If so, are the Europeans doing it right, or are they doing something wrong, too? The economies of European countries seem to be doing terrible.
The Austrian response to recession is liquidation of the factors of production and of government costs.
The Europeans are doing the former in part, but not the latter.
They’re raising taxes. I’d hardly call that Austrian in any sense of the word.
It’s pretty simple really.
-
Have the govt at all levels stop spending money on anything. Education, health care, unemployment, social security, bailouts, Afghanistan, Iraq, anything military overseas, roads. Some say there should still be a govt for defense and a court system and maybe police, others say we dont need a govt for any of that. An obvious corollary of this is huge tax cuts.
-
End all regulations about anything economic. [Except theft and fraud. This would involve changing the laws so that a polluter actually has to pay damages to private individuals whose property or person he pollutes]. This includes ending minimum wage, support for unions [which will be allowed to do anything non violent and voluntary], closing the Fed, giving money to anyone for anything, all regualtions if banks, industries, zoning laws, child labor, eminent domain, you name it.
Allow anyone to coin money. Say The Microsoft Silver Dollar, or whatever.
- Sell or distribute all public lands and seas to private people.
Now, just as Kobe Bryant can play elite level basketball even though he has all kinds of aches and pains and sprains and maybe a broken finger or two, so too the economy will probably do very well even if not all of the above are fixed. But every single one will be of great benefit
I guess I should elaborate on the whys of the previous post.
- From the beginning: The wealth of a nation increases not when it has more paper money, or even gold neccesarily, but when it has more useful things for its citizens to enjoy, and an increased ability to keep making more of the things people want.
Private industry’s whole reason for existence is to make things people want. So that by definition almost, they increase the wealth of a nation. The govt is interested in making things people don’t want or benefit from, for the most part. For example, what do you gain by having American troops in Germany and Japan, or anywhere else? Since every resource wasted by the govt is one less resource for private industry to use, the govt decreases the wealth of a nation.
Ah, one may ask. But what of the money the govt gives to the poor and old and sick and unemployed? Well unemployed is the easiest. By paying people to be unemployed, we make them not work, right? Sick: At the turn of the century, doctors were dirt cheap, because of supply and demand. So the AMA lobbied to have the power to reduce the amount of doctors, medical schools and hospitals. Open the field again and prices will drop. Old people? If you don’t print money and create inflation, and don’t take off social security from peopels paychecks, people will have plenty of money to plan their own retirement, as they havedone since the dawn of time. Poor? If you eliminate minimum wage, the poor will get jobs that will support themselves. Not to mention that charities will flourish, as they did before welfare.
-
Regulations are just there to make it harder for new people to compete with existing businesses. [Those concerned with quality of the product will be taken care of by private rating firms, like Consumer Reports and the like.] Less competition is bad for the consumer, of course, meaning bad for the economy.
-
That way someone will bother to take care of them.
Have the govt at all levels stop spending money on anything. Education, health care, unemployment, social security, bailouts, Afghanistan, Iraq, anything military overseas, roads.
This is what I don’t understand about the right-wing… why is it always social programs that have to go first? Not the imperial military industrial complex, the police state required to fight the war on drugs, corporate welfare, bailouts… you know, the actually expensive things on which our government spends money. Why are these the last things the rightists go after? No no, go after those poor people, they’re living too comfortable a life! (You can have your views on social programs, not my business. I would just encourage you to change your priorities on what has to stop first; corporate welfare, or people’s welfare).
"Have the govt at all levels stop spending money on anything"
What part of “anything” don’t you understand?
TY for your concern.
Ya, I know. I seen what you said. I have just always wondered why it seems that to those with right-wing tendencies, that social programs are a greater evil than corporate welfare.
I wasn’t attacking you, or anything. Just sayin…
They’re equally horrendous and disgusting, IMHO. Both the inbred savages that feast off of my stolen money, and the inbred savages in suits who feast off of my stolen money.
To give preference to either is a horrendous disservice to the cause of liberty.