Greece’s Economy Is a Lesson for Republicans in the U.S.

[Socialist]

I rest my case.

You often do after I highlight your idiocy.

Yeah, because it's 14% and norway won't collapse if it lost it's oil (Which will not happen for a long time) and not like Norway has other resources or anything..

norway won't collapse if it lost it's oil

It helps that they've saved 2.5 times their GDP, from their oil revenues.

What I'm getting from this is: If a country has resources (Many do) and uses them effectively to help its own people, it's social programs can't be copied anywhere else despite almost all of the world following them apart from the U.S., which is rich in resources. It's about priorities.

Sure, if we had 5 million citizens and didn't allow millions of low skilled illegals to invade and didn't defend the free world with our military, we could spend our oil bonanza on social goodies too.

How many does germany have? How much do they bring in compared to us? We already spend 2x more on healthcare per person and get laughable results, and we spend trillions on invading the wrong country.. It's about priorities.

 

[Socialist]

National you simpleton. I didn't say it had the 4th biggest economy. I said it had the 4th biggest national economy. Are you really this dumb?

I said it had the 4th biggest national economy.

Explain the difference between a nation's economy and a national economy.

Ok you're dumb. They mean the same thing.

Great. Norway's economy is the 50th largest in the world, not the 4th. Moron.

No you doofus. As an economy on a national scale, it is the 4th biggest.

As an economy on a national scale

What does this mean? Government spending? GDP? Exports? Social spending? What?

Probably GDP.
List of countries by GDP PPP per capita - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
But norway is at 6 now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you can't back up your claim, I'm shocked!

Seriously? It's common sense.

Common sense that there was massive homelessness of seniors in 1928? LOL!

"Worse then before social security, I can tell you that much."
Referring to the periods before any sort of way to protect seniors, it's seriously common sense.
http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1538&context=nejpp

Prove your homeless claim already.

I just did, do you not know how to follow a link? None the less, even today, homelessness is rising at shocking levels..
SENIOR POVERTY - JUSTICE IN AGING

Senior poverty is on the rise. Combine an aging population with levels of income inequality not seen since the 1920s and you have a epidemic of suffering. Housing costs are rising, and skyrocketing health care costs devour more of the monthly budget than ever before. The solution is to preserve and expand social safety net programs like SSI and Medicaid to meet the growing needs of growing numbers of low-income seniors.

Need by the numbers:

• Every day 10,000 people in America turn 65.
• By 2030 there will be 72 million seniors living in poverty in America.
• Pensions are rare in today’s economy and the average worker doesn’t have enough opportunity to save for retirement
• Nearly 1 in 5 seniors approaching retirement have no retirement savings at all.
• 54% of working-age households were unprepared for retirement in 2010 compared to 31% in 1983
• Homelessness among seniors is projected to increase 33% by 2020 and 100% by 2050
• In 2013, 2.9 million (9%) households with seniors experienced food insecurity.
• The number of food insecure seniors is projected to increase by 50% when the youngest of the Baby Boom Generation reaches age 60 in 2025
• Hungry seniors are 60 percent more likely to experience depression, 53 percent more likely to report a heart attack, 52 percent more likely to develop asthma, 40 percent more likely to report an experience of congestive heart failure.

Thanks for the link that says nothing about homeless seniors in the 1920s.
Very helpful. LOL!

 

[Socialist]

Seriously? It's common sense.

Common sense that there was massive homelessness of seniors in 1928? LOL!

"Worse then before social security, I can tell you that much."
Referring to the periods before any sort of way to protect seniors, it's seriously common sense.
http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1538&context=nejpp

Prove your homeless claim already.

I just did, do you not know how to follow a link? None the less, even today, homelessness is rising at shocking levels..
SENIOR POVERTY - JUSTICE IN AGING

Senior poverty is on the rise. Combine an aging population with levels of income inequality not seen since the 1920s and you have a epidemic of suffering. Housing costs are rising, and skyrocketing health care costs devour more of the monthly budget than ever before. The solution is to preserve and expand social safety net programs like SSI and Medicaid to meet the growing needs of growing numbers of low-income seniors.

Need by the numbers:

• Every day 10,000 people in America turn 65.
• By 2030 there will be 72 million seniors living in poverty in America.
• Pensions are rare in today’s economy and the average worker doesn’t have enough opportunity to save for retirement
• Nearly 1 in 5 seniors approaching retirement have no retirement savings at all.
• 54% of working-age households were unprepared for retirement in 2010 compared to 31% in 1983
• Homelessness among seniors is projected to increase 33% by 2020 and 100% by 2050
• In 2013, 2.9 million (9%) households with seniors experienced food insecurity.
• The number of food insecure seniors is projected to increase by 50% when the youngest of the Baby Boom Generation reaches age 60 in 2025
• Hungry seniors are 60 percent more likely to experience depression, 53 percent more likely to report a heart attack, 52 percent more likely to develop asthma, 40 percent more likely to report an experience of congestive heart failure.

