How is austerity doing in Europe

[AmazonTania]

When did "austerity" in Europe take place? What's amusing to me is that progressives now point to something that DIDN'T happen as "proof" that doing it doesn't work!

Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece have all had significant budget cuts.

This is the problem with the austerity hawks. They have a definition of austerity which no nation will adopt and therefore avoid responsibility for the disastrous results of the policies they advocate. It's not true austerity unless the entire public deficit is erased, the central bank is dismantled and the nation returns to the gold standard, and taxes are lowered. If nations like Ireland follow their program and it seems to work for a while, they claim success. When it turns out that the program isn't working at all (in Ireland's case because it's a small economy and there is a peculiarity in its pharma export business related to tax avoidance that inflates GDP figures), then they claim austerity was never really tried.

Among other things this kind of argument is intellectually dishonest and anyone making it is doing so in bad faith. Liberals used to do the same thing; if a poverty program didn't work it was never because it was badly structured, it was because we didn't fund it adequately. Now it's conservatives who think that any problem can be solved by defunding or privatizing it.

Well, the problem with the stimulus doves is that their idea of austerity is not being fiscally reckless fast enough. How is that not intellectually dishonest? In austerity is defined as reducing government spending. This... did...not... happen... The only EU counties which have really made efforts to cut government spending are Hungary Portugal, Ireland and Greece. Other than those countries, that is is. Expenditures have either increased or barely budged for the rest.

Portugal's expenditures have merely tapered off from it's 2010 levels, now government spending is at a two year low. Greece Spending is only at a three year low. The rate at which their economy is producing, both of these nations have increased spending to more than 50%, so I don't know how austere that is suppose to be

Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table

As for Ireland, it's not in picture perfect health, but it's one of the better preforming EU nations with it's labour force rising and tops the EU third-level education attainment and has one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the EU of 11% (which is an enormous problem regarding the EU right now).

No recovery is painless, but some makes more sense than others.

 

[Rshermr]

Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece have all had significant budget cuts.

This is the problem with the austerity hawks. They have a definition of austerity which no nation will adopt and therefore avoid responsibility for the disastrous results of the policies they advocate. It's not true austerity unless the entire public deficit is erased, the central bank is dismantled and the nation returns to the gold standard, and taxes are lowered. If nations like Ireland follow their program and it seems to work for a while, they claim success. When it turns out that the program isn't working at all (in Ireland's case because it's a small economy and there is a peculiarity in its pharma export business related to tax avoidance that inflates GDP figures), then they claim austerity was never really tried.

Among other things this kind of argument is intellectually dishonest and anyone making it is doing so in bad faith. Liberals used to do the same thing; if a poverty program didn't work it was never because it was badly structured, it was because we didn't fund it adequately. Now it's conservatives who think that any problem can be solved by defunding or privatizing it.

Well, the problem with the stimulus doves is that their idea of austerity is not being fiscally reckless fast enough. How is that not intellectually dishonest? In austerity is defined as reducing government spending. This... did...not... happen... The only EU counties which have really made efforts to cut government spending are Hungary Portugal, Ireland and Greece. Other than those countries, that is is. Expenditures have either increased or barely budged for the rest.

Portugal's expenditures have merely tapered off from it's 2010 levels, now government spending is at a two year low. Greece Spending is only at a three year low. The rate at which their economy is producing, both of these nations have increased spending to more than 50%, so I don't know how austere that is suppose to be

Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table

As for Ireland, it's not in picture perfect health, but it's one of the better preforming EU nations with it's labour force rising and tops the EU third-level education attainment and has one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the EU of 11% (which is an enormous problem regarding the EU right now).

No recovery is painless, but some makes more sense than others.

Problem with the data is obvious. You must be aware of it. When gnp drops, as it does when the ue rate goes up, as it did in those countries in europe where austerity was tried, and outlays are not reduced enough, then you have a real possibility of having increasing expenditures as a percentage of gnp. Same problem that the right is having trying to show that austerity is not happening. It is, it is causing a decline in gnp, and you have a higher percent of expenditures to gnp.
Please try to find a study that suggests that austerity has not occurred, then we can examine the premice. Simple graphs or stats showing expenditures as a percentage prove NOTHING. OBVIOUSLY.

