However, I don't buy this specific premise.
- Low government spending can just as much lead to stagnation, poor infrastructure, poor healthcare and education.
- It's a global statement, but there are huge local variations that can make a big difference to economic environment. Living in a big city with a deep ecosystem around a specific sector will have a much bigger impact than what the government does nationally.
- You have options besides moving to another country. For instance investing in education that leads to better outcomes.
Moving to another country can have big economic effects, it's just not "the only true leverage you have".
not true...anybody with such simplistic economic opinions should really just do an 101 on economics
leaving your country? to go where? and once your there, what are you gonna do?
ColdStream•57m ago
But your proposition while intuitive and seems reasonable does seem a little reductionist. Many look for a single variable that can explain their predicament but that can crush away any nuance that may also be useful. Just because government spending can be high doesn't mean it will necessarily benefit you if you move there, it isn't always spread equally or at least somewhat fairly.
dragonwriter•45m ago
The small government types prioritize low taxes (especially on capital and business), they aren’t particularly concerned about spending except to the extent necessary politically to attain low taxes.
Austerity typically features cuts in spending without cuts in taxes—and often with hikes in taxes—to balance government cash flows. They aren’t the same thing at all. The only thing wrong about calling it “the first sign of a down turn” is that austerity is pretty invariably resorted to very late in a down turn after everything else has failed and government credit has either seen drastically worse terms or completely dried up. Heck, often it is imposed by institutions like the IMF as a condition for a bailout, which is very much a very late in a downturn recourse.