The UK, as with most countries around the world, is limiting spending to try and reduce its national deficit. For many years the government spent more than it took in through taxation, and so the country ended up in a lot of debt. In an attempt to limit how much we need to spend, the Chancellor is imposing cuts so that the deficit is reduced.
Americans had less money and went into the recession because FDR had cut back on government spending. Many of the biggest cuts targeted programs such as the WPA, which had proved jobs to many workers. At the same time, FDR had increased taxes.
Generally the government is very good at wasting money and resources so less spending, generally speaking, by the government helps the economy as those resources are allocated in more efficient areas of the economy. More on this topic: This is a topic taught in all basic and advanced economic classes. It comes from John Maynard Keynes, the British economist. He created Macro economic theory we have today. Basically pump priming by the government can help stimulate the economy. Pump priming is governmental deficit spending. That concept has been the basics of all stimulus spending ideas. It can come from tax refunds or direct expenditures by the government, but in either case it is borrowing that does it. Milton Freedman, the champion of the Monetarists School of Economics, basically proved that it was monetary theory, changes in the money supply, that was the only way to affect the economy. Pump priming was false. They used Keynesian theory to prove this. So it really has to do with which school of economic theory you believe in to answer this. If it is Keynesian, then yes it will cause an affect, if Monetarist, then no it won't. You choose Most economic models (emphasis on models, not necessarily the real world) suggest that less government spending will lower GDP (because Gov't spending is a component of GDP) and be deflationary (cause deflation) in the short run. In the real world there are many many arguments made to every possible effect that changes in government spending have on the economy. There are many factors such as what kind of government spending is cut (defense? health care? entitlements? federal jobs?), if it is planned (versus sudden), and how large the cuts are.
There are many economists who have argued this, but the most major one is arguably John Maynard Keynes.
For most OPEC nations, oil is their only or by far most valuable export. In order to cut off oil exports, they would have to endure large domestic spending cuts, which many are not willing to do.
The primary thing that caused federal spending in the United States to increase from 1928 through 1939 was a desire to get out of the Great Depression. Because many Americans had lost all their money, it was imperative that the government help restore the economy.
They increased defense spending and lowered taxes.
Cutting government spending to avoid going into debt
Americans had less money and went into the recession because FDR had cut back on government spending. Many of the biggest cuts targeted programs such as the WPA, which had proved jobs to many workers. At the same time, FDR had increased taxes.
To many government-run programs; to much spending!
The 2012 Irish budget introduced many tax increases and spending cuts due to the dire economic conditions in Ireland. Tax increases included vehicle and gas taxes, while giving businesses tax breaks to attempt to stimulate the economy. Spending cuts affected health care and education.
President Reagan was generally opposed to the expansion of social programs, advocating instead for reduced government spending and a more market-oriented approach. His administration focused on tax cuts and deregulation, arguing that these measures would stimulate economic growth and ultimately benefit all Americans. While some programs were maintained, many social welfare initiatives faced cuts or restructuring during his presidency. Overall, Reagan’s policies reflected a belief in limited government intervention in the economy.
Generally the government is very good at wasting money and resources so less spending, generally speaking, by the government helps the economy as those resources are allocated in more efficient areas of the economy. More on this topic: This is a topic taught in all basic and advanced economic classes. It comes from John Maynard Keynes, the British economist. He created Macro economic theory we have today. Basically pump priming by the government can help stimulate the economy. Pump priming is governmental deficit spending. That concept has been the basics of all stimulus spending ideas. It can come from tax refunds or direct expenditures by the government, but in either case it is borrowing that does it. Milton Freedman, the champion of the Monetarists School of Economics, basically proved that it was monetary theory, changes in the money supply, that was the only way to affect the economy. Pump priming was false. They used Keynesian theory to prove this. So it really has to do with which school of economic theory you believe in to answer this. If it is Keynesian, then yes it will cause an affect, if Monetarist, then no it won't. You choose Most economic models (emphasis on models, not necessarily the real world) suggest that less government spending will lower GDP (because Gov't spending is a component of GDP) and be deflationary (cause deflation) in the short run. In the real world there are many many arguments made to every possible effect that changes in government spending have on the economy. There are many factors such as what kind of government spending is cut (defense? health care? entitlements? federal jobs?), if it is planned (versus sudden), and how large the cuts are.
appropreations, earmarks and also there are so many you need to specifi the area of gov. you are talking about
As many as the politicians will let it ! I find it intersting that the budget deficit is a the difference between Government spending versus Government Income.... Don't you actually have to earn income?
In government there are many needs and whose need is greater is sometimes hard to determine. Government also preset spending they have to meet and laws that determine how those are met.
During the 1920s, the federal government significantly reduced income tax rates, particularly for the wealthy, as part of a broader economic policy aimed at stimulating growth. The Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926 progressively lowered tax rates and eliminated many wartime taxes. These tax cuts were intended to encourage investment and consumer spending, reflecting the era's pro-business sentiment. As a result, the federal government's reliance on income tax revenue decreased during this period.
i myself, as a citizen, can tell you that the government SAID many policies but, as your question is 'what is hong kong doing', the answer is 'nothing'.