The President will be speaking about the "fair share"

[spartan]

Yes I did read the report. Well, most of it. There was a lot of gobble di **CENSORED** math in there that made my eyes glaze over.

However, what I took from it is the greater the size of Govt the greater the negative impact. Certain types of Govt, society and legal systems can lessen the effect, but they do not negate it.

[CBWx2]

Yes I did read the report. Well, most of it. There was a lot of gobble di **CENSORED** math in there that made my eyes glaze over.

However, what I took from it is the greater the size of Govt the greater the negative impact. Certain types of Govt, society and legal systems can lessen the effect, but they do not negate it.

It actually states the opposite. It states that type of government, society, and legal systems not only negate the negative effect, but actually have a positive one in certain cases. It states that the only time government size unequivocally stunts economic growth is in cases where the society is either lacking civil liberties and political rights, have poor institutional quality, or both. In all other cases, the findings are far less conclusive.

[spartan]

It actually states the opposite. It states that type of government, society, and legal systems not only negate the negative effect, but actually have a positive one in certain cases. It states that the only time government size unequivocally stunts economic growth is in cases where the society is either lacking civil liberties and political rights, have poor institutional quality, or both. In all other cases, the findings are far less conclusive.

Some of the conclusion:

iii) government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered (OECD, emerging and 25 ECB developing countries);

iv) moreover, the negative effect of government size on GDP per capita is stronger at lower levels of institutional quality, and the positive effect of institutional quality on GDP per capita is stronger at smaller levels of government size


That strikes me as saying the larger Govt gets, the greater the negative impact.

[CBWx2]

It actually states the opposite. It states that type of government, society, and legal systems not only negate the negative effect, but actually have a positive one in certain cases. It states that the only time government size unequivocally stunts economic growth is in cases where the society is either lacking civil liberties and political rights, have poor institutional quality, or both. In all other cases, the findings are far less conclusive.

Some of the conclusion:

iii) government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered (OECD, emerging and 25 ECB developing countries);

iv) moreover, the negative effect of government size on GDP per capita is stronger at lower levels of institutional quality, and the positive effect of institutional quality on GDP per capita is stronger at smaller levels of government size


That strikes me as saying the larger Govt gets, the greater the negative impact.

Our results show a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth. Similarly, institutional quality has a significant positive impact on the level of real GDP per capita. Interestingly, government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered (OECD, emerging and developing countries). Moreover, i) the negative effect of government size on GDP per capita is stronger at lower levels of institutional quality, and ii) the positive effect of institutional quality on GDP per capita is stronger at smaller levels of government size.

On the other hand, the negative effect on growth of the government size variables is more attenuated for the case of Scandinavian legal origins, while the negative effect of government size on GDP per capita growth is stronger at lower levels of civil liberties and political rights. Finally, and for the EU countries, we find statistically significant positive coefficients on overall fiscal rule and expenditure rule indices, meaning that having stronger fiscal numerical rules in place improves GDP growth. 

What this is saying is that in countries with high levels of civil liberties and political rights, the negative effect of large government is pretty much negated, and that countries with strong fiscal rules in place also have a positive affect on economic growth. Fiscal rules do not mean smaller government. They simply mean that government expenditures will not exceed a certain level of GDP. Their design is just as much to ensure economic stability as they are to prevent overspending.

So in other words, big government is detrimental to economic growth, but as long as you have a high level of civil liberties, political rights, and institutional quality, the effects are pretty much negated. Like I said, it's not conclusive, because the only situations where large government has unequivocally stunted economic growth in any significant way, by their own admission, is in countries that lack these things.

There is a simple reason for this. This is me off the cuff, but the reason could be that in countries that have large governments, but also have high levels of political and civil liberties, government consumption generally goes back into the pockets of or to the benefit of the constituency, or the consumer class, if you will, thus eventually finding it's way into the pockets of the private sector. In countries that have low levels of political and civil liberties, government consumption generally winds up in the pockets or to the benefit of an elite ruling class, thus stifling private sector growth by crippling the buying power of it's constituency, or consumer class.

Also worth mentioning...

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1021224.shtml

Funny how big government stunts economic growth, yet they are calling for increased government spending in order to rescue them from the crisis. Kinda seems a bit contradictory, wouldn't you agree?

[ONEBIGDADDY]

It actually states the opposite. It states that type of government, society, and legal systems not only negate the negative effect, but actually have a positive one in certain cases. It states that the only time government size unequivocally stunts economic growth is in cases where the society is either lacking civil liberties and political rights, have poor institutional quality, or both. In all other cases, the findings are far less conclusive.

