
The political aftermath of financial crises: Going to extremes - MaysonL
http://www.voxeu.org/article/political-aftermath-financial-crises-going-extremes
======
lumberjack
Some quick remarks:

1\. "aftermath"? We are not post crises yet. Look at the economic performance
of the Netherlands or Finland during the last year. And of course the south is
still unable to employ a lot of the youth and Greece is worst than ever.

2\. "Far-right" is not a good description of these parties. They are anti-
immigration. That is the only thing they have in common. They disagree on
other issues.

3\. People turn to these parties because like in the US, the political
landscape in Europe has shifted to the right, economically. A blatant example
of this is that both the center right and center left are fully supportive of
TTIP. The only other notable alternative besides the anti-immigration parties
is the Greens but the Greens are highly opinionated about many things that
tends to turn people off. Plus they have been there since forever and not
achieved much so people do not see them as "change".

4\. "The typical political reaction to financial crises is as follows: votes
for far-right parties increase strongly, government majorities shrink, the
fractionalisation of parliaments rises and the overall number of parties
represented in parliament jumps. These developments likely hinder crisis
resolution and contribute to political gridlock. The resulting policy
uncertainty may contribute to the much-debated slow economic recoveries from
financial crises."

Way to spin that into a bad thing! A more decentralized more democratic
government is a good thing. Less incompetent and corrupt members of the
central parties that contributed to the crises through their mismanagement is
also a good thing.

~~~
clavalle
Your comment is a perfect example of what they mean by 'Far-right' beyond just
anti-immigration policies. Libertarianism is a far right ideology.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Libertarianism is a far right ideology.

No, its not. Libertarianism is an ideology that sometimes coexists with right-
wing (including far-right) ideologies, but also sometimes coexists with left-
wing (including far-left) ideologies.

People mainly familiar with American politics may be prone to confuse
libertarianism with a far-right ideology, since the label is mainly used _in
the US_ by and about either the right-libertarian Libertarian Party or by a
contingent within the right-wing Republican Party, a party which has more
generally adopted, particulary over the last handful of decades, a lot of
right-libertarian rhetoric.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> but also sometimes coexists with left-wing (including far-left) ideologies.

What left ideologies can libertarianism coexist with? As a far left democratic
socialist, I don't see any.

~~~
jaredhansen
_> What left ideologies can libertarianism coexist with?_

You might be surprised. Bleeding Heart Libertarians[0] is a good place to
start. In the US, libertarianism has traditionally been more closely aligned
with the right, but that's more or less an accident of history. There's room
for disagreement of course (based mostly on how you define terms), but
libertarians find plenty of overlap _and_ disagreement with both the left and
the right.

[0]
[http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/](http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/)

~~~
gizmo
Bleeding Hart Libertarians isn't left wing by any stretch of the imagination.
They endorse the same kind of "free market solutions" that are peddled by the
republican libertarians: privatize all the things and then hope that the
billionaires are generous enough to share their wealth with the peons.

I mean, come on: [http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/08/rich-
plutocrat-...](http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/08/rich-plutocrat-
bernie-sanders-hates-the-poor-but-loves-power/)

------
rm_-rf_slash
My main takeaway is that financial crises affect everybody (ex: oil recessions
from low cost tend to limit damage to oil producers and economy of cities
reliant on them, whereas everybody depends on money and the availability of
credit) and at greater levels than other kinds of recessions. When credit
crunches, people who were on the margins or even comfortably in debt end up in
precarious positions where there is little help available, and the only
bailout beneficiaries are big banks.

I suppose the reason far-right political groups benefit is because when people
lose their possessions, all they are left with is their identity, and a lot of
anger. This can feed resentment at any "other" group responsible for their
travesty, whether it be a foreign power (WWI victors), internal distinct
subgroup (Jews in Germany; Muslims in America/Europe; welfare recipients), or
even religion (Arab Spring and ISIS being correlated with the global recession
and rise in food prices).

History shows that any extreme cannot last forever, but it can do damage that
lasts for generations. The extreme right may be wrong, but the conditions make
them attractive. And dangerous.

~~~
lintiness
"the only bailout beneficiaries are big banks" is patently false.

if the banks were the only parties to benefit, there'd be zero political will
to aid. banks hold the nation's savings, and allowing them to fail meant
multiples of pain for average people.

if this crisis proved anything, it's that friedman was right (printing can
stall a deflationary spiral). what remains to be seen is how the next act
plays.

------
gtpasqual
I'd be interested in understanding what they mean by 'far-right groups'.

When ignorance and subjectivity comes in, people wrongly take Hitler,
Mussolini and even Trump as far-right.

~~~
geogra4
What is your definition of 'far-right'?

~~~
lintiness
"far" anything politically usually means totalitarian.

~~~
smhenderson
Or revolutionary when applied to the left..

