The end of liberal democracies?

WhimsicalChristian

Dr Oliver Hartwich has a theory that democracy only works when the economy is going well. When it isn't, you see the rise of authoritarianism, like between the two world wars.

His article here argues his theory quite persuasively imo.

"Economic performance is one of the strongest predictors of satisfaction with democracy. Populism, declining trust in institutions, and the pervasive sense that the game is rigged, are symptoms. The disease is the end of material well-being that made democracy feel worthwhile."

The decline of productivity, low birth rate, ageing population in western liberal democracies is seeing massive amounts of government debt, which is not sustainable in the long term.

To win government, you're not going to be popular introducing austerity measures. So you're automatically stuffed in a democracy.

Is there a solution? Or do we just keep getting into further debt and pass it on to the next generation?

Is AI increasing productivity a solution? I think it might be what the governments are thinking because it is the new arms race.

Your thoughts?

A Feminine Force

Oh there you are! I was thinking about you this morning and wondering if we had run you off. Glad to see you undeterred and in the mix and coming with a good question. Happy Sunday!

AFF

Leorning Cniht

WhimsicalChristian wrote: »

Dr Oliver Hartwich has a theory that democracy only works when the economy is going well. When it isn't, you see the rise of authoritarianism, like between the two world wars.

His article here argues his theory quite persuasively imo.

"Economic performance is one of the strongest predictors of satisfaction with democracy. Populism, declining trust in institutions, and the pervasive sense that the game is rigged, are symptoms. The disease is the end of material well-being that made democracy feel worthwhile."

This claims that, if what one has is a liberal democracy, then poor economic performance will lead to a rise in authoritarianism. In itself, that doesn't seem surprising: if the status quo isn't working out for you, then you're more likely to prefer a change.

If, however, what one has is an authoritarian state, then observation suggests that dissatisfaction with one's lot does not cause people to prefer even more authoritarianism.

Arethosemyfeet

The thesis seems to propose that austerity is the appropriate medicine for a failing economy and public budget deficits. This is, frankly, bollocks. Plus, right wing authoritarians tend to promise austerity on steroids so the idea that it is austerity being unpopular that is responsible for the rise of the far right is, also, bollocks. Austerity itself is frequently popular; where it tends to fail is that it doesn't deliver on its promises. Cutting government expenditure in a vain attempt to balance the budget sucks money out of the economy and worsens sluggish economies. We had a decade of austerity in the UK after 2010 and it achieved precisely nothing other than making a bad situation worse. You can't cut your way to economic growth.

Sovereign states with their own currency can afford for debt to increase in cash terms over time. Increasing as a proportion of GDP is more of a problem long term, but not necessarily a fatal one.

Barnabas62

There was this concept called Keynesianism after the economist John Maynard Keynes. The argument was that governments should increase public expenditure at the time of a depression to stimulate the economy and make compensatory reductions when the economy turned round.

It ran counter to the apparently intuitive view that governments should economise in a depression.

IIRC, the trouble was that governments which applied it forgot about the need for compensatory reductions in a boom.

chrisstiles

Barnabas62 wrote: »

IIRC, the trouble was that governments which applied it forgot about the need for compensatory reductions in a boom.

In the context of austerity the GFC wasn't caused by an 'orgy of government overspending' but by the financial sector blowing up.