As long as he believes that some government action could lead to an increase in productivity and economic growth then there is some scope for agreement. After all, we’re not trying to define a normative case for government action, we just want to find situations where there is a positive case for government action. These are cases where theory points out the government would be useful. We have never defined whether a larger or smaller government then the current one would be better, as we are not trying to be ‘prescriptive’ in a sense. We are mearly stating occasions where government intervention has scope to work.

I feel that Roger Kerr didn’t say he wanted the government to burn and die, and since he didn’t say that government could not positively influence economic growth, then he believes there is some role for government.

Consensus building is what it’s all about my friend 😉

P.S. If we were to write something normative, then we could write about the privitisation of health and education if that is what we believed. All that we would be required to do to stay within the context of this blog is to state areas where the government should get/stay involved e.g. private/public partnerships for roads is one example that I think most economists would agree on.

The way I read his article, he seems to be saying that the best government policy is no (or minimal) government policy. He sounds more like a libertarian than an anarchist, so it’s not surprising that he thinks that the role of government is very important to the welfare of a country. To him though, the best government is one that is rarely seen, or heard from. Minimal welfare, removal of labour market protections, removal of trade barriers, privatised health and education; these aren’t the sort of things that we’re used to seeing on this blog.