He likes to break the distinction between low end and high end government channels, thus allowing economists to become lazy philosophers instead of hard working scientists.
The real distinction a governments that cover the their economic domain coherently and those that don't. A measurement of economies of scale of scale helps here. Our government has large economies (more stages of production) because our domain is much larger.
If we apply this to the Noahpinion desire for high end government what does he mean? Less economies of scale and more power entrenched in DC? That is a prescription for lower GDP, back again to variability in product space. Under channel theory, the entitlements are centralized and likely cause less variability in wage space, hence lower GDP and lower standard of living, fewer choices. Earmarks are good, they flow directly from central government down the shortest path to retail variability in product space.
How do we know when the government channel is top heavy? Notice that all branches are having trouble keeping budget, from federal to city. Instability at all levels of government is sufficient proof that the government channel is skewed. The level of Congressional debt points us to evidence that Congress, mostly the Senate, is the culprit.
No comments:
Post a Comment