Thanks for the link that says nothing about homeless seniors in the 1920s.
Very helpful. LOL!

You are great at ignoring the scholarworks link, aren't you? I also referred that link to talk about today's looming crisis for seniors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I said it had the 4th biggest national economy.

Explain the difference between a nation's economy and a national economy.

Ok you're dumb. They mean the same thing.

Great. Norway's economy is the 50th largest in the world, not the 4th. Moron.

No you doofus. As an economy on a national scale, it is the 4th biggest.

As an economy on a national scale

What does this mean? Government spending? GDP? Exports? Social spending? What?

Probably GDP.
List of countries by GDP PPP per capita - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
But norway is at 6 now.

Size of GDP, they're 50th.

 

[Socialist]

Seriously? It's common sense.

Common sense that there was massive homelessness of seniors in 1928? LOL!

"Worse then before social security, I can tell you that much."
Referring to the periods before any sort of way to protect seniors, it's seriously common sense.
http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1538&context=nejpp

Prove your homeless claim already.

I just did, do you not know how to follow a link? None the less, even today, homelessness is rising at shocking levels..
SENIOR POVERTY - JUSTICE IN AGING

Senior poverty is on the rise. Combine an aging population with levels of income inequality not seen since the 1920s and you have a epidemic of suffering. Housing costs are rising, and skyrocketing health care costs devour more of the monthly budget than ever before. The solution is to preserve and expand social safety net programs like SSI and Medicaid to meet the growing needs of growing numbers of low-income seniors.

Need by the numbers:

• Every day 10,000 people in America turn 65.
• By 2030 there will be 72 million seniors living in poverty in America.
• Pensions are rare in today’s economy and the average worker doesn’t have enough opportunity to save for retirement
• Nearly 1 in 5 seniors approaching retirement have no retirement savings at all.
• 54% of working-age households were unprepared for retirement in 2010 compared to 31% in 1983
• Homelessness among seniors is projected to increase 33% by 2020 and 100% by 2050
• In 2013, 2.9 million (9%) households with seniors experienced food insecurity.
• The number of food insecure seniors is projected to increase by 50% when the youngest of the Baby Boom Generation reaches age 60 in 2025
• Hungry seniors are 60 percent more likely to experience depression, 53 percent more likely to report a heart attack, 52 percent more likely to develop asthma, 40 percent more likely to report an experience of congestive heart failure.

Thanks for the link that says nothing about homeless seniors in the 1920s.
Very helpful. LOL!

The US gdp is 16.77 trillion.
The german gdp: $3.915 trillion (2014 nominal)
US population: 318.9 million (2014)
German population: 80 million
Take into account taxes, useless wars, priorities.. It's common sense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Common sense that there was massive homelessness of seniors in 1928? LOL!

"Worse then before social security, I can tell you that much."
Referring to the periods before any sort of way to protect seniors, it's seriously common sense.
http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1538&context=nejpp

Prove your homeless claim already.

I just did, do you not know how to follow a link? None the less, even today, homelessness is rising at shocking levels..
SENIOR POVERTY - JUSTICE IN AGING

Senior poverty is on the rise. Combine an aging population with levels of income inequality not seen since the 1920s and you have a epidemic of suffering. Housing costs are rising, and skyrocketing health care costs devour more of the monthly budget than ever before. The solution is to preserve and expand social safety net programs like SSI and Medicaid to meet the growing needs of growing numbers of low-income seniors.

Need by the numbers:

• Every day 10,000 people in America turn 65.
• By 2030 there will be 72 million seniors living in poverty in America.
• Pensions are rare in today’s economy and the average worker doesn’t have enough opportunity to save for retirement
• Nearly 1 in 5 seniors approaching retirement have no retirement savings at all.
• 54% of working-age households were unprepared for retirement in 2010 compared to 31% in 1983
• Homelessness among seniors is projected to increase 33% by 2020 and 100% by 2050
• In 2013, 2.9 million (9%) households with seniors experienced food insecurity.
• The number of food insecure seniors is projected to increase by 50% when the youngest of the Baby Boom Generation reaches age 60 in 2025
• Hungry seniors are 60 percent more likely to experience depression, 53 percent more likely to report a heart attack, 52 percent more likely to develop asthma, 40 percent more likely to report an experience of congestive heart failure.

Thanks for the link that says nothing about homeless seniors in the 1920s.
Very helpful. LOL!

