Jonathan Chait is boggled by Joe Scarborough’s latest rant. (Dear Jon: I am not “prickly”: I’m aggressive and annoying. But that’s by design, and I only do it when the situation calls for it.) What’s really striking is Scarborough’s certainty that we’re experiencing “explosive” spending growth, which is very much not the case:
-
-
blog advertising is good for you -
Recent Posts
- Lehigh Exec Bill Hansell Resigns, 2013 Dem Exec Candidate Tom Muller Will Be Acting Exec
- Get the Zoning Right: Streetcars Are a Real Estate Development Tool
- Bob Donchez Accidentally Fundraising for Willie Reynolds
- Why Might John Callahan Be Endorsing Willie Reynolds for Bethlehem Mayor?
- John Callahan Endorsing Willie Reynolds for Bethlehem Mayor
Recent Comments
- Jon Geeting on What Do We Want to Hear About Fracking from the Democratic Candidates for PA Governor?
- Bob Donchez Accidentally Fundraising for Willie Reynolds - Keystone Politics on Bob Donchez Running Scared
- Bob Donchez Accidentally Fundraising for Willie Reynolds - Keystone Politics on John Callahan Endorsing Willie Reynolds for Bethlehem Mayor
- Why Might John Callahan Be Endorsing Willie Reynolds for Bethlehem Mayor? - Keystone Politics on NorCo Exec SEIU Poll: Callahan at 52%
- Aaron on What Do We Want to Hear About Fracking from the Democratic Candidates for PA Governor?
-
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
Categories
I’m not really interested in Joe Scarborough, but I am interested in this graph.
Using the same data, in another way, such as http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=W019RCQ027SBEA–the change in spending over the economic crisis does rate at fairly significant–about a 25% increase in the course of the recession. As a percentage of GDP, it is also likely to be a sharp increase. None of that is necessarily “bad”–but I’d be interested how much spending would be required to seem like “a lot.”
Here’s total federal expenditures over time, and here it is without the log scale.
I thought Prof. Krugman was fair with his points in this post: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/martin-wolf-hippie/ (I do like his concept of “hearsay economics,” which to be frank is a huge challenge in all policymaking realms, not just economic!)
For some reason, I can’t find the log functions on Fred. But it would seem, if we’re talking about “big government” right now–a ten (or twenty year) horizon would seem a more useful yardstick, not expenditures since 1960, and in fact it better shows that initial increase in spending leveled off and has begun to decrease.
I think the point was to show that nothing that’s happened in the last 4 years really takes us outside the historical trend, which is especially damning since the whole point of stimulus was for the federal government to spend pretty well above trend during the downturn, fully replacing the missing spending from firms and households hoarding cash.