l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 削减开支引发骚乱？2011年英国政府支出占GDP比例高达44.77%，是2000年以来第二高
比例，实际支出金额超过2010年
False Blame in London
A growing chorus of clacking commentators has determined the cause of the
London riots to be something called “austerity.” This menace is apparently
to blame for the whole sordid affair. As an incarnation of pure evil, “
austerity” has crept into the homes of hapless Londoners, snatching their
rightful belongings – and sometimes even their futures – right out from
under them. Quite understandably this has agitated the poor chaps, sending
them into a mindless, criminal rage.
Poppycock!
There are two significant problems with this lazy, statist narrative. The
first is simple: there has been no austerity. Here’s government spending
in the UK in recent years (the last few years are projections):
So 2011 will see ever so slightly less spending as a percentage of GDP than
2010, not even dropping a full percentage point. Are we really to believe
that such a minuscule shift could spark such an eruption of righteous anger?
But these aren’t even actually cuts. Spending increased from 2010 to 2011,
and in this chart it does so each year thereafter. Simply holding spending
growth to less than the growth of the economy allows the total burden of
government to fall without actually making cuts. The statists nevertheless
label such increase as “cuts” because they operate in a fantasy land where
expected increases are the norm, and any increase less than they desire is
therefore a cut. We see the same dishonesty right here in America, as
evidenced by the recent debt ceiling debate.
Getting back to the issue. By 2015 spending as a percentage of the British
economy is expected to be no lower than it was as recently as 2008. It will
be higher, in fact. Is that really a rioting offense? How can anyone
honestly claim massive social unrest based on such figures? It defies reason.
But the second problem with the blame austerity crowd’s logic is that even
if there were significant budget cuts, they would still not be to blame.
Austerity is no more to blame for the aftermath of runaway government
spending and rampant dependency than is sobriety responsible for the addict
suffering withdrawal. Dependent British citizens desperately lashing out for
their next government fix would have only themselves and their enablers to
blame, not the loved ones who finally stepped in and called an intervention.
No matter how you slice it, the statist argument falls flat. So why is it
even being made in the first place? Well, that’s easy. It’s pre-emptive.
The welfare state is falling out of favor as it slowly collapses under the
weight of its own contradictions. Enamored with the power of big government,
statists are nevertheless in denial to this fact, but still they feel the
public pressure mounting against them and are unwilling to let go of their
grip on authority. So now they’re conjuring a boogey-man to scare the
peasants back into line. You can’t cut our budgets and our power, they’ll
say, just look at what it’s done in London!
“Poppycock!” we’ll reply. |
|
