Economics Questions

Re: Wouldn't less govt revenue mean less govt spending?

Neodoxy — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:23:22 GMT

No. This is entirely inaccurate. This is called a "deficit" and to my knowledge it has never stopped the rate of government growth or spending.

Re: Wouldn't less govt revenue mean less govt spending?

John James — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:56:48 GMT

If there were no central banking system that could create money out of thin air, essentially yes. Of course the government could always borrow as well, but less revenue (and no ability to print money) would necessarily mean less capacity to make debt service payments...so overall, it's fair to say it would mean less spending, and even more fair to say it would put an upper limit on spending (or at least one much stronger than the useless Congressional "ceiling" we have now.)

For more, see:

Gold standard

Fiat money advocates, aka "Greenbackers"

Fractional & full reserve banking & the Federal Reserve

from: The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread

Re: Wouldn't less govt revenue mean less govt spending?

dude6935 — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:41:17 GMT

If you mean tax revenue, maybe, but not necessarily. They can sell bonds and go into debt if they can get someone to loan them the money.

Would the state spend more if it had more tax revenue? Probably, because it is politically (and probably technically) easier to spend tax money than borrowed money.

Re: Wouldn't less govt revenue mean less govt spending?

Malachi — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:33:25 GMT

it would not necessarily mean that. they can operate at a loss, and infact they do.

Wouldn't less govt revenue mean less govt spending?

No2statism — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:24:44 GMT

I was thinking so, but I need some sources to back me up. Any links?