Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Yet another argument against Prop224[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: SEAOC Forum <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
- Subject: Yet another argument against Prop224
- From: "Kathleen A. O'Brien" <wildwoman1(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 04:05:47 -0400
RE: Proof that more govt = less prosperity A fellow I know on another Forum sent me this (how DOES this girl get any work done??) Kate O'Brien ======================= WALL ST. JOURNAL April 10, 1998 Less Government, More Growth By JAMES GWARTNEY Propelled by a confidence that politicians could solve problems, government spending has soared in the U.S. and other Western countries since 1960. Has wise "government planning" improved economic performance? Quite the opposite. Robert Lawson, Randall Holcombe and I recently completed a study on the size and functions of government for Congress's Joint Economic Committee. Here are some of our findings: As the size of government has expanded in the U.S., growth of real gross domestic product has steadily fallen. Even though the U.S. economy is now moving into the eighth year of an expansion, the growth of real GDP during the 1990s is only about half what it was during the 1960s and well below even that of the turbulent 1970s. Likewise, as the size of government in other nations has increased, economic growth has declined. On average, government expenditures in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's 23 long-standing members rose to 48% of GDP in 1996 from 27% in 1960. The average economic growth rate fell from 5.5% in the 1960s to 1.9% in the 1990s. [RICHARD RIDER NOTE: In the article is a nice graph, which does not replicate as email. So I am putting what the approximate figures are in table form here:] Governmement Share Average Growth of GDP of GDP During the Year 25% or less 6.6% 25-30% 4.5% (approximate) 30-40% 3.8% (approximate) 40-50% 2.8% (approximate) 50-60% 2.0% (approximate) Over 60% 1.6% As the chart shows, there has is a striking relationship between the size of government and economic growth. When government spending was less than 25% of GDP, OECD countries achieved an average real growth rate of 6.6%. As the size of government rose, growth steadily declined, plunging to 1.6% when government spending exceeded 60% of GDP. While growth has declined in all of the OECD countries, those countries with the least growth of government have suffered the least. Between 1960 and 1996, the size of government as a share of GDP increased by less than 15 percentage points in the U.S., Britain, Iceland, Ireland and New Zealand. The average growth rate for these five countries was 1.6 percentage points lower in the 1990s than in the 1960s. In contrast, the size of government increased by 25 percentage points or more in Denmark, Finland, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. The growth rate of these six countries fell by 5.2 percentage points. In the world's fastest-growing economies, furthermore, the size of government is small, and there is no trend toward bigger government. On average, government expenditures in 1995 consumed only 20% of GDP in the five economies with the most rapid real economic growth rates during 1980-95: Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. In these countries, the size of government in 1995 was virtually the same as in 1975. When we looked at a diverse group of 60 nations, we found that the negative relationship between bigger government and economic growth is present in all types of economies. Many policy-makers seem oblivious to these facts. Even though the evidence clearly shows that excessive government expenditures are retarding economic growth, politicians continue to focus on new spending programs, budget deficits and how to spend a possible surplus. What the U.S. and other nations need instead is a long-range strategy to reduce the size and scope of government. Had the public-sector expansion of the past four decades accelerated economic growth, politicians would be rushing to take credit. Since the opposite has occurred, how can we fail to hold them accountable? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Gwartney is a professor of economics at Florida State University. Copyright © 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
- Re: Yet another argument against Prop224
- From: nmends
- Re: Yet another argument against Prop224
- Prev by Subject: www.icbolabc.org
- Next by Subject: Re: Yet another argument against Prop224
- Previous by thread: wood - Shear wall connection to radius roof??????
- Next by thread: Re: Yet another argument against Prop224