Some of the conclusion:

iii) government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered (OECD, emerging and 25 ECB developing countries);

iv) moreover, the negative effect of government size on GDP per capita is stronger at lower levels of institutional quality, and the positive effect of institutional quality on GDP per capita is stronger at smaller levels of government size


That strikes me as saying the larger Govt gets, the greater the negative impact.

Our results show a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth. Similarly, institutional quality has a significant positive impact on the level of real GDP per capita. Interestingly, government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered (OECD, emerging and developing countries). Moreover, i) the negative effect of government size on GDP per capita is stronger at lower levels of institutional quality, and ii) the positive effect of institutional quality on GDP per capita is stronger at smaller levels of government size.

On the other hand, the negative effect on growth of the government size variables is more attenuated for the case of Scandinavian legal origins, while the negative effect of government size on GDP per capita growth is stronger at lower levels of civil liberties and political rights. Finally, and for the EU countries, we find statistically significant positive coefficients on overall fiscal rule and expenditure rule indices, meaning that having stronger fiscal numerical rules in place improves GDP growth. 

What this is saying is that in countries with high levels of civil liberties and political rights, the negative effect of large government is pretty much negated, and that countries with strong fiscal rules in place also have a positive affect on economic growth. Fiscal rules do not mean smaller government. They simply mean that government expenditures will not exceed a certain level of GDP. Their design is just as much to ensure economic stability as they are to prevent overspending.

So in other words, big government is detrimental to economic growth, but as long as you have a high level of civil liberties, political rights, and institutional quality, the effects are pretty much negated. Like I said, it's not conclusive, because the only situations where large government has unequivocally stunted economic growth in any significant way, by their own admission, is in countries that lack these things.

There is a simple reason for this. This is me off the cuff, but the reason could be that in countries that have large governments, but also have high levels of political and civil liberties, government consumption generally goes back into the pockets of or to the benefit of the constituency, or the consumer class, if you will, thus eventually finding it's way into the pockets of the private sector. In countries that have low levels of political and civil liberties, government consumption generally winds up in the pockets or to the benefit of an elite ruling class, thus stifling private sector growth by crippling the buying power of it's constituency, or consumer class.

Also worth mentioning...

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1021224.shtml

Funny how big government stunts economic growth, yet they are calling for increased government spending in order to rescue them from the crisis. Kinda seems a bit contradictory, wouldn't you agree?

What it means is...I want my Person of Choice to be in there to represent my "interest" because my income will generate more if he is in there. Politics is such that the winning bid automatically means in some peoples opinion that they assume they have the losing bid that is unless their Person of Choice is in the White House.

This is why have the Republicans and Democrats sometimes sucks. I truly believe Ron Paul could have a chance if the American people will stop taking notes on the two party system...Its like college football. I am a Gator fan but I acknowledge some of the Great Coaches like from FSU Bobby Bowden, Penn State Joe Pa, USC Pete Carroll and so on but there are some that would call me a traitor only because of that? Same is as in politics...People will only follow one party and one party only no matter what the problems are in the United States. You have to look at not only the small picture but the big picture with this in mind...You can't please all of the people all of the time and you have to do what is right no matter what to resolve the issues that are at hand. Now the problem with that is some feel that their wallets and purses are more of a problem when they are not getting what they think they are owed and damned the rest. Luckily they aren't in Charge of all of us.

We need a person who will keep a balance or keep the pendulum in the center but that wont happen. We have too many who like to throw out spin, false information and confusion so that the lining of their own pockets can keep them in control or their Party of Choice in control and damn the rest of the people. There has to be some middle ground of reasoning and no one party has the corner market on it. Its the craftiness of politics that cause us all this trouble. One issue that has slowed some of the craftiness down is term limits. Next ought to be putting in a person like Ron Paul but his letting Iran spill having a Nuke is what will eventually cost him.

Rich or poor, wealthy or middle class we need reasonable people with skills and not the art of confusion. Its a tight rope out there and if one side doesn't get what they want well there is always the internet and the media to tear each side down and with that said most of the people who don't have the time to research what is being spewed will gravitate only to what they believe is right. Even if they don't know their own Political Representative is being Crafty.