You are great at ignoring the scholarworks link, aren't you? I also referred that link to talk about today's looming crisis for seniors.

Copy and paste your proof.
I'm not going to search your links for your proof.
It's enough work correcting the errors you actually post, I'm not going to do your research for you.

 

[Socialist]

Ok you're dumb. They mean the same thing.

Great. Norway's economy is the 50th largest in the world, not the 4th. Moron.

No you doofus. As an economy on a national scale, it is the 4th biggest.

As an economy on a national scale

What does this mean? Government spending? GDP? Exports? Social spending? What?

Probably GDP.
List of countries by GDP PPP per capita - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
But norway is at 6 now.

Size of GDP, they're 50th.

I meant per capita, as referenced at the link, I'm tired though, so I've probably been all over the place in this thread anyways.

 

[Socialist]

"Worse then before social security, I can tell you that much."
Referring to the periods before any sort of way to protect seniors, it's seriously common sense.
http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1538&context=nejpp

Prove your homeless claim already.

I just did, do you not know how to follow a link? None the less, even today, homelessness is rising at shocking levels..
SENIOR POVERTY - JUSTICE IN AGING

Senior poverty is on the rise. Combine an aging population with levels of income inequality not seen since the 1920s and you have a epidemic of suffering. Housing costs are rising, and skyrocketing health care costs devour more of the monthly budget than ever before. The solution is to preserve and expand social safety net programs like SSI and Medicaid to meet the growing needs of growing numbers of low-income seniors.

Need by the numbers:

• Every day 10,000 people in America turn 65.
• By 2030 there will be 72 million seniors living in poverty in America.
• Pensions are rare in today’s economy and the average worker doesn’t have enough opportunity to save for retirement
• Nearly 1 in 5 seniors approaching retirement have no retirement savings at all.
• 54% of working-age households were unprepared for retirement in 2010 compared to 31% in 1983
• Homelessness among seniors is projected to increase 33% by 2020 and 100% by 2050
• In 2013, 2.9 million (9%) households with seniors experienced food insecurity.
• The number of food insecure seniors is projected to increase by 50% when the youngest of the Baby Boom Generation reaches age 60 in 2025
• Hungry seniors are 60 percent more likely to experience depression, 53 percent more likely to report a heart attack, 52 percent more likely to develop asthma, 40 percent more likely to report an experience of congestive heart failure.

Thanks for the link that says nothing about homeless seniors in the 1920s.
Very helpful. LOL!

You are great at ignoring the scholarworks link, aren't you? I also referred that link to talk about today's looming crisis for seniors.

Copy and paste your proof.
I'm not going to search your links for your proof.
It's enough work correcting the errors you actually post, I'm not going to do your research for you.

Yes, the errors you never seem to be able to point out, oddly enough, much like in the thread regarding regulations.

 

[Socialist]

"Worse then before social security, I can tell you that much."
Referring to the periods before any sort of way to protect seniors, it's seriously common sense.
http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1538&context=nejpp

Prove your homeless claim already.

I just did, do you not know how to follow a link? None the less, even today, homelessness is rising at shocking levels..
SENIOR POVERTY - JUSTICE IN AGING

Senior poverty is on the rise. Combine an aging population with levels of income inequality not seen since the 1920s and you have a epidemic of suffering. Housing costs are rising, and skyrocketing health care costs devour more of the monthly budget than ever before. The solution is to preserve and expand social safety net programs like SSI and Medicaid to meet the growing needs of growing numbers of low-income seniors.

Need by the numbers:

• Every day 10,000 people in America turn 65.
• By 2030 there will be 72 million seniors living in poverty in America.
• Pensions are rare in today’s economy and the average worker doesn’t have enough opportunity to save for retirement
• Nearly 1 in 5 seniors approaching retirement have no retirement savings at all.
• 54% of working-age households were unprepared for retirement in 2010 compared to 31% in 1983
• Homelessness among seniors is projected to increase 33% by 2020 and 100% by 2050
• In 2013, 2.9 million (9%) households with seniors experienced food insecurity.
• The number of food insecure seniors is projected to increase by 50% when the youngest of the Baby Boom Generation reaches age 60 in 2025
• Hungry seniors are 60 percent more likely to experience depression, 53 percent more likely to report a heart attack, 52 percent more likely to develop asthma, 40 percent more likely to report an experience of congestive heart failure.

Thanks for the link that says nothing about homeless seniors in the 1920s.
Very helpful. LOL!

You are great at ignoring the scholarworks link, aren't you? I also referred that link to talk about today's looming crisis for seniors.

Copy and paste your proof.
I'm not going to search your links for your proof.
It's enough work correcting the errors you actually post, I'm not going to do your research for you.