So, for instance, if your little country had gnp of $100B, but after austerity measures it had gnp $75B, but expenditures dropped by 15%, then according to your analysis, austerity did not happen. Which is, as has been shown numerous times, exactly what the right is saying. Just does not pass the giggle test.
So, again, where is it that austerity is working???

 

[Oldstyle]

You're a fucking moron that doesn't know shit; let alone know more than me.

Triple dip recessions? I sincerely doubt it and challenge you to document your bull shit. But, you can't.

Secondly, you don't go on the verge of bankruptcy with decades of corruption and thne think it's all going to be okay the next quarter. It's not. All of these nations have huge debts hanging over their heads and inept regulations gridlocking their systems.

When did "austerity" in Europe take place? What's amusing to me is that progressives now point to something that DIDN'T happen as "proof" that doing it doesn't work!

Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece have all had significant budget cuts.

"significant"? Is that when you don't spend twice what you're taking in? You guys are like an alcoholic that goes from drinking two bottles of vodka a day to one and a half and then says the whole "sobriety" thing doesn't work.

 

[oldfart]

Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece have all had significant budget cuts.

This is the problem with the austerity hawks. They have a definition of austerity which no nation will adopt and therefore avoid responsibility for the disastrous results of the policies they advocate. It's not true austerity unless the entire public deficit is erased, the central bank is dismantled and the nation returns to the gold standard, and taxes are lowered. If nations like Ireland follow their program and it seems to work for a while, they claim success. When it turns out that the program isn't working at all (in Ireland's case because it's a small economy and there is a peculiarity in its pharma export business related to tax avoidance that inflates GDP figures), then they claim austerity was never really tried.

Among other things this kind of argument is intellectually dishonest and anyone making it is doing so in bad faith. Liberals used to do the same thing; if a poverty program didn't work it was never because it was badly structured, it was because we didn't fund it adequately. Now it's conservatives who think that any problem can be solved by defunding or privatizing it.

Well, the problem with the stimulus doves is that their idea of austerity is not being fiscally reckless fast enough. How is that not intellectually dishonest? In austerity is defined as reducing government spending. This... did...not... happen... The only EU counties which have really made efforts to cut government spending are Hungary Portugal, Ireland and Greece. Other than those countries, that is is. Expenditures have either increased or barely budged for the rest.

Portugal's expenditures have merely tapered off from it's 2010 levels, now government spending is at a two year low. Greece Spending is only at a three year low. The rate at which their economy is producing, both of these nations have increased spending to more than 50%, so I don't know how austere that is suppose to be

Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table

As for Ireland, it's not in picture perfect health, but it's one of the better preforming EU nations with it's labour force rising and tops the EU third-level education attainment and has one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the EU of 11% (which is an enormous problem regarding the EU right now).

No recovery is painless, but some makes more sense than others.

I believe that my post also took a swipe at liberals for doing the equivalent. Both sides have a tendency to support policy measures and then if they fail claim the failure is because they do not go far enough. The proper time to make that argument is before the policy is implemented. Whether stimulus or austerity, you either own the program or you don't, before you have results.

So you believe that austerity has been tried in Hungary, Ireland, Portugal and Greece? But you don't want to claim Britain, Iceland, Latvia, Italy, or Spain? Just want to keep my scorecard straight.

 

[AmazonTania]

Problem with the data is obvious. You must be aware of it. When gnp drops, as it does when the ue rate goes up, as it did in those countries in europe where austerity was tried, and outlays are not reduced enough, then you have a real possibility of having increasing expenditures as a percentage of gnp. Same problem that the right is having trying to show that austerity is not happening. It is, it is causing a decline in gnp, and you have a higher percent of expenditures to gnp.

No, GDP drops when either Consumption, Investment or Net Exports drop. That's basic economics. You somehow forgot that Government Expenditures is a component of GDP. Which may be apparent by your use of the term 'GNP,' but I digress. Government as a percentage of GDP details how large Public Sector spending is as a percentage of your economy. If this component decreases, the GDP decreases as well if the other components do no pick up the slack. If your public sector consumption is increasingly larger and larger, this means that Government Spending is driving your economy. How exactly can it be austerity if Government Spending is driving your economy? It can't.

In Greece Government Final Consumption Expenditures are falling at a rate of -4.3% Y/Y, but the economy is contracting at a rate of -4.7% Y/Y. Meaning, Government Spending is lagging behind the contraction. It can't be driving it. Especially since you have already seen the small upticks in government spending. Private spending is decreasing by the same rate as government spending. The only different is that you have had Q/Q increases in government spending, while you've had a consistent Q/Q decrease in private spending.

