Understanding the US by Numbers: A Small Government
Published December 12, 2006
Country
GDP (2005 est.)
Budgetary Expenditure (2005 est.)
Proportion of budget/GDP
India
$720 billion
$135 billion
.1875
Pakistan
$89.55 billion
$20.07 billion
.223
Indonesia
$270 billion
$57.7 billion
.213
Brazil
$619.7 billion
$172.4 billion
.278
China
$2.225 trillion
$424.3 billion
.190
Chile
$115.6 billion
$24.75 billion
.214
Petro-economies
Iran
$181.2 billion
$60.4 billion
.333
Saudi Arabia
$264 billion
$89.65
.339
Venezuela
$106.1 billion
$41.27 billion
.388
Nigeria
$77.33 billion
$13.54 billion
.175
* All figures are from the CIA World Fact Book
Another way to look at these figures is to compare government spending to per capita income.
There are 300 million people in US anabout 200 million of whom are of voting age. That means that on an average a US voter decides on the disposition of $11,500 budgetary dollars in each federal election.
The relative significance of the figure compared to median per person income ($34,500 – 2005 figures) – is 33.3% [p.s. generally US quotes median household income which is around $41,000 or GDP/per person which is also around $43,000]
For comparison, the GDP of India is $720 billion, Budget is $135 billion and with 1 billion people and over 600 million eligible voters, an average voter in India gets to decide on $225. Relative significance of amount to a person – 35%
Given that US state budgets are more significant that Indian state budgets, the average American voter decides on a much more significant sum of money per election cycle.
- Understanding the US by Numbers: A Small Government
- Published: December 12, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Government, Politics: International, Politics: U.S.
- Writer: Spincycle
- Spincycle's BC Writer page
- Spincycle's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
I don't see Europe as something to aspire to.
Great empires become bloated not by time, but by regulation. The Roman Empire became top-heavy and lost its innovation. It was a couple of centuries before its neighbors noticed, but when they did, Rome fell. Chinese dynasties built themselves up and eventually crumbled internally. When Spain and Portugal got lazy, England made its move.
Today, we've got the Western World in contention with Islam. Why? Because Europe is showing weakness. They're unproductive and rely on their governments. No suprise that Asia smells blood in the water. Islam is right; they can mop the floor with Europe. But they made the mistake of taking on both Europe and the US. There's still a lot of prosperity and growth potential in the US. America will defy the rest of the world - I think - and Islam won't get much more than Paris and Brussels.
If I read this article correctly, the implication is that we shouldn't be afraid to embrace a European-style bureaucracy. Development is, after all, the process of becoming less like Indonesia and more like Europe. I believe that such thinking would be catastrophic.
So we are spending less as measured as a percentage of GDP AND we (as individuals) have more control of the budget through our vote than citizens of other nations?
Come April 15, I will try to remember that...
Baronius,
I agree with your point about Europe. I DO think we can learn from European mistakes, but we shouldn't emulate them. I don't see much over there to emulate these days.
This information will make tax day a bit less painful. But given how painful it is and how much more our government spends than it needs to, this article makes me truly horrified at the conditions of oppression which most of the rest of the world lives under.
Dave
Very interesting article. I'd be interested in seeing this broken down further to see if the disparity can be shown tied to a particular area, e.g. Defence, welfare, infrastructure, etc. or if it's equal across the board.
Europe is a terrorist country!!!
i agree with Courtney!!
This is a good example of falsified propaganda. A part of budget is compared to a whole budget of other counties.
For the USA, a small part of budget (federal part, practically not used for US life but for other purposes) was used. A multiplier of ~ 2.5 will appear if state budgets (they pay for the US needs) will be added. And the whole budget, with counties and citied will go to 55 to 70% of GDP.
Why do not take a federal budget of some another federal country, like "high budget" Sweden and find out, how much higher in reality the USA federal budget?





As a Canadian I am pleasantly surprised to note that our ratio is the lowest of all cited here. I would be curious to hear what might be said by our right leaning critics of "big government" in Canada. It seems to me that the criticism is unfounded judging by the numbers.