Saturday, July 12, 2014

Does Joe Stiglitz Hate Australia?

By Chris Rossini

With the advice that Stiglitz offers the Aussies, he must:
What matters more for long-term growth are investments in the future – including crucial public investments in education, technology, and infrastructure. Such investments ensure that all citizens, no matter how poor their parents, can live up to their potential. (his emphasis)
Long-term investments must be financed by savings, and a restriction of consumption in the present. Government (and its central bank) only wreak havoc by creating one boom/bust cycle after another. Further, as Murray Rothbard explained many times: "We know, in the first place, that all government operation is wasteful, inefficient, and serves the bureaucrat rather than the consumer."

Joe then joins the cool kids:
To be sure, given its abundance of natural resources, Australia should have far greater equality than it does.
How does Stiglitz know that?

Perhaps Joe can also tell us the correct 'gender ratio' of Google employees, as well as the proper percentages of each race that should be employed in Silicon Valley. Maybe he can consult the cool kids over at Vox for the exact ratios.

Joe then goes pinko:
After all, a country’s natural resources should belong to all of its people, and the “rents” that they generate provide a source of revenue that could be used to reduce inequality. (my emphasis)
He then tries to pull the wool over the Australian PM's eyes:
One wonders whether Abbott and his government really understand what has happened in the US? Does he realize that since the era of deregulation and liberalization began in the late 1970s, GDP growth has slowed markedly, and that what growth has occurred has primarily benefited those at the top?
Deregulation and liberalization? Try the exact opposite!

Stiglitz sticks to the deregulation myth:
....deregulation led to a bloated financial sector that attracted many talented young people who otherwise might have devoted their careers to more productive activities? Their financial innovations made them extremely rich but brought America and the global economy to the brink of ruin.
Can I be wrong, and the above Federal Register chart is misleading? Perhaps the screws have been tightened on everyone except the financial sector?


The Mercatus Center tells us: "According to the Code of Federal Regulation, more than 47,000 regulations apply to the financial sector."

In other words, the financial sector is 47,000 regulations away from being "deregulated". Liberalization is nowhere in sight.

So let's see. What could have happened in the year 1971 (Aug. 15th specifically)?

Here's a hint:

Nixon issued a laminated death warrant to the U.S. economy and to the U.S. dollar.

Joe Stiglitz seems to want Australia to go down with the ship. 

They probably will.

Chris Rossini is author of Set Money Free: What Every American Needs To Know About The Federal Reserve. Follow @chrisrossini on Twitter.

1 comment:

  1. I've never seen deregulation, only different regulation. If different regulation is less or more harmful than previous regulation seems to lean towards more harmful, but not always.