Aram Zucker-Scharff

So, some thoughts on this:

Austerity didn’t work out for the political goals it was pushed under. It’s clear that is the case. However, the problem in this case is more fundamental: that the only accepted signal of healthy national economies is continual GDP growth.

I disagree with that stance.

There’s a lot to put aside here, in terms of what I would prefer for labor, and the places on which I oppose our current structure of capitalism (though some of you may not believe it, I don’t oppose capitalism as a general concept), but let’s put on our single focus glasses and talk about the value of austerity within the system we have right now.

Theoretically austerity was opposed or adopted in an attempt to stabilize economies so that they could grow. This is possible though not a one-size-fits-all measure. And it can’t just be cuts, taxes have to be raised as well. The point, in this case, is to decrease a national debt; which doesn’t just mean spending less but collecting more. But assuming that everyone implemented this correctly (they didn’t), what would be the positive of a lower GDP? The nature of the large real estate bubble (which popped in 2007ish) was that it inflated economies, a lot of incredibly shitty banking and investment happened and in fact it inflated on inflation on inflation; a bubble blown far out of proportion.

At the time I’d have argued that it would have been better to let it pop for a worse decline, but more speedy and even recovery (I still agree with that), but instead we determined a course of deflation of the market until it was safe to plug the tubes back in and blow it out of proportion again. That “works” for America (works being in quotes because while it stabilized the country it fucked most of its citizens, but that’s the current system which I have a problem with) because of our unique nature as the backing currency for the rest of the world.

But for everyone else the path to stability was not so clear. National debt is not such an attractive investment for external markets when your currency could conceivably collapse without the entire world burning down. Thus the value of austerity in my mind isn’t recovery: it’s a return of these economies to stable states. In the bubble national economies everywhere became inflated to unrealistic levels. A recovery from that state wouldn’t look like a return to those levels, it would look like lower GDP. This is a good thing for national stability IMO, but hard to make that argument because growth is the only measure most people understand. But long-term growth isn’t viable in debt, and so these countries are returning to more natural (but lower) market states. Though many would disagree, including the citizens, for the global economy in its current format, I would mark this as a policy success.

Now let’s take off our single-focus goggles and talk about how while that’s the case it is a reflection on the ethical and moral failings of the current global economic system:

It’s a failure because global markets, that trade–among other things–in national debt, essentially mean that, even without say the EU giving orders, many smaller nations have essentially sacrificed their sovereignty to serve the market. It’s hard to separate that out from the incredible racism that globalization causes and the inherent cultural value of more open borders, but the problem isn’t with better connections it is with them being through particular market systems which are not just effective but optimized at pushing nations into ignoring their unique circumstances as countries to operate at a standard that may not be achievable. The people who suffer as a result are the citizens, victims of an economic elite of market-players.

The system doesn’t care for the health of the state outside of its impact on global stability. Which is to say, when it is of positive impact it benefits greatly; but without an achievable exit there is no choice but to punish countries who fail to add to global stability; that punishment rarely falls on bankers who made bad decisions or the ultra-wealthy who control so much of the monetary flow, those punishments hit the poor, the lower class, the middle class. Austerity is a success for stabilization, but only because the current system doesn’t allow for success to be moderated by the state of humans within a nation, for many of whom austerity was a punishment that stole their livelihoods as government-supported industries shuttered, government-supported social services shrank, and countries were marked on basis of GDP and market stability, instead of quality of life for their citizens.

In the current system, the return to realistic sizes for national economies is a worthwhile goal, marking growth as the only measure for that is foolish. In the long term these countries will likely become, at high immediate costs to their citizens (but perhaps a more stable future for them across the board), stable contributers to global markets, though smaller ones. BUT: The current system fucking sucks, because our economics assure that we don’t care about human misery and we should.

Since 2010, under the direction of international organisations and most economists, governments across the world have cut spending in order to restore public finances to health. OECD figures show this strategy has failed. Cuts have greatly damaged economic growth – to a far greater extent than antic…

via Facebook http://ift.tt/29W1biR
through IFTTT