"Germany Should End Austerity, Not Ireland." Not Really

Megan Greene is right.

Ireland, held up as Europe's poster child for austerity, is a good example of the pitfalls of loosening deficit targets for a country in fiscal crisis.

The government has passed half a dozen austerity bills over the past four years, and in many ways the policy is working. Last week the European Commission said Ireland's budget deficit was 7.6 percent of gross domestic product, below its 8.6 percent of GDP target. Bond markets seem to have regained confidence in Ireland's creditworthiness, with 10-year government bond yields hovering around an affordable 3.6 percent.

Austerity measures have gone smoothly thanks in part to an acquiescent population. In Dublin, which during the boom had an oxygen bar where one could go to breathe different flavors of oxygen, people recognized they had partied too hard and would have to tighten their belts.

But even the Irish are starting to push back against austerity. Labor unions recently rejected a motion called Croke Park 2, which the government proposed to further cut the public- sector wages. Some government ministers have begun to say Ireland should ease up on spending cuts and use the savings from February's restructuring of promissory notes to plug budget gaps.

Loosening austerity to stimulate growth is a classic Keynesian approach and makes a lot of sense -- unless you are dealing with a country that has unsustainable public finances, such as Ireland. Germany Should End Austerity, Not Ireland - Bloomberg.

However, Megan Greene is only right within a narrow context, which itself is wrong. Megan goes on to say that Germany should pick up the slack before it is too late. She's right about that too but also only within a failed context.

What's missing from her critique is the always present option of governments issuing debt-free money pegged to real productivity that is measured in real-time.

The idea for a debt-free currency is ancient. The idea of pegging it to real productivity in real-time is mine (by God). I say that because various people come to this site and complain and complain about such matters and without justification. (See: Not Enough: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy and especially the comment section.)

The ultimate solution, however, is a moneyless society. There is no money in Heaven; and as a Christian, I am taught by Jesus to pray for Heaven to come to Earth.

If you think one must be a capitalist to be a Christian, you don't know Jesus.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Monetary Reform. Bookmark the permalink.