3 ms·

What I mean is nation states in general and over a much longer period than you're talking about.

• rayiner 13y ago
  Okay, let's go back farther. In 1937 (back in history a third of the lifetime of the republic), expenditures as a percentage of GDP were 8.6% (almost all discretionary; SS was nothing back then and there was no Medicare). In 2011, discretionary expenditures as a percentage of GDP were 9%. Going back further than that paints a misleading picture. The scope of government increases, super-linearly, with the complexity of the society being governed.[1] Growth that is the result of accommodating a more complex society with exponentially more interaction between people as a result of ever finer-grained division of labor is still growth, but not the kind of growth alluded to in your comment. The growth implied by your comment is steady-state growth: government consumes more until it becomes unsustainable. The fact that government, at least the federal government, has been remarkably consistent in size during the modern industrial era cuts against that narrative. [1] This is essentially a law of nature, applying to everything from business corporations to operating systems.
• awj 13y ago
  ...then why make the assertion that congress never defunds anything?
  • adestefan 13y ago
    Because it doesn't fit their narrative that all government is bad government.