More government interventions hamper capitalism

In his fourth book, What Went Wrong With Capitalism, investor and author Ruchir Sharma eloquently details how advanced market economies for decades have increasingly strayed from the basic principles of market-based competition and pricing, resulting in persistently slow growth which causes many to question whether capitalism works anymore. However, what is often attributed to market failure is often a failure of government.

Collectivists have successfully installed the narrative that the Reagan and Thatcher era in the 1980s ushered in an era of neoliberalism and government austerity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Keynesian counter-cyclical government spending was supposed to support the economy during a recession; instead, it is used to support the economy at every point of the business cycle. At most, the Reagan and Thatcher regimes only slowed the rate of increase of government spending. Combined with a growing public resistance to paying higher taxes, this created permanent budget deficits. Policymakers remain stuck on the stimulus treadmill: former European Central Bank head Mario Draghi recently recommended the EU spend an inconceivable US$900 billion a year to revive its flagging economy.

Moreover, the slowdown in the growth of government spending did little to stop a tidal wave of government rules and regulations, many of which favour entrenched interests and firms. Sharma’s observation that being “pro-business is not the same as pro-capitalism, and the distinction continues to elude us” is especially true for Canada. He documents the increasing use of government subsidies and bail-outs, which helps fuel the growth of so-called zombie firms—unprofitable companies that stay in business thanks to support from governments or lending institutions (who know problems caused by bad loans will be bailed out by government), which prevent labour and capital from moving to areas with better long-term growth potential. Most recently, we have seen governments embrace higher tariffs and industrial policy, notably for green energy projects in Canada and the United States.

Increased government meddling in the marketplace reduces competition and slows the process of creative destruction that is the lifeblood of capitalism by allowing “new firms to rise up and destroy the complacent ones, making the economy ever more productive over time,” according to Sharma. This was most evident during the pandemic, when business failures declined as government hand-outs outweighed the impact of unprecedented shutdown of large parts of the economy. But the decline in business startups and failures has persisted for decades.

Steadily rising government intervention in the economy results in lower productivity and slower growth. This pushes policymakers to resort to higher fiscal deficits and easy money policies in a forlorn attempt to boost long-term potential growth.

It is often said that the recent slowdown of productivity reflects a lack of business investment. That is certainly part of the problem outside of the U.S., especially for Canada over the past decade. However, Sharma notes it is the efficiency and not just the level of investment that is the problem. Pervasive government interventions in the economy distort prices and the allocation of capital, resulting in what the libertarian economist Friedrich Hayek called “malinvestments.” This is especially true for Canada, which for over a decade has shunned clearly profitable investment opportunities in the resource sector while pouring tens of billions into expensive public transit systems, which nevertheless failed to persuade commuters to leave their vehicles at home.

One theme Sharma does not develop is that this growing inability of governments to efficiently deliver results is not due to a lack of resources. Governments have expanded their workforce, their spending, and their regulatory power. Nevertheless, government programs falter because of bad management, chronic political meddling for short-term electoral gains, and a workforce which increasingly serves its own interests and not public’s.

Sharma concludes on both an optimistic and pessimistic note. He examines the ability of capitalism to thrive in countries such as Switzerland and Taiwan by balancing “a business-friendly environment alongside social equality.” Nevertheless, he’s concerned with the “supreme irony: modern voters, particularly the young, now demand that leaders show respect for the fragility of natural ecosystems… [but] at the same time, leaders are riding a popular wave when they propose to intervene in the economy—the global ecosystem in which 8 billion people do business.”

As disillusionment with capitalism spreads due to slow growth, the temptation is to increase government interventions, which only worse the economic outcome.

Author:

Philip Cross

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Up Next

An exclusive interview with a Haitian immigrant from Charleroi, Pennsylvania

Don't Miss

In Charleroi, Pennsylvania, the local population grapples with a surge of Haitian migrants.

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Chainsaws and Scalpels: How Governments Choose

Energy / 2 hours ago

Ottawa’s proposed emission cap lacks any solid scientific or economic rationale

Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 3 hours ago

Hungarian Revolution of 1956: A Valiant Effort to Overthrow Communist Rule

Business

Chainsaws and Scalpels: How Governments Choose

Published on November 17, 2024

Todayville

David Clinton

Javier Milei in Argentina, Musk and Ramaswamy in the US.. What does DOGE in Canada look like?

