The government spends to much...

[Denny Crane!]

Because we want them to.

On question time Peter Hitchens gave a very good account of just what is behind excessive spending. He said the government spends to much and by definition controls to much because at every election they repeatedly offer bribes to us with out own money and we love it so they do it again repeatedly.

Now we all want to see smaller government to a lesser or greater degree, we all want to see spending reigned in but when it comes to cuts in public service it turns voters off. So what drives this curious juxtaposition between voters percieved desires and actual voting motivation? I'd posit that they see a broader picture and form an opinion but ultimately the decisions of who to vote for and on what basis is made on a microeconomic level of what they percieve will benefit them personally at that time whether that be a benefit or other.

I'm not sure if that is quite an adequate explanation to the dichotomy, so please offer your thoughts on this one.

[Nietzsche]

Because we want them to.

On question time Peter Hitchens gave a very good account of just what is behind excessive spending. He said the government spends to much and by definition controls to much because at every election they repeatedly offer bribes to us with out own money and we love it so they do it again repeatedly.

Now we all want to see smaller government to a lesser or greater degree, we all want to see spending reigned in but when it comes to cuts in public service it turns voters off. So what drives this curious juxtaposition between voters percieved desires and actual voting motivation? I'd posit that they see a broader picture and form an opinion but ultimately the decisions of who to vote for and on what basis is made on a microeconomic level of what they percieve will benefit them personally at that time whether that be a benefit or other.

I'm not sure if that is quite an adequate explanation to the dichotomy, so please offer your thoughts on this one.

Self interest governs a majority of all individual actions, so it is hardly surprising that the real motivator in any personal interest is one's own economic status. I don't see it as a dichotomy. The people we vote in habitually scorn the public with bloated rider bills, jobs/contracts to their own constituents, and money to personal pet projects. It's self interest on a different scale. Come election time, we have become so used to rhetoric, that we vote not on principles but on telegenics, photogenics, sound bites, and video clips. The process is devolved.

In any case, I don't wish to drift from your topic. The central fact is people will do what is best for themselves. All other desires remain secondary.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."[H. L. Mencken]

Seneca, you are describing the essential flaw of democracy. It indulges on group of people at the expense of another, over and over again, damn the consequences. The indulgences have become so lavish that the group of people that are being put upon are poeple that are yet unborn.

[Phier]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." Alexander Tyler.

[Paggers]

I'd view it as a case of hats.

Wearing our voter hat, we like to hear that the prospective candidates will spend money on our pet projects be they Health, Education, locking up everyone we don't like, invading France whatever.

However, wearing our tax payer hat, we want spending to be cut in areas we don't wish to see money wasted, be it on Health, Education, locking up everyone we don't like, invading France whatever.

The problem with this is that government, both local and national, understand this argument and so when cuts are considered, it is always frontline services which are proposed, such as meals on wheels, social workers etc, because they know damned well most of the electorate will be up in arms about it. In other words, our moral compass will dictate that most of the time we want to vote on a personal benefit but there is the confusion of the social dimension to consider as well.

Personally, I don't think it is a case of the government spends too much, it's a case of where did all the money go as I don't seem to have seen any benefit for myself and where I live.

Sorry for the hat analogy but I've been watching re-runs of Yes, Minister.

[Каие]

This thread has a subjective title and incorrect opening sentence.

[Denny Crane!]

This thread has a subjective title and incorrect opening sentence.

It is all subjective but not incorrect.

[Dr. Croccer]

The government is big, the government spends much to solve the problems created by corporations which are too big and spend too much., in many cases.

[Phier]

The government is big, the government spends much to solve the problems created by corporations which are too big and spend too much., in many cases.

The important thing is never blame the government directly for overspending right?

Its all the private sectors fault of course

[Dr. Croccer]

The important thing is never blame the government directly for overspending right?

Its all the private sectors fault of course

No, it's just silly to blame the current government for it's overspending and demand a limited government, even though that caused a lot of current crisis which the aforementioned spending is intended to relieve.

[chilon]

Its all the private sectors fault of course

In current advanced post-industrial economies the distinction between "public" and "private" grows more and more meaningless. The problem with beginning with the premise that economics is based on some false dichotomy of public socialism versus private capitalism is that you lose the tools to actually understand the variety of ways government and non-government entities (for-profit market based corporations or non-profit organizations or non-market entities) interact.

First realize that in traditional industrial age political economies there are three theories of economic organization not two. Traditional capitalism, traditional marxism, and mercantilism. Marxists tend to naively dismiss the distinction between mercantilism and capitalism if they are even aware of it while fundamentalist capitalists ignore it completely like the ostrich with head in the sand.

When you look at the way tax dollars get distributed, the mercantilist policies (either intentional or unintentional) become obvious. The modern day USA system favors the interest groups with the most lobbying power/connections. That is the reality. The USA has for a long time had many mercantilist policies (increased under Reagan, Clinton and Bush) not just "capitalist and socialist" policies.

