[PEN-L:1846] Re: eter Dorman on the "load of bull"

[bill mitchell <ECWFM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Our friend mike getting a bit carried away said (among other things in support
of peter dorman):

>I keep wishing people on this list would be interested in taking up the
>intellectual cudgels.  My dream would be a J'ACCUSE advertisement campaign
>complete with press conferences all over the country but especially in
>Washington over C-SPAN where we accuse Perot, the President, the Congress,
>the Concord Coalition, the "intellectuals" of attempting to destroy the
>modern welfare state based on the nonsensical idea that if "we" don't
>balance the budget the country will a) go bankrupt, b) dissolve into chaos,
>c) disappear, d) ...????....  [grow backwards??].

[deletions]

>NO RATIONAL REASON TO BALANCE THE
>BUDGET so long as the DEBT/GDP ratio doesn't grow indefinitely!!!
>
(a) well a small matter of global solidarity mike - there are people on this list
who don't naturally relate to perot, the president, the congress, the concord
coalition and other americo-centric things. i assume you include us guys out
here as list members.

(b) we can argue for as long as we like about the economic sense of budget
balances. but in the real world it becomes a political question. the reason
that the welfare states are being dismantled is because the spectacularly
successful (in the most narrow material terms) growth over the post war period
in the western bloc created a middle class. it doesn't need welfare. it also
likes low taxes. it has been conned into believing in private schools, private
hospitals, and the like. it is simply impossible to maintain the scale of
public sector resource usage when the middle class vote and hate taxes, and the
private sector is continually threatening to go to cheap economies. the extent
to which the governments have to bribe through corporate welfare these
companies to stay put reduces the amount of real welfare that can be offered.

(c) i have also said this before. if radicals keep sending their kids to
private schools and use privatised resources as an alternative to public
services then the trends will persist.

it has nothing at all to do with economic sense. it is political.

but i would also add that there are severe problems in some welfare states that
defy peter's bull category. he chose to use france as an example. read my post
yesterday about france. i can provide stacks more about it. also in OZ, there
are clear pressures on the welfare state with the increased globalisation of
the world economy. we only export primary commodities whose prices fluctuate
considerably (outside of our control).  we import all our capital equipment. we
also do not shoot trade unionists and have wages (in real productivity units)
well above our asian neighbours.  there is a shifting tax base as capital
mobility is increasing - so we can easily lose corporations to cheaper asian
countries. together there is a tension which has placed immense pressure on the
public sector. this is no chimera. unless taxes are to rise on wage and salary
earners, then services are under pressure. the only other alternative is ever
increasing debt levels.

anyway, that is enough for now.

kind regards
bill


--
         ####    ##        William F. Mitchell
       #######   ####      Economics Department
     #################     University of Newcastle
   ####################    New South Wales, Australia
   ###################*    E-mail: ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   ###################     Phone: +61 49 215065
    #####      ## ###             +61 49 215027
                           Fax:   +61 49 216919
                  ##
WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html