Under their new(ish) president Javier Milei, Argentina cut deeply and painfully into their program spending to address a catastrophic economic crisis. And they seem to have enjoyed some early success. With Elon Musk now primed to play a similar role in the coming Trump administration in the U.S., the obvious question is: how might such an approach play out in Canada?

Sure. We’re not suffering from headaches on anything like the scale of Argentina’s – the debt we’ve run up so far isn’t in the same league as the long-term spending going on in South America. But ignoring the problems we do face can’t be an option. Given that the annual interest payments on our existing national debt are $11.7 billion (which equals seven percent of total expenditures), simply balancing the budget won’t be enough.

The underlying assumption powering the question is that we live in a world of constraints. There just isn’t enough money to buy everything we might want, so we need to both prioritize and become more efficient. It’s about figuring out what can no longer be justified – even if it does provide some value – and what’s just plain wasteful.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Audit

Some of this may seem obvious. After all, when there are First Nations reserves without clean water and millions of Canadians without access to primary care physicians, how can we justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars funding arts projects that virtually no one will ever discover, much less consume?

Apparently not everyone sees things that way. Large governments operate by reacting to political, social, and chaos-driven incentives. Sometimes those incentives lead to rational choices, and sometimes not. But mega-sized organizations tend to lack the self-awareness and capacity to easily change direction.

And some basic problems have no obvious solutions. As I’ve written, there’s a real possibility that all the money in the world won’t buy the doctors, nurses, and integrated systems we need. And “all the money in the world” is obviously not on the table. So the well-meaning bureaucrat might conclude that if you’re not going to completely solve the big problems, you might as well try to manage them while investing in other areas, too.

Still, I think it’s worth imagining how things might look if we could launch a comprehensive whole-of-government program review.

How Emergency Cuts Might Play Out

Imagine the federal government defaulted on its debt servicing payments and lost access to capital markets. That’s not such an unlikely scenario. There would suddenly be a lot less money available to spend, and some programs would have to be shut down. Protecting emergency and core services would require making fast – and smart – decisions.

We would need to take a long, hard look at this important enumeration of government expenditures. There probably wouldn’t be enough time to bridge the gap by looking for dozens of less-critical million-dollar programs. We would need to find some big-ticket items fast.

Our first step might be to pause or restructure larger ongoing payments, like projects funded through the Canada Infrastructure Bank (total annual budget: $3.45 billion). Private investors might pick up some of the slack, or some projects could simply go into hibernation. “Other interest costs” (total annual budget: $4.6 billion) could also be restructured.

Reducing equalization payments (total annual budget: $25.2 billion) and territorial financing (total budget: $5.2 billion) might also be necessary. This would, of course, spark parallel crises at lower levels of government. Similarly, grants to settle First Nations claims (total budget: $6 billion) managed by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada would also be at least temporarily cut.

All that would be deeply painful and trigger long-term negative consequences.

But there’s a far better approach that could be just as effective and a whole lot less painful:

What an All-of-Government Review Might Discover

Planning ahead would allow you the luxury of targeting spending that – in some cases at least – wouldn’t even be missed. Think about programs that were announced five, ten, even thirty years ago, perhaps to satisfy some passing fad or political need. They might even have made sense decades ago when they were created…but that was decades ago when they were created.

Here’s how that’ll work. When you read through the program and transfer spending items on that government expenditures page (and there are around 1,200 of those items), the descriptions all point to goals that seem reasonable enough. But there are some important questions that should be asked about each of them:

When did these programs begin?
What specific activities do they involve?
What have they accomplished over the past 12 months?
Is their effectiveness trending up or down?
Are they employing efficiency best-practices used in the private sector?
Who’s tasked with monitoring changes?
Where are their reports published?

To show you what I mean, here are some specific transfer or program line items and their descriptions:

Department of Employment and Social Development

Workforce Development Agreements ($722 million)
Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Transformation Initiative ($374 million)
Payments to provinces, territories, municipalities, other public bodies, organizations, groups, communities, employers and individuals for the provision of training and/or work experience, the mobilization of community resources, and human resource planning and adjustment measures necessary for the efficient functioning of the Canadian labour market ($856 million)

Department of Industry

Contributions under the Strategic Innovation Fund ($2.4 billion)

Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Settlement Program ($1.13 billion)

Department of Indigenous Services

Contributions to provide income support to on-reserve residents and Status Indians in the Yukon Territory ($1.05 billion). Note that, as of the 2021 Census, there were 9,150 individuals with North American Indigenous origins in Yukon. Assuming the line item is accurately described, that means the income support came to $114,987/person (not per household; per person).

