Econ talk: 'Countries never thrive without an activist government'

[zoogs]

Evonomics: countries never thrive without an activist government

 

Standard disclaimers apply: IANAE, but I sympathize with these arguments. They make sense to me, and further, they /seem/ to be well-represented in the current academic discourse. And so it seems worth presenting.

 

I posted a thread on this a while back, but we're in a time of the ascendancy of a pragmatic school of economics -- at least in countries that have resisted austerity -- and a gradual shifting of orthodoxy over the decades.

 

And I do like arguments grounded in pragmatism. There's something about 'neat', clean, fit-all solutions that often veer dangerously close to voodoo: the idea that rigorous adherence to principle will inevitably result in magical lifting tides. Reality, somehow, always seems more pocked with challenges -- often sans an obvious panacea.

[cm husker]

What's IANAE mean, Zoogs? Excuse my ignorance.

 

Activism is different from austerity.

 

I think what we have to admit is there no way to magically lift tides. There is no perfect solution. But government activism is so much more corruptable than a bunch of true competitors fighting it out for consumers.

[cm husker]

I followed the link and just disagree wholeheartedly with the first set of data they present as evidence that people are poorer today than 30 years ago in real terms. It inappropriate conflates wage disparities with a decrease in real buying power. The simple fact is that today people can work much less and still buy a much better SoL/QoL than they could 30 years ago.

 

And as always, these articles articulate perceived problems but few to no viable solutions.

[zoogs]

I am not an economist.

 

I think what I'd like to see is a mix of both. For better or for worse, the government dictates the rules -- or lack thereof -- of the game. It has a role to play, one which is corruptible, and is also subject to constant renegotiation. There will be better times, and there will be worse times. What I am inclined to disagree with is the idea that the more they stay out, the better.

 

So, there's a mix to be had, and an ever-present public debate that strives to keep the involvement from being too large, too small, and too misdirected. I do think this is compatible with your view of no magic.

 

It's not a 'viable solution offering', as you're right to point out, but I do think it's a good rebuttal to a traditional one true ideology view of laissez-faire adherence that I think deserves the challenge.