3 ms·

I would say there are two problems here that are different: intervention as it stands can regulate in favor of a few groups of people. More intervention can eas

I would say there are two problems here that are different: intervention as it stands can regulate in favor of a few groups of people. More intervention can easily lead to more corruption. As for austerity: reasonable people do not spend beyond what they have and if they do they do it in reasonable ways: things with an expected return on investment and with limited, calculated risk. Yet what I see is increasing intervention and out of control debt. Starting from these two premises... I do not think austerity is antidemocratic in itself. What I see is that a high degree of intervention ends up doing a cost transfer to normal people. But that would be a problem of hyperregulation, not from austerity itself IMHO. After all, I would say the correct philosophy is to spend what you have and measure the risk every time you go beyond that. Sometimes you have less, sometimes you have more, but I would not advice any person, business or state to go out of control about this. However, a state incentive is different from the former two, since they continuosly transfer costs by the force of law to unrelated people. Namely, I do and you pay, be it by friends regulation or by direct expenses and taxes increases.

throwawayqqq11 3y ago
I think you are very wrong. You are mixing regulation, intervention and austerity, which is so broad, it cannot provide a distinct explanation for the declining public services, which enforcing regulations is a part of, btw. Budget cuts set a hard upper bound on the reach of public institutions. Nothing else you mentioned achieves this.
- germandiago 3y ago
  Regulation and intervention is what defacto can loot us. It is harmful that someone comes and says: we are going to get 65% of what you earn and put more public workers and invest in two business from my friend. Regulation is what allows your friend have free competition if conveniently tweaked... austerity is not democratic? It is democratic looting or chosen by a few only? All these topics are closely related if you think of it a bit beyond the surface. In my experience, talking about Spain, I am not sure where that upper bound of expenses you talk about is. In EU according to the rules debt should not be over 60% of GDP. Spain is over 110% and after covid they did not cut back to the normal expenses...Every spanish owes over 30.000 euros in debt... I mean each of them, all ages. Any reasonable person could tell you that here health system and public education are degrading at the same time the taxes go up steadily.
  - throwawayqqq11 3y ago
    > Taking 65% of your earnings. Now, you are mixing in un-/fair taxation. This is the income side, austerity is primarily about spending. > It is democratic looting or chosen by a few only? If those few were the only ones elected, then by definition, yes it is democratic. Now you are mixing in democratic participation and political corruption. > 110% spains debt, not sure where the fiscal upper bound is. According to your name, you are a german guy: Haushaltsdebatte, Schuldenbremse. Large tasks cost money and without such you cant do anything. Germany is essentially using legal tricks to circumvent their austerity nonsense, like propably spain and many others did, decades before. Do i really have to be more specific about that hard upper bound? > public services degrade while taxes go up. You are supporting my point here. With the right spending this degradation wouldnt happen. And to let me mix in something: Taxes go up for who exactly? Workers or owners? > All these topics are closely related if you think of it a bit beyond the surface. But they are non the less different problems. I think you are not just wrong, you are confused. Austerity imo is ultimately about sabotaging the ability of public institutions, thus shifting power from the public to the private sector and this is the part, that makes it undemocratic. "Let large private corporations fix climate change by building megalomanic nuclear power plants (which i suppose you are a fan of too) and then let the public handle the staggering cost of the nuclear waster by taxing more off the ones who resist less, the poor and somehow (???) uneducated."
moomin 3y ago
I mean “responsible spending” is just a right wing talking point that is only deployed on things they don’t like. Governments, like companies and individuals, can and should take on debt in appropriate circumstances. The shocking thing with austerity, as the IMF has underlined, is that it shrinks the economy so much your tax revenues fall by more than you “save”.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  Left wing parties have various labels for people/things they don't like too, it doesn't mean either side is wholly incorrect though, especially when whatever it is becomes a real problem, like borrowing flagrantly based on the assumption there'd be no wars, extremely low interest rates, and stable employment. Whoever in that case said something like "forgive me if I'm not concerned about finances" might look a bit silly later, while the right wingers banging on about the budget might look silly if they cut funding to scientific research in times of prosperity, but didn't cut oil subsidies, and then wind up with climate problems.
- hgomersall 3y ago
  Governments have to take on debt for there to be a net money supply. There's no two ways about it. The right wing certainly wouldn't want all their savings to disappear to pay off the "national debt". Moreover, government spending pays for itself - from each transaction a proportion comes back in tax. It can be considered as a geometric series that tends to zero.
- germandiago 3y ago
  For me it is not really that. The logic that starts from the small applies to the big. In other shapes and with different scale limitations, but at the end if you spend more than what you have increasingly accumulating debt things get bad. It can take 5 or 50 years. At that time services stop working. I also refuse the idea that everyone can permanently get more than what they produce. If you give someone some push it should be for them to be able to become autonomous, not for living from other people permanently.
  - 3y ago
criddell 3y ago
> reasonable people do not spend beyond what they have and if they do they do it in reasonable ways That’s true, but debt held by a country isn’t really the same thing as household debt.
- germandiago 3y ago
  Not in the sense that the debt can be pushed further for something an individual could not do for a more long-term return. But at the end, you have to measure gow much you are risking. I would say it is the same, just the scale is different and allows states push for policies probably not at the reach of normal people. But even those should be managed with care, because what someone should be looking for long-term is sustainable services. Meaning that debt cannot be infinite. At the time your creditors do not believe you... you have a problem. Just look at Argentina in the last 20 or 30 years for an example. What is particularly evil is the fact that people who take our money have basically no responsibility on the results and can take it from us through laws but they benefit from those in other ways.
vladms 3y ago
I have doubts about the idea "spend what you have". It is framing wrongly the problem. Money are not something "you have". Money are "a promise" to get something "in the future". Evaluating how much that promise "will be worth it" is complex. To give an example "at the limit" - sometimes easier to see the issues. Assume all people in the world die except 2 people, if they inherit all the wealth, each will be multi-billionaires (or something - no clue how much money is in the whole world). That would not mean they could do a lot with that "money". Back to austerity. I agree with you that the key is "spending in reasonable ways". But to understand what is reasonable you must make a projection. And that is the hard part. A projection will probably affect the result. Of course you are correct you can't just say we will spend 10x more because we will have 10x more, so there are limits...
- roenxi 3y ago
  > I have doubts about the idea "spend what you have". It is framing wrongly the problem. Money are not something "you have". Money are "a promise" to get something "in the future". Around the time they switched to that frame, wages decoupled from productivity and what I might call working-class power started to get crushed. It is, and I say this at my most sarcastic, a miracle of modern economics that once we stop trying to measure how much we have in consistent units suddenly resources stop being a problem and big borrowers can just take what they need. Although what I actually think is someone is getting ripped off really badly; I'm just not sure who. Hopefully retirees since I'm not one of them yet.
- squillion 3y ago
  > Assume all people in the world die except 2 people... That's a great argument I had never heard before, thanks! The way I see it is that any given economy has an amount of real resources (labor, raw materials, know-how...) that are often under-utilized. In such cases targeted government spending can mobilize those resources in a way that increases output without creating the bottlenecks that cause inflation.
secretsatan 3y ago
> As for austerity: reasonable people do not spend beyond what they have and if they do they do it in reasonable ways: things with an expected return on investment and with limited, calculated risk. It seems to me that this is becoming harder and harder, and consumer debt is pushed harder and harder, people are forced to take on more debt as costs of living increase. No matter how reasonable you are, you need a place to live and food to eat.
- germandiago 3y ago
  I would really like most of you see how people live in other countries so that you can compare how lucky places like USA or Western Europe are. I lived in Vietnam for almost 12 years. Luckily as an expat. Most people in the world live like people in Vietnam, not like people in USA or Spain. I do not mean we should live in worse conditions. I mean: look at it with perspective because we are a privileged minority.