And Greece is just one example. There may be other things driving it's decline, such as gross fixed capital formation. This has a -16.2% Y/Y decrease in this area, 4 times the effect consumption has on the economy. But it's pretty easy to see that Government spending isn't the catalyst. It has the lowest drop of any component of Greece's GDP. Aside from exports, tt's probably the only thing driving it's economy right about now.

Please try to find a study that suggests that austerity has not occurred, then we can examine the premice. Simple graphs or stats showing expenditures as a percentage prove NOTHING. OBVIOUSLY.

First off,I can't disprove a negative. That a logic fallacy. Secondly the data wasn't for you, and third a study is not required. The definition of what austerity is quite clear and easy for everyone to understand. The only thing anyone needs to look at are primary sourced statistics. The data is pretty easy to understand if you know what you are doing. Just because you cannot understand the data doesn't mean the data is wrong.

So, for instance, if your little country had gnp of $100B, but after austerity measures it had gnp $75B, but expenditures dropped by 15%, then according to your analysis, austerity did not happen. Which is, as has been shown numerous times, exactly what the right is saying. Just does not pass the giggle test.

Of course it doesn't, because that doesn't make sense, and it's also not funny.

So, again, where is it that austerity is working???

I've already named names.

 

[AmazonTania]

This is the problem with the austerity hawks. They have a definition of austerity which no nation will adopt and therefore avoid responsibility for the disastrous results of the policies they advocate. It's not true austerity unless the entire public deficit is erased, the central bank is dismantled and the nation returns to the gold standard, and taxes are lowered. If nations like Ireland follow their program and it seems to work for a while, they claim success. When it turns out that the program isn't working at all (in Ireland's case because it's a small economy and there is a peculiarity in its pharma export business related to tax avoidance that inflates GDP figures), then they claim austerity was never really tried.

Among other things this kind of argument is intellectually dishonest and anyone making it is doing so in bad faith. Liberals used to do the same thing; if a poverty program didn't work it was never because it was badly structured, it was because we didn't fund it adequately. Now it's conservatives who think that any problem can be solved by defunding or privatizing it.

Well, the problem with the stimulus doves is that their idea of austerity is not being fiscally reckless fast enough. How is that not intellectually dishonest? In austerity is defined as reducing government spending. This... did...not... happen... The only EU counties which have really made efforts to cut government spending are Hungary Portugal, Ireland and Greece. Other than those countries, that is is. Expenditures have either increased or barely budged for the rest.

Portugal's expenditures have merely tapered off from it's 2010 levels, now government spending is at a two year low. Greece Spending is only at a three year low. The rate at which their economy is producing, both of these nations have increased spending to more than 50%, so I don't know how austere that is suppose to be

Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table

As for Ireland, it's not in picture perfect health, but it's one of the better preforming EU nations with it's labour force rising and tops the EU third-level education attainment and has one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the EU of 11% (which is an enormous problem regarding the EU right now).

No recovery is painless, but some makes more sense than others.

I believe that my post also took a swipe at liberals for doing the equivalent. Both sides have a tendency to support policy measures and then if they fail claim the failure is because they do not go far enough. The proper time to make that argument is before the policy is implemented. Whether stimulus or austerity, you either own the program or you don't, before you have results.

There really is nothing to own if the policy you advocate isn't implemented close or exact the way you would have liked it to be. Leninst-Marxist don't refer to the the Soviet Union as Communism. Free Market economist don't refer to America has a Free Market. I wouldn't refer to government spending program which is 4% percent of GDP as stimulus. So why exactly do we call 3% spending cuts as austerity? Any other point in history, it would have not been seen as austere. It would have been just another plan to reduce the deficit and government spending. While you can say that by definition, that is austerity, then that would generally make the term subjective.

So you believe that austerity has been tried in Hungary, Ireland, Portugal and Greece? But you don't want to claim Britain, Iceland, Latvia, Italy, or Spain? Just want to keep my scorecard straight.

Britain & Italy have had their government expenditures increase from at least 2008 - 2009. That's not very austere. Latvia expenditures have barely budged and particularly stagnant, but that won't stop people from calling it austerity. Spain had the largest budget deficit in the EU like 5 months ago and their expenditures have increased as well. Not to mention Moody's has downgraded the UK. I don't really see where the austerity is in these places.

