Capitalism and socialism are opposite ends on a spectrum. You cannot have both of them at the same time -- and the more that you have of one of them, the less you will have of the other. Moving from one point on the spectrum to another, especially if the other point is far away from the first, will not have no effect on economic factors, but instead, will have a definite effect on economic factors. Five of these factors are [T]axation, [R]egulation, [I]nflation, [B]orrowing, and [S]pending -- the sum of which can be referred to with the acronym: TRIBS.
Taxation (T)
A good measure of "T" would be either aggregate tax or aggregate tax as a proportion of GDP. A better measure would be aggregate tax as a proportion of private sector GDP. To get private sector GDP, take the total GDP and subtract all public spending.
Regulation (R)
A good measure of "R" would be the number of pages in the Federal Register, though better measures -- encompassing more than the Federal Register -- surely exist.
Inflation (I)
A good measure of "I" would be the M3 Money Supply (though I'm not sure that this variable is available to the public anymore) in relation to the private sector GDP. A substitute measure would be the combination of the Producer Price Index with the Consumer Price Index.
Borrowing (B)
A good measure of "B" would not be the current annual deficit (a factor which can be 'hidden' or 'masked' easily by accountants, such as it was during the Clinton years**) but instead it would be the sum of intragovernmental debt plus the debt held by the public. This number cannot be hidden or masked to the extent that the deficit can. This is the number cited (currently about $17 trillion) when we have to raise the debt ceiling.
Spending (S)
A good measure of "S" would be simply a combination of T and I and B, if all 3 factors increase in any given year (as long as GDP has not decreased in that year), then spending has increased, too. This makes S sort of a redundant variable, not terribly useful except for the communication of the economic science (it is easier to conceptualize "spending" changes over time than it is to mentally conjoin taxation with inflation with borrowing, and to track the triad as a unit over time). An interesting offshoot from the above is that the TRIBS acronym could, in theory, be shortened to RS -- because S already encompasses T and I and B -- but I don't think that that would help in communicating an understanding of the various factors in play. In other words, it may be better to leave T and I and B un-integrated.
**The Clinton administration claimed some annual surpluses, corresponding to some reductions in debt, but the total national debt (intragovernment plus debt held by the public) -- what I refer to above as "B" -- increased every year during both of his terms. It makes no sense to claim you are paying off debt while your total debt is increasing. In order to be successfully paying off debt, your total debt has to be decreasing. In other words, if your left hand pays off $5 of debt while your right hand is borrowing $10, then you are not paying off debt but, instead, taking on more of it.
|