No one knows it all that is why you have to seek out and vote your heart and what you have researched. I have found the best way to vote is to watch the stock market and see which entity is trying to control the market and who they represent....Oil for example is controlling the market and Oil tyc.o.o.ns tend to gravitate to the Republicans and for that they will drive the public to the Democratic side whom they are suppressing on the people paying more when we are using less oil...JMVHO...OBD

[spartan]

CBW the important word in the sentence you highlighted is attenuated. As in lessened, not eliminated.

[CBWx2]

Spartan, here is a list of the OECD countries ranked in accordance to government spending and where they rank in terms of per capita GDP (PPP):

Government Spending % of GDP [numerical ranking in GDP per capita PPP]:
1. Iceland 57.8 [11]
2. France 52.8 [17]
3. Sweden 52.5 [8]
4. Denmark 51.8 [13]
5. Belgium 50.0 [14]
6. Finland 49.5 [15]
7. Hungary 49.2 [31]
8. Austria 49.0 [6]
9. Italy 48.8 [22]
10. United Kingdom 47.3 [16]
11. Greece 46.8 [25]
12. Portugal 46.1 [28]
13. Netherlands 45.9 [5]
14. Slovenia 44.3 [23]
15. Germany 43.7 [12]
16. Poland 43.3 [30]
17. Czech Republic 42.9 [26]
18. Israel 42.9 [20]
19. Ireland 42.0 [10]
20. Spain 41.1 [21]
21. New Zealand 41.1 [24]
22. Norway 40.2 [2]
23. Estonia 39.9 [29]
24. Canada 39.7 [9]
25. United States 38.9 [3]
26. Luxembourg 37.2 [1]
27. Japan 37.1 [18]
28. Slovak Republic 34.8 [27]
29. Australia 34.3 [7]
30. Switzerland 32.0 [4]
31. South Korea 26.6 [19]
32. Mexico 23.7 [33]
33. Turkey 23.4 [34]
34. Chile 21.1 [32]

As you can see, there is very little, if any correlation between high government expenditures and GDP per capita. Now let's compare the top 10 to the bottom 10.

Top 10 countries in government spending (amount of GDP per capita in US $):
1. Iceland (38,079)
2. France (35,048)
3. Sweden (40,613)
4. Denmark (37,741)
5. Belgium (37,677)
6. Finland (36,723)
7. Hungary (19,647)
8. Austria (41,805)
9. Italy (30,165)
10. United Kingdom (35,974)

Average GDP per capita in US$: 35,347

Aside from Hungary and Italy, there is little variation in the amount of per capita GDP from country to country. Also aside from Hungary and Italy, each country has a numerical GDP amount that places it among the top half of all OECD countries in GDP per capita.

Bottom 10 countries in government spending (amount of GDP per capita in US $):
25. United States (48,147)
26. Luxembourg (84,829)
27. Japan (34,362)
28. Slovak Republic (23,384)
29. Australia (40,836)
30. Switzerland (43,508)
31. South Korea (31,753)
32. Mexico (15,121)
33. Turkey (14,615)
34. Chile (16,171)

Average GDP per capita in US$: 35,273

As you can see, there is a large amount of disparity in GDP per capita among the countries that rank near the bottom in government spending. Luxemborg, for example, has a GDP per capita amount that is twice the level of any other country on the list, however, Turkey, Mexico, and Chile have a GDP per capita amount that is nearly half the amount of the majority of countries on the list.

The bottom line is, the argument that big government means poor economic growth is overly simplifying the facts. These numbers indicate that there are multiple factors at play here that factor into economic growth or the lack thereof.

[spartan]

The thing that sticks out to me about that list, is that for the most part, those at the top of the list are going broke, and for the most part, those at the bottom, aren't.

Other than that, I have to be honest and say I am struggling to get your point.

[CBWx2]

Sweden is ranked 3rd among OECD nations with 52.5% of it's GDP devoted to government spending, and is ranked 4th in economic growth with 5.5% yearly growth rate. How do you explain that?

[Bayfisher]

http://www.sodahead.com/living/judge-judy-tape-removed-by-cbs/question-2423693/?page=1&postId=76771147#post_76771147

[spartan]

Sweden is ranked 3rd among OECD nations with 52.5% of it's GDP devoted to government spending, and is ranked 4th in economic growth with 5.5% yearly growth rate. How do you explain that?

That was in 2010. 2009 it was -5.1 and 2008 it was almost 0.

[ONEBIGDADDY]

http://www.sodahead.com/living/judge-judy-tape-removed-by-cbs/question-2423693/?page=1&postId=76771147#post_76771147

unbelievable...OBD