This post is a riff on James Kwak’s plaint over The Economist’s implied characterization of Barack Obama’s favoring big government vs. Mitt Romney’s favoring small government rather than what Mr. Kwak believes: that President Obama favors small government and Gov. Romney favors tiny government. Rather than discuss the merits of Mr. Kwak’s claims (I disagree) I want to go off on something of a tangent.
I don’t honestly know whether President Obama favors large government over small government as a matter of principle. I don’t know about Gov. Romney, either. Neither one of them is proposing small government let alone tiny government. Characterizing a government that controls 40% of GDP as “small” is, to say the least, an exaggeration. Characterizing a government that controls 20% of GDP as “tiny” is deranged.
I think all of this is largely beside the point. It’s possible to have good large government and bad small government. IMO good large government is as difficult as a camel going through the eye of a needle but, as Jesus of Nazareth observed, with God all things are possible. Possible but unlikely. Human beings being what they are it’s very unlikely.
The reason to favor small government over large government is to mitigate the risk of inevitable failures.
I believe we’ve reached the point where, large or small, we can no longer tolerate dumb government or, at least, so much dumb government.
That we spend so much on security is dumb.
That we continue to maintain price supports in agriculture when we know them to be economically inefficient is dumb.
I think that we import so much in the way of goods and materials and export bonds is dumb. I recognize that’s a matter of hot dispute. Others think that it’s smart and our trading partners exporting goods and materials to us and importing bonds is dumb.
Spending a multiple of what other advanced economies do for healthcare with poorer outcomes is dumb.
Continual saber-rattling is dumb.
Compensation for public employees that’s obviously above the market clearing price for such compensation is dumb.
Trying to pick winners and losers in the economy is dumb.
Importing an unskilled or semi-skilled labor force when we have a large native population of unskilled or semi-skilled workers is dumb.
Subsidizing big banks, shuttering small banks, and complaining that so many of the remaining banks are too big to fail is dumb.
Bailing out companies whose main problem is an unworkable labor cost structure and maintaining the labor cost structure is dumb.
That it takes so long and is so onerous to get a building permit or a business permit is dumb.
Requiring that corn be used to make fuel when corn crops are failing is dumb.
Refusing to capitalize on cheap, available, cleaner production of energy and complaining that energy production is too dirty is dumb.
We don’t have a choice between big and small. We have a choice between dumb and dumber.
When you’re the only game in town you can afford to be dumb. We can’t afford to be dumb any more.
IMO good large government is as difficult as a camel going through the eye of a needle but, as Jesus of Nazareth observed, with God all things are possible.
When God is put in charge (and not just one or some of his minions) maybe we can have good large government. Until then the weight of history doesn’t make for a good case that this is even remotely possible.
When you’re the only game in town you can afford to be dumb. We can’t afford to be dumb any more.
And yet most of the people here are going to vote for the idiots the two big parties nominate anyway.
Pretty much my point. Something else to chew on: if your self-identity is with the elite it’s easier to do dumb things however smart you may be because you will always believe that you will get another chance. Winston Churchill’s famous remark about success being the ability to persevere through repeated failures without losing heart is the statement of someone who is one of the elite. Not everyone else gets another chance. At some levels of society the problem after a failure is not losing heart. It’s not losing your arse.
BTW, I stopped not because I’d run out of dumb things to complain about but because I thought I’d made my point.
Others:
Going out of your way to alienate the only other country in the world that has the ability to do you severe damage is dumb.
Underwriting the foreign policy of any country other than our own is dumb.
BTW, I stopped not because I’d run out of dumb things to complain about but because I thought I’d made my point.
That I knew. You probably didn’t want to spend the next year writing out a more complete list.
Going out of your way to alienate the only other country in the world that has the ability to do you severe damage is dumb.
As is refusing to acknowledge when that country is patently screwing with your economy and failing to take any corrective action.
Underwriting the foreign policy of any country other than our own is dumb.
As is cozying-up to enemies and screwing-over allies in the hopes that those that want you dead will suddenly become your BFF on Facebook.
This election isn’t a choice between dumb and dumber, it’s a choice between suicidal idiocy and suicidal idiocy. Would you like to play Russian Roulette with the Uzi or the Mac-10?
“When you’re the only game in town you can afford to be dumb. We can’t afford to be dumb any more.”
So what is the immediate answer? IMO, there is no perfect solution, only choices — and those choices may only offer incremental movement to the less dumb side of the equation.
However, my guess is that lots of people will continue with what we already have in place as a governing body and president — that way they at least will be familiar with the dumb direction we are going.
One of the reason we have big government is inertia. Bigger government has been the direction for a long time, and it is not going to be changed quickly. The rate of change needs to be decreased before it can be reversed. Against this is an entrenched bureaucracy, and like any bureaucracy, its first instinct is to protect itself.
The difference between the parties is the rate of change. Republicans want it slower, and Democrats want it faster. Of the two, the Democrats are philosophically consistent, but it was President Clinton who reversed the welfare trend. Philosophical honesty requires Republicans to acknowledge this, and he should be included as a Republican hero. On the Democrat side, Richard Nixon expanded the reach more than most (any?) Republican Presidents. He should be a Democratic hero.
My definition of “the truth” must differ than those desiring truthful politicians.
“Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss”
“I believe we’ve reached the point where, large or small, we can no longer tolerate dumb government or, at least, so much dumb government.”
Throughout my life the primary battle between parties has been over “big” government, and there is nothing to show for it. It’s a lost cause: there is no way in hell public institutions would voluntarily surrender power accumulated over many decades, nor would private sector rentiers tolerate a government so reduced in scope it could no longer grant them special favors and advantages. It’s a wealth engine for too many powerful people regardless of party or political ideology.
