Mr. Smith, did you read beyond the first two paragraphs? He does call for cutting the budget. At first by a reasonable five percent, and then leaks a ten percent figure in there at the end– nicely done by the way.
AnonymousAugust 23, 2009 at 4:35 pm
The question is, how do you get governments to cut spending? It looks to me like insolvency is the only incentive.
And if you don’t cut taxes, taxes will be increased. And increasing taxes (as, sadly, with cutting taxes) will result in spending increasing.
PeterKAugust 24, 2009 at 2:24 am
thank you thank you thank you as someone who lives not only in the Old Dominion but also in Richmond I am glad that someone has pointed out to the clueless in the capital the idiocy of raising taxes. Mark Warner hoodwinked the Legislature into raising taxes when they weren’t necessary and all it did was raise an unnecessary amount of money. At the same time Warner convinced the fools on the hill that we needed to outsource the states IT departments to northrop grumman who are behind schedule and over budget. and now the democratic gubernatorial candidate can only talk about the Republican candidate’s anti-abortion stance cause if he talked about anything else Republicans would point out what two straight Democratic governors have done to screw up the state
AnonymousAugust 24, 2009 at 7:57 am
I just love that Ford ad next to the article about cash for clunkers.
edit: i see that yahoo alternates the ads next to the article…
AnonymousAugust 24, 2009 at 8:21 am
Prof. Boudreaux loves trade and current account deficits of the american society because it is in his opinion a sign of the prosperity of this society (see previous articles on trade imbalance here).
In other words, individuals and companies must be encouraged to spend more than they earn, run up debts, sell the table silver and other assets to make up the difference. They therefore should forget about their own ‘fiscal’ discipline.
Only when one particular part of society runs up debt, the government, this part is encouraged to spend less than it earns, in the name of fiscal discipline. This spending is then apparently not a sign of american prosperity.
Why this inconsistency?
AnonymousAugust 24, 2009 at 10:27 am
Geekonomist, a current-account deficit is not synonymous with debt.
AnonymousAugust 24, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Prof. Boudreaux,
reading it again, I should have repeated the whole wording and it should read:
Unlike individuals and companies, when the government spends more than it earns, runs up debt, sells the table silver and other assets to make up the difference, this is surprisingly not seen as a sign of prosperity of the society.
Why this inconsistency?
I still find it inconsistent: you love trade and current account deficits, therefore when any government helps to increase exactly these by spending far more than it earns – it would seem to me it should suit you fine. After all, they’re just spending the surplus money of those too frugal and fiscally disciplined to run the deficits you desire.
Personally I think it makes sense to spend less than you earn. Whether you’re an individual, a basketball team, a company, a government or the macro-economic society as a whole.
But that’s just my gut feeling.
Share
{ 11 comments }
What about cutting spending too? Deficits are not fiscally conservative. We can’t have our cake and eat it too as CA is learning.
Mr. Smith, did you read beyond the first two paragraphs? He does call for cutting the budget. At first by a reasonable five percent, and then leaks a ten percent figure in there at the end– nicely done by the way.
The question is, how do you get governments to cut spending? It looks to me like insolvency is the only incentive.
And if you don’t cut taxes, taxes will be increased. And increasing taxes (as, sadly, with cutting taxes) will result in spending increasing.
thank you thank you thank you as someone who lives not only in the Old Dominion but also in Richmond I am glad that someone has pointed out to the clueless in the capital the idiocy of raising taxes. Mark Warner hoodwinked the Legislature into raising taxes when they weren’t necessary and all it did was raise an unnecessary amount of money. At the same time Warner convinced the fools on the hill that we needed to outsource the states IT departments to northrop grumman who are behind schedule and over budget. and now the democratic gubernatorial candidate can only talk about the Republican candidate’s anti-abortion stance cause if he talked about anything else Republicans would point out what two straight Democratic governors have done to screw up the state
I just love that Ford ad next to the article about cash for clunkers.
edit: i see that yahoo alternates the ads next to the article…
Prof. Boudreaux loves trade and current account deficits of the american society because it is in his opinion a sign of the prosperity of this society (see previous articles on trade imbalance here).
In other words, individuals and companies must be encouraged to spend more than they earn, run up debts, sell the table silver and other assets to make up the difference. They therefore should forget about their own ‘fiscal’ discipline.
Only when one particular part of society runs up debt, the government, this part is encouraged to spend less than it earns, in the name of fiscal discipline. This spending is then apparently not a sign of american prosperity.
Why this inconsistency?
Geekonomist, a current-account deficit is not synonymous with debt.
Prof. Boudreaux,
reading it again, I should have repeated the whole wording and it should read:
Unlike individuals and companies, when the government spends more than it earns, runs up debt, sells the table silver and other assets to make up the difference, this is surprisingly not seen as a sign of prosperity of the society.
Why this inconsistency?
I still find it inconsistent: you love trade and current account deficits, therefore when any government helps to increase exactly these by spending far more than it earns – it would seem to me it should suit you fine. After all, they’re just spending the surplus money of those too frugal and fiscally disciplined to run the deficits you desire.
Personally I think it makes sense to spend less than you earn. Whether you’re an individual, a basketball team, a company, a government or the macro-economic society as a whole.
But that’s just my gut feeling.
“special-interest groups — those gluttonous, hydra-headed creatures that thrive and multiply in the hothouse of politics”
*Standing and applauding* Nicely done Don. That’s a line to be proud of. Channeling Mencken are we?
The tyranny of a balanced budget requirement.
I’m not sure if they should be cut or not, but I agree they shouldn’t be raised.
This is hilarious. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0
John Strong