throwawayqqq11 3y ago

I think you are very wrong. You are mixing regulation, intervention and austerity, which is so broad, it cannot provide a distinct explanation for the declining public services, which enforcing regulations is a part of, btw. Budget cuts set a hard upper bound on the reach of public institutions. Nothing else you mentioned achieves this.

germandiago 3y ago
Regulation and intervention is what defacto can loot us. It is harmful that someone comes and says: we are going to get 65% of what you earn and put more public workers and invest in two business from my friend. Regulation is what allows your friend have free competition if conveniently tweaked... austerity is not democratic? It is democratic looting or chosen by a few only? All these topics are closely related if you think of it a bit beyond the surface. In my experience, talking about Spain, I am not sure where that upper bound of expenses you talk about is. In EU according to the rules debt should not be over 60% of GDP. Spain is over 110% and after covid they did not cut back to the normal expenses...Every spanish owes over 30.000 euros in debt... I mean each of them, all ages. Any reasonable person could tell you that here health system and public education are degrading at the same time the taxes go up steadily.
- throwawayqqq11 3y ago
  > Taking 65% of your earnings. Now, you are mixing in un-/fair taxation. This is the income side, austerity is primarily about spending. > It is democratic looting or chosen by a few only? If those few were the only ones elected, then by definition, yes it is democratic. Now you are mixing in democratic participation and political corruption. > 110% spains debt, not sure where the fiscal upper bound is. According to your name, you are a german guy: Haushaltsdebatte, Schuldenbremse. Large tasks cost money and without such you cant do anything. Germany is essentially using legal tricks to circumvent their austerity nonsense, like propably spain and many others did, decades before. Do i really have to be more specific about that hard upper bound? > public services degrade while taxes go up. You are supporting my point here. With the right spending this degradation wouldnt happen. And to let me mix in something: Taxes go up for who exactly? Workers or owners? > All these topics are closely related if you think of it a bit beyond the surface. But they are non the less different problems. I think you are not just wrong, you are confused. Austerity imo is ultimately about sabotaging the ability of public institutions, thus shifting power from the public to the private sector and this is the part, that makes it undemocratic. "Let large private corporations fix climate change by building megalomanic nuclear power plants (which i suppose you are a fan of too) and then let the public handle the staggering cost of the nuclear waster by taxing more off the ones who resist less, the poor and somehow (???) uneducated."

