Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Total government spending in the US doubled from 1998 to 2011.

While the US economy only increased by 1/3, and population only increased by roughly 15%.

Why would you need twice the government spending for 15% more people? We had 270 million people in 1998, and now have 312x million.

Total government expenditures (local + state + federal) in the US came to over $7 trillion in 2011 (counting the deficit spending). Out of an economy that is close to $16 trillion. Under absolutely no scenario is that austerity, it's the greatest spending binge in world history.

To put it another way, our government system spends more than the combined economies of Germany + France + Britain are worth.

If that's austerity, then the 1990s were hyper austerity by comparison. Somehow we managed to have a government that was more functional then than the one we have now.



You misunderstand.

Austerity is not about the absolute expenditures of government, it's about the change in (real) expenditures of the government over time.


Well, that's how Krugman would like to justify it. But, on the other hand, when it comes to politics, Krugman is a complete ass. (and I think I can say that in a completely objective manner)

There is no reasonable definition of austerity that can be satisfied in these conditions. The US (and various European govt's that Krugman has been blathering about) were already spending a lot of money. For the most part (a few very limited examples exist), their spending has kept pace with, and generally even exceeded, inflation.

When the government is taking at least as much of the country's pie as it always had, and generally even a growing share, it is simply absurd to call that austerity.


That change is positive, if you include the transfer payments that Krugman has excluded.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: