Report Finds Government In Canada Too Big

[Anonymous]

Despite what hyper-partisan liars would have us believe Harper has not governed like a conservative right winger, especially the minority government years of 2006-2011. In fact, the center-right Liberals of the 90's were far more fiscally conservative than the minority gov't Tories. They only started to look like a fiscally conservative alternative since they won a majority in 2011. Let's hope they can reverse this dangerous trend towards

It really should have been obvious. But all the big government addicts pitted against the small government obsessed were too busy fighting to see the truth.



So be it resolved: Medium government is where it's at.



This comes to us courtesy of the latest Fraser Institute publication.



In "Measuring Government in the 21st Century" economics professor Livio Di Matteo goes in search of that Goldilocks sweet spot of "just right" in terms of the size of the public sector.



While studying the established literature and worldwide statistics, some interesting conclusions are made.



Did you know that a growth in government correlates to increased life expectancy?



Did you know that the public sector actually increases per capita GDP?



In that case, sign me up for more taxes and a larger public sector. If it means we're all going to get rich and live forever, why not?



Well, here's why. I retract my use of the phrase medium government. Because in fact this all depends, as so much does in life, on how we define moderation.



For starters, Di Matteo's research reminds us that government has undeniably grown over the long term: "The ratio of government expenditure to national income in the second half of the 19th century ranged from 5% to 10% for many countries; by the end of the 20th century it ranged from 35% to 55%."



However, "between 1980 and the late 1990s there was a levelling off and then a reversal of the historical trend towards larger government." Although now the facts show big government is back with a vengeance and, no, it's not just due to the economic crisis.



But isn't this a good thing, given the above statements about life expectancy and economic growth?



Well, the problem is it only applies to a certain extent and then it tapers, and sometimes even harms.



One can gain three years of life expectancy by simply growing the public sector from 20% to 30% of GDP. However, going from 30% to 50% only adds one year on.



That's in part because "much of the gains in life expectancy and reduced infant mortality as the health share of government spending rises occur during the early phase of the relationship."



It's also bogus to claim that public-sector growth ad infinitum keeps the economy growing.



"At first, as the public sector expands," Di Matteo writes explaining something called the Armey Curve, "it has a positive effect on economic growth as the state develops and provides infrastructure to complement private sector growth."



Later on, after that initial investment is made? Not so much. In fact, one study shows, a 10% increase in government is associated with up to 1% lower growth.



This should all make sense to the layperson. If we don't have sturdy basic infrastructure, we won't be able to effectively go about our business — working, taking care of our families, etc.



But on the flip side, if we obsess over shiny baubles that aren't the bread and butter of basic government services, it could hurt us.



This data challenges the big government crowd, whose conception of moderate is likely a size of government that we've yet to reach.



Apparently Canada has in fact surpassed the sweet spot. Significantly. Our government is immoderately big.



The study concludes that "annual per capita GDP growth is maximized at 3.1% at a government expenditure to GDP ratio of 26%; beyond this ratio, economic growth rates decline."



Where does Canada sit? At the current estimate of 41%. So we're way past that three years of life span bonus that you get early on.



In studying countries for effectiveness of public service, South Korea actually takes top place. For Canada to match their effectiveness, we'd need to be at 29%.



It would be interesting to see how government expansion advocates respond to this data, seeing as they tend to be the ones most enamoured with that new buzz phrase "evidence-based research." If there is raging austerity, as those taking to the streets allege, it's hard to find. If there is some evil agenda by the Harper government to dismantle government — even though many indicators show they've actually grown it — I don't see it.



In September, the government announced intentions to bring the federal debt-to-GDP ratio down to 25% by 2021. It currently sits around 10 points higher.



In other words, any sweeping austerity to come will be nothing more than promises of a return to moderation in the near future.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/01/10/report-finds-canada-government-has-surpassed-just-right-size">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/01/10/r ... right-size">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/01/10/report-finds-canada-government-has-surpassed-just-right-size

[Hornung]

Despite what hyper-partisan liars would have us believe Harper has not governed like a conservative right winger, especially the minority government years of 2006-2011. In fact, the center-right Liberals of the 90's were far more fiscally conservative than the minority gov't Tories. They only started to look like a fiscally conservative alternative since they won a majority in 2011. Let's hope they can reverse this dangerous trend towards

It really should have been obvious. But all the big government addicts pitted against the small government obsessed were too busy fighting to see the truth.



So be it resolved: Medium government is where it's at.



This comes to us courtesy of the latest Fraser Institute publication.



In "Measuring Government in the 21st Century" economics professor Livio Di Matteo goes in search of that Goldilocks sweet spot of "just right" in terms of the size of the public sector.



While studying the established literature and worldwide statistics, some interesting conclusions are made.



Did you know that a growth in government correlates to increased life expectancy?



Did you know that the public sector actually increases per capita GDP?



In that case, sign me up for more taxes and a larger public sector. If it means we're all going to get rich and live forever, why not?



Well, here's why. I retract my use of the phrase medium government. Because in fact this all depends, as so much does in life, on how we define moderation.



For starters, Di Matteo's research reminds us that government has undeniably grown over the long term: "The ratio of government expenditure to national income in the second half of the 19th century ranged from 5% to 10% for many countries; by the end of the 20th century it ranged from 35% to 55%."



However, "between 1980 and the late 1990s there was a levelling off and then a reversal of the historical trend towards larger government." Although now the facts show big government is back with a vengeance and, no, it's not just due to the economic crisis.



But isn't this a good thing, given the above statements about life expectancy and economic growth?



Well, the problem is it only applies to a certain extent and then it tapers, and sometimes even harms.



One can gain three years of life expectancy by simply growing the public sector from 20% to 30% of GDP. However, going from 30% to 50% only adds one year on.



That's in part because "much of the gains in life expectancy and reduced infant mortality as the health share of government spending rises occur during the early phase of the relationship."



It's also bogus to claim that public-sector growth ad infinitum keeps the economy growing.



"At first, as the public sector expands," Di Matteo writes explaining something called the Armey Curve, "it has a positive effect on economic growth as the state develops and provides infrastructure to complement private sector growth."



Later on, after that initial investment is made? Not so much. In fact, one study shows, a 10% increase in government is associated with up to 1% lower growth.



This should all make sense to the layperson. If we don't have sturdy basic infrastructure, we won't be able to effectively go about our business — working, taking care of our families, etc.



But on the flip side, if we obsess over shiny baubles that aren't the bread and butter of basic government services, it could hurt us.



This data challenges the big government crowd, whose conception of moderate is likely a size of government that we've yet to reach.



Apparently Canada has in fact surpassed the sweet spot. Significantly. Our government is immoderately big.



The study concludes that "annual per capita GDP growth is maximized at 3.1% at a government expenditure to GDP ratio of 26%; beyond this ratio, economic growth rates decline."



Where does Canada sit? At the current estimate of 41%. So we're way past that three years of life span bonus that you get early on.



In studying countries for effectiveness of public service, South Korea actually takes top place. For Canada to match their effectiveness, we'd need to be at 29%.



It would be interesting to see how government expansion advocates respond to this data, seeing as they tend to be the ones most enamoured with that new buzz phrase "evidence-based research." If there is raging austerity, as those taking to the streets allege, it's hard to find. If there is some evil agenda by the Harper government to dismantle government — even though many indicators show they've actually grown it — I don't see it.



In September, the government announced intentions to bring the federal debt-to-GDP ratio down to 25% by 2021. It currently sits around 10 points higher.



In other words, any sweeping austerity to come will be nothing more than promises of a return to moderation in the near future.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/01/10/report-finds-canada-government-has-surpassed-just-right-size">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/01/10/r ... right-size">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/01/10/report-finds-canada-government-has-surpassed-just-right-size

Only a racist, sinophobic, anti semitic, twirlbrained, fucked in the head, fruitcake, crap n' drool, nutcase, lying cyberbully like Shen Li doesn't know that higher taxes pay for more cultural grants.

[cc]

eh?

[Anonymous]

Despite what hyper-partisan liars would have us believe Harper has not governed like a conservative right winger, especially the minority government years of 2006-2011. In fact, the center-right Liberals of the 90's were far more fiscally conservative than the minority gov't Tories. They only started to look like a fiscally conservative alternative since they won a majority in 2011. Let's hope they can reverse this dangerous trend towards

It really should have been obvious. But all the big government addicts pitted against the small government obsessed were too busy fighting to see the truth.



So be it resolved: Medium government is where it's at.



This comes to us courtesy of the latest Fraser Institute publication.



In "Measuring Government in the 21st Century" economics professor Livio Di Matteo goes in search of that Goldilocks sweet spot of "just right" in terms of the size of the public sector.



While studying the established literature and worldwide statistics, some interesting conclusions are made.



Did you know that a growth in government correlates to increased life expectancy?



Did you know that the public sector actually increases per capita GDP?



In that case, sign me up for more taxes and a larger public sector. If it means we're all going to get rich and live forever, why not?



Well, here's why. I retract my use of the phrase medium government. Because in fact this all depends, as so much does in life, on how we define moderation.



For starters, Di Matteo's research reminds us that government has undeniably grown over the long term: "The ratio of government expenditure to national income in the second half of the 19th century ranged from 5% to 10% for many countries; by the end of the 20th century it ranged from 35% to 55%."



However, "between 1980 and the late 1990s there was a levelling off and then a reversal of the historical trend towards larger government." Although now the facts show big government is back with a vengeance and, no, it's not just due to the economic crisis.



But isn't this a good thing, given the above statements about life expectancy and economic growth?



Well, the problem is it only applies to a certain extent and then it tapers, and sometimes even harms.



One can gain three years of life expectancy by simply growing the public sector from 20% to 30% of GDP. However, going from 30% to 50% only adds one year on.



That's in part because "much of the gains in life expectancy and reduced infant mortality as the health share of government spending rises occur during the early phase of the relationship."



It's also bogus to claim that public-sector growth ad infinitum keeps the economy growing.



"At first, as the public sector expands," Di Matteo writes explaining something called the Armey Curve, "it has a positive effect on economic growth as the state develops and provides infrastructure to complement private sector growth."



Later on, after that initial investment is made? Not so much. In fact, one study shows, a 10% increase in government is associated with up to 1% lower growth.



This should all make sense to the layperson. If we don't have sturdy basic infrastructure, we won't be able to effectively go about our business — working, taking care of our families, etc.



But on the flip side, if we obsess over shiny baubles that aren't the bread and butter of basic government services, it could hurt us.



This data challenges the big government crowd, whose conception of moderate is likely a size of government that we've yet to reach.



Apparently Canada has in fact surpassed the sweet spot. Significantly. Our government is immoderately big.



The study concludes that "annual per capita GDP growth is maximized at 3.1% at a government expenditure to GDP ratio of 26%; beyond this ratio, economic growth rates decline."



Where does Canada sit? At the current estimate of 41%. So we're way past that three years of life span bonus that you get early on.



In studying countries for effectiveness of public service, South Korea actually takes top place. For Canada to match their effectiveness, we'd need to be at 29%.



It would be interesting to see how government expansion advocates respond to this data, seeing as they tend to be the ones most enamoured with that new buzz phrase "evidence-based research." If there is raging austerity, as those taking to the streets allege, it's hard to find. If there is some evil agenda by the Harper government to dismantle government — even though many indicators show they've actually grown it — I don't see it.



In September, the government announced intentions to bring the federal debt-to-GDP ratio down to 25% by 2021. It currently sits around 10 points higher.



In other words, any sweeping austerity to come will be nothing more than promises of a return to moderation in the near future.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/01/10/report-finds-canada-government-has-surpassed-just-right-size">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/01/10/r ... right-size">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/01/10/report-finds-canada-government-has-surpassed-just-right-size

Only a racist, sinophobic, anti semitic, twirlbrained, fucked in the head, fruitcake, crap n' drool, nutcase, lying cyberbully like Shen Li doesn't know that higher taxes pay for more cultural grants.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTS3nNxG1Vw02kYNTNclT2Nzx1_jKnn_HygUDm7Fr925GFzacwNXw">

[Rambo Wong]

Canada needs more people and that is why we need foreign workers

[Anonymous]

Canada needs more people and that is why we need foreign workers

That's not what the thread is about Einstein.

[Anonymous]

Only a racist, sinophobic, anti semitic, twirlbrained, fucked in the head, fruitcake, crap n' drool, nutcase, lying cyberbully like Shen Li doesn't know that higher taxes pay for more cultural grants.

I don't know why I'm doing this, but I am going to respond to a crazy person. Using taxpayer money to buy votes in various cultural communities is unethical and another example of why the wings of government need to be clipped. Now FUCK OFF!!

[Rambo Wong]

Funny only  Shen Li and Seoulbro and Fashionista the racist, sinophobic, anti semitic, anti-Catholic, twirlybrained, crap n' drool, lying nutcase cyberbully fruitcake morons who would continue to spread lies about my mental health.

[Anonymous]

Funny only  Shen Li and Seoulbro and Fashionista the racist, sinophobic, anti semitic, anti-Catholic, twirlybrained, crap n' drool, lying nutcase cyberbully fruitcake morons who would continue to spread lies about my mental health.

Rambo Wong, we only want you to seek the help you so obviously need..

[Anonymous]

Funny only  Shen Li and Seoulbro and Fashionista the racist, sinophobic, anti semitic, anti-Catholic, twirlybrained, crap n' drool, lying nutcase cyberbully fruitcake morons who would continue to spread lies about my mental health.

Rambo Wong, we only want you to seek the help you so obviously need..

Speak for yourself Fash, I couldn't give a rat's ass if that repetitive virgin lunatic sees a fucking shrink or not.

[Anonymous]

Funny only  Shen Li and Seoulbro and Fashionista the racist, sinophobic, anti semitic, anti-Catholic, twirlybrained, crap n' drool, lying nutcase cyberbully fruitcake morons who would continue to spread lies about my mental health.

Rambo Wong, we only want you to seek the help you so obviously need..

Speak for yourself Fash, I couldn't give a rat's ass if that repetitive virgin lunatic sees a fucking shrink or not.

He's a troubled soul and I wish he could get better.

[cc]

He could  merely be very very very  stupid ..... along with really really really nerdy



Just a thought

[Anonymous]

He could  merely be very very very  stupid ..... along with really really really nerdy



Just a thought

Hmmm, I don't like to label people Ms. cc li tarte, but you may be on to something.

[Anonymous]

He could  merely be very very very  stupid ..... along with really really really nerdy



Just a thought

Ah c'mon CC, you love nerds like ho and you know it.

http://www.openzine.com/images/IssueImages/IloadImage/428140541615FIG_Medium.jpg">

[Rambo Wong]

Funny, Fashionista, Shen li, CC Latarte  don't mention that racist, sinophobic, homophobic, anti semitic,twirlybrain,  fruitcake, moron, crap n' drool, choking the chicken, nutcase, lying, fucked in the head cyberbully moderator of ACC who listens to Creed Fashionista's mental health problems.