Agreed. To all of what Ben has written in that comment. I’d also add that the while the above is true, it also likely has a corollary with it, that while for some it is a wealth engine for the economy as a whole it reduces potential wealth/economic growth. It is part of the reason why we are facing so many unsustainable situations.
“It’s a wealth engine for too many powerful people regardless of party or political ideology.”
So, in other words, we are doomed?
As a percentage of GDP, “government” has not been growing. What has been growing is entitlement spending, and that is mostly health care. The real growth in the number of workers has been at the state and local level, the level where small government types want us to make decisions.
Do let us remember our history. In the 60s, at which national bank could you work with? Who set broker’s fees? Who set the price on oil and gas? Who set airline prices? How many different kinds of beers did we have, and why? Who controlled the railroads?
Steve
@jan
So, in other words, we are doomed?
Probably, or not. The US is unique (extraordinary) country. The country is young, and there is a limited history. The large immigrant population keeps this history dynamic, and it has a dampening effect on fixed culture/norms/etc. There is also upward and downward movement through the income/wealth levels.
Over the last few decades, the trend has been towards a more static country, and maintaining the status quo is the goal of both political parties. Some of this is intentional, gerrymandering, or unintentional, War on Poverty/Drugs.
Government budgets are based upon multiple fictions, and they contain positive feedback for negative behavior and negative feedback for positive behavior. Saving money for your department will result in a reduced budget the following year, and the responsible person will not get to play the reindeer games. Budgets are cut when they do not increase as rapidly as desired, and this results in a reduced budget with more money.
“The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer” because the status quo is maintained. The poor are stuck in a tar pit created by government programs, and the rich make money from government programs. “The rich get poorer, and the poor get richer” should be included as a slogan.
Population migration reduces the ability to gerrymander, and immigrants are a large portion of this. They do not have deep roots in any one community, and therefore, they are more likely to move. The economic benefit is that workers move to where they are needed, and this reduces the strain on a declining region/city/etc. An additional benefit is that voting constituents change over time, and gerrymandering is less effective.
There is hope, but people need to change their perspective. Visually, this may be done by changing one’s physical location or height. The view from the first floor is often different than the view from the second or third floor. “Thinking outside the box” requires one to think the impossible. Everything else is inside the box.
Nice post TastyBits.
George Friedman, who wrote ‘The Next Hundred Years,” made the same observation as you did, about this country being a relatively young one. Developmentally he said it was merely in it’s ‘adolescence.’ And, much like an adolescent, it’s people tend not to see the bigger picture, but instead live life in quick sound bites, and whatever works for the moment.
However, Friedman was an optimist, seeing the next 100 years in very positive, geopolitical terms for this country — as it matured and took some of the ups and downs with more grace. We’ll see. I continue to feel, though, that there is a far greater likelihood of this happening if we change course and try someone else in November to figure out how to get out of our doldrums, and back on some path of growth.
That was a cool excerpt at the end of your post — very appropriate for the theme discussed.
@jan
I think we benefit from a lack of history. We do not have the tensions between factions as other places. With high mobility, there is not as much opportunity to build up hatred. The blood feuds between groups (Crips/Bloods, Hatfield/McCoy, etc.) continue for years, and one contributing factor is a settled population. The churn mixes things up, and it impedes built up friction.
I think that the US has been heading in the wrong direction for some time, and under each President the US has gotten a little more off course. President Obama “put the pedal to the metal” when he took office. The Tea Party grew out of frustration with President Bush’s spending. When President Obama increased the spending rate, frustrated people joined together to express that frustration, and the Tea Party was created.
Presently, the US government is far too intrusive, and there it is becoming more authoritarian at an accelerating rate. I prefer limited government because there is a better chance of my being left alone. President Obama has increased the reach of government substantially more than previous Presidents, and in a second term he intends to accelerate the rate of encroachment. Mitt Romney would slow the rate of encroachment, but I am not sure how much. I also suspect that he will redirect the tentacles towards his aims.
I try to stay out of the political arguments because the participants tend to modify their stances as needed. The Tea Party should have formed in 2004 – 2006, but politics precludes one from turning on one’s faction. President Bush was a disaster for Republican “ideals”, but Republicans went along with him to prevent the Democrats from gaining an advantage.
After the 2006 election, Rush Limbaugh stated he was not going to carry water for Republicans anymore. What the f*ck was he doing carrying water for anybody? His statements prior to the 2006 election cannot be assumed to be philosophically sound or intellectually honest, and he should be required to prove he has reformed before he is trusted again. There examples on the left and right, but this one captures the essence of my objections to politics.
Presently, liberals/progressives are carrying water for President Obama, but if Mitt Romney wins, a Rave Party will emerge.
” The Tea Party grew out of frustration with President Bush’s spending. When President Obama increased the spending rate, frustrated people joined together to express that frustration, and the Tea Party was created.”
One rarely sees someone putting the origins of the Teas in the correct sequence. Yes, it was Bush who started the unrest. And, it was through the catalyst of Obama’s policies, especially the ACA, that this discontent errupted into a bonified and lasting movement. Even though the Teas lean right, in their politics, they take politicians in both parties to task, in some ways being harder on establishment republicans (RINOs) than ones on the left.
Again, an interesting analysis, TastyBits….
Maintaining policies that encourage breeding when we can get potty-trained and eager mature workers from Mexico is dumb.
Driving our best-educated, young male contributors to renounce their US citizenship and move themselves and their wealth to Singapore is dumb.
Maintaining a minimum wage that results in unemployment of marginal workers kids’ not being able to get lawn-mowing or baby-sitting jobs is dumb.