The debate of Big vs Small-government (part 1)
2009/03/01 in credit crisis, Great Debate - Economics, macro trends
This blog was originally posted in March of 2009 and is placed here on our homepage for all to see. The idea is to stimulate philosophical debate on the role of government. Which way do you see the world heading? The USA? Europe? Latin America? Please login and post your comments below…
A hotly debated topic these days is in regards to the proper role of government in stimulating the economy. The worry on one side is that without government spending, the economy would fall into a deep recession. The worry on the other side is that government would become overbearing and crowd-out private enterprise. In my opinion, both arguments are compelling, and probably each are ½ right.
To defend the position of increased government spending, I previously argued that if private investors only wanted to give their money to the government (by pouring money into Treasuries, and shunning all forms of risky investments), then the government had a responsibility to recycle those funds and reinvest them back in the private sector. I also argued (here) that if the credit markets were frozen and if the financial system was broken (as it was), then traditional monetary policy wouldn’t work, leaving only the only tools of fiscal policy to shock the economy out of a crisis.
But, to defend the second position (that fiscal stimulus was dangerous in the temptation to increase the size of government, and decrease the role of free enterprise), I also argued repeatedly that the stimulus plan (as passed) was (a) not going to work, (b) too small and misdirected, and (c) just a bandaid: a temporary measure to buy time to fix the root of the problem: the deleveraging of the financial system. See my suggestions of what to do here.



