How is austerity doing in Europe

[TheGreatGatsby]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-rubber-room/286498-payless-shoes-f-ing-geniuses.html

rofl

It's not a big deal that I forgot you could use a coupon the day it expired. I took my licks then and moved on. What are you fucking 10? Get a fucking life, loser.

 

[Toro]

Who gives a fuck about your trolling, bitch. Some of us move on. Read this link and learn that GDP is not the be-all when it comes to economic analysis:

Does Growth Equal Progress? The Myth of GDP | Demos

The first line of your link is "GDP equals economic growth"

Hahahahahahaha.

Contradicts himself.

Hilarious.

You're awesome, gasbag.

 

[Toro]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-rubber-room/286498-payless-shoes-f-ing-geniuses.html

rofl

It's not a big deal that I forgot you could use a coupon the day it expired. I took my licks then and moved on. What are you fucking 10? Get a fucking life, loser.

"Forgot?"

Hahahahahahaha.

Yeah right. You "forgot."



Outstanding.

Why don't you call Oldfart a "retard" while you're at it like you did in that thread.

 

[Toro]

Basic economics 101 for gasbag;

1. Reported GDP is after inflation.

2. Rising GDP = economic growth.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Who gives a fuck about your trolling, bitch. Some of us move on. Read this link and learn that GDP is not the be-all when it comes to economic analysis:

Does Growth Equal Progress? The Myth of GDP | Demos

The first line of your link is "GDP equals economic growth"

Hahahahahahaha.

Contradicts himself.

Hilarious.

You're awesome, gasbag.

It measures a superficial level of economic growth, it could be said. But, in terms of real growth (IE progress) that is not the case. In fact, it says that right in fucking first line, twat:

"GDP measures economic growth, but is it an accurate measure of progress?"

Do you even know what GDP is? It is the sum of finished goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period. It's basically a productivity stat. And within terms of a country, positive GDP growth is good while negative GDP growth is bad.

But, there are a myriad of other factors that must be considered when determining if an economy is truly improving. That's all I've ever fucking said. Debt, house prices, wages, unemployment, poverty levels, savings, interest rate, etc are all very relevant in determining the state of any economy.

The reality is GDP by definition is almost always growing for every country in almost every quarter. Does that mean their economies have astronomically "grown" from one year to the next or one decade to the next? You need to get a fucking clue.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-rubber-room/286498-payless-shoes-f-ing-geniuses.html

rofl

It's not a big deal that I forgot you could use a coupon the day it expired. I took my licks then and moved on. What are you fucking 10? Get a fucking life, loser.

"Forgot?"

Hahahahahahaha.

Yeah right. You "forgot."



Outstanding.

Why don't you call Oldfart a "retard" while you're at it like you did in that thread.

Does it fucking matter whether or I forgot or didn't know? Who give a fuck, loser. Shut the fuck up and get a life, seriously. People move on from stupid shit. You sit there and fixate like someone with down syndrome.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Basic economics 101 for gasbag;

1. Reported GDP is after inflation.

2. Rising GDP = economic growth.

1. No. GDP is not after inflation. Sometimes/often, it gets adjusted for inflation. But, that is not standard. It is always assumed that it does not account for inflation unless otherwise stated. If you were a real economist and didn't just pretend to be one on a net board, you'd know that.

2. Rising GDP = Asset growth, period.

 

[Toro]

rofl

Sometimes it's just best to give guys the rope and let them hang themselves.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Whatever, dude. I refuted everyone of your lame points. I'm not surprised that you're going back to lame blanket statements after getting shown what's what. That's what ten-year-olds do.

 

[AmazonTania]

Here is one small "proven fact" for you. The movement away from regulation and the spirit of FDR's reforms, and towards your libertarian philosophy, caused the meltdown of 2008, which nearly brought down the world economy. The "waste" caused by the so called free market has been variously calculated to be in the tens of trillions of dollars. Just one historical event among many. Doesn't that make you want to pull that picture of Ron Paul down from the mantle? It should.

