Comments on: The last of the Thatcherites

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:52:49 +0000

Thanks for this, giles. Note that the revenue/GDP ratio goes the other way. Still, there must be some definitional difference affecting the earlier data, probably to do with the treatment of government business enterprises.

By: Giles

Giles — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:02:56 +0000

figures are for General government outlays from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/51/2483816.xls

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 05:42:03 +0000

Giles can you give a source – the Budget papers agree with your 36.2 for today, but not the 38.2 for 1996 (for some reason, the Table in the 2004-5 budget doesn’t give consolidated figures, but the graphs suggest around 35 and that’s consistent with what I recall from the time).

By: Giles

Giles — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:10:58 +0000

gouvernment outlays as a % of GDp have fallen from 38.2% of GDP in 96 to 36.2% today. Not a hugely significant amount but still a cut. Still I’d go with Jason’s description that he’s esssentially a Poujadist

By: theogon

theogon — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:51:07 +0000

Ah, but suppose a sadistic angel asks you if you think that neoliberalism is on the decline? If you’re right, this adorable kitten gets a government-subsidized backscratch. If not, the free market subjects the next twenty trillion humans to subpoverty wages and no social services… Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:33:24 +0000

Giles, I made the point about Thatcher’s spending in the version of this post

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:23:16 +0000

Abbott and Costello are career politicians, tough but with no particular ideology. In particular, Abbott as Health Minister has been associated with lots of new spending and a reversal of the government’s previously negative attitude to Medicare.

By: Giles

Giles — Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:24:31 +0000

I doubt that Howard is the last “rationalist” in the liberal party- how else would you describe Abbot or Costello? It’s also worth questioning two assumptions – first that Howard was radically to the right of his party from the start – my view is that, economically he has been much more centrist than his more “shrill” detractors give him credit for. Secondly circumstance plays a role – the economy is delivering an unplanned surplus because of the senate logjam. If the debt is repaid in the next couple of years the government is going to have to start buying private assets. There is a view, which I subscribe to that this is a lot more dangerous/irrational than the government building things or providing support for people. Faced with the choice between letting the surplus continue and increasing expenditure, I think Howard is choosing expenditure – for this and political reasons. But in other circumstances faced with a straight more expenditure less expenditure choice I’m not so sure.

By: Scott McArthur

Scott McArthur — Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:25:43 +0000

There is a consensus here. However, Bush and his party are outside of the consensus. So when the biggest kid on the team is going the other way it is harder proclaim an Anglosphere trend. What the UK, NZ, AUS, CAN all have in common is that under Keynsian deficit/inflationary programs all four countries hit a debt wall. A point at which increases in the marginal indebtedness of the nation destroyed more wealth then was created through spending multipliers. Neo-liberal thinking was turned to as an alternative, but eventually reached marginally declining gains in wealth creation through tax cuts and government service cuts. The new synthesis blends the two approaches: balanced budgets with continuing infrastructure reinvestment and ongoing fat trimming in the public service. The US is off the reservation in that one group, the Republican leaders, want to continue the neo liberal project. There is a Lennenist quality to their current policies in that they all seem aimed to “highten the contradictions”. The hope being that when the crisis is unwound there will be a once in a lifetime opportunity to permanently reduce the size of Governemnt in the economy: a reverse Great Depression if you will. Needless to say, it is a very dicy proposition, especially while there is a War on. Will the American electorate go along?

By: Robin Green

Robin Green — Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:14:41 +0000

Finally, there’s the US under Bush which has managed to follow the tax-cutting part of neoliberalism, but not the expenditue-cutting part. I honestly don’t know how this will play out when the bills finally come due. How the Repubs hope it will play out, I think, is that it will give them an excuse to accelerate their programme of slashing social programmes. Or to force the Democrats to take on that program. It’s annoying how whenever anyone makes an income-tax cut, all proposed rises thereafter are judged relative to the current level of income tax, not the absolute level. What before would have been a 1% rise, becomes a 2 or 3% rise and therefore unspeakably radical. And the same goes for spending. I think the Bush administration is trying to maximise the scale of the problem, within reason, in order to force the debate about how to fix it, rightwards, if you see what I mean.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:43:22 +0000

Fixed now, thanks jo’n

By: JO'N

JO'N — Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:11:32 +0000

He entered the Australian Parliament in 1974, just as the Keynesian social-democratic consensus of the postwar period. The Keynesian social-democratic consensus entered the Australian Parliament in 1974?