Here’s What Conservatives Have Wrong About “Big” Government
- Posted by TheArmoTrader
- on November 29th, 2012
It should be no surprise to anyone but we know that conservatives do not like “big” government. However, how do you define big? Some would define it as government having a major role in the economy –and that is a totally fine definition. However, many define the government through its deficit/debt. Many believe a government that is in deficit is a big government, and a government that runs a balanced budget/surplus is a small one. This belief here is totally flawed, because it looks at only one side of the equation.
Here is a chart of the financial balance of the private sector (Household+ Business) as a percent of GDP.
Chart via Biz Insider
Now here is a line chart of the same thing, except that the Government and Current Account Financial Balance are included. Notice anything similar/mirror-like?
Chart via PragCap
And in case you don’t see the relationship yet, here is the same thing, except in bar form. This chart clearly shows how the Government deficit must equal the Private sector surplus (1st chart) + the Current Account Balance.
Chart via @naufalsanaullah
Now, what does this have to do with the government being “big” or not? Well, if the government is running a surplus (or is running a shrinking deficit), it is confiscating financial assets from the private sector, which technically makes it “richer”. Think about it. If the private sector has a financial balance of +$100, and the government runs a surplus of $5 (ignoring the current account here), then the private sector now only has $95. The private sector got smaller because the government sector got bigger (“richer”).
If you’re a conservative, you should hate that, as John Carney explains:
If it bothers you that the government spends tax money on bridges to nowhere, you should apoplectic when the government takes tax money and spends it on nothing at all. That, of course, is exactly what happens when our federal government taxes more than it spends. The financial assets of the people are simply confiscated.
Now, running a deficit does not always mean government spending has to increase. There are three ways to increase the government deficit. Increase spending, Decrease Taxes, or both. Personally, I favor the third option (Increasing certain spending or cutting certain taxes—but I’ll hold this debate for another day).
When conservatives like Grover Norquist promise to fight against letting the government have more of your money in order to reduce the size of government, they are right! If taxes are reduced, it *shrinks* the government. But not because they have less funds to spend. “Starving the beast” will not make the government because it will force less spending.
I’ll let John Carney explain (again) why the “starve the best” theory is flawed:
Falling revenues are typically accompanied by rising spending; while rising revenues are accompanied by falling spending. In other words, the “beast” of government spending doesn’t require a meal of taxes to grow. It thrives, in fact, on a starvation diet. Government is a hunger artist.*
Now we know what the problem is: Big government is associated with deficits when in fact it should be associated with surpluses and balanced budgets! If conservatives want to shrink government influence of the economy, they then need to be advocating for deficits shaped with heavy tax cuts along with their reduced spending stance. Why deficits (this assumes current account balance is negative)? Because surpluses mean the government is taxing more than it is sending back out to the private sector.
The information in this blog post represents my own opinions and does not contain a recommendation for any particular security or investment. I or my affiliates may hold positions or other interests in securities mentioned in the Blog, please see my Disclaimer page for my full disclaimer.blog comments powered by Disqus
Jerry "TheArmoTrader" Khachoyan is currently an active trader, investor, market commentator, and Finance-Twitter participant. He started being involved with financial markets in September of 2008. He concentrates on using technical analysis and an understanding of macro to determine his trades and investments. He graduated UCLA with a degree in Political Science in 2013. The stock market to him is one of the greatest inventions by man.
- Has Coal Bottomed?
- Running Into Resistance Once Again
- Are Higher Rates Really Good For Financials?
- Japanese Equities Are Looking Bearish
- Is Apple About To Turn Higher?
- Damn Gold, Back At It Again!
- Have Negative Interest Rates Hurt Stocks?
- Hanging On By A Thread
- It Pays To Wait
- When A Failed Recovery Is All Right
- Is The US Dollar Setting Up For Another Big Run?
- There’s One Commodity Surviving The Recent Slaughter
- Oil Is In a Bear Market & It’s Looking Like It Will Stay There
- You Probably Shouldn’t Freak About The Weakness In Manufacturing
- Gold Is Still Looking Like Death