How is austerity doing in Europe

[Rshermr]

Here are some sources that say that Austerity is NOT working. And they say that Austerity is making things worse where it is being used. These sources are all economists, and well respected in the field. They are not politicians. Here is a short list:

Mark Blyth is Professor of International Political Economy at Brown University.
Austerity
The History of a Dangerous Idea
Oxford University Press: Austerity: Mark Blyth

Paul Krugman: Austerity Is So Wrong!
Paul Krugman: Austerity Is So Wrong! - The Daily Beast

Europe Pushed to ‘Suicide’ on Austerity, Stiglitz Says
Joseph Stiglitz, Europe Pushed to ‘Suicide’ on Austerity, Stiglitz Says

Nobel Winner Stiglitz Warns Job-Killing Austerity Measures Hurt Economies
Nobel Winner Stiglitz Warns Job-Killing Austerity Measures Hurt Economies - Bloomberg

An amazing mea culpa from the IMF’s chief economist on austerity
An amazing mea culpa from the IMF?s chief economist on austerity

Austerity in theory and in practice
Fiscal policy: Austerity in theory and in practice | The Economist

Why Politicians Ignore Economists On Austerity
Why Politicians Ignore Economists On Austerity

European, US Austerity Drive is Suicidal: Nobel Economist Stiglitz
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/04/27-1

Voters, Economists Agree: Austerity Not The Answer
Voters, Economists Agree: Austerity Not The Answer : NPR

This list is simply a short list of economists, and took a few minutes to put together. I did not find an economist who believes that austerity is a successful strategy. So, can anyone post some economists who believe that Austerity is working, or that it will work???

 

[Oldstyle]

Your argument is spacious. First, no one is suggesting that printing money is the singular answer. In fact, it is the answer of last resort.
Relative to taxes being the answer, you have that CORRECT. But the whole answer seems to be beyond your thought process. You may want to look at history. Always, in every single case, when the UE rate is high, the deficit increases. And for really, really obvious reasons. It is because the unemployed do not pay taxes. And they do get unemployment comp. So, you see the deficit increase. Go back to Reagan's term after his tax decrease, and you will see the UE rate raise constantly for over 19 months. And the deficit increase. Because, you see, tax revenues DECREASED.

And, in every case where the deficit has increased during these times of high unemployment, the deficit did not decrease until unemployment was back under control.


So, the Ryan concept is backwards. It is great for the rich because it decreases taxes. But for the economy it would be a disaster. You would see revenue decrease, the deficit increase, and unemployment increase. Simple in theory, and in history. You cut spending, then you cut jobs. Which leads to more cuts in jobs as the unemployed reduce spending. Which then increases the deficit. And if you follow the Ryan logic, you would then decrease taxes and spending again. And, you have the flush effect until someone gets a clue. If you walk away from the political concept of decreasing taxes, which politicians push because the folks that fund them are wealthy and want tax decreases, and look at what has ever, ever worked when unemployment is high, then you will start trying to find a way to stimulate the economy through targeted government spending. You will increase the deficit some, but as unemployment increases, those increases will become decreases. As they always have.

I think the word your looking for is "specious", Tommy...not "spacious". Duh? You make a box of rocks look intelligent.

Wow, Oldstyle. I make a typo, and you correct it. Must be nice to have nothing important to do in your tiny little life.

You just proved...once again...that for someone who SAYS he has a college education...you can't seem to post anything that could pass muster in a High School freshman English class.

I would never bust anyone's chops over the occaisional "typo" but your posts are so gaffe prone as to be laughable for someone who claims he's a college man.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Perhaps you would like to show where I ever said I was a professor. As you know, I did not. Which makes you a liar. Again. But, Oldstyle, what I said is that you claim a bachelors degree in history, but you are in the food services business, with a job so insignificant that nobody cares if you are posting on this board. I did not know that anyone could be that unimportant. And relative to embellishing my background, I have never done so. Which is why you keep making things up. Poor little man."

I take you're talking about the following post?

I only mentioned Thomas Sowell because Kimura asked what my background in economics was. He asked...I told. You'll notice that I didn't try and embellish my background as you are so prone to doing "Professor Rshermr"! You might learn from that...

