What do you think?
Rate this book
How Big Should Our Government Be?
The size of government is arguably the most controversial discussion in United States politics, and this issue won't fade from prominence any time soon. There must surely be a tipping point beyond which more government taxing and spending harms the economy, but where is that point? In this accessible book, best-selling authors Jeff Madrick, Jon Bakija, Lane Kenworthy, and Peter Lindert try to answer whether our government can grow any larger and examine how we can optimize growth and fair distribution.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
218 pages, Paperback
Published June 21, 2016
4 people are currently reading
45 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 24, 2016
Jon Bakija,Lane Kenworthy,Peter Lindert y Jeff Madrick presentan un libro con 4 ensayos cortos sobre como la recaudación de impuestos, el gasto social y el tamaño del gobierno (como porcentaje del PIB) lejos de causar efectos dañinos a la economía, favorecen su crecimiento.
Es un libro muy pequeño pero muy contundente con sus argumentos y la evidencia que presenta, el gobierno ayuda más de lo que se le reconoce en construir sociedades más justas y equitativas.
Es un libro muy pequeño pero muy contundente con sus argumentos y la evidencia que presenta, el gobierno ayuda más de lo que se le reconoce en construir sociedades más justas y equitativas.
June 8, 2018
A very short, but powerful, piece of academic literature. This book makes a compelling case for the adoption of progressive policy (spoiler warning, it suggestions the government should be bigger, as a portion of GDP 10% bigger).
At it's heart, is Lane Kenworthy, Peter Lindert, and Jeff Madrick who deliver passion to the material. They outline a policy recommendation that mirrors my own wony policy ideas (their plank is at least 90-95% identical to my own). The only blindspot is the lack of attention to a basic minimum income, but that's a minor complaint.
The backbone of the project is Jon Bakija. This no nonsense economist delivers the econometric evidence to support the idea of the welfare state: that significant taxes to fund the welfare state, if they are used in successful programs, has close to a zero percent impact on economic growth (and at worst, an effect of miniscule proportions).
His chapter, though arguably the most important, is also the most boring. It's very technical, graphy, riddled with economic jargon, and very dry. In short, it's academic. Despite this, it's of huge importance to anyone seeking to argue for progressive policy on economic grounds. The main argument of the right, is that the high taxes needed for funding Social programs will kill growth.
In practice, this is wrong. And econometricly, it is proven wrong. No major liberal politician is making this argument against them. They should. It's a winning strategy.
5/5
At it's heart, is Lane Kenworthy, Peter Lindert, and Jeff Madrick who deliver passion to the material. They outline a policy recommendation that mirrors my own wony policy ideas (their plank is at least 90-95% identical to my own). The only blindspot is the lack of attention to a basic minimum income, but that's a minor complaint.
The backbone of the project is Jon Bakija. This no nonsense economist delivers the econometric evidence to support the idea of the welfare state: that significant taxes to fund the welfare state, if they are used in successful programs, has close to a zero percent impact on economic growth (and at worst, an effect of miniscule proportions).
His chapter, though arguably the most important, is also the most boring. It's very technical, graphy, riddled with economic jargon, and very dry. In short, it's academic. Despite this, it's of huge importance to anyone seeking to argue for progressive policy on economic grounds. The main argument of the right, is that the high taxes needed for funding Social programs will kill growth.
In practice, this is wrong. And econometricly, it is proven wrong. No major liberal politician is making this argument against them. They should. It's a winning strategy.
5/5
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews