Government cost related to GDP
So, are we headed toward a socialist state run by the proletariat when government costs go from 20 to 25% of Gross Domestic Product? Randians and Laffer curve trickle downers will have you believing so and this has been a persistent and relentless theme of theirs since the Reagan years. GDP needs to be compared to trade disparities as well as unemployment, welfare, food stamps and other social programs during a depressed economy to establish the real figures on government size in relation to the gross figure of the national product.As just one measure, when GDP is stagnant due to a depressed economy, then government costs will naturally rise in relation to it.
A much better metric to evaluate income inequality would be to establish hard money figures coming from the corporate, finance, and multinational sectors as these dollars relate to legislative, judiciary and executive impacts, especially the tax code and social programs.
Just for the sake of a hypothetical, let's say that in 1965, 2 billion dollars was contributed from big bizz and corporate in legislative lobbies, campaign finance, getting Johnson out and Nixon in etc,. How would that figure relate to the cost of government,The Great Society programs and the common good of most of the people?
say, just for argument, that 1% of GDP came from the most moneyed and special interest sector then. How would social programs for the common good for most of the people be affected if, say 3% of GDP was funneled into all branches of government.
That's essentially what has happened. It has been a mergers and aquisitions campaign by the Randians over the last 30 years since Reagan. More money and thus more power and influence has been exerted all across government. Not only government, but, more importantly in some ways, the media too. The return on investment ratio is very high when the legislators write the tax codes that have billionaires paying 1% on their earnings.
So, are we headed toward a socialist state run by the proletariat when government costs go from 20 to 25% of Gross Domestic Product? Randians and Laffer curve trickle downers will have you believing so and this has been a persistent and relentless theme of theirs since the Reagan years. GDP needs to be compared to trade disparities as well as unemployment, welfare, food stamps and other social programs during a depressed economy to establish the real figures on government size in relation to the gross figure of the national product.As just one measure, when GDP is stagnant due to a depressed economy, then government costs will naturally rise in relation to it.
A much better metric to evaluate income inequality would be to establish hard money figures coming from the corporate, finance, and multinational sectors as these dollars relate to legislative, judiciary and executive impacts, especially the tax code and social programs.
Just for the sake of a hypothetical, let's say that in 1965, 2 billion dollars was contributed from big bizz and corporate in legislative lobbies, campaign finance, getting Johnson out and Nixon in etc,. How would that figure relate to the cost of government,The Great Society programs and the common good of most of the people?
say, just for argument, that 1% of GDP came from the most moneyed and special interest sector then. How would social programs for the common good for most of the people be affected if, say 3% of GDP was funneled into all branches of government.
That's essentially what has happened. It has been a mergers and aquisitions campaign by the Randians over the last 30 years since Reagan. More money and thus more power and influence has been exerted all across government. Not only government, but, more importantly in some ways, the media too. The return on investment ratio is very high when the legislators write the tax codes that have billionaires paying 1% on their earnings.
posted by dave warren at 11:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home