I know that you're as clueless about the English language as you are about economics and most OTHER subjects, Tommy...I'll give you the 411 on how this works. When someone encloses a word or phrase in " " marks, they are giving you a hint that they are not using the word or phrase in a conventional manner. Quite often, it's used to denote SARCASM, which was how it was used here. When I put Professor Rshermr in " " marks I was poking fun at you...giving you that title in a SARCASTIC manner.

Once again...you've proven yourself to be one of the duller tools in the shed...

 

[Rshermr]

I think the word your looking for is "specious", Tommy...not "spacious". Duh? You make a box of rocks look intelligent.

Wow, Oldstyle. I make a typo, and you correct it. Must be nice to have nothing important to do in your tiny little life.

You just proved...once again...that for someone who SAYS he has a college education...you can't seem to post anything that could pass muster in a High School freshman English class.

I would never bust anyone's chops over the occaisional "typo" but your posts are so gaffe prone as to be laughable for someone who claims he's a college man.

Let me translate that for you: I know so little, and have been again caught lying. So, I will find a typo or misspelling.
You are such a little person, oldstyle. Anyone worrying about, and making a big deal about, a single character, has just proven exactly what he is: A small minded clown without the intellectual capacity to make a rational argument. You have the balls to call someone names, dipshit??? You are trully delusional. Sorry, but dealing with you is a task. I am used to working with people that have class.

 

[Rshermr]

"Perhaps you would like to show where I ever said I was a professor. As you know, I did not. Which makes you a liar. Again. But, Oldstyle, what I said is that you claim a bachelors degree in history, but you are in the food services business, with a job so insignificant that nobody cares if you are posting on this board. I did not know that anyone could be that unimportant. And relative to embellishing my background, I have never done so. Which is why you keep making things up. Poor little man."

I take you're talking about the following post?

I only mentioned Thomas Sowell because Kimura asked what my background in economics was. He asked...I told. You'll notice that I didn't try and embellish my background as you are so prone to doing "Professor Rshermr"! You might learn from that...

I know that you're as clueless about the English language as you are about economics and most OTHER subjects, Tommy...I'll give you the 411 on how this works. When someone encloses a word or phrase in " " marks, they are giving you a hint that they are not using the word or phrase in a conventional manner. Quite often, it's used to denote SARCASM, which was how it was used here. When I put Professor Rshermr in " " marks I was poking fun at you...giving you that title in a SARCASTIC manner.

Once again...you've proven yourself to be one of the duller tools in the shed...

Oldstyle, you are a clown. I fully understand the use of quotation marks. You just made a statement that is completely wrong. Here is the actual definition for the common use of quotation marks:

Quotation marks(") are used to enclose words that are quoted from the original source.

How to Use Quotation Marks Correctly (with Cheat Sheet)

So, here you were telling me what an English expert you were. I am so disappointed in you. So, per the definition, the quotation marks indicated what had been originally said, by me. So, are you just ignorant and annoying, or are you lying.

Once again...you've proven yourself to be one of the duller tools in the shed...

But that was not the point of that post, now was it, Oldstyle. The part of the post that you cut off was the point, me boy. It showed you lying over and over. Knowingly. You were caught lying in your own words. Funny how you forgot to comment. A person with actual integrity would not have cut it out and would have had the honesty to address what he had done. That, of course, assumes that you had integrity. Which, of course, you do not. So, here is the part of the post that you ignored, Oldstyle. In red, this time, so you can not miss it. Want to comment. And yes, I know what you will try to say next, and it will not work. But it will be fun to watch.

So, lets see if you lied lately. How about a week or so in December, when you asked the same question over and over. And I answered it over and over. And you pretended that you did not ever get an answer. Here you go, oldstyle. Proof that you lie. And, if you don't like that one, I can provide another example easily: (your questions are in quotes, with my response after. Simple copy and paste, me boy)

12-19-2012, 08:52 PM Post 314

Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy to boost said economy and create jobs?

Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.

12-20-2012, 12:15 PM Post 413

Substance? Dude, I asked you a simple question...to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in the midst of a slow economy and you give me several paragraphs of nothing. Now you want to argue substance? OK...then tell me what school of economics the Obama Administration is basing this tax increase on?

I told you what they are doing, as nearly as I can tell, oldstyle. Obviously you can not or choose not to read. So, which one do you think. Obviously you are not going to believe anything I say, regardless of how obvious it is. so, do what cons do. Make something up and believe it. dipshit.

12-26-2012, 09:28 AM Post 402

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle

So what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs, Rshermr?

You and I have many, many posts back and forth. And I have told you this many, many times. I have also explained the following:
The basic belief by most economists is that tax decreases to the wealthy do no real good as far as stimulus is concerned. As reagan learned, across the board tax cuts are a really, really bad idea, because most of the tax reduction goes to the wealthiest taxpayers.
So, you see, oldstyle, it is not that tax decreases can not be stimulative, it is that tax decreases to the wealthy are not. Because, as I have told you before, they do not spend the money. Now, tax idecreases to the middle class and lower are stimulative. Because they spend the money.
Here is an article that explains this, again. I used this link before, and you seem to have ignored it.\\

DailyFinance - News and Advice for a Lifetime of Financial Decisions

So, again, oldstyle, try to understand this. The plan is stimulus. It is not tax increases. But, oldstyle, tax decreases to the middle class and below are stimulative. And the idea is NOT tax increases or decreases. It is STIMULUS.
I try and I try to educate you, oldstyle. But it just does not take. So, I am sure you will be back calling me a liar again. What is it, oldstyle, that you are compensating for?

So, oldstye says:
Quote:
Desperate? LOL

I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy and you keep on dodging the question with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.

I pulled nothing from any site, oldstyle, except the link in the last post that backed what I said. dipshit. And I have answered your question, ad nausium. You seem unable to understand the kings English. I have said, over and over, multiple economic theories support what I am saying. It is called stimulus spending, oldstyle. You are fixated on the tax increases, because that is not what the theories are about. Tax increases, me boy, are one way to generate revenue needed for stimulus spending. If, on the very unlikely event, you have the money sitting around you do not need to increase taxes. Then, oldstyle, as I have also said multiple times, if you do not have the revenue available, and you do not wish to raise taxes, you COULD borrow. Up to you, oldstyle, either pay as you go with taxes, or borrow and directly increase the national debt.

12-26-2012, 01:23 PM Post 404

It's a simple question, Rshermr. One that an economics major that "taught" the subject at the college level should be able to answer easily...yet you can't.

I can. And I have. Multiple times. Not my problem you can not understand. And that you want to keep asking the same stupid question time after time.

12-26-2012, 01:23 PM Post 405

Do you REALLY not understand that taxes don't create money..taxes simply take money away from the private sector and gives it to the public sector?

.

Again, showing desperation, oldstyle. Saying the same thing over and over. We have discussed this before. I provided links, you could not. Same old thing.
So, oldstyle, once again, it is not about the taxes, it is about the stimulus spending tax increases allow. So, go complain to the Reagan admin. Tax increases worked for them. And for Roosevelt. And for Clinton. As you well know.
Relative to that money going to the public sector, oldstyle, same thing. I have explained why reagan did those nasty tax increases. Because, by using that money to spend stimulatively, the money went right back to the private sector. To contractors, to private suppliers, to barbers, to retailers, and on and on. Is this just too complex for you to understand???

So, there you go, oldstyle. And that was just a few of over 20 posts asking the same question, and pretending that I had not answered the question. Funny. I kept answering to see how many times you would play your little childish game, and how many times you would try the same lie. Want more, Oldstyle. Or more examples of you lying. And, of course, you can not provide a single case in which I have lied. Because I never do. Because this post is not nearly important enough to loose integrity over, me boy. Assuming that you had any, which you do not.

 

[Oldstyle]

I don't know what's more amusing, Tommy...that you think that drivel you posted ever answered the question I asked...or that you think the changing of one character of a word doesn't mean much.

Of course none of that even approaches the humor of you claiming to be an executive at BP...or of you having taught college economics classes as an undergrad.

I've come to the conclusion that you accuse others of being a liar so often because you just assume others lie as much as you do.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, incapable of conversation free of lies, says:

I don't know what's more amusing, Tommy...that you think that drivel you posted ever answered the question I asked...or that you think the changing of one character of a word doesn't mean much.

No, I am sure that to you, the changing of one character means a lot, Oldstyle. Because you have so little of importance in your life. And, because you need a distraction since you are unable to discuss the subject of any thread. Just continual stupid, juvenile attacks. You obviously have a very small and meaningless life.

