Crowding-out reasoning was already a British Treasury tool by 1920

Evidence

To sell their recipes, the austerity advocates leaned heavily on a “crowding out” argument— a battle horse of the British Treasury— that the British delegates shared during the conference discussions: “Since there is not enough capital to go round, which is to have it— governments or private industry? … Th e more capital is absorbed by Governments, the less is available for private industry… . Which is likely to use capital more productively, Governments or private industry? Th e answer is in favor of private industry” (ibid., 17). — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order, 787

Categorization

• XREF: Shows the crowd-out argument — still central to modern austerity debates over deficit spending — dates to the interwar British Treasury, not recent neoclassical economics. — connects to: The British Treasury embraced countercyclical public works only under strict debt concerns — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous…, 338; British austerity predated its codification at the 1920 Brussels and Genoa conferences — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order: How Economists…, 823; The antiwaste campaign against public spending anchored austerity at the British Treasury — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order: How Economists…, 327
• QUESTION: Worth tracing how the crowding-out argument migrated from the 1920s Treasury into the post-2008 austerity playbook.

Broader Connections

• The antiwaste campaign against public spending anchored austerity at the British Treasury #expands (0.85) — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order, 327
• British austerity predated its codification at the 1920 Brussels and Genoa conferences #corroborates (0.80) — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order, 823