The entire damn thing is proof, and I can't believe you're denying senior homelessness was not greater before social security or a safety net..

 

[BluesLegend]

Here's a lesson for you Socialist, shut it!

Wow, great way to contribute.

I don't debate with socialist punks I destroy their lies and propaganda.

I truly hope you're not another bripat who claims the WHO is a marxist propaganda mill.

No one cares what you hope or think, go back to North Korea.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Krugman.

LOL

Why didn't Greece issue a $Trillion coin?

 

[bripat9643]

It's not what you think it is

Greece is a faraway country with an economy roughly the size of greater Miami, so America has very little direct stake in its ongoing disaster. To the extent that Greece matters to us, it’s mainly about geopolitics: By poisoning relations among Europe’s democracies, the Greek crisis risks depriving the United States of crucial allies.

But Greece has nonetheless played an outsized role in U.S. political debate, as a symbol of the terrible things that will supposedly happen — any day now — unless we stop helping the less fortunate and printing money to fight unemployment. And Greece does indeed offer important lessons to the rest of us. But they’re not the lessons you think, and the people most likely to deliver a Greek-style economic disaster here in America are the very people who love to use Greece as a boogeyman.

To understand the real lessons of Greece, you need to be aware of two crucial points.

Paul Krugman[/paste:font]
Macroeconomics, trade, health care, social policy and politics.

• Ending Greece’s BleedingJUL 5
• Europe’s Many Economic DisastersJUL 3
• Greece Over the BrinkJUN 29
• Hooray for ObamacareJUN 25
• Slavery’s Long ShadowJUN 22

See More »

The first is that the “We’re Greece!” crowd has a truly remarkable track record when it comes to economic forecasting: They’ve been wrong about everything, year after year, but refuse to learn from their mistakes. The people now saying that Greece offers an object lesson in the dangers of government debt, and that America is headed down the same road, are the same people who predicted soaring interest rates and runaway inflation in 2010; then, when it didn’t happen, they predicted soaring rates and runaway inflation in 2011; then, well, you get the picture.

The second is that the story you’ve heard about Greece — that it borrowed too much, and its excessive debt led to the current crisis — is seriously incomplete. Greece did indeed run up too much debt (with a lot of help from irresponsible lenders). But its debt, while high, wasn’t that high by historical standards. What turned Greek debt troubles into catastrophe was Greece’s inability, thanks to the euro, to do what countries with large debts usually do: impose fiscal austerity, yes, but offset it with easy money.

Consider Greece’s situation at the end of 2009, when its debt crisis burst into the open. At that point Greek government debt was near 130 percent of gross domestic product, which is definitely a big number. But it’s by no means unprecedented. As it happens, Greece’s debt ratio in 2009 was about the same as America’s in 1946, just after the war. And Britain’s debt ratio in 1946 was twice as high.

Today, however, Greek debt is over 170 percent of G.D.P. and still rising. Is that because Greece just kept on borrowing? Actually, no — Greek debt is up only 6 percent since 2009, although that’s partly because it received some debt relief in 2012. The main point, however, is that the ratio of debt to G.D.P. is up because G.D.P. is down by more than 20 percent. And why is GDP down? Largely because of the austerity measures Greece’s creditors forced it to impose.

Does this mean that austerity is always self-defeating? No, there are cases — for example, Canada in the 1990s — of countries that slashed their debt while maintaining growth and reducing unemployment. But if you look at how they managed this, it involved combining fiscal austerity with easy money: Canada in the ’90s drastically reduced interest rates, encouraging private spending, while allowing its currency to depreciate, encouraging exports.
Greece, unfortunately, no longer had its own currency when it was forced into drastic fiscal retrenchment. The result was an economic implosion that ended up making the debt problem even worse. Greece’s formula for disaster, in other words, didn’t just involve austerity; it involved the toxic combination of austerity with hard money.

So who wants to impose that kind of toxic policy mix on America? The answer is, most of the Republican Party.

On one side, just about everyone in the G.O.P. demands that we reduce government spending, especially aid to lower-income families. (They also, of course, want to reduce taxes on the rich — but that wouldn’t do much to boost demand for U.S. products.)

On the other side, leading Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan incessantly attack the Federal Reserve for its efforts to boost the economy, delivering solemn lectures on the evils of “debasing” the dollar — when the main difference between the effects of austerity in Canada and in Greece was precisely that Canada could “debase” its currency, while Greece couldn’t. Oh, and many Republicans hanker for a return to the gold standard, which would effectively put us into a euro-like straitjacket.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/o...-a-lesson-for-republicans-in-the-us.html?_r=0

it sure is...don't be stupid like the Greeks and don't embrace socialism...reduce the size of government and increase individual freedom....works like a charm every timeout is tried...

