You can believe the government is efficient if you like. The fact remains that there's been massive growth in government, and that is going to be paid for out of the economy.
Maybe I've just spent too many years in government contracting, but when I hear that a government program is growing, I hear economic stimulus, not pulling something out of the economy.
China's GDP growth consistently out-paces the US. Canada continues to do well. Germany has consistently positive GDP growth with a few exceptions related to international downturns. And, of course, if you're talking about countries that use economic stimulus, you'll have to include the United States, which has the largest GDP in the world. I think your claim requires a tighter definition of "economy" and "do poorly" to hold merit.
Everybody is doing more poorly than growth estimates, but (a) COVID just happened and (b) everyone always does worse than growth estimates; growth estimates are the rewarded metric and therefore incentives are high to over-estimate it in extrapolation as another form of incentive (i.e. aim higher than you want to hit).
Regardless of personal beliefs, there's the other issues here. First, what does "massive growth in government" even mean? Do you mean in government meddling in people's personal lives, like restricting bodily autonomy for women or banning books? Yes, I agree. Do you mean in government spending? Sure, agreed, the numbers agree. But you seems to be referring to some other kinda vaguely defined concept of like... government bureaucratic-ness? I'm not really sure what you mean and how to measure what you mean.
The second issue is your overall thesis seems to be "the government is inefficient," which is fine to say and to criticize, it certainly is inefficient by many measures, but I feel like you're hinting at some kind of alternative that I can't possibly guess at. Usually these discussions take two routes: the capitalist one, wherein you argue that private industry is more efficient, which even if we accept that efficiency is the only valid measure of how we should choose to do things (amazon builds road faster and cheaper than government: then puts a toll on it so only the rich are allowed to use it. this is bad), is probably not true[0] or possibly the opposite of the truth. Maybe you're more anarchist in your leanings, in which case you're arguing for more distributed and local management of these kinds of services? That could be a really interesting conversation, is that what you're suggesting?
yes, government spending increases, always. I'd need to be convinced this is inherently bad lol
2. the amount of interference in the workings of the marketplace, usually called "unfunded mandates" where they put burdens on businesses
What about subsidies, when businesses only exist because of government intervention at all? What about Harley Davidson? The banking sector?
> A much more limited government.
How limited? Is it allowed to prevent monopoly? You seem to know enough about the subject to know that making the state too limited will merely lead to the establishment of state power by monopolistic corporations instead, from plenty of historical examples.
Caltech basically ran on government money so you can thank them for your entire undergraduate education (yes I know you paid tuition but it was no doubt minimal)