It's possible Iceland may have had some. Spending was at an all-time high in 2008. It tapered off some and then started to increase again.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Except that the austerity programs sent the UK into triple-dip recession, 5 other countries are virtually bankrupt, eastern Europe's post-soviet recovery has been crushed, and Germany owns just about everything.

Gatsby, if you're going to bullshit post, make sure those reading your posts aren't more familiar with the subject matter than you are.

You're a fucking moron that doesn't know shit; let alone know more than me.

Triple dip recessions? I sincerely doubt it and challenge you to document your bull shit. But, you can't.

Secondly, you don't go on the verge of bankruptcy with decades of corruption and thne think it's all going to be okay the next quarter. It's not. All of these nations have huge debts hanging over their heads and inept regulations gridlocking their systems.

Yup. Just more hit and run posting from [MENTION=34688]Grandma[/MENTION]

 

[Toro]

There was no triple-dip recession in the UK, though that's what people were fearing several months ago.

It was thought that the UK had a double-dip recession, and official figures originally showed this to be the case. However, official figures have been revised to show that the UK did not enter into a double-dip recession.

 

[AmazonTania]

Official figures show that a meteorite didn't hit us after the sequester too. UK & US are just dodging bullets left and right.

 

[Rshermr]

No, GDP drops when either Consumption, Investment or Net Exports drop. That's basic economics. You somehow forgot that Government Expenditures is a component of GDP.

No, I did not.

Government as a percentage of GDP details how large Public Sector spending is as a percentage of your economy. If this component decreases, the GDP decreases as well if the other components do no pick up the slack.

Obviously.

If your public sector consumption is increasingly larger and larger, this means that Government Spending is driving your economy. How exactly can it be austerity if Government Spending is driving your economy? It can't.

Sorry. Gov spending can increase as a percentage of gdp even though it is decreasing. Easily. Way to simple to have to explain. You must know how that is possible. See another example below.

In Greece Government Final Consumption Expenditures are falling at a rate of -4.3% Y/Y, but the economy is contracting at a rate of -4.7% Y/Y. Meaning, Government Spending is lagging behind the contraction. It can't be driving it. Especially since you have already seen the small upticks in government spending. Private spending is decreasing by the same rate as government spending. The only different is that you have had Q/Q increases in government spending, while you've had a consistent Q/Q decrease in private spending.

And Greece is just one example. There may be other things driving it's decline, such as gross fixed capital formation. This has a -16.2% Y/Y decrease in this area, 4 times the effect consumption has on the economy. But it's pretty easy to see that Government spending isn't the catalyst. It has the lowest drop of any component of Greece's GDP. Aside from exports, tt's probably the only thing driving it's economy right about now.

Yup. Greece is a mess. Probably the worst of all the eu countries. Funny how it is the one always singled out by conservatives. Not even close to one of the largest. But you are misleading, again. Gov spending in greece decreased in an absolute sense, but unemployment and private spending decreased more. So, see the example below.
So, the question is, how is austerity working there?? Or are you saying that there has been no austerity in Greece???

Quote:
Please try to find a study that suggests that austerity has not occurred, then we can examine the premice. Simple graphs or stats showing expenditures as a percentage prove NOTHING. OBVIOUSLY.

First off,I can't disprove a negative.That a logic fallacy.

Finding a study that shows that austerity is working is NOT DISPROVING A NEGATIVE. Where did that one come from. It is finding a study of a european country where austerity is found to have worked.

Secondly the data wasn't for you,

Then I would suggest you not post it in a public forum. Do you know some rules that I do not???

and third a study is not required. The definition of what austerity is quite clear and easy for everyone to understand. The only thing anyone needs to look at are primary sourced statistics. The data is pretty easy to understand if you know what you are doing. Just because you cannot understand the data doesn't mean the data is wrong.

Nice to see you are so high on yourself, expecially when you have proven nothing. See below.

Example 2 for Amazon: So if the GDP was $100B, and the portion of that $100B that was gov spending was $30B, and the following year austerity measures brought gov spending to $20B, and the private sector dropped to $40B, and new gdp was $60B, then gov expenditures as a percentage of gdp just went from 30% to 33%. So, through austerity the gov spending decreased by $10B, but gov spending as a percentage of gdp increased by 3%. Which was the point I was making in my last post. Get it yet??? Talking about gov expenditures as a percentage of gdp, or gnp for that matter, is of no real value. Which is why, when you look out there, you will find out that your analysis leaves you pretty much by yourself, except among the conservative web sites, where I suspect your ideas came from.
What is left out is employment. If all you care about is percentages of gdp, then you could say by your unique definition of austerity, that it did not exist in this case. However, in the real world, you are incorrect. Spending did decrease substantially, and in the real examples, unemployment went up greatly.

Which is why I asked you if you had a study showing that austerity was working. Obviously, it would be difficult for you.


Quote:
So, for instance, if your little country had gnp of $100B, but after austerity measures it had gnp $75B, but expenditures dropped by 15%, then according to your analysis, austerity did not happen. Which is, as has been shown numerous times, exactly what the right is saying. Just does not pass the giggle test.

Of course it doesn't, because that doesn't make sense, and it's also not funny.

See above, and you will understand your major malfunction. Indeed, austerity can and does exist while spending becomes a bigger percentage of gdp. If you can not yet understand it, that would be because you are either incapable of understanding basic math, which I do not believe, or simply trying to redefine austerity.

Quote:
So, again, where is it that austerity is working???

I've already named names.

I missed that. So, I assume you named none.

You are trying to show that austerity has not occurred by showing percentages. Just as a number of far right conservative web sites are doing. That has been debunked by impartial sites (you know, the ones you do not read). And you are now posting nonsensical data. If you were in the rational world, and did a simple google search, you would find a whole lot of very economically capable folks who have proven your hypothesis wrong. And yes, I know, you do not read that stuff, because you draw your own graphs.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

There was no triple-dip recession in the UK, though that's what people were fearing several months ago.

It was thought that the UK had a double-dip recession, and official figures originally showed this to be the case. However, official figures have been revised to show that the UK did not enter into a double-dip recession.

Even the term double dip recession is pretty liberal given that there was about four years in between recessions and given the fact that the second recession was more like an aftershock than a total downturn like the first recession.

But, the reality is that massive debt and the devaluation of currency is only going to create more severe and frequent recessions. It's only the hack economists who are ignoring that reality.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Rash: Still spouting your propaganda? All those assertions and no hard data listed to support it?

 

[AmazonTania]

No, I did not. Which may be apparent by your use of the term 'GNP,' but I digress.

I never used it, you did. Stop starting off your responses with a lie.

Problem with the data is obvious. You must be aware of it. When gnp drops, as it does when the ue rate goes up, as it did in those countries in europe where austerity was tried, and outlays are not reduced enough, then you have a real possibility of having increasing expenditures as a percentage of gnp. Same problem that the right is having trying to show that austerity is not happening. It is, it is causing a decline in gnp, and you have a higher percent of expenditures to gnp.

Obviously.

Not to you. You thought it was the unemployment rate which dropped GDP.

Right. So, is there a point there???

The point is, if Government Spending is driving your economy, there is no austerity, as the point of austerity is to free up resources in the economy. As a result of these resources which has been freed up, Private Consumption, Investment and/or Exports generally becomes the new driver. This is not what is happening. These other components are falling faster than Government Spending is.

Get it now?

Yup. Greece is a mess. Probably the worst of all the eu countries. Funny how it is the one always singled out by conservatives. Not even close to one of the largest. So, the question is, how is austerity working there?? Or are you saying that there has been no austerity in Greece???

Wow, and it only took you two responses to catch on.

Finding a study that shows that austerity is working is NOT DISPROVING A NEGATIVE. Where did that one come from. It is finding a study of a european country where austerity is found to have worked.

Proof of something that does NOT exist or is NOT happening is disproving a negative. It's called 'evidence of absence.' That's an logical fallacy, and I don't play that game.

Evidence of absence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then I would suggest you not post it in a public forum. Do you know some rules that I do not???

I'm following the formal rules or debate, which are generally rules followed by rational and logical people. You don't have to play by the same rules, but this is generally the reason why I my best to ignore you. Aside from the fact that I would rather debate someone challenging.

