Date: Sep 5, 2012 1:34 PM
Author: Paul A. Tanner III
Subject: More on the economic stupidity of economic conservatism (was Martin<br> Bic...)
"Re: Martin Bickman On The Needless War Between Traditionalists And Progressives"
on Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Wayne Bishop <email@example.com> wrote:
> ...when this came out from some of the leadership of
> my Greece-emulating state of California
California does not emulate emulates Greece except in that they are both reaping the "benefits" of implementing some of the ideas of economic conservatism.
Greece and every other country in the Eurozone has the problems it has mostly because it followed one of the main ideas of economic conservatism, which is that it is good idea for a country to give up its national sovereign power to print its own fiat money and then funnel that expansion of its national money supply into areas of its economy that need the capital so that the whole economy can continue to grow fast enough and otherwise continue to be healthy enough to be able to continue to provide enough revenue to government. The countries in Western Europe that have kept such national power over their own national fiat money supplies are almost without exception richer in terms of per-capita GDP than not only just about every country in the Eurozone but also than the US. (These countries would include almost all of the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland.)
California has its problems mostly because economic conservatism there was given too much power: Most people don't know that it is still the case that the government of California cannot raise taxes (or increase revenues otherwise like obtaining investment income from government investing in income producing investments - as do countries that are far per-capita richer than the US like Norway [that country's per-capita GDP is twice as large as that of the US]) without a super-duper majority of 2/3 of the legislature voting for it. There is NOT simple majority rule in California with respect to government being able to get the revenues it needs to pay for the government services demanded by the majority of the public.
For each case above: Let this be a lesson to all as to the economic stupidity of economic conservatism. It should be clear from taking these cases together that the main goal of economic conservatism is not economic prosperity but the destruction of government by the method of starving it of revenues. Of course, in every case in the world where this has begin to succeed, we see the beginning of the destruction of the entire economy. And so this economic stupidity of economic conservatism has a certain logic to it when we understand that the reason for being of economic conservatism is not to promote national economic prosperity but to promote the almost complete destruction of almost all government everywhere no matter what the cost.
To see economic prosperity done right, see what I in my post
"Moral economics -> world's highest living standard and greatest