http://econ.tulane.edu/RePEc/pdf/tul1107.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-6765.00447/abstract
And just for lulz:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
Expected…
Why would “conservative” states grow faster? The Austrian School is the one that says “growth rate doesn’t matter. It is not the point (of economics).”
…that left wingers spend more money, historically.
haha. Yeah, I bet they do.
“…, we can see that women spend more money.”
Thanks, Harvard!
Thanks, ladies! [A joke, don’t flame]
Immo, left wing parties ‘better’ for increased spending and credit expansion - but everybody already knew that.
I wouldn’t doubt that there’s a fairly strong correlation between the two.
Welcome to the forum, Mustang19.
I’m not surprised to see that GDP/GNP is being used as the metric for economic growth in those papers. So I’d say that the biggest issue with their theses is that GDP and GNP in no way take into account broken windows. Basically, then, these papers miss the point entirely.
Maybe, or maybe economic growth really is slower under conservative governments. The time period under study is very long in these examples, and that problem should show up eventually if it’s happening.
GDP/GNP only take into account goods and services produced within a country and produced by labor and property supplied by the residents of a country, respectively. This in no way factors in “what is seen and what is not seen”, especially when it comes to government spending. The way GDP/GNP are defined, an increase in government spending means an increase in economic growth (ceteris paribus).
Is GDP growth a bad thing, though? I didn’t think it was.
Anyway, I guess Iphones and pop music are examples of how government socialism has undermined the free market. Until better examples are provided, I’ll assume that these broken windows are invisible.
"As for the more specific impact of fiscal policies, the generally held presumption is that
higher taxes tend to lower economic growth because of their distortionary effects, because they
tend to discourage the creation of new firms and jobs, and because they inhibit investment. For
example, it is widely held that higher income taxes will lower the rate of growth because they
lower the net return to private investment and make investment activities less attractive. Even
so, there is at least some recognition that the government expenditures financed by tax revenues might provide superior public services, thereby making a higher-tax area more, not less, attractive. For example, high public spending on infrastructure investment (e.g., transportation, communications, education) is generally believed to increase growth rates. Indeed, Mofidi and Stone (1990) find that state economic performance depends upon the interrelationship between state taxes and the programs upon which the taxes are spent. They also find that state and local taxes have a negative effect on growth when the revenues are devoted to transfer payments, but that expenditures on health, education, and public infrastructure have positive effects on growth."
What to make of this?
Like so many other things, it depends. Were windows broken (proverbially speaking) to attain GDP growth?
Perhaps you’d like to make a counter-argument that doesn’t involve mockery. Where did I argue, explicitly or implicitly, that iPhones and pop music are examples of how government socialism has undermined the free market? Furthermore, how exactly are iPhones and pop music the end-all-be-all of economic activity?
Regardless, I think it’s unwise in the extreme to assume a lack of proverbial broken windows in today’s world.
Broken windows are always hard to see. We do not yet have a device that allows us to see the consequences of actions in another timeline.
They have to be understood rather than observed.
Doesn’t the GDP include bombs produced? What happens to those when they are used? The broken windows are not invisible, they are exported.
Cash 4 Clunkers? - One gigantic broken window.
Isn’t taxation (income particularly) an example of the broken window? Any money spent by the government (through taxes or inflation) destroys the purchasing power of savers and holders of cash in favor of whatever project is being invested in.
iPhones and pop music are examples of creative destruction.
Good point, and I think that’s in line with what I’ve been saying. (If it seems to you like I’ve been saying something different, let me know.) In fact, I’d say the difficulty of observing broken windows is the point behind Bastiat’s What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.
All of those can be examples of unproductive government programs. However, taken together they add up to only a tiny fraction of what GNP is. With the exception of taxes, which often are put to productive use as public investment. If you think public plumbing and streelights are bad, I think we’ll just have to disagree on that.
Aaannnd? This negates my point in what way?
GNP includes iPods made by toothless children in China. Also, GNP is a horrendous statistic that means alomst nothng unless you are examining the world macro economy. The GNP measures the amount of money any of our corporations make and report all around the world. You didn’t even respond to my point on GDP in any meaningful manner. You know damn well that bombs is one of the biggest most expensive government programs and chose to change subjects. To write that off while trying to say that liberals grow the economy faster is absurd.
You must understand that water and electricity, more often than not, are just city or state granted monopolies to a specific private corporation…Duke Energy is not the government and I do have to pay for energy out of pocket. City utilities are illegitimate monopolies as well they are just funded through local property taxes. If you think “public plumbing and streelights” justify guns in people’s faces, we’ll just have to disagree on that.
Own up to your support for those bombs.
Disbanding the military entirely is not a good alternative.
Although the military certainly should withdraw from its foreign engagments, this is a very tangential issue w.r.t. streetlighting and sewage. A price-regulated public monopoly is a whole lot cheaper than an unregulated private one, like the early railroads and the Rockefeller trust.
That’s a false dilemma, of course. More specifically, there isn’t a dilemma between government-provided plumbing, streetlights, etc. and no plumbing, streetlights, etc. whatsoever.
No. It is not. If it were so, then why would we not want the government to take over production of cell phones, movies, etc.? Duke is a bitch company constantly raising prices and I cannot go anywhere else for the service of energy… How much money does the government get for every gallon of gas your purchase? 55% of your total? (I can’t find the graphic I was thinking of…So here is this one)
As soon as Rockefeller could he took over State governments. After 1886 (Santa Clara County vs. South Pacific Railroad), every railroad, bank, and resource corporation went to the government to get monopoloistic privileges. In fact, the only railroad company that did not take subsidies from the government is the only one that did not go bankrupt.
I’m calling ‘troll’; ignorance is strong in this one.
Those other markets aren’t natural monopolies. A single corporation monopolizing entire rail networks was a major problem before price regulation.
Rockefeller was not involved in SC vs. Rail, nor did he require state governments to maintain his monopoly. It wasn’t until the Sherman Antitrust Act that his monopoly was broken.
In many instances, there is. Underinvestment in public infrascture over the past several years has resulted in a decline in the infrastructure stock.