Oh right let's be more like Somalia. Great plan.

I'd like to see one successful country with a "small government" that worked well. Somalia?

The United States until the FDR regime is a perfect example. Of course, almost every developed country in Europe had a small government during the industrial revolution when their economies grew at rates that would be considered astounding today.

 

[Billy000]

It's not what you think it is

Greece is a faraway country with an economy roughly the size of greater Miami, so America has very little direct stake in its ongoing disaster. To the extent that Greece matters to us, it’s mainly about geopolitics: By poisoning relations among Europe’s democracies, the Greek crisis risks depriving the United States of crucial allies.

But Greece has nonetheless played an outsized role in U.S. political debate, as a symbol of the terrible things that will supposedly happen — any day now — unless we stop helping the less fortunate and printing money to fight unemployment. And Greece does indeed offer important lessons to the rest of us. But they’re not the lessons you think, and the people most likely to deliver a Greek-style economic disaster here in America are the very people who love to use Greece as a boogeyman.

To understand the real lessons of Greece, you need to be aware of two crucial points.

Paul Krugman[/paste:font]
Macroeconomics, trade, health care, social policy and politics.

• Ending Greece’s BleedingJUL 5
• Europe’s Many Economic DisastersJUL 3
• Greece Over the BrinkJUN 29
• Hooray for ObamacareJUN 25
• Slavery’s Long ShadowJUN 22

See More »

The first is that the “We’re Greece!” crowd has a truly remarkable track record when it comes to economic forecasting: They’ve been wrong about everything, year after year, but refuse to learn from their mistakes. The people now saying that Greece offers an object lesson in the dangers of government debt, and that America is headed down the same road, are the same people who predicted soaring interest rates and runaway inflation in 2010; then, when it didn’t happen, they predicted soaring rates and runaway inflation in 2011; then, well, you get the picture.

The second is that the story you’ve heard about Greece — that it borrowed too much, and its excessive debt led to the current crisis — is seriously incomplete. Greece did indeed run up too much debt (with a lot of help from irresponsible lenders). But its debt, while high, wasn’t that high by historical standards. What turned Greek debt troubles into catastrophe was Greece’s inability, thanks to the euro, to do what countries with large debts usually do: impose fiscal austerity, yes, but offset it with easy money.

Consider Greece’s situation at the end of 2009, when its debt crisis burst into the open. At that point Greek government debt was near 130 percent of gross domestic product, which is definitely a big number. But it’s by no means unprecedented. As it happens, Greece’s debt ratio in 2009 was about the same as America’s in 1946, just after the war. And Britain’s debt ratio in 1946 was twice as high.

Today, however, Greek debt is over 170 percent of G.D.P. and still rising. Is that because Greece just kept on borrowing? Actually, no — Greek debt is up only 6 percent since 2009, although that’s partly because it received some debt relief in 2012. The main point, however, is that the ratio of debt to G.D.P. is up because G.D.P. is down by more than 20 percent. And why is GDP down? Largely because of the austerity measures Greece’s creditors forced it to impose.

Does this mean that austerity is always self-defeating? No, there are cases — for example, Canada in the 1990s — of countries that slashed their debt while maintaining growth and reducing unemployment. But if you look at how they managed this, it involved combining fiscal austerity with easy money: Canada in the ’90s drastically reduced interest rates, encouraging private spending, while allowing its currency to depreciate, encouraging exports.
Greece, unfortunately, no longer had its own currency when it was forced into drastic fiscal retrenchment. The result was an economic implosion that ended up making the debt problem even worse. Greece’s formula for disaster, in other words, didn’t just involve austerity; it involved the toxic combination of austerity with hard money.

So who wants to impose that kind of toxic policy mix on America? The answer is, most of the Republican Party.

On one side, just about everyone in the G.O.P. demands that we reduce government spending, especially aid to lower-income families. (They also, of course, want to reduce taxes on the rich — but that wouldn’t do much to boost demand for U.S. products.)

On the other side, leading Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan incessantly attack the Federal Reserve for its efforts to boost the economy, delivering solemn lectures on the evils of “debasing” the dollar — when the main difference between the effects of austerity in Canada and in Greece was precisely that Canada could “debase” its currency, while Greece couldn’t. Oh, and many Republicans hanker for a return to the gold standard, which would effectively put us into a euro-like straitjacket.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/o...-a-lesson-for-republicans-in-the-us.html?_r=0

it sure is...don't be stupid like the Greeks and don't embrace socialism...reduce the size of government and increase individual freedom....works like a charm every timeout is tried...

Oh right let's be more like Somalia. Great plan.

I'd like to see one successful country with a "small government" that worked well. Somalia?

The United States until the FDR regime is a perfect example. Of course, almost every developed country in Europe had a small government during the industrial revolution when their economies grew at rates that would be considered astounding today.

You know the reality is that current government regulations in this country do very little to hinder job creation. Revenue as a percentage of GDP, is near the historic low.

Why is it so hard for you people to grasp how much of a failure Reagan economics are? Net job growth under Bush was pathetic despite his insane tax cuts on the wealthy. The Great Recession of 2008 happened anyway as well. Kansas is now a deficit black hole because of the latest "experiment".

 

[IsaacNewton]

It's not what you think it is

Greece is a faraway country with an economy roughly the size of greater Miami, so America has very little direct stake in its ongoing disaster. To the extent that Greece matters to us, it’s mainly about geopolitics: By poisoning relations among Europe’s democracies, the Greek crisis risks depriving the United States of crucial allies.

But Greece has nonetheless played an outsized role in U.S. political debate, as a symbol of the terrible things that will supposedly happen — any day now — unless we stop helping the less fortunate and printing money to fight unemployment. And Greece does indeed offer important lessons to the rest of us. But they’re not the lessons you think, and the people most likely to deliver a Greek-style economic disaster here in America are the very people who love to use Greece as a boogeyman.

To understand the real lessons of Greece, you need to be aware of two crucial points.

Paul Krugman[/paste:font]
Macroeconomics, trade, health care, social policy and politics.

• Ending Greece’s BleedingJUL 5
• Europe’s Many Economic DisastersJUL 3
• Greece Over the BrinkJUN 29
• Hooray for ObamacareJUN 25
• Slavery’s Long ShadowJUN 22

See More »

The first is that the “We’re Greece!” crowd has a truly remarkable track record when it comes to economic forecasting: They’ve been wrong about everything, year after year, but refuse to learn from their mistakes. The people now saying that Greece offers an object lesson in the dangers of government debt, and that America is headed down the same road, are the same people who predicted soaring interest rates and runaway inflation in 2010; then, when it didn’t happen, they predicted soaring rates and runaway inflation in 2011; then, well, you get the picture.

The second is that the story you’ve heard about Greece — that it borrowed too much, and its excessive debt led to the current crisis — is seriously incomplete. Greece did indeed run up too much debt (with a lot of help from irresponsible lenders). But its debt, while high, wasn’t that high by historical standards. What turned Greek debt troubles into catastrophe was Greece’s inability, thanks to the euro, to do what countries with large debts usually do: impose fiscal austerity, yes, but offset it with easy money.

Consider Greece’s situation at the end of 2009, when its debt crisis burst into the open. At that point Greek government debt was near 130 percent of gross domestic product, which is definitely a big number. But it’s by no means unprecedented. As it happens, Greece’s debt ratio in 2009 was about the same as America’s in 1946, just after the war. And Britain’s debt ratio in 1946 was twice as high.

Today, however, Greek debt is over 170 percent of G.D.P. and still rising. Is that because Greece just kept on borrowing? Actually, no — Greek debt is up only 6 percent since 2009, although that’s partly because it received some debt relief in 2012. The main point, however, is that the ratio of debt to G.D.P. is up because G.D.P. is down by more than 20 percent. And why is GDP down? Largely because of the austerity measures Greece’s creditors forced it to impose.

Does this mean that austerity is always self-defeating? No, there are cases — for example, Canada in the 1990s — of countries that slashed their debt while maintaining growth and reducing unemployment. But if you look at how they managed this, it involved combining fiscal austerity with easy money: Canada in the ’90s drastically reduced interest rates, encouraging private spending, while allowing its currency to depreciate, encouraging exports.
Greece, unfortunately, no longer had its own currency when it was forced into drastic fiscal retrenchment. The result was an economic implosion that ended up making the debt problem even worse. Greece’s formula for disaster, in other words, didn’t just involve austerity; it involved the toxic combination of austerity with hard money.

So who wants to impose that kind of toxic policy mix on America? The answer is, most of the Republican Party.

On one side, just about everyone in the G.O.P. demands that we reduce government spending, especially aid to lower-income families. (They also, of course, want to reduce taxes on the rich — but that wouldn’t do much to boost demand for U.S. products.)

On the other side, leading Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan incessantly attack the Federal Reserve for its efforts to boost the economy, delivering solemn lectures on the evils of “debasing” the dollar — when the main difference between the effects of austerity in Canada and in Greece was precisely that Canada could “debase” its currency, while Greece couldn’t. Oh, and many Republicans hanker for a return to the gold standard, which would effectively put us into a euro-like straitjacket.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/o...-a-lesson-for-republicans-in-the-us.html?_r=0

You can't reason with the Faux News brainwashed crowd, they said bye bye to reality long ago and now for them up is down, wrong is right.

Republicans have run huge deficits and caused the U.S. debt to rise to its current levels, but they reject this reality in favor of 'feel good rhetoric' from Faux and Dimbaugh. The Republicans have done their best the last 30 years to run America's economy into a ditch. The Democrats, when elected, always have to clean up the mess.

Republicans get an F in economics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's not what you think it is
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/o...-a-lesson-for-republicans-in-the-us.html?_r=0

it sure is...don't be stupid like the Greeks and don't embrace socialism...reduce the size of government and increase individual freedom....works like a charm every timeout is tried...

Oh right let's be more like Somalia. Great plan.

I'd like to see one successful country with a "small government" that worked well. Somalia?

The United States until the FDR regime is a perfect example. Of course, almost every developed country in Europe had a small government during the industrial revolution when their economies grew at rates that would be considered astounding today.

You know the reality is that current government regulations in this country do very little to hinder job creation. Revenue as a percentage of GDP, is near the historic low.

Why is it so hard for you people to grasp how much of a failure Reagan economics are? Net job growth under Bush was pathetic despite his insane tax cuts on the wealthy. The Great Recession of 2008 happened anyway as well. Kansas is now a deficit black hole because of the latest "experiment".

If Reagan economics failed, what does that make Obama?
Obama's got one year deficits bigger than entire Reagan budgets
Obama got more people out of the workforce than the entire population of the Philippines
Obama added more debt than anyone in all of human history

 

[Billy000]

it sure is...don't be stupid like the Greeks and don't embrace socialism...reduce the size of government and increase individual freedom....works like a charm every timeout is tried...

Oh right let's be more like Somalia. Great plan.

I'd like to see one successful country with a "small government" that worked well. Somalia?

The United States until the FDR regime is a perfect example. Of course, almost every developed country in Europe had a small government during the industrial revolution when their economies grew at rates that would be considered astounding today.

You know the reality is that current government regulations in this country do very little to hinder job creation. Revenue as a percentage of GDP, is near the historic low.

Why is it so hard for you people to grasp how much of a failure Reagan economics are? Net job growth under Bush was pathetic despite his insane tax cuts on the wealthy. The Great Recession of 2008 happened anyway as well. Kansas is now a deficit black hole because of the latest "experiment".

If Reagan economics failed, what does that make Obama?
Obama's got one year deficits bigger than entire Reagan budgets
Obama got more people out of the workforce than the entire population of the Philippines
Obama added more debt than anyone in all of human history

Lol how typical of you to dodge the issue and bring Obama.

1) 11 million+ private jobs have been created under Obama. 3 million of those came from his stimulus package.
2) does inflation mean anything to you? the deficit has fallen dramatically under Obama. The debt has increased because of him extending Bush's tax cuts and uber defense spending. Republicans love that under republican presidents!
3) That has been declining since before Obama took office. Retirement, disability and discouragement from low wage jobs are the primary reasons. Obama tried fixing the problem by raising the minimum wage. Meanwhile, the fat cats are richer than ever before under Obama and are doing nothing to boost wages and create more jobs. Why don't you blame them?

 

[SAYIT]

You know the reality is that current government regulations in this country do very little to hinder job creation.

Now that is the kind of monumentally ignorant statement that gives all socialists a bad name in America. Here's a clue: there are way more hurdles to business expansion (job creation) than just federal regs and taxes ... way.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's not what you think it is

Greece is a faraway country with an economy roughly the size of greater Miami, so America has very little direct stake in its ongoing disaster. To the extent that Greece matters to us, it’s mainly about geopolitics: By poisoning relations among Europe’s democracies, the Greek crisis risks depriving the United States of crucial allies.

But Greece has nonetheless played an outsized role in U.S. political debate, as a symbol of the terrible things that will supposedly happen — any day now — unless we stop helping the less fortunate and printing money to fight unemployment. And Greece does indeed offer important lessons to the rest of us. But they’re not the lessons you think, and the people most likely to deliver a Greek-style economic disaster here in America are the very people who love to use Greece as a boogeyman.

To understand the real lessons of Greece, you need to be aware of two crucial points.

Paul Krugman[/paste:font]
Macroeconomics, trade, health care, social policy and politics.

