Posted Oct 12, 2015 by Martin Armstrong
The ‘Austerity’ argument seems a bit confusing.
Surely, “Austerity” means reducing the size of Government and is an understanding that we can’t keep funding zillions of civil/public servants and on the other is a reduction of the Social Security Bill – healthcare, social benefits, the cost of the un and underemployed etc – both of which seem to be excellent objectives unless you are in one of the groups affected. Isn’t it impossible to return to or have a vibrant economy unless and until these objectives are achieved?
ANSWER: The problem with austerity carried out in this fashion is that they are turning off the spigot and it is ending in Marxism/socialism. To continue to service the debt, governments hunt the rich and raise taxes then agree to exchange all info. In the process, they cause capital to hoard and not invest. So you are not really ending socialism, rather you are moving more toward totalitarianism.
We will see riots for they are not just people who receive; these are the people who cannot find a job because nobody is creating them with deflation. We have to look at both sides and this is why our proposal is to eliminate taxation at the federal level to unwind this mess from both directions.
So there is more to this than just reducing social programs. Doing that and raising taxes to continue to service debts will result in taxation without representation as the current workforce must then pay for spending without receiving anything in return.