Skip to main content

View Diary: Austerity isn't dead... but it should be (132 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If the rich take everything, then we'll have (14+ / 0-)

    nothing to lose. When we have nothing to lose, we have nothing to fear. This has happened before and ended very badly for the rich.

    •  from your mouth (8+ / 0-)

      to history's ear . . .

      Yes We Can

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 09:00:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. In some sense, it's best (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eps62, ozsea1

      we shed are material desires and beat them to it. Once we starve the beast, through 1) reduced consumption of new goods and services, 2) alternative, parallel economies (barter, time banks, local currencies, etc.), and 2) Right Livelihood that reduces their labor pool, then we can move on to stepping on its neck and establishing a new, conscious social order that sizes its "needs" to the resources of the planet rather than the avarice of the plutocrats.

      Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat who's going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

      by Words In Action on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 09:09:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They can't take everything (0+ / 0-)

      That may be their fantasy, but things never get that far before people kick back, whether through sabotage or nonviolent noncooperation or outright rebellion or "terrorism."

    •  jck - YOU NAILED IT! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If the situation you describe comes to be, the French Revolution will look like a walk in the park.

      Look out when the average American who has "played by the rules" concludes that the system is making him or her a serf.

      Austerity pushes DOWN economic activity.

      That reduces incomes on average.

      Because debts are not reduced, the reduction of average income makes paying debts back that much harder.

      Both the person who owes the debt and the person to whom the debt is owed lose, the former by having a harder time managing their finances (to the point that they might go bankrupt) and the latter by having a harder time collecting on the debt (which in the extreme can also cause that entity to go bankrupt).


      I run a business, and over the past few years we have had to write off some business that would have been profitable had the deal been a success, but that became a loss when the purchaser couldn't make good on the purchase.  It hasn't been enough to severely harm our business, but in the short term, we have become more particular about deals that we will do, and more insistent on up-front payment in part for deals we enter into (even small deals).  That is what happens when one starts to question the ability of business counterparts to hold up their end of a deal.  

      It is not good for anyone.  

      You want more of that? Add AUSTERITY to the mix, so now I have even more reason to question your credit rating.  

      And then propose a business deal to me ...

      "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

      by BornDuringWWII on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 10:47:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (157)
  • Community (73)
  • Elections (44)
  • Environment (43)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Hillary Clinton (35)
  • Spam (34)
  • Culture (34)
  • Republicans (33)
  • Media (32)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Labor (27)
  • Education (24)
  • Science (24)
  • Congress (24)
  • Law (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site