Paul Krugman: The Deficit is Too Small

[D1984]

This makes me wonder if Hitler is really to blame for triggering the rise of big government.

[align=center][/align]

[align=center]Source: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publicat ... tRhine.pdf[/align]

Gumby, When that chart says "REAL" per capital federal expenditures, did they adjust it for economic growth and for inflation or just for inflation? Also, FRED wouldn't happen to have a similar chart (real per capita federal spending) but that excludes OASDI and Medicare, would they? The reason I ask is that increased expenditure on these programs due to the aging of the population rather than any conscious yes/no decision to increase spending would show up in a chart like you posted but not one that excluded Social Security and Medicare outlays.

[Gumby]

This makes me wonder if Hitler is really to blame for triggering the rise of big government.

[align=center][/align]

[align=center]Source: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publicat ... tRhine.pdf[/align]

Gumby, When that chart says "REAL" per capital federal expenditures, did they adjust it for economic growth and for inflation or just for inflation? Also, FRED wouldn't happen to have a similar chart (real per capita federal spending) but that excludes OASDI and Medicare, would they? The reason I ask is that increased expenditure on these programs due to the aging of the population rather than any conscious yes/no decision to increase spending would show up in a chart like you posted but not one that excluded Social Security and Medicare outlays.

I think it's just for inflation, but there are other charts in that PDF.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publicat ... tRhine.pdf

Fred has some Federal expenditure data that goes back to 1791, but their dataset for total expenditures doesn't go back that far (which makes me wonder if the 19th century total expenditures dataset wasn't accurate enough to be included in Fred. Just guessing).

See: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/107

[MachineGhost]

This isn't stuff governments have to sit and scratch their heads as to how to accomplish.  They simply do their job, just a bit harder and faster than they did before.

What's missing is the incentive to do so.  There's no pressure to please customers to earn pay, so everyone operates on island time.

Even though it is fashionable and I exploit it myself often, I don't like black and white accusations about government, though.  The all volunteer military operates rather efficiently and passionately compared to the atrocious civilian government.  Why should this be so?

[MachineGhost]

They also have a much lighter regulatory touch.

Surely you must be joking...

[MachineGhost]

This makes me wonder if Hitler is really to blame for triggering the rise of big government.

Its warfare ideaology, for sure.  If not National Socailism, then Communism.  Now its Rambo III ala Pakistanians and men in caves "terrorists".  I'm sure if they ever did a Rambo prequel, he would be in Hitler's Germany.

[Pointedstick]

Even though it is fashionable and I exploit it myself often, I don't like black and white accusations about government, though.  The all volunteer military operates rather efficiently and passionately compared to the atrocious civilian government.  Why should this be so?

Because the consequences of failure involve death.

If a bureaucrat screws up some forms, you're out your afternoon. If a politician votes for a stupid law, probably nobody even notices. If a soldier forgets to load his gun or put on his body armor, he dies.

For most other levels of government, the consequences of incompetence are indirect or virtually non-existent. Not only is there little incentive to excel, but there's often no real penalty for underachieving or causing harm. The military shares with the private sector an environment where excellence is rewarded and failure can be personally disastrous. Rather than the customers who provide this environment, it's the enemy.

[Kshartle]

Always interesting to listen to how much the slaves feel they should be beaten. Why on Earth do any of you think you have the right to tell other people how to live? You must think that you have that right or you could not advocate government, because clearly that means some humans have the right to tell other humans what they can and cannot do. Why do you think you have this right? Please don't respond it's the only way you can imagine life. I've heard that one so many times.......it's ok if you don't repeat it. It is a morally bankrupt answer and there is no logical justification for it. If you're a silent supporter I'll assume that's the reason since it's so common.

Why do you think the world is better off with some humans ruling over others with violence. Don't say it's voluntary. It's not. If you say it is because of voting I will not waste a second responding because that is idiotic.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

I have no moral answer for you other than that we have a confiscatory and coercive system, and it's not going away, so we might as well use the monster as effectively and "fairly" as possible.  Better that than to allow the country to sink into massive recession, or govt roads go into disrepair and our seniors go broke, and still have a coercive government existing at the end of the line.

I'm curious where you live... If it's not way out in the country I guess I'd ask why you opt into more coercion than you have to.

To that point, unlike slaves of 1860, you're free to find a country or island out there that fits your style. You can't continue to freely do the things that you know is going to result in the government taking more money from you or forcing you onto their roads, and still complain that this is at gunpoint and that you're a slave.

I suggest reading "how I found freedom in an unfree world" by Harry Browne.

[Gumby]

Kshartle,

I have no moral answer for you other than that we have a confiscatory and coercive system, and it's not going away, so we might as well use the monster as effectively and "fairly" as possible.  Better that than to allow the country to sink into massive recession, or govt roads go into disrepair and our seniors go broke, and still have a coercive government existing at the end of the line.

I'm curious where you live... If it's not way out in the country I guess I'd ask why you opt into more coercion than you have to.

To that point, unlike slaves of 1860, you're free to find a country or island out there that fits your style. You can't continue to freely do the things that you know is going to result in the government taking more money from you or forcing you onto their roads, and still complain that this is at gunpoint and that you're a slave.