So, lets see why the drivel you say I posted that answered nothing you asked?? Here is one of the 20 or so exchanges when I responded to your continuing question.


12-19-2012, 08:52 PM Post 314

Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy to boost said economy and create jobs?

And I responded with:

Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.

Clear as a bell, me boy. And you did not ask for clarification of my response, should you have been confused by clear English. What I said is that the question you asked was irrelivent, because the subject was deficit spending. Stimulus spending. So, perhaps you can explain why you were so confused, and why you did not ask for clarification in any of the over 20 times you asked that same question and I answered it.
But then, it is obvious. You were lying. The question had been answered over and over. And you just kept wasting my, and any one else's time, by playing you silly little game of re-asking and lying. Re-asking and lying. Over, and over.

So, there you go. Caught in an obvious lie. No integrity, me boy. None at all.

Of course none of that even approaches the humor of you claiming to be an executive at BP.

Ah. That lie again. You simply have to lie, Oldstyle. Stupid, but that is what you do. What is that, three or four times over the past week you have said I claimed to be an executive at BP. Which I never said. Never. And you are unable to produce a post of mine where I said anything close to what you say I said. Because you are lying again. Lying just comes naturally for you, Oldstyle.

or of you having taught college economics classes as an undergrad.

So, lets see what I said when you asked that I explain my econ teaching experience. Because, you see, you are making what I did look like I was responsible for teaching an entire econ class. So, here is the text of what was said when you questioned it:

Oldstyle said:

Let's clear this up. I don't "question your degrees"...I question your story that you were allowed to teach a college level course as an undergraduate, something I've never heard of happening at ANY reputable college. When you claim that...I do indeed think you're lying. I only hope for your sake that you're also lying about getting a degree IN economics because if you DID and you're this ignorant about the subject...I find that really sad for you.

My Response:

Oldstyle. you just gave me whiplash. You said earlier today that I obviously do not have a degree in economics because I did not know what Keynsian economics was. And I am not sure what subject you are refering to above, but it looks like the subject is economics. So, Oldstyle, I can go get your exact quote and you can re read it, but I think you know better.
Now, one more time, oldstyle. I did not lie, and I never will. I told you what I did in college. So, let me say it one more time. Try to concentrate, please, because I do not feel that I have any reason at all to explain anything at all to you about what I did over 40 years ago:
1. I worked for Clair Lillard, a phd in economics who specialized in international economics, particularly as it related to South America.
2. Clair had Econ 100 to teach. It was a course in econ for non majors. It was, in other words, not a class that provided credit toward an economics degree as far as the economics credits required.
3. It was a class taken by a lot of students. Each quarter it had between 130 and over 200 students registered. Because of its size, it was taught in an auditorium.
4. Clair did not enjoy teaching the class. It was pretty pedestrian, and a large number of the students had little interest in economics. In addition, he felt that the students needed more interaction with the teacher than this class allowed due to it's basic size.
5, Clair came up with the idea to have students with economics majors and the best possible grades in econ teach the class part of the time. Part of the time morfed to be 4 of 5 days per week, and he taught the full class on Fridays.
6. The class was divided up into 5 smaller class groups. Those classes were each assigned to an undergraduate econ major who taught the class the other four days each week.
7. We had to follow the course outline, which was provided by Prof. Lillard. We did not make up positions, or teach anything outside of the class plan.
8. though I do not remember specifically how, we made some amount of money or college credit in leu of money for teaching the class.
9. We also gave tests, graded tests, and did other things for the class.
10. Prof. Lillard had been following this process for some period of time before i became involved in it. And it went on after I graduated.
11. Prof. Lillard was not the only instructor to utilize this methodology to divide up very large classes. Others did the same thing for similar reasons.
12, It seemed to work well. Students liked the ability to work with us to get answers that they never would have in the original large class.

So, there you go, Oldstyle. Fully explained though I had no reason to. But then, I did so because you indicated you would stop wasting time with the efforts to question my teaching part of the class. I did not know much of you then, or I would have not bothered. Because, of course, you were not a man of you word. Obviously. Now I am fully aware that you have no integrity.

 

[Oldstyle]

Gee, Tommy...why would any college let undergrads teach classes? That's what they "pay" their professors to do. And if they ever did...