What movement away from regulation would that be? I'm dying to know... And what Free Market would that be? America has never had one since... How old is your country again?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Here is one small "proven fact" for you. The movement away from regulation and the spirit of FDR's reforms, and towards your libertarian philosophy, caused the meltdown of 2008, which nearly brought down the world economy. The "waste" caused by the so called free market has been variously calculated to be in the tens of trillions of dollars. Just one historical event among many. Doesn't that make you want to pull that picture of Ron Paul down from the mantle? It should.

What movement away from regulation would that be? I'm dying to know... And what Free Market would that be? America has never had one since... How old is your country again?

It's hillarious that he touts "libertarian" principles as being at the root of the 08 downturn. As a quasi libertarian, I can tell you that libertarians are on the fringe of political influence at best. No, no, no. It's the corruption of Dems and Dem Lites. He's nothing but a propagandist.

 

[Auteur]

Here is one small "proven fact" for you. The movement away from regulation and the spirit of FDR's reforms, and towards your libertarian philosophy, caused the meltdown of 2008, which nearly brought down the world economy. The "waste" caused by the so called free market has been variously calculated to be in the tens of trillions of dollars. Just one historical event among many. Doesn't that make you want to pull that picture of Ron Paul down from the mantle? It should.

What movement away from regulation would that be? I'm dying to know... And what Free Market would that be? America has never had one since... How old is your country again?

If that is you in the picture, you are likely too young to remember 1980, the Reagan administration, and the conservative backlash against the progressive policies of the '60s. Government was not the solution, Reagan famously said, it was the problem. After this admission of his incomprehension of the world, deregulation became the fashion of the times, everything from the airline industry, to- notably- the financial industry. Wall Street was allowed to run wild, and it did, creating all manner of get rich quick schemes. What was once a small but respected segment of the economy, that served to provide a flow of capital where it was most needed, then became a giant circus, perhaps 30 percent of the total economy, a self-serving fantasy land where fortunes could be made by sharp operators moving billions about cyberspace, for no other reason than to, well, make one's fortune. If individuals and groups such as pension plans suffered in the process (they did), then too bad. If one goes to the carnival side show, they need to keep their wits about them, and their hands on their wallets. Or so goes the philosophy of the far right, which has carved such a niche for itself in America today.

 

[AmazonTania]

Here is one small "proven fact" for you. The movement away from regulation and the spirit of FDR's reforms, and towards your libertarian philosophy, caused the meltdown of 2008, which nearly brought down the world economy. The "waste" caused by the so called free market has been variously calculated to be in the tens of trillions of dollars. Just one historical event among many. Doesn't that make you want to pull that picture of Ron Paul down from the mantle? It should.

What movement away from regulation would that be? I'm dying to know... And what Free Market would that be? America has never had one since... How old is your country again?

If that is you in the picture, you are likely too young to remember 1980, the Reagan administration, and the conservative backlash against the progressive policies of the '60s. Government was not the solution, Reagan famously said, it was the problem. After this admission of his incomprehension of the world, deregulation became the fashion of the times, everything from the airline industry, to- notably- the financial industry. Wall Street was allowed to run wild, and it did, creating all manner of get rich quick schemes. What was once a small but respected segment of the economy, that served to provide a flow of capital where it was most needed, then became a giant circus, perhaps 30 percent of the total economy, a self-serving fantasy land where fortunes could be made by sharp operators moving billions about cyberspace, for no other reason than to, well, make one's fortune. If individuals and groups such as pension plans suffered in the process (they did), then too bad. If one goes to the carnival side show, they need to keep their wits about them, and their hands on their wallets. Or so goes the philosophy of the far right, which has carved such a niche for itself in America today.

