If one is concerned about the actual definitions of words then the EU was correct. Dehydration is the act of losing water. Dehydration is always occurring even when one is drinking water. Water is constantly being lost from breathing, sweating, and basic metabolism. The problem was that what was submitted by industry was badly worded.
The statement that was disqualified ““regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” is no different than a gas station advertising that “regular gas fill ups reduce vehicle gas consumption”. To a scientist it doesn’t make sense.
If the water bottling companies had advertised ““regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of dizziness and physiological stress caused by the lack of water” there would have been no problem.
Where is that happening? Apparently in the EU in general and in the UK.
But not in the USA.
GDP $23 trillion, Fed spending $4 trillion (17% of GDP)
Or Somalia:
GDP $7.6 billion, govt spending $760 million. (0.1% of GDP)
Of course, I’m compelled to point out that the government spending in the EU includes healthcare for their population, while that’s not true of the USA number above. So there’s a bit of a difference there.
Still, on the basis of the cost of government as a percentage of GDP, Somalia is looking pretty darn good! Quite the bargain.
Depends what the people want the govt to supply in terms of services. Which you have not identified as appropriate for the govt to provide using taxes.
I think we were discussing “government”, not one segment of government. This is USA. Not including the medical coverage that is included in government of most other advanced countries. Effectively pretty much 50% or very close to it. The question is how high can it go before it becomes unstable and can’t continue?
The solution is economies of scale in manufacturing creating deflationary pressures while dramatically increasing tax receipts and the standard of living.
Let’s not forget a major point here. Government spending does not consume GDP. Most government spending is a part of GDP.
When the government pays it’s employees, that’s in GDP. When the government buys paper clips and hammers and guns, that’s part of GDP.
Getting back to definitions, GDP includes the following:
consumption by households
investment by businesses
government spending on goods and services
net exports
I’ll also stand by my previous numbers. Approximately. This time I dug up the US Federal budget for 2023 (ending 9/30/23). That calls for about 5.7 trillion in spending - INCLUDING Social Security and Medicare. That’s somewhat more than the figure I found previously. Could have been a prior year, could be missing something (maybe Soc Sec and Medicare??). I dunno. But the Fed government - which is the only government we ALL can participate in - is about that 17% of GDP I noted above.
Of course, if you want to include state and local government spending, you can. There’s a lot of spending there, too. But as a California resident, I have no say in the spending by Illinois or Arkansas or North Dakota. Nor should I.
But I think it’s important to clarify that these spending figures include both the central government as well as more local governments. And it’s worth pointing out that at least in the US the spending is split pretty close to 50/50 between the Feds and the state/local spending. Combining them all up and then railing at that large figure can lead to distortions in thinking.
