News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why We Can't Build by gnusty_gnurc on Thursday April 23, 2020 @02:53PM (#22959615)
The simplest measure of the size of federal government is the budget. Spending has grown wonderfully since 1980, so frankly if their objective is to “shrink government” they’ve done a horrible job.
Re:Why We Can't Build by PaulDavisThe1st on Thursday April 23, 2020 @02:57PM (#22959663)
Actually, as a percentage of GDP, it hasn't grown much at all in that time period. Or let me state that differently, it didn't grow much because it actually shrank

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spendi...

EDIT: misread chart, made false claim above. 1980 was a few percentage points of GDP below 2019 spending. Sorry for the false claim.

Re:Why We Can't Build by simonsarris on Thursday April 23, 2020 @03:07PM (#22959792)
Percentage of GDP seems like a really awkward measure. Government takes dollars to run and budget makes for a good approximation of size. With GDP, imagine someone invented an amazing technology that 10x'd the GDP of a country. Would you expect the gov budget to 10x in line? That would seem like a terrible capture of resources.

(imagine say, the internet, etc)

Re:Why We Can't Build by Nasrudith on Thursday April 23, 2020 @04:25PM (#22960838)
It still measures effective ROI - and traditionally growth in GDP is accompanied by growing needs. It is true that it is fuzzy - different needs scale differently as well. A 10x GDP rise would almost certainly cause an explosion in demand for other services as well with or without the influx caused by the growtg.
Re:Why We Can't Build by michaelkeenan on Thursday April 23, 2020 @03:12PM (#22959878)
That chart shows government spending at about 35.8% of GDP in 1980, and 37.8% now.
Re:Why We Can't Build by PaulDavisThe1st on Thursday April 23, 2020 @04:51PM (#22961216)
Indeed. I totally misread the chart. Edited my post to reflect the error.

In my defense, I think it still shows something quite different from what the OP was claiming. But I was even more clearly wrong.