I remember the 1980's, as well what deregulation means. Deregulation is removing or reducing the amount of state regulations. This did not happen. When you have pages of new regulations added each year, that is not deregulation. If you look through the federal register or US Code, you'll find a few pieces of regulations repealed or taken off the books, but the Government is still added much more on top of the ones they've already replaced. It's really wonder if any of you understand the difference between deregulation, mis-regulation and no-regulation:

Aside from always being wrong, it's my understanding that many love to use the same examples over and over again, such as Regulation Q and Regulation 12 USC 377. Generally, examples which have zero to do with your underlying problems. Yeah, I'm fairly certain that this entire crisis would have been averted if checking accounts were not allowed to receive interest, and if commercial banks were not allowed to deal in securities.

Talk about a red-herring.

 

[Misty]

Do you even know what austerity means.

Cutting the budget and raising taxes to cut deficits. The fed can not print money forever. Something has got to give.

Now here in California they've raised the taxes part, now all they have to do is cut the spending and this is where we run into problems. No one wants to cut spending. So we just dig a deeper hole and pay more for the shovels.

"Latvia, feted by fans of austerity as the country-that-can and an example for countries like Greece that can’t, has provided a rare boost to champions of the proposition that pain pays.

Hardship has long been common here — and still is. But in just four years, the country has gone from the European Union’s worst economic disaster zone to a model of what the International Monetary Fund hails as the healing properties of deep budget cuts. Latvia’s economy, after shriveling by more than 20 percent from its peak, grew by about 5 percent last year, making it the best performer in the 27-nation European Union. Its budget deficit is down sharply and exports are soaring.

But in Latvia, where the government laid off a third of its civil servants, slashed wages for the rest and sharply reduced support for hospitals, people mostly accepted the bitter medicine. Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis, who presided over the austerity, was re-elected, not thrown out of office, as many of his counterparts elsewhere have been."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/w...y-and-its-pain-eases.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

First of all, the Baltic countries of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania have been pushed so deeply and violently into debt, we have a situation where whole chunks of their populations are emigrating. They’re fleeing like the zombie apocalypse landed on their front door.

The Latvian economy contracted by 25% and this caused unemployment to shoot up to around 20%. Currently, the last time I looked at the numbers, unemployment is around 14-15%. Where’s the success in that? We have a situation where tens of thousands of people have exited the country looking for better opportunities abroad. This has made horrendous unemployment numbers look somewhat less horrendous.

Last year, for example, Latvia had a budget deficit which was 3.5% of GDP, with trade deficits at 3%. According to sectoral balances, this means that the private savings is at zero, which could go on for many year to come, but isn’t sustainable for more than a few years.

Austerity is a disaster and simply cannot work. It destroys financial assets in the private sector, which has the effect of atrophying labor and capital. We’re seeing this happen in real time across a good portion of the EU and Baltic states.

 

[Misty]

The government can not support everyone just by taxing "the rich".

The government has to cut ALL it's wasteful programs of which there are thousands.

I'm all for EFC.

 

[Kimura]

There is no arguing austerity. Do you even know what austerity means.

Cutting the budget and raising taxes to cut deficits.

Yes, I know what austerity means. It's a cute way of saying to hell with workers' rights and let's suppress wages as much as humanly possible.

Austerity measures simply can’t work in the United States. It destroys capital and labor. If we define this as budget surpluses, which constitutes tax revenues exceeding government spending, this would destroy financial assets in the domestic private sector. You would have to replace these financial assets through running a trade surplus. If the private sector continues to hemorrhage financial assets, we end up in a recession, depression, or credit bubble. It’s impossible for the Unites States to run a government sector surplus, a trade deficit, and to increase private sector wealth. All sectors of the economy can’t all simultaneously be in surplus; one sector’s surplus is another sector’s deficit.

Savings doesn't generate business investments; it’s actually the the other way around. Deficits don't reduce national investments or savings if that's what you're getting at. For example, the issuing of US Treasuries doesn't use up X amount of funds which were going to be utilized by the private sector. Investment generates economic saving so to speak.

The fed can not print money forever. Something has got to give.

