Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea | Mark Blyth | Talks at Google

Wonder how long before he is sacked. Rare instance of establishment official bucking the narrative. These kind of reports are usually made about 'inconvenient regimes'. Austerity [1] is a dubious predatory ideology pushed by neoliberal economists parroting the mantra of freemarkets, privatization while pushing crude policies that benefit special interests. The modus operandi is defund public services, raise a ruckus about ensuing chaos and build the rationale for privatization. A country with its own currency is a not a household. In the case of the US the dollar being the global reserve currency provides even more freedom compared to any other country. Simplistic household type comparisons by agenda driven economists about complex modern economies are grossly misleading. You cannot bailout banks to the tune of trillions and them impose austerity on the population, this is not capitalism or freemarkets, its gross corruption. Where did this money come from? What about all the scares of 'runway inflation' by such massive injections, why were creditors bailed out and not debtors? Why shouldn't these funds be spent on the people the government represent and not special interests? Mark Blyth [1], Michael Hudson [2], Steve Keen and Joseph Stiglitz [3] are doing a lot of work on neoliberal economics and dubious policies like austerity. [1] ▶ this video [2] link [3] link

Thomas Frank on Listen Liberal: link I also suggest the following talk by Mark Blyth: link which concisely outlines the economics behind the decline of western middle classes, and the link to sentiment against mainstream political parties. If you are interested in how bad things look for europe (from 2013, but the fundamentals have not changed): ▶ this video

I wonder, to transition from a democracy with widely distributed production, to a non-democratic regime with concentrated production, without initiating revolution, is it necessary to prepare by destruction of community at the local level and reduction of population's level of education, given educated, connected citizens are more likely to revolt than disconnected, starving, illiterate peasants. That is not something that can be done overnight. However, I am not sure it is likely that western democracies with diverse economies can regress to sufficiently concentrated ownership of production to facilitate a dictatorial regime. In the case of the US, 0.1% of 350 million is still 350,000, so there are a lot of highly motivated rich people who would like to avoid losing in a winner takes all dictatorship. A government that supports the rule of law, property rights etc. is a necessary 'evil' if you are one of the 0.1% who might lose out in the dictator scenario, as that rule of law is all that prevents the 0.1% from turning into <0.0001%. I think it is easy to facilitate dictatorship in an undeveloped, poor economy, but less so in a diverse, developed economy, even one with significant wealth inequality. The more diverse the economy, the more keys to power. There is some interesting (and somewhat relevant) commentary on historical thought about paying for government in Mark Blyth's talk at google[1], which contains the following conclusions: -Democracy is Asset Insurance for the

Maybe austerity is a really bad idea. It has its place in the general monetary toolbox [1], but history shows that it is really not worth to use only that (Mark Blyth: Austerity - The History of a Dangerous Idea [2]). Also, even the IMF has studies where the positive effects of austerity are questioned [3]. [1] link [2] ▶ this video [3] link Also, the EU needs much more wealth redistribution than it is currently happening, and austerity acts contrary to that: link