Each one of those (and many, many others like them) could be case studies in operational efficiency and effectiveness. Or not. But there’s no way we could know that without serious research.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Audit

Share The Audit

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Audit, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Business

DOGE seeks ‘super high-IQ’ people willing to work 80 hours a week for free

Published on November 17, 2024

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

President-elect Donald Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency is seeking “super high-IQ” people to work more than 80 hours a week for free.

DOGE co-leader Elon Musk, who is the CEO of Tesla and is one of the richest people in the world, is working with entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to find top talent to cut wasteful spending, overburdensome regulations and re-structure federal agencies. Neither Musk or Ramaswamy will be paid for their work.

“We are very grateful to the thousands of Americans who have expressed interest in helping us at DOGE,” the new advisery group said in a social media post. “We don’t need more part-time idea generators. We need super high-IQ small-government revolutionaries willing to work 80+ hours per week on unglamorous cost-cutting.”

Candidates can send their resumes to the DOGE account on X.

“Elon & Vivek will review the top 1% of applicants,” according to the post.

In a separate post, Musk said the work will be challenging and won’t be paid.

“Indeed, this will be tedious work, make lots of enemies & compensation is zero,” Musk wrote.

The department’s acronym, DOGE, is a nod to Musk’s favorite cryptocurrency, dogecoin. Trump said the new group will pave the way for his administration to “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulation, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies.”

Trump laid out lofty goals for DOGE in his announcement this week.

“It will become, potentially, ‘The Manhatten Project,’ of our time,” Trump’s announcement said. “Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of ‘DOGE’ for a very long time.”

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the group welcomes DOGE to the challenge.

“Given our cumbersome bureaucracy and large fiscal imbalances, the effort is long overdue,” she said. “Regardless of political views, we should all want the federal government to spend scarce dollars wisely.”

MacGuineas said the outside group’s work could help restore trust in the government.

“An aggressive effort to reduce waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiencies could save billions or even trillions of dollars over a decade and could help improve the public’s faith in government,” she said.

MacGuineas urged DOGE to look at the full budget.

“Such an effort should look at all parts of the budget, especially in the areas of health care, national defense, and spending through the tax code, and it should look beyond just cutting fraud and reducing bureaucracy to also identify places where the taxpayer is not getting the best value for their dollar,” she said. “Federal health care spending, in particular, is rife with overpayments and inefficiencies that offer the opportunity to substantially lower costs without meaningfully reducing quality or access to care.”

Social Security and federal health care programs, specifically Medicare, deserve special attention, MacGuineas said.

Since fiscal year 2003, improper payment estimates by executive branch agencies have totaled about $2.7 trillion, including $236 billion for fiscal year 2023. Improper payments have declined in recent years, but remain a stubborn challenge for many federal agencies. Improper payments are payments that shouldn’t have been made or were made in the wrong amount.

Most of the improper payments come from five federal programs: Medicare, comprising three programs ($51 billion); Medicaid ($50 billion); the Department of Labor’s Unemployment Insurance – Federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance ($44 billion); the Department of the Treasury’s Earned Income Tax Credit ($22 billion); the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program Loan Forgiveness ($19 billion).

MacGuineas said DOGE should take a bipartisan outlook.

“Importantly, the process will need to be as bipartisan as possible in order to help with the deliverability and implementation of ideas,” she said. “The recommendations will need Congressional buy-in, further emphasizing the need for this to be an effort reaching across the aisle and leaving all options on the table to address our fiscal imbalances.”

Congress has run a deficit every year since 2001. In the past 50 years, the federal government has ended with a fiscal year-end budget surplus four times, most recently in 2001.

DOGE also plans to go after fraud at the federal level. The Government Accountability Office, which serves as the research arm of Congress, estimated fraud losses cost taxpayers between $233 billion and $521 billion annually, in a report in April. The fraud estimate’s range represents 3% to 7% of average federal obligations.