Where to do you think the dollar in your pocket comes from? Money creation is ex-nihilo under a fiat system.

Now here in California they've raised the taxes part, now all they have to do is cut the spending and this is where we run into problems. No one wants to cut spending. So we just dig a deeper hole and pay more for the shovels.

You can't compare a states, municipalities, or households to the federal government. We have collect the currency before we can use it, whether it's you or I or the state of California. On the other hand, the federal government has to spend the currency before it can use it. The currency issuer plays by a different set of rules - both in a literal and operational sense.

 

[oldfart]

And I don't divulge personal info online. But, I can tell you I've taken a few econ courses and govt. waste is a very basic concept that is taught. Deluded utopians like yourself cherrypick circumstantial data points and abstract theories, instead of regarding tried and proven principles.

OK, let's cut to the chase. Nobody has to give out personal IDENTIFYING information on a message board, but when you claim expertise in an area as you have, and that expertise is not reflected in your posts, you are going to get called on it. Your responses to several posters shows no familiarity with either economics or economic history.

For what it's worth, I have taught 21 separate economics courses at university level, served as an expert witness in federal and state courts, published in peer-reviewed journals, and conducted research in economic history. Anyone who bothers to check out my posts will be able to judge my grasp of the literature and the degree of civility I extend when another poster is being serious.

If you had read any of the main works on the Depression such as Friedman and Schwartz, "Monetary History of the United States", Ben Bernanke's 2000 work, "Essays on the Great Depression", or even Murray Rothbard's "America's Great Depression" published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, also in 2000, you would understand how off the wall your cited research was and why it probably couldn't find a publisher.

You're a lying fucktard with an agenda. I've said nothing that belies basic economics and you want to come out saying I deserve to be called out? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of you bull shit post. Don't think I'm going to waste too much time on worms like yourself.

I will be greatly gratified if you cease reading and attempting to respond to my posts.

 

[Misty]

Ex nihilio "from nothing" another FDR fuck up.

 

[Toro]

OK, let's cut to the chase. Nobody has to give out personal IDENTIFYING information on a message board, but when you claim expertise in an area as you have, and that expertise is not reflected in your posts, you are going to get called on it. Your responses to several posters shows no familiarity with either economics or economic history.

For what it's worth, I have taught 21 separate economics courses at university level, served as an expert witness in federal and state courts, published in peer-reviewed journals, and conducted research in economic history. Anyone who bothers to check out my posts will be able to judge my grasp of the literature and the degree of civility I extend when another poster is being serious.

If you had read any of the main works on the Depression such as Friedman and Schwartz, "Monetary History of the United States", Ben Bernanke's 2000 work, "Essays on the Great Depression", or even Murray Rothbard's "America's Great Depression" published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, also in 2000, you would understand how off the wall your cited research was and why it probably couldn't find a publisher.

You're a lying fucktard with an agenda. I've said nothing that belies basic economics and you want to come out saying I deserve to be called out? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of you bull shit post. Don't think I'm going to waste too much time on worms like yourself.

I will be greatly gratified if you cease reading and attempting to respond to my posts.

No way!

I encourage gasbag to respond!

He's hilarious!

Such clueless lack of self-awareness is hard to find.

 

[AmazonTania]

Gasbag thinks GDP growth isn't economic growth.

Just so you understand the level you're dealing with here.

You're a total fucking idiot. If you're going to taunt and mock; at least be on the fucking money, instead of cockily making fallacious points like a total fucking retard.

GDP is only an economic indicator. It doesn't equate to economic growth if you astronomically increase the debt and/or have large inflation. These are simple concepts that you would know if you took economics instead of just making the laughable claim that you have a degree in economics.

^^^^^^
Gasbag didn't know how coupons worked either.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-rubber-room/286498-payless-shoes-f-ing-geniuses.html

rofl

I have to admit, that thread was worth a chuckle. But stop being a bully and pick on someone your own size...

Like... This thing... I dunno: