Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘The News Journal’

Earlier this week Business Insider UK published an article titled, “Conservatives will hate this: Proof That Government Spending Cuts Hurt Economic Growth”. From the article:

“… austerity subtracted about 0.76 percentage points off the real growth rate of the economy between the middle of 2010 and the middle of 2011. If real government spending had remained constant at mid-2010 levels and everything else stayed constant, (yes we know these are big assumptions) the US economy would now be about 1.2 per cent larger.

There’s a secondary conclusion, too: War is good (economically), it turns out.”

They provided a graph (created by Matt Klein of the Financial Times) with data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) “proving” that Keynesianism works. Without public spending, the author argued, our economy can’t grow.

US govt spending growth contribution detail

Enter the Foundation for Economic Freedom, whose founder Leonard Reed once published the famous short story “I, Pencil.” You absolutely should read this, by the way. An economist named Robert Murphy points out the fallacy in the calculations made for the graph above:

“Edwards (the author of the Business Times UK article) seems to think that the above chart shows at least a correlation between government spending and economic growth. After all, he wrote that the BEA chart “seems to show that government has a pretty straightforward effect on GDP.” But… the chart does nothing of the kind.

Look carefully at the legend. The various colored rectangles are different components of government spending. Specifically, the rectangles indicate how the change in each component — positive or negative — relates to the change in overall GDP. The black line is not GDP growth, but is instead the sum of the various components of government spending… if we take the BEA’s word for how much each component of government spending contributed to GDP growth in each quarter, then we can stack those numbers on top of each other and even add them up! Contrary to Edwards, the FT chart doesn’t “show” anything at all, except that the BEA each quarter announces how much various components of government spending contributed to, or subtracted from, GDP growth.

After this discussion, we can see why pretty charts from the FT showcasing government spending’s “contribution to GDP growth” quarter by quarter don’t really mean anything. It’s the same for the ex post “empirical” analyses that concluded that the Obama stimulus package “saved or created” such-and-such million jobs. The underlying models that generate these estimates assume a Keynesian world, and thus cannot test whether the Keynesian model is correct.”

Even though the government prints and issues money, it’s the private sector (both businesses and consumers) who determine the value of a good or service. The government can only run on money taken from the private sector; printing into eternity is Quantitative Easing, which causes inflation if too much is printed. So they tax or borrow it from the people. If government spending really did save economies, both Delaware and America would have people making record amounts of money instead of seeing wages stagnate. The Federal Reserve would not have to continue holding interest rates low in order to convince people to buy things like homes or cars or take out student loans.

Check out CRI’s analysis here and here.

The bottom line is, Keynesianism does not work in the real world, despite efforts by its supporters to say it does. The less the government spends, the less the government needs. Even The News Journal noted that in a recent editorial.

As we approach 2015, here’s to more free markets and less government spending at all levels.

Read Full Post »