Cutting government to ignite economic growth - this has worked in the past?

[dblack]

Let me make a general comment about government intervention and the effects of boom and bust in an advanced technological society. Many of the products we enjoy today come as a result of a long chain of processes, parts, assembly, and delivery. Upset one part of that chain and all hell breaks loose. I think you could justifiably argue that maybe this house of cards has gone too far but if not and we want to keep it going, there needs to be a stabilizing force of some kind. It has become obvious that our business and financial leaders are much more keen on competition than cooperation and on short term gain than long term preparation so that stability isn't going to come from them.

Freedom isn't stable. No doubt about it. If what we want is maximum cooperation, maximum efficiency, maximum performance - we should probably consider a full-blown fascist state with a strong central government running the show. Of course, if 'we' do decide to go there, I'll be considering some other place to be.

There's a broad spectrum between fascism and anarchy. Maybe the political disagreements in this country amount to the difference between yellow and yellow-green.

Well said. The real issue, in my view, is reaffirming broad agreement on the purpose of government, and we don't really have that right now. Some people seem to think of government as the be-all, end-all of human society, and I think that's very dangerous - and does lead to totalitarian government as an obvious solution.

The best government, in my view, will be tightly focused on doing the things that actually require the coercive power we grant to the state. Where that's not required, we're better off solving our own problems.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fail.

Government spending as a % of GDP was far higher in 1946 than today.

Did you move the goalposts on me? You asked when a cut in government spending resulted in an economic boost. In 1945 the government spending was over 50% of GDP, it dropped to 35% in 1946, and went down even further after that. Despite this massive cut GDP actually went up during those years.

I didn't ask when one correlated with a boost, I asked when one resulted in a boost. Do you know the difference? I doubt it. Here's a hint. When you can show me where all the pay checks that the men brought home after the war disappeared to in a way that in no way influenced the booming economy that followed, you'll have a start.

You did?

Cutting government to ignite economic growth - this has worked in the past?

In the U.S.?

When?

Funny, I don't see the word result in that challenge.

You asked for something you thought no one could provide, and I gave you exactly what you asked for. You should just admit you were wrong and move on. Unless, that is, you are trying to argue that WWII did not end the depression, which means you are speaking heresy to the modern Keynesian.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What does that even mean?

You conservatives wanted smaller government and you're getting it, 600,000 job losses worth of it in 3 years.

Why are you blaming Obama for slow job growth when the very thing you want to happen is happening?

Where did I ever blame Bam Bam for slow job growth?

And government is not smaller as it is costing us more.

If you have 600,000 fewer government employees than you had 3 years ago your government is smaller.

If you can't agree to that simple fact than don't respond to my posts because we won't get anywhere.

Smaller but more expensive. And again the 600K you love to quote is mostly state employees. Now your state might have lost some employees but other states might have gained employees so until you can figure out the difference between federal and state governments we can't continue.

Tell me how that's a win.