Chris Cuomo Had a Caller Totally Rip Into This House Dem Over Insider...
The Right Needs Real America First Journalism
This Town Filled Its Coffers With a Traffic Shakedown Scheme – Now They...
Planned Parenthood: Infants Not 'Conscious Beings' and Unlikely to Feel Pain
Democrats Boycotting OpenAI Over Support for Trump
Trump Threatens to Go on the Warpath Against Republicans Who Voted Against His...
Axios Is Back With Another Ridiculous Anti-Trump Headline
In Historic Deregulatory Move, Trump Officially Revokes Obama-Era Endangerment Finding
Sen. Bernie Moreno Just Exposed Keith Ellison's Open Borders Hypocrisy
Another Career Criminal Killed a Beloved Figure Skating Coach in St. Louis
Slate's 'Leftists Are Buying Guns Now' Piece Unintentionally Hilarious
AG Pam Bondi Vows to Prosecute Threats Against Lawmakers, Even Across Party Lines
Chaos Erupts As Josh Hawley Tells Keith Ellison He Belongs in Jail Amid...
Nate Morris Slams Rep. Barr As a ‘RINO’ for Refusing to Support Ending...
North Carolina Sheriff Fails a Basic Civics Test As GOP State Rep. Questions...
OPINION

Other than Obama and Krugman, Is there Anybody Who Still Thinks Bigger Government Is Good for Growth?

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
 Other than Obama and Krugman, Is there Anybody Who Still Thinks Bigger Government Is Good for Growth?

I’ve repeatedly explained that Keynesian economics doesn’t work because any money the government spends must first be diverted from the productive sector of the economy, which means either higher taxes or more red ink.

Advertisement

So unless one actually thinks that politicians spend money with high levels of effectiveness and efficiency, this certainly suggests that growth will be stronger when the burden of government spending is modest (and if spending is concentrated on “public goods,” which do have a positive “rate of return” for the economy).

I’ve also complained (to the point of being a nuisance!) that there are too many government bureaucrats and they cost too much.

But I never would have thought that there were people at the IMF who would be publicly willing to express the same beliefs. Yet that’s exactly what two economist found in a new study.

Here are some key passages from the abstract.

We quantify the extent to which public-sector employment crowds out private-sector employment using specially assembled datasets for a large cross-section of developing and advanced countries… Regressions of either private-sector employment rates or unemployment rates on two measures of public-sector employment point to full crowding out. This means that high rates of public employment, which incur substantial fiscal costs, have a large negative impact on private employment rates and do not reduce overall unemployment rates.

Advertisement

So even an international bureaucracy now acknowledges that bureaucrats “incur substantial fiscal costs” and “have a large negative impact on private employment.”

Well knock me over with a feather.

Next thing you know, one of these bureaucracies will tell us that government spending, in general, undermines prosperity. Hold on, the European Central Bank and World Bank already have produced such research. And the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has even explained how welfare spending hurts growth by reducing work incentives.

To be sure, these are the results of research by staff economists, which the political appointees at these bureaucracies routinely ignore.

Nonetheless, it’s good to know that there’s powerful evidence for smaller government, just in case we ever find some politicians who actually want to do the right thing.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement