[74B5]

Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions, which is the ultimate consequence of austerity?

The public infratructure shrinks, while the rich get richer, partially from paid bond interesets. And you would just sit there and think, "yea, thats the way"?

Do you really think spending and not taxation is the problem? Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullable people, voting for harmful demagogues, so you finally get the "financial conervatives" you want?

[lotsofpulp]

>Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions

A government spending less money does not equate to spending less money on public institutions. It can even mean spending more money on public institutions, assuming less money is spent on other things, such as unproductive wealth transfers.

[disgruntledphd2]

> as unproductive wealth transfers.

Do you mean progressive taxation here, or something else?

[lotsofpulp]

Spending that will not benefit citizens in the future.

[disgruntledphd2]

So benefits i guess? Or pensions? Sounds like you want the government to only spend money on capital projects which is reasonable, but it'll be very difficult to get there from here, given all the benefits/transfers that governments engage in.

[lotsofpulp]

Yes, especially in democracies with flattened and top heavy population histograms, since the young will never be able to outvote the old.

[disgruntledphd2]

Ah ok, I see where you're coming from. Very difficult to achieve this in a democracy though, so probably productivity increases and wealth taxes will be needed to fill this gap.

[palmfacehn]

>Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullible people...

Assuming the implication is that a well funded state managed education results in a population more resistant to (state?) propaganda; How would this be measured empirically?

[arealaccount]

Why not both?