Once public funds flow into any sector, cutting budgets becomes nearly impossible. Every proposal to reduce allocations triggers the same predictable response: "critical services will collapse, people will suffer."
This creates a one-directional ratchet—spending only goes up. The politically costlier option is always to maintain or expand.
Why does this matter for markets? Because the same logic applies to monetary policy and regulatory frameworks. Once stimulus measures or subsidy programs are embedded, reversing them triggers market panic and institutional resistance.
It's less about ideology, more about how incentive structures work—and why inflation, asset bubbles, and perpetual deficit spending become structural features rather than temporary fixes.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
11 Likes
Reward
11
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
AirdropHermit
· 12h ago
Really, once the government spends money, it can never get it back... The same logic applies to the crypto market. When QE stops, the market crashes again and again endlessly.
View OriginalReply0
TokenDustCollector
· 13h ago
That's really sharp. That's why the crypto world is always full of inflation expectations. Once QE stops, the market starts to scream.
View OriginalReply0
ChainWanderingPoet
· 13h ago
That's why I say once the central bank starts easing, there's no turning back; we are all trapped by this system.
View OriginalReply0
PaperHandsCriminal
· 13h ago
Once the money starts burning, no one is willing to turn off the faucet... Basically, it's a vicious cycle; everyone wants to be the last one to take over, but no one wants to be the scapegoat.
View OriginalReply0
GweiWatcher
· 14h ago
This is a typical case of path dependence; once the crack is opened, it cannot be contained...
How government spending locks in permanently:
Once public funds flow into any sector, cutting budgets becomes nearly impossible. Every proposal to reduce allocations triggers the same predictable response: "critical services will collapse, people will suffer."
This creates a one-directional ratchet—spending only goes up. The politically costlier option is always to maintain or expand.
Why does this matter for markets? Because the same logic applies to monetary policy and regulatory frameworks. Once stimulus measures or subsidy programs are embedded, reversing them triggers market panic and institutional resistance.
It's less about ideology, more about how incentive structures work—and why inflation, asset bubbles, and perpetual deficit spending become structural features rather than temporary fixes.