Look at the board of directors of say Citibank for instance and you see many individuals who float back and forth between government and private corporations. Then look at how Citibank expected the government to favor them by granting them 60 billion worth of Wachovia assets for only 2 billion. Then when a true free market competitor for Wachovia's assets emerged (Wells Fargo), Citibank was screwed on principle but still acted in their self-interest and attempted to sue Wachovia and Wells for the lost assets. Citibank was really acting on a mercantilist philosophy. Distilled, their argument was that they were favored by the USA government and should have been granted Wachovia's assets. Having to "bid" against a competitor was unjust to Citibank. That is a mercantilist argument not a free market one. Good thing, Wells and Wachovia had much better litigation lawyers and the judge was insightful.

So to truly look at the problems with Demoschlerosis, people must break away from their socialist/capitalist false dichotomy to truly understand the different ways public and private sector entities interact.

[Denny Crane!]

Or maybe more bureaucracy, like with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.

That isn't actually decentralisation that is duplication of beuracratic structures and duplication of centralised structures which oddly I still agree with (at least in scotlands case) as ultimately it should lead to better governments once we are seperate countries.

So that analogy doesn't quite work, creating two seperate governments isn't decentralisation its doubly centralised.

In current advanced post-industrial economies the distinction between "public" and "private" grows more and more meaningless. The problem with beginning with the premise that economics is based on some false dichotomy of public socialism versus private capitalism is that you lose the tools to actually understand the variety of ways government and non-government entities (for-profit market based corporations or non-profit organizations or non-market entities) interact.

Actually one of the biggest gripes of any free market advocate is this distinction right here. The fact that government and private become so intertwined that you end up in the situation of private companies raping the public for profits under the guise of public and private partnerships. Risk is publicised and profit privatised and special interests get to involved with lobbying leading to a corruption of democracy.

First realize that in traditional industrial age political economies there are three theories of economic organization not two. Traditional capitalism, traditional marxism, and mercantilism. Marxists tend to naively dismiss the distinction between mercantilism and capitalism if they are even aware of it while fundamentalist capitalists ignore it completely like the ostrich with head in the sand.

When you look at the way tax dollars get distributed, the mercantilist policies (either intentional or unintentional) become obvious. The modern day USA system favors the interest groups with the most lobbying power/connections. That is the reality. The USA has for a long time had many mercantilist policies (increased under Reagan, Clinton and Bush) not just "capitalist and socialist" policies.

Look at the board of directors of say Citibank for instance and you see many individuals who float back and forth between government and private corporations. Then look at how Citibank expected the government to favor them by granting them 60 billion worth of Wachovia assets for only 2 billion. Then when a true free market competitor for Wachovia's assets emerged (Wells Fargo), Citibank was screwed on principle but still acted in their self-interest and attempted to sue Wachovia and Wells for the lost assets. Citibank was really acting on a mercantilist philosophy. Distilled, their argument was that they were favored by the USA government and should have been granted Wachovia's assets. Having to "bid" against a competitor was unjust to Citibank. That is a mercantilist argument not a free market one. Good thing, Wells and Wachovia had much better litigation lawyers and the judge was insightful.

So to truly look at the problems with Demoschlerosis, people must break away from their socialist/capitalist false dichotomy to truly understand the different ways public and private sector entities interact.

It isn't a false dichotomy unless your interpretation of capatilism is false. Are you distinguishing between state capatilism and pure capatilism?

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

once we are seperate countries.

Sorry to go off topic, but what do you mean "once we are seperate countries"? Do you know something I don't? I doubt Scotland and Wales could survive economically on their own, unless they are subsidised to the point of stupidity from "England".

[Каие]

It is incorrect. Because the latest polls show that over 75% of the people want significant spending cuts.

[Denny Crane!]

It is incorrect. Because the latest polls show that over 75% of the people want significant spending cuts.

Right this instant they do in the grip of a massive recession/depression but as a general trend they do not?

[Frédéric Bastiat]

It is incorrect. Because the latest polls show that over 75% of the people want significant spending cuts.

That may be true but then again a majority of people want free healthcare, free education, access to a job, access to a home (regardless of their credit score [Surprise, suprise! Welcome to the recession]), etc.

Then the same people wonder why the government is spending so much money.

-------------

To extend Phier's quote of Tytler:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

It is incorrect. Because the latest polls show that over 75% of the people want significant spending cuts.

What that number really means is 75% want cuts in someone else's sacred cow.

[Каие]

Some departments are underfunded.

[Phier]

It is incorrect. Because the latest polls show that over 75% of the people want significant spending cuts.

I'm sure 75% want to eat healthier too....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Want to know the really funny part?

I did a search for fat family, this is on the website it came from.

The family from Blackburn claim £22,508 a year in benefits, equivalent to the take-home pay from a £30,000 salary. The Chawners, haven't worked in 11 years, claim their weight is a hereditary condition and the money they receive is insufficient to live on.

I'm not sure if thats ironic or coincidental.

[Denny Crane!]

I'm sure 75% want to eat healthier too....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Want to know the really funny part?

I did a search for fat family, this is on the website it came from.

The family from Blackburn claim £22,508 a year in benefits, equivalent to the take-home pay from a £30,000 salary. The Chawners, haven't worked in 11 years, claim their weight is a hereditary condition and the money they receive is insufficient to live on.

I'm not sure if thats ironic or coincidental.

I wonder if that includes council tax and housing benefit.