Does Austerity require absolute monarchy?

Discussion in 'Economics' started by morganist, Apr 25, 2012.

  1. I read this and it made me think the current democratic system is not capable of introducing austerity. I think only an absolute monarchy is capable of this. I think I might write a blog post about this.
  2. It has nothing to do with democracy...
    And everything to do with a decline in "culture" and morality.

    For example, US culture as driven by Hollywood...
    Celebrates all manner of evil and rejects all traditional religion...
    Resulting in a society based on narcissism, entitlement, cheating, etc...
    No one even thinks about earning an honest dollar.

    Political and economic collapse are just a byproduct of cultural decline.
  3. Eventually the parasites and tit-suckers will just have to SUCK IT UP. They were given waaaayyyy more than they deserved and promised, by greedy politicians, waaaaayyyyy more than can be delivered... therefore, austerity is inevitable.

    You'd think by now people would recognize that when you give people things for free... especially a large amount.... you create an insatiable monster. And in their clamor for more they not only don't appreciate what they've already been given, they come to RESENT that they were not given even more... and sooner.

    At some point, the reality of the economics will prevail.
  4. "A government unable to reduce its debt will be on the lookout for cheap ways to fund its profligacy. Financial repression is one way of doing so," King noted. "Repression allows governments to delay austerity and to fund excessive borrowing at very low cost: It is, then, a useful way to force the rest of the economy to make room for government excess."

    "Seen this way, repression is not so much a mechanism designed to reduce government debt but, rather, a way to live with it," he said.

    cont on link..
  5. IT'S OFFICIAL: Keynes Was Right

    Wisconsin is a good example of austerity gone wrong in this country. Ya want to cut govt, do it when the economy is better, not now.

    But Glenn Beck told us we need to govt now or we'll turn marxist. O lawdy, Halp us Jebus!
  6. Thank you for your responses. Although the original topic was is an absolute monarchy a necessity to introduce austerity rather than is it the right action to take.

    Do you have opinions on this?
  7. not about cutting govt right now, its about cutting onerous regulations. Repeal Frank-Dodd , Repeal Volcker rule right now, its doing irreparable harm to liquidity in the marketplace.
  8. I think part of the problem with austerity is although you can cut funding, corresponding expense of the bureaucracy remains the same or could even be higher per dollar delivered.

    Suppose you cut an entitlement it would be prudent to offer or have alternatives, like a prospect for a j-o-b. It's against the law to be a garbage picker or work for food.
  9. We originally had a Constitution that would have prevented financial excess. It was understood that congress had a very limited scope. Those limits disappreared with the Civil War and New Deal and later the Great Society. Now Obama wants to take us into the type of government seen in places like Venezuela and Argentina.

    It didn't hurt one bit that voting in early times was restricted to male landowners. One possible alternative today would be to restrict the voting rights of any non-retiree who doesn't pay income tax. Try getting that through a Senate that wants to allow illegal immigrants and felons to vote.
  10. Beck is a smart guy. More people should be listen to him.
    #10     Apr 25, 2012