Got it. So if the GDP was $100B, and the portion of that $100B that was gov spending was $30B, and the following year austerity measures brought gov spending to $20B, and the private sector dropped to $40B, and new gdp was $60B, then gov expenditures as a percentage of gdp just went from 30% to 33%. So, through austerity the gov spending decreased by $10B, but gov spending as a percentage of gdp increased by 3%. Which was the point I was making in my last post. Get it yet??? Talking about gov expenditures as a percentage of gdp, or gnp for that matter, is of no real value. Which is why, when you look out there, you will find out that your analysis leaves you pretty much by yourself, except among the conservative web sites, where I suspect your ideas came from.

Government expenditures IS a real value of GDP. Especially when it's used as a percentage of GDP. There is no real value when you discuss it in nominal absolute terms. And your own numbers doesn't make any sense. Why would the new GDP go from $100B to $60B, if government spending only dropped $10B (30 - 20 Billion by your scenario) and the private sector dropped to $40B?

By your own scenario, GDP COULDN'T have been $100B originally and couldn't have fallen by that much. Where is the investment spending? Where are the net exports? Are you suggesting that Government Spending and Private Sector Spending are the only components in your failure of an economy? And don't try to say that you kept it simple by using only two components. It really just enhances your deficiencies...

Let's try using real numbers, okay?

What is left out is employment. If all you care about is percentages of gdp, then you could say by your unique definition of austerity, that it did not exist in this case. However, in the real world, you are incorrect. Spending did decrease substantially, and in the real examples, unemployment went up greatly.

Like I said, -4.3% Y/Y drop in spending is not substantial. And Government spending has increased/decrease on and off. The unemployment is really irrelevant. Not sure why you decided to bring it up.

Which is why I asked you if you had a study showing that austerity was working. Obviously, it would be difficult for you.

First you asked me to show a study showing these countries have not implemented austerity. Now you want me to present of study showing it has worked?

Choose one. It really doesn't matter what you choose because a study is not required.

You can present one if you like. Then I'll debunk it like I always do.

See above, and you will understand your major malfunction. Indeed, austerity can and does exist while spending becomes a bigger percentage of gdp. If you can not yet understand it, that would be because you are either incapable of understanding basic math, which I do not believe, or simply trying to redefine austerity.

I haven't redefined it at all. In many EU countries cases, GDP is contracting. This means everything is contracting. All the components of GDP is falling; however, other parts of the economy is falling faster than government spending. This is why government spending is a larger percentage of GDP, despite the fact that spending has decreased some.

It doesn't mean that they're having austerity. It just means that their economy is shrinking. That's all. The government spending still has not tapered off as much as investments and exports. The only component which is in lock step with Government Spending is Private Sector spending in the case of Greece.

I missed that. So, I assume you named none.

You can assume all you like.

 

[Rshermr]

No, I did not. Which may be apparent by your use of the term 'GNP,' but I digress.

I never used it, you did. Stop starting off your responses with a lie.

Problem with the data is obvious. You must be aware of it. When gnp drops, as it does when the ue rate goes up, as it did in those countries in europe where austerity was tried, and outlays are not reduced enough, then you have a real possibility of having increasing expenditures as a percentage of gnp. Same problem that the right is having trying to show that austerity is not happening. It is, it is causing a decline in gnp, and you have a higher percent of expenditures to gnp.

Not to you. You thought it was the unemployment rate which dropped GDP.



The point is, if Government Spending is driving your economy, there is no austerity, as the point of austerity is to free up resources in the economy. As a result of these resources which has been freed up, Private Consumption, Investment and/or Exports generally becomes the new driver. This is not what is happening. These other components are falling faster than Government Spending is.

Get it now?



Wow, and it only took you two responses to catch on.



Proof of something that does NOT exist or is NOT happening is disproving a negative. It's called 'evidence of absence.' That's an logical fallacy, and I don't play that game.

Evidence of absence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I'm following the formal rules or debate, which is generally rules followed by rational and logical people. You don't have to play by the same rules, but this is generally the reason why I my best to ignore you. Aside from the fact that I would rather debate someone challenging.



Government expenditures IS a real value of GDP. Especially when it's used as a percentage of GDP. There is no real value when you discuss it in nominal absolute terms. And your own numbers doesn't make any sense. Why would the new GDP go from $100B to $60B, if government spending only dropped $10B (30 - 20 Billion by your scenario) and the private sector dropped to $40B?

