Robert Skidelsky, one of Keynes’ biggest rah-rah men, was
‘debating’ on Bloomberg awhile ago with some German dude about ‘growth versus
austerity.’
Of course, Skidelsky was the ‘growth’ side, calling for
more ‘stimulus.’ However, the German dude wasn’t really calling for austerity,
but for more tempered stimulus so as not to cause another Greece. Both still looked
to government as a means of growth.
‘GROWTH VS GOVERNMENT’ IS THE REAL ISSUE
In the first place, why assume ‘growth’ and ‘austerity’
as opposites?
Second, why carelessly assume that growth in circulated money makes for growth in employable resources and output? It dinna make sense (to non-brainwashed people that is).
Third, why assume that growth can’t be accomplished by the private sector?
Private austerity is precisely where future growth comes from. And
what government doesn’t spend, shouldn’t be taxed at all.
Skidelsky and like-minded morons such as Paul Krugman
point to ‘market failure’ or reduced ‘aggregate demand’ as the reason why these
financial crises happen. With such a misdiagnosis, you’re bound to mistreat as
well.
No comments:
Post a Comment