Trump’s shutdown reveals myth of small government

The latest closure of the US government emphasizes how the calls for “small government” are less in reinforcing money and reinforce power, David Joy.

HERE WE GO AGAIN. Another US government “closeMak.

As a money exporter (such as the Australian government), the US government is not financially restricted. Every dollar spent by the government is a brand new dollar. The reason for the closure of the government is that MPs cannot agree on what to give in exchange for this new dollar.

There is no shortage of dollars. When the referees are not sure that a defender touches a football before crossing the goal line, there is no shortage of points, but the result may be an six -point reward or a point of points. Currently, there are two referees (Republicans and Democrats) in the United States, which cannot agree on how many points (dollar) and who should be given to whom it should be given.

Some commentators they point Embers The administration came out of its own way to improve the closure because it offers an opportunity to “shrink the government’s size.

But what do we mean with the “small government ?? Most economists would measure the magnitude of government expenditures as a ratio of GDP. At the end of the 19th century and in the early 20th century, this number was about 1-2% in both the US and Australia, but now About 37% In these countries, including government transfer payments.

Does this really mean that the government has about 37 times more effects on the economy than 125 years ago?

The short answer “No”. “Gilded age“In the second half of the 19th century in the USA, the titans of the industry ( Carnegie And Rockefeller) Good linked to the government to politely put it.

Like today’s robber barons Musk– Bezos And Zuckerbergequally familiar corridors Political power. Inside Great transformation– Polanyi It exploded the legend capitalism It can continue without a significant government participation. When right -wing politicians call for small government, they really mean that the government encourages the interests of 1% at the expense of the rest of the rest.

It is not difficult to see hypocrisy – from the irony of the US government to save president using a saw Javier Milei, Disturbing expansion US law enforcement officers through immigration and customs conservation in the land of the US free country.

But let’s go back to the economy. In the gilded age, government expenditures (as the percentage of GSYP) are relatively low, inequality The sky was high. After the battle after hitting the bottom in the 1970s Keynesian Policies, the inequality in the Western world rose to the beginning of the 20th century.

Although the driving forces of inequality are varied and complex, a key element is the scope and width of government expenditures. As a money exporter, the government always decides who has the currency. A small government (as traditionally defined) is still deciding who is the buyers of monetary creation.

In a simplified example, imagine that single government expenditures are $ 100, perhaps in the “basic” weapon industry – PalantirFor example.

Palantir and first (or more complete company managers) decide how to spend $ 100 – in other words, how to distribute. Perhaps seven employees each receives $ 10 and $ 30 remain as profit, $ 10 is paid to shareholders as dividends. These employees and shareholders then spend this $ 80 (eg, 80%) on goods and services, and 80% of their provider receives other goods and services and so on.

Through Spending multiplicityThis makes the total GDP equal to $ 500, and government expenditures represent the original $ 100 or 20%. Who decides the distribution of dollars (and resources) in this relatively (so -called) small government economy? In this example, the government pays members of the military-industrial complex, including Palantir rulers and shareholders.

Some modern monetary theory (Mmt) Economists express this as follows: money filter – The government always decides on the first distribution of the currency (then transferred the decision later). Trump prefers to transfer this decision to himself, his family and a small group of (BR) oligarks. Others prefer to transfer these decisions to a wide variety of people and probably give lower inequality.

While leaving the post in 1961, the president Eisenhower warned about growing power Military-Industry Complex. The dominance of these elite was never so big, but at the same time it was not more transparent. Trump’s decision to rename the Ministry of Defense War department It helps to clearly demonstrate what the activities and goals of the elite who run the US are really. They only want to use power, and to crush the resistance in and outside the USA

The hypocrisy of the small government claim was left naked by the central and dictator nature of the Trump administration. Indeed, even the closure of the government produced is a brutal practice of government power. There is no option between the big and small government. There is only one choice between good and bad government.

Anyone who is affected by the rise of everyone in Australia Trump-Lite politicians You should pay attention to the right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4g93edzugy

David Joy teaches the foundations of modern money at Torrens University, a learning facilitator at Australia and New Zealand (Caanz) and accounting conferences. Adelaide University.

Support independent journalism subscribe to IA.