3 ms·
I picked 1940 intentionally because that was before the shift. [1] I think the more interesting part is that the expenses grow with GDP, more than the % itself
by s1artibartfast 2y ago
I picked 1940 intentionally because that was before the shift. [1]
I think the more interesting part is that the expenses grow with GDP, more than the % itself changing.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ockN https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ockN
- gruez 2y agoHow's that surprising? The duties of the state isn't fixed. It can grow with time, hence greater spending in absolute terms. Not to mention stuff like cost disease causing prices to go up even for the same stuff.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI think it is interesting because similar % GDP seems to be treated steady state function of government, not one that inherently expansive. For those of us that have been around for a while, it seems shocking that real, inflation controlled government taxes and spending per capitia is >2x that of the 80's, because experientially, many of the services seems no different, if not in decline. I also think it is interesting to think about what government duties become more and less difficult to maintain with growth, and the implications for what types of objectives the government is well and poorly suited to achieve. I think the Baumol effect is a helpful lens for exploring this, so I think you.
- Braxton1980 2y agoWhy is it interesting? Why would expenses be tied to GDP. For example wars are extremely expensive and occur independent of the GDP