• Ending Greece’s BleedingJUL 5
• Europe’s Many Economic DisastersJUL 3
• Greece Over the BrinkJUN 29
• Hooray for ObamacareJUN 25
• Slavery’s Long ShadowJUN 22

See More »

The first is that the “We’re Greece!” crowd has a truly remarkable track record when it comes to economic forecasting: They’ve been wrong about everything, year after year, but refuse to learn from their mistakes. The people now saying that Greece offers an object lesson in the dangers of government debt, and that America is headed down the same road, are the same people who predicted soaring interest rates and runaway inflation in 2010; then, when it didn’t happen, they predicted soaring rates and runaway inflation in 2011; then, well, you get the picture.

The second is that the story you’ve heard about Greece — that it borrowed too much, and its excessive debt led to the current crisis — is seriously incomplete. Greece did indeed run up too much debt (with a lot of help from irresponsible lenders). But its debt, while high, wasn’t that high by historical standards. What turned Greek debt troubles into catastrophe was Greece’s inability, thanks to the euro, to do what countries with large debts usually do: impose fiscal austerity, yes, but offset it with easy money.

Consider Greece’s situation at the end of 2009, when its debt crisis burst into the open. At that point Greek government debt was near 130 percent of gross domestic product, which is definitely a big number. But it’s by no means unprecedented. As it happens, Greece’s debt ratio in 2009 was about the same as America’s in 1946, just after the war. And Britain’s debt ratio in 1946 was twice as high.

Today, however, Greek debt is over 170 percent of G.D.P. and still rising. Is that because Greece just kept on borrowing? Actually, no — Greek debt is up only 6 percent since 2009, although that’s partly because it received some debt relief in 2012. The main point, however, is that the ratio of debt to G.D.P. is up because G.D.P. is down by more than 20 percent. And why is GDP down? Largely because of the austerity measures Greece’s creditors forced it to impose.

Does this mean that austerity is always self-defeating? No, there are cases — for example, Canada in the 1990s — of countries that slashed their debt while maintaining growth and reducing unemployment. But if you look at how they managed this, it involved combining fiscal austerity with easy money: Canada in the ’90s drastically reduced interest rates, encouraging private spending, while allowing its currency to depreciate, encouraging exports.
Greece, unfortunately, no longer had its own currency when it was forced into drastic fiscal retrenchment. The result was an economic implosion that ended up making the debt problem even worse. Greece’s formula for disaster, in other words, didn’t just involve austerity; it involved the toxic combination of austerity with hard money.

So who wants to impose that kind of toxic policy mix on America? The answer is, most of the Republican Party.

On one side, just about everyone in the G.O.P. demands that we reduce government spending, especially aid to lower-income families. (They also, of course, want to reduce taxes on the rich — but that wouldn’t do much to boost demand for U.S. products.)

On the other side, leading Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan incessantly attack the Federal Reserve for its efforts to boost the economy, delivering solemn lectures on the evils of “debasing” the dollar — when the main difference between the effects of austerity in Canada and in Greece was precisely that Canada could “debase” its currency, while Greece couldn’t. Oh, and many Republicans hanker for a return to the gold standard, which would effectively put us into a euro-like straitjacket.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/o...-a-lesson-for-republicans-in-the-us.html?_r=0

Paul Krugman is an idiot who knows nothing about economics.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Oh right let's be more like Somalia. Great plan.

I'd like to see one successful country with a "small government" that worked well. Somalia?

The United States until the FDR regime is a perfect example. Of course, almost every developed country in Europe had a small government during the industrial revolution when their economies grew at rates that would be considered astounding today.

You know the reality is that current government regulations in this country do very little to hinder job creation. Revenue as a percentage of GDP, is near the historic low.

Why is it so hard for you people to grasp how much of a failure Reagan economics are? Net job growth under Bush was pathetic despite his insane tax cuts on the wealthy. The Great Recession of 2008 happened anyway as well. Kansas is now a deficit black hole because of the latest "experiment".

If Reagan economics failed, what does that make Obama?
Obama's got one year deficits bigger than entire Reagan budgets
Obama got more people out of the workforce than the entire population of the Philippines
Obama added more debt than anyone in all of human history

Lol how typical of you to dodge the issue and bring Obama.

1) 11 million+ private jobs have been created under Obama. 3 million of those came from his stimulus package.
2) does inflation mean anything to you? the deficit has fallen dramatically under Obama. The debt has increased because of him extending Bush's tax cuts and uber defense spending. Republicans love that under republican presidents!
3) That has been declining since before Obama took office. Retirement, disability and discouragement from low wage jobs are the primary reasons. Obama tried fixing the problem by raising the minimum wage. Meanwhile, the fat cats are richer than ever before under Obama and are doing nothing to boost wages and create more jobs. Why don't you blame them?

Nope. O has a net gain of 4.8 million.....not 11 million. You didn't count the jobs lost.