I suggest reading "how I found freedom in an unfree world" by Harry Browne.

Yeah. I'm reminded of the lecture by Robert Upton, "The brief history of plutocracy" — and I tend to agree with what he says about the system being designed by the wealthy, to be confiscatory and coercive. He concludes the talk by saying, 'you can't fight the system, so figure out how to survive without using money.'

http://youtu.be/51qTb2O6eYM

Moving to Bangladesh and giving up money isn't really for me, so I choose to live in the US of A.

[Pointedstick]

Kshartle, you really need to learn to be more cheerful. I even agree with you, but you're not going to convince anyone by blustering that your debate partners are slaves asking how to be beaten. It's just back-patting self-righteousness.

I will second moda's recommendation of How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World. It's really a masterpiece. If you're a lover of liberty, reading and internalizing the lessons in that book can save you from your blackest thoughts.

[MachineGhost]

On what basis do you judge efficiency?

People doing their jobs the first time?  Let me put it this way.  If I had a medical emergency and still had a military ID card, do you think I would prefer to go to a public hospital or a military hospital?

[Pointedstick]

On what basis do you judge efficiency?

People doing their jobs the first time?  Let me put it this way.  If I had a medical emergency and still had a military ID card, do you think I would prefer to go to a public hospital or a military hospital?

I think that may be a bad example. VA hospitals have an absolutely awful reputation.

[MachineGhost]

I think that may be a bad example. VA hospitals have an absolutely awful reputation.

A VA hospital is only open to veterans.  I was speaking of a hospital on a military base run by the military.  VA has a better reputation than private insurance, but I digress.

[MachineGhost]

Ignoring for the moment that staffing hospitals are not part of the military's core mission...

Why would you go to a military hospital first?  What, specifically, makes it better?

My guess: There is more of a sense of community in the military than in the private sector.

I don't know about that but, the competence level is higher.  I would harbor a guess that since joining the military is a voluntary activity as opposed to being forced to work for a living in our exploitative-capitalistic-plutocracy that perhaps breeds passive aggressiveness and apathy, it must attract those with the passion and the brass balls to want to intentionally be put into difficult or thorny situations.  So in other words, working for money alone is not enough to guarantee competence.  I think this is a small taste of what the world would be like if everyone had a basic Citizen's Dividend so they could focus on their passions.

[MachineGhost]

I'm curious... Is there any data to suggest that military hospitals are better?

Beats me.  But if there was, I would want the results to be objective and not surveyed by the government or insurance companies.  Fat chance.

By the way, I still reject the notion that the military is efficient.

The Department of Defense is unauditable, so how in the hell can one even judge efficiency?

In the U.S. the miltary is controlled by the civilians, so the DOD is a civilian bureaucracy and the President calls the shots via the Chiefs of Staff (from each branch) who give out the orders to the military.  Those that manage and operate the military bases and all its institutions are actually the military personnel themselves.  See the difference?

[Pointedstick]

By the way, I still reject the notion that the military is efficient.

The Department of Defense is unauditable, so how in the hell can one even judge efficiency?

In the U.S. the miltary is controlled by the civilians, so the DOD is a civilian bureaucracy and the President calls the shots via the Chiefs of Staff (from each branch) who give out the orders to the military.  Those that manage and operate the military bases and all its institutions are actually the military personnel themselves.  See the difference?

From what I can tell, those civilian and political people who control and direct the military are less efficient in that they seemingly make more mistakes that jeopardize the mission, the nation's credibility, the public trust, etc. The common thread is that these decision-makers are to a certain extent insulated from the consequences of their mistakes, but permitted to take credit for the successes. Whereas the types of mistakes that the actual "boots on the ground" soldiers have the opportunity to make are more likely to result in the deaths of themselves or their friends, providing an extremely strong incentive not to make them--regardless of whether or not the overall mission itself may be a mistake.

So what I believe MG is referring to is the idea of a plan that's usually well-executed, even if it may be of dubious value.

Compare this to a non-military government bureaucracy whose errors result in no harm or liability to the bureaucrats, with all of it borne by you. This is due to the monopolistic nature of a government bureaucracy; there's only one of it, and you usually have no choice but to partake of its "services" and pay its price, no matter how high it may be or how inefficient the process to get there.

[MachineGhost]

However, I still don't understand the basis for the claim of efficiency.  Is it even appropriate to talk about efficiency of an organization that doesn't have to deal with the public?

Are you saying that all organizations that deal with the public have to be inefficient?  I reject that premise.  My point is there is something dysfunctional about civilians and the general public that promotes sloth and inefficiency and the free market seems not to be the be all, end all solution for fixing it.  I hate to pull a doodle, but environmental incentives appear to be far more important to behavioral outcomes than the freedom to trade (the "free market").  The "free market" is a tautology because it is composed of the same people that are slothy and inefficient, so if they predominate in society that America seems to rapidly be maturing into, there will no longer be optimal outcomes to society.  If you're an elitist, you won't care since it doesn't effect you directly except over a very long period of time as your environment decays.  Indeed, the military is an example of elitism.