By your own scenario, GDP COULDN'T have been $100B originally and couldn't have fallen by that much. Where is the investment spending? Where are the net exports? Are you suggesting that Government Spending and Private Sector Spending are the only components in your failure of an economy? And don't try to say that you kept it simple by using only two components. It really just enhances your deficiencies...

Let's try using real numbers, okay?



Like I said, -4.3% Y/Y drop in spending is not substantial. And Government spending has increased/decrease on and off. The unemployment is really irrelevant. Not sure why you decided to bring it up.



First you asked me to show a study showing these countries have not implemented austerity. Now you want me to present of study showing it has worked?

Choose one. It really doesn't matter what you choose because a study is not required.

You can present one if you like. Then I'll debunk it like I always do.

See above, and you will understand your major malfunction. Indeed, austerity can and does exist while spending becomes a bigger percentage of gdp. If you can not yet understand it, that would be because you are either incapable of understanding basic math, which I do not believe, or simply trying to redefine austerity.

I haven't redefined it at all. In many EU countries cases, GDP is contracting. This means everything is contracting. All the components of GDP is falling; however, other parts of the economy is falling faster than government spending. This is why government spending is a larger percentage of GDP, despite the fact that spending has decreased some.

It doesn't mean that they're having austerity. It just means that their economy is shrinking. That's all. The government spending still has not tapered off as much as investments and exports. The only component which is in lock step with Government Spending is Private Sector spending in the case of Greece.

I missed that. So, I assume you named none.

You can assume all you like.

Wow. That was a completely irrational post. You misquoted me. On a couple of occasions. And made statements that only you will understand.
So, what you have said is that austerity does not exist in europe. Which is really, really stupid. but then, I could go back and get your statement of gas being distilled in oil tankers, and saying it like I was obvioulsy stupid not to know that.
Now I remember why I put you on ignore. Jesus, that was a lot of drivel. In my humble, but correct, opinion.

So, being the economic expert that you are, and having a large staff of economists working for you, I should probably listen to the drivel. But of course, there is just you, and a few bat shit crazy con sources that you would quote. Or, I could listen to hundreds of economists who have actually been studying the subject. I think the choice is obvious. And besides, I prefer to deal with people that have some level of integrity.
Austerity is not working in europe (and does indeed exist):
Austerity's Failure in Greece: Time to Think the Unthinkable?
Yes, Europe really is in the throes of austerity
Europe rethinks austerity - Los Angeles Times
German election will kill Europe austerity: Blackstone's Studzinski
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/05/the-end-of-austerity-in-europe.htmlell me, Todd. Is ignorance bliss???
Charlemagne: After austerity, what? | The Economist
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo......austerity-in-europe/.../gIQAQ1NsAU_blog.ht.
» Deepening Economic Crisis: Austerity Policies Heighten National Divisions throughout Europe Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Thousands rally against European austerity on May Day | Reuters
PressTV - Only Germany?s Merkel backs austerity in Europe: French minister
Anti-austerity forces in Europe raise their voices - Darrell Delamaide's Political Capital - MarketWatch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-203209
Why is austerity so unpopular in Europe? Because it?s not working. - The Washington Post
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...owne/europe-austerity-measures_b_1536318.html
Austerity Not Working in Europe: Analyst - CNBC
Austerity is not working - Time for a social investment pact - Citizens For Europe
The lesson for Obama of Europe's failed austerity | Robert Reich | Business | theguardian.com
And on, and on, and on. I could post hundreds. And all impartial sources. No nut case conservative or liberal sources. And, if you look at a few, you will find they have what you do not: A great deal of economic background with studies and facts determined to prove the truth, not an agenda.
Sorry, me girl. What you want folks to believe is, technically, STUPID.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Thanks for spamming your bookmarks. Next time make cogent points and properly cite them.

 

[oldfart]

I believe that my post also took a swipe at liberals for doing the equivalent. Both sides have a tendency to support policy measures and then if they fail claim the failure is because they do not go far enough. The proper time to make that argument is before the policy is implemented. Whether stimulus or austerity, you either own the program or you don't, before you have results.

There really is nothing to own if the policy you advocate isn't implemented close or exact the way you would have liked it to be. Leninst-Marxist don't refer to the the Soviet Union as Communism. Free Market economist don't refer to America has a Free Market. I wouldn't refer to government spending program which is 4% percent of GDP as stimulus. So why exactly do we call 3% spending cuts as austerity?

