I forgot to address one other thing:
"The main difference of course is that while the left is generally expected to be economically illiterate, the right is supposed to know better. Their brand is economics, you might say."

Actually, there is no evidence what so ever that the right has any expertise on economics, beyond the fact that they like to think they do. As I've written elsewhere: "Milton Friedman got one thing right on inflation 30 years ago, and since then, every conservative, no matter how stupid, thinks they're an expert on economics."

Spouting things like "I know how to spend my money better than the government" and "the free market works and socialism sucks" doesn't make you an expert on economics, it just makes you a well loved caller on the Roy Green show.

I agree with some of what Andrew Potter wrote and I agree with some of thewhat the criticssaud. What makes the Fraser Study report somewhat valid is that there is an agreement on the left and the right that, at some point, the decreasing marginal benefit of higher government spending and the increasing marginal cost of increased taxes cross. Where there is disagreement, naturally, is over that point.

Those on the left argue that point is government spending of 40% of GDP while those on the right argue that it is around 20% of GDP (they used to argue 30%).

The reason for the disagreement naturally has to do over each side having different assumptions. To the right, taking money away from the 'productive' productive people in society and giving it to a person on welfare is seen as waste. To the left, taking money away from a person who was going to buy their 5th (foreign made) yacht and giving it to a person so that they can get back in the workforce is seen as very productive.

This debate is more of an American thing though as clearly even the Conservative Party here has made little headway in arguing for significant spending cuts. To be sure, the Republican Party in the United States made little headway there either, but they simply argued that 'deficits don't matter' (at least they didnt' matter before Obama became president) and passed major tax cuts that mostly benefited the wealthy while driving up the deficit at a rate of about $500 billion a year during mostly good economic times.

So, to that degree, I would simply have to ask "where has Andrew Potter been all these years?" This debate has been going on for over 30 years with many on the right arguing that all government spending is essentially 'wasteful'.

Old line Republicans like Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon and Eisenhower were the type of people who didn't believe in high taxes but believed in government spending in what is known as 'non excludable' goods. They believed that government had a role and didn't agree with the notion expressed by one person here that government spending can't increase productivity. Government spending in research, roads and education certainly does increase productivity.

However, that faction of the party got defeated in 1980 and they were taken over by a person who didnt' believe in much government spending beyond the military. Even in the supposedly 'anti government and anti tax' U.S we've seen that that party has fallen off a cliff pretty much reduced to being a regional party and even supposedly intelligent Republicans like the governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, think that government spending on non excludable goods like 'something called volcano monitoring' is a waste.

BTW, Niels Veldhuis, the author of the Fraser Institute study, was my first year micro economics instructor. I agree the study is of somewhat dubious value, but he is definitely well read on economics on all sides and he was probably the most creative instructor I've ever had. Such a shame he's a right wing loon! :D