-doge-is https://napolitannews.org/posts/19-percent-of-voters-know-wh... (PDF) https://napolitannews.org/assets/pdfs/67633dc0cced7-gcm24-1209-mini-toplines-doge.pdf https://napolitannews.org/assets/pdfs/67633dc0cced7-gcm24-12...
      - ty6853 2y ago
        Less than 19% knew what the nuclear safety team was, so be careful with the point you're making. There was probably more informed consent for DOGE than many eliminated positions.
        Hasu 2y ago
        You're moving the goalposts. People did not, in fact, vote for DOGE.

hobs 2y ago

Reverting to the world of 110 years ago in what way resembles today? This sound like you are deeply misplacing your confidence in your personal understanding of the world.

Xunjin 2y ago
Not only he is overconfident about his "history knowledge" but is extremely wrong. Comparing that GDP from 110 years ago with today is liking comparing the economics of indigenous tribes with their colonization people. It's not like comparing apples with oranges, it's literally comparing a bacteria with country.

James_K 2y ago

So you're telling me that government spending was continually going up, and while this happened our quality of life massively and suddenly improved? I feel like reversing this process is very bad.

ty6853 2y ago
Unless nirvana is at 100% it has to stop somewhere. What im saying is it didn't continually go up during periods of like growth, and it's not clear such high federal spending is necessary or helpful in improving the human condition.
- James_K 2y ago
  The US government has very low spending (it just appears high due to the military budget) and correspondingly many people in the US have very poor human condition. It's abundantly clear that government spending is a necessity to combat inequality. When the functions of government are privatised, the poor will lose access to these amenities, and the rich will begin to profit from them. The result is a system more unequal in both wealth and allocation. Likewise the destruction of regulations serves mainly to increase the ability for corporations to exploit individuals. These are all clear negative effects, and I have yet to see a positive case for this action. What benefits might there be to decimating the government? The only suggestion I've heard is that the private sector will magically do the government's job better than it can, which is absurd because they could already attempt this and have decided it isn't possible.
- lgdiva 2y ago
  Dude, maybe just admit that your edgelord libertarian fantasy of everything being a corporation is a bad idea. It's fine, you're allowed to change your mind.
- intermerda 2y ago
  There may be a serious discussion to be had about government spending. But it seems that you believe Musk and the rest of the GOP are interested in it. If they were, the House GOP wouldn’t have released a budget that asks for 4 trillion debt limit increase while proposing 4.5 trillion tax cuts. Or SpaceX wouldn't be awarded another $40m contract. While it’s a drop in the bucket, serious people would at least raise questions about the massive conflict of interest. Musk and his ilk are interested in looting the treasury. It has nothing to do with government efficiency.

Hasu 2y ago

But that growth period also came after the largest Marxist redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor that's ever happened in America.

ty6853 2y ago
The mythos often presented is mass wealth inequality is incompatible with raising of living standards of the poor. The poor can gain something at least temporarily by taking it from the rich. Another less violent option is mutually beneficial voluntary interactions.
- Hasu 2y ago
  I'm talking about Emancipation. So no, this isn't temporarily taking something from the rich, or something that could have been solved through "mutually beneficial voluntary action". The government told a bunch of rich people that the incredibly valuable people they owned were no longer their property, and gave money and land to the people who previously had nothing because they hadn't been considered people. That's what kicked off your Gilded Age
  - ty6853 2y ago
    You're literally talking about moving violence enforced slavery to something closer to voluntary trade of labor. That's far from exclusively Marxian, even most brands of ancapism advocate such philosophy.
    - Hasu 2y ago
      Yes, it's also a wealth transfer, and slaveholders (other than in DC) were not compensated. If you're ignoring that huge economic event in your analysis of the economics of the latter half of the 19th century, trying to replicate it today is going to be very rough. Given your other replies in this thread, you're not interested in arguing honestly and I'm not going to continue engaging.
      - 2y ago

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Maybe best not to invoke the period with the worst economic inequality in US history as some sort of example? You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of social unrest during that time because of that inequality (and as a result, the workers rights we enjoy today which largely arose from that period, and the Great Depression, though there have been great efforts to erode them).