I'm trying hard to agree with you. But you seem to be making the argument that only extreme programs count. If no nation has tried true austerity or true stimulus, then we have no basis for considering either a success or failure.

My point was that its bad form to wait to see how things turn out to decide if a program meets the purity test.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I believe that my post also took a swipe at liberals for doing the equivalent. Both sides have a tendency to support policy measures and then if they fail claim the failure is because they do not go far enough. The proper time to make that argument is before the policy is implemented. Whether stimulus or austerity, you either own the program or you don't, before you have results.

There really is nothing to own if the policy you advocate isn't implemented close or exact the way you would have liked it to be. Leninst-Marxist don't refer to the the Soviet Union as Communism. Free Market economist don't refer to America has a Free Market. I wouldn't refer to government spending program which is 4% percent of GDP as stimulus. So why exactly do we call 3% spending cuts as austerity?

I'm trying hard to agree with you. But you seem to be making the argument that only extreme programs count. If no nation has tried true austerity or true stimulus, then we have no basis for considering either a success or failure.

My point was that its bad form to wait to see how things turn out to decide if a program meets the purity test.

That's the point she's making. Superficial cuts or increases don't constitute substantial changes or warrant the labels except for perhaps on a superficial basis. A true 'austerity' to me would start at a 20 percent cut. Then and only then would there be real pressure to cut waste and produce savings.

 

[AmazonTania]

Wow. That was a completely irrational post. You misquoted me. On a couple of occasions. And made statements that only you will understand.
So, what you have said is that austerity does not exist in europe. Which is really, really stupid. but then, I could go back and get your statement of gas being distilled in oil tankers, and saying it like I was obvioulsy stupid not to know that.
Now I remember why I put you on ignore. Jesus, that was a lot of drivel. In my humble, but correct, opinion.

So, being the economic expert that you are, and having a large staff of economists working for you, I should probably listen to the drivel. But of course, there is just you, and a few bat shit crazy con sources that you would quote. Or, I could listen to hundreds of economists who have actually been studying the subject. I think the choice is obvious. And besides, I prefer to deal with people that have some level of integrity.
Austerity is not working in europe (and does indeed exist):
Austerity's Failure in Greece: Time to Think the Unthinkable?
Yes, Europe really is in the throes of austerity
Europe rethinks austerity - Los Angeles Times
German election will kill Europe austerity: Blackstone's Studzinski
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/05/the-end-of-austerity-in-europe.htmlell me, Todd. Is ignorance bliss???
Charlemagne: After austerity, what? | The Economist
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo......austerity-in-europe/.../gIQAQ1NsAU_blog.ht.
» Deepening Economic Crisis: Austerity Policies Heighten National Divisions throughout Europe Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Thousands rally against European austerity on May Day | Reuters
PressTV - Only Germany?s Merkel backs austerity in Europe: French minister
Anti-austerity forces in Europe raise their voices - Darrell Delamaide's Political Capital - MarketWatch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-203209
Why is austerity so unpopular in Europe? Because it?s not working. - The Washington Post
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...owne/europe-austerity-measures_b_1536318.html
Austerity Not Working in Europe: Analyst - CNBC
Austerity is not working - Time for a social investment pact - Citizens For Europe
The lesson for Obama of Europe's failed austerity | Robert Reich | Business | theguardian.com
And on, and on, and on. I could post hundreds. And all impartial sources. No nut case conservative or liberal sources. And, if you look at a few, you will find they have what you do not: A great deal of economic background with studies and facts determined to prove the truth, not an agenda.
Sorry, me girl. What you want folks to believe is, technically, STUPID.

So not only did you decide not to respond to a single thing I've said, you've decided to unleash every single thing you've bookmarked about austerity. I also thought that you wanted studies, not blogs/articles. Good to know that your debating standards can turn on a dime. Weren't you in another thread chastising me about the proper use of a source? Nothing hypocritical about that at all...

Look, I don't care what you use as a source. I really don't. But what is boring about debating you is that you can't even rely on your own 'so-called self-proclaimed economic knowledge.' You need the help of a third party to guide you. I can't debunk the person who wrote the article. And refuting sources with another source is boring...

You're free to try again when you possess a better understanding of the topic, but this was an utter waste of time...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

LOL. This was never about her understanding of the topic. I already debunked her propaganda a while back.

 

[AmazonTania]

Her? Well, that makes things a tad clearer....