Another Way Of Saying It— A Follow Up On The Austerity Post


Yesterday, I posted about the “bait and switch” of using the word “austerity”.  I made the point that tax increases are not part of the word, it’s meaning, nor implementation.  It is the tax increases which are impeding the economic progress in so many nations today. 

So, I’ve come across Dan Mitchell’s latest offering, and among other points, he makes the same case. 

Now for some bad news. Unlike the Baltic nations, the PIIGS dragged their feet and didn’t reduce the burden of government spending until they had no choice.

Moreover, they all imposed crippling tax hikes. Indeed, the tax increases in Greece were so severe that even the International Monetary Fund warned that the country might be past the Laffer Curve revenue-maximizing point.

So while long-overdue reductions in spending meant less money was being diverted from the economy’s productive sector, higher tax rates have discouraged entrepreneurs and investors from creating jobs and wealth.

I would, at this point quibble with Mitchell.  The tax increases themselves are, in fact, diverting money from the economy’s productive sector.  But, even here, we see Dr. Mitchell making the distinction between cuts (austerity) and tax increases.   

So what’s the net effect?

From an optimistic perspective, the fiscal situation should stabilize if governments keep spending under control. Some additional spending cuts would be very desirable since government spending consumes 45 percent-50 percent of GDP in these nations, which is at least double  the growth-maximizing level.

But even if these nations merely abide by Mitchell’s Golden Rule and restrain spending so that it grows slower than the private sector, that would be progress.

The reason I’m not optimistic, though, is that I don’t sense any commitment to smaller government. I fear governments will let the spending genie out of the bottle at the first opportunity. And we’re talking about a scary genie, not Barbara Eden.

He doesn’t sense there is any commitment because there isn’t any commitment.  There isn’t even a discussion about where the limits of government spending lie. 

Mitchell gave an interview with Canadian TV…. you can see the video at the link I provided. 

The ostensible topic was European-wide financial regulation, but that topic is really a proxy for the fact that some nations want to bail out their financial sectors. But they’re in such lousy fiscal shape that they can’t borrow the money that would be needed to prop up their dodgy banks.

So I pointed out that European-wide regulation wasn’t the right answer. It wouldn’t make banks safer (since it would be based upon the deeply flawed Basel regulations), but could become a vehicle for nations such as Germany to further subsidize countries such as Spain.

But I hope I got across my main point, which is that these nations are burdened with too much government and their problems won’t be solved with more handouts, regulation, or bureaucracy.

In other words, there’s no substitute for genuine spending cuts implemented by the nation states of Europe.

And this is the problem with the Eurozone and other economic vehicles around the world.  Sure, Germany has the money to float Spain for a while, but this is borrowing on time.  There has been no real recognition as to what the real problem is.  There isn’t really a magic percentage or number to place on government spending.  (Unless you’re like me and state that we always need to balance the budget.)  The nations in trouble and even the nations lending and the nations printing (such as the US), none have the fortitude to actually state what the problem is. 

The entire Western civilization has spent itself into a hole it can’t get out without significant reforms.  But, we can’t get to real reforms until they articulate what is happening.  We all have spent or will spend beyond our means to pay for the spending.  We’ve gone so far as to have written it in law.  The spending isn’t sustainable.  It isn’t a matter of getting our economies going again.  Once they do, without recognition of the problems we face, we will simply spend more of the additional earnings a good economy provides. 


The France graph enlarged for key….



The more a nation spends, the more the nation needs to tax to cover the spending.  The more a nation taxes, the more “needs” it creates among the populace.  The more “needs” identified, the more spending occurs…. the more taxes required…. it never stops. 

It isn’t fiscal reform which is needed it is a reform of thought which is required. 

This entry was posted in Economics. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Another Way Of Saying It— A Follow Up On The Austerity Post

  1. Bruce says:

    I rather liked this one from a couple weeks ago.

  2. tckev says:

    Two things are wreaking havoc on economies both sides of the Atlantic –
    1. The enduring myth that some banks/financial companies are too big to fail.
    2. Only big government can save the banks and thus the economy.
    Neither is true. Debt and deficit for all the listed countries must come down, unless we are all turning Japanese.

    • suyts says:

      Yes, that’s part of the subtext. The larger point is, not only is big government the only entitiy which can save banks, but big govt. is the only thing which can save us……. humanity. And that’s the myth. That’s the problem. That is the prelude to impoverishment, enslavement, and suffering of humanity.

  3. philjourdan says:

    Detachment from reality: “the country might be past the Laffer Curve revenue-maximizing point.”

    Might be? Talk about grasping at straws.

    • suyts says:

      I think his point was that even the IMF was warning them. As in, how high do your taxes have to be before the IMF tells you you’re taxing too much?

  4. Ben says:

    ” The progress of the enormous debts which at present oppress, and will in the long-run probably ruin, all the great nations of Europe, has been pretty uniform. Nations, like private men, have generally begun to borrow upon what may be called personal credit, without assigning or mortgaging any particular fund for the payment of the debt; and when this resource has failed them, they have gone on to borrow upon assignments or mortgages of particular funds.”

    Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, published March 9, 1776

  5. cdquarles says:

    As far as banks ‘failing’ or being too big to fail, if you allow fractional reserve banking; then you are guaranteeing both bank ‘failures’ and banks being ‘too big to fail’. You are telling the world that your banks will never have enough liquid assets or cash on hand to redeem every withdrawal request made to retrieve demand deposits. In the old days, once people were panicked enough to start the bank run, nothing stopped it until everyone got their money if they could or the panic wore off. Prior to national banking or in the US the Federal Reserve, bank runs were at worst regional. Now, with national banking (the Federal Reserve) a bank run would be national (see the 30s). To stop it, the US Federal Government made private holdings of specie (gold) illegal and confiscated them to ‘back’ the Federal Reserve Note and put in all kinds of bandaids (Glass-Steagall and the FDIC, among others). While there have been a few real bank runs since (notably in 2008 at some banks), if it ever became known that the FDIC nor the Federal Reserve could produce enough electronic entries or paper, then we will see a 30s national bank run. Otherwise, our current policies will lead to a ‘Wiemar or Zimbabwe’ style hyperinflation. That’s our future so long as people put too much faith in government and not enough faith in God and themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s