Our model is based on the fact that across history, what creates the risk of political instability is the behavior of elites, who all too often react to long-term increases in population by committing three cardinal sins. First, faced with a surge of labor that dampens growth in wages and productivity, elites seek to take a larger portion of economic gains for themselves, driving up inequality. Second, facing greater competition for elite wealth and status, they tighten up the path to mobility to favor themselves and their progeny. For example, in an increasingly meritocratic society, elites could keep places at top universities limited and raise the entry requirements and costs in ways that favor the children of those who had already succeeded.
Third, anxious to hold on to their rising fortunes, they do all they can to resist taxation of their wealth and profits, even if that means starving the government of needed revenues, leading to decaying infrastructure, declining public services and fast-rising government debts.
Someone else figured this out long ago. Also, what comes with the clinging to power is the 'This time is different' fraud, the older generation claiming an exception to the rule. In fact, this sounds an awful lot like the Keynesian crowd.
The denial is what makes the 'Turbulence'. The central bank is almost always included in the transitions, holding out as tax collectors of last resort until their own banks rebel at the taxes. The issue is not that these authors predicted it the issue is why all the denialism? Why make is worse?
It is not really population growth so much as it is increasing inequality as debt is used to shore up the finances of the older generation.
The real essential problem is a bunch of bozos who think the kids will pay interest expense on stuff they never voted for. And these bozos make up incredible philosophies as if the kids are supposed to adopt their philosophy and wait a hundred years. Just incredible.
No comments:
Post a Comment