moomin 3y ago

I mean “responsible spending” is just a right wing talking point that is only deployed on things they don’t like. Governments, like companies and individuals, can and should take on debt in appropriate circumstances. The shocking thing with austerity, as the IMF has underlined, is that it shrinks the economy so much your tax revenues fall by more than you “save”.

brailsafe 3y ago
Left wing parties have various labels for people/things they don't like too, it doesn't mean either side is wholly incorrect though, especially when whatever it is becomes a real problem, like borrowing flagrantly based on the assumption there'd be no wars, extremely low interest rates, and stable employment. Whoever in that case said something like "forgive me if I'm not concerned about finances" might look a bit silly later, while the right wingers banging on about the budget might look silly if they cut funding to scientific research in times of prosperity, but didn't cut oil subsidies, and then wind up with climate problems.
hgomersall 3y ago
Governments have to take on debt for there to be a net money supply. There's no two ways about it. The right wing certainly wouldn't want all their savings to disappear to pay off the "national debt". Moreover, government spending pays for itself - from each transaction a proportion comes back in tax. It can be considered as a geometric series that tends to zero.
germandiago 3y ago
For me it is not really that. The logic that starts from the small applies to the big. In other shapes and with different scale limitations, but at the end if you spend more than what you have increasingly accumulating debt things get bad. It can take 5 or 50 years. At that time services stop working. I also refuse the idea that everyone can permanently get more than what they produce. If you give someone some push it should be for them to be able to become autonomous, not for living from other people permanently.
- 3y ago

criddell 3y ago

> reasonable people do not spend beyond what they have and if they do they do it in reasonable ways That’s true, but debt held by a country isn’t really the same thing as household debt.

germandiago 3y ago
Not in the sense that the debt can be pushed further for something an individual could not do for a more long-term return. But at the end, you have to measure gow much you are risking. I would say it is the same, just the scale is different and allows states push for policies probably not at the reach of normal people. But even those should be managed with care, because what someone should be looking for long-term is sustainable services. Meaning that debt cannot be infinite. At the time your creditors do not believe you... you have a problem. Just look at Argentina in the last 20 or 30 years for an example. What is particularly evil is the fact that people who take our money have basically no responsibility on the results and can take it from us through laws but they benefit from those in other ways.

vladms 3y ago

I have doubts about the idea "spend what you have". It is framing wrongly the problem. Money are not something "you have". Money are "a promise" to get something "in the future". Evaluating how much that promise "will be worth it" is complex. To give an example "at the limit" - sometimes easier to see the issues. Assume all people in the world die except 2 people, if they inherit all the wealth, each will be multi-billionaires (or something - no clue how much money is in the whole world). That would not mean they could do a lot with that "money". Back to austerity. I agree with you that the key is "spending in reasonable ways". But to understand what is reasonable you must make a projection. And that is the hard part. A projection will probably affect the result. Of course you are correct you can't just say we will spend 10x more because we will have 10x more, so there are limits...

roenxi 3y ago
> I have doubts about the idea "spend what you have". It is framing wrongly the problem. Money are not something "you have". Money are "a promise" to get something "in the future". Around the time they switched to that frame, wages decoupled from productivity and what I might call working-class power started to get crushed. It is, and I say this at my most sarcastic, a miracle of modern economics that once we stop trying to measure how much we have in consistent units suddenly resources stop being a problem and big borrowers can just take what they need. Although what I actually think is someone is getting ripped off really badly; I'm just not sure who. Hopefully retirees since I'm not one of them yet.
squillion 3y ago
> Assume all people in the world die except 2 people... That's a great argument I had never heard before, thanks! The way I see it is that any given economy has an amount of real resources (labor, raw materials, know-how...) that are often under-utilized. In such cases targeted government spending can mobilize those resources in a way that increases output without creating the bottlenecks that cause inflation.

secretsatan 3y ago

> As for austerity: reasonable people do not spend beyond what they have and if they do they do it in reasonable ways: things with an expected return on investment and with limited, calculated risk. It seems to me that this is becoming harder and harder, and consumer debt is pushed harder and harder, people are forced to take on more debt as costs of living increase. No matter how reasonable you are, you need a place to live and food to eat.

germandiago 3y ago
I would really like most of you see how people live in other countries so that you can compare how lucky places like USA or Western Europe are. I lived in Vietnam for almost 12 years. Luckily as an expat. Most people in the world live like people in Vietnam, not like people in USA or Spain. I do not mean we should live in worse conditions. I mean: look at it with perspective because we are a privileged minority.