The end of liberal democracies?
WhimsicalChristian
Shipmate
in Purgatory
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?
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?
Comments
AFF
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.
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.
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.
In the context of austerity the GFC wasn't caused by an 'orgy of government overspending' but by the financial sector blowing up.
IIRC the trouble was that no economic system could survive the 70s oil crises.
The Viennese School of Hayek is funded perhaps more by wealthy political think-tanks than academic positions. (As I understand it, the Viennese School is more of an anti-economics theory in that it rejects the idea that the economy responds predictably to government action in a way that would justify that action.) While it's not dominant in academia it has an outsized influence on politicians and the media.
Full-blown Keynesianism is I think a minority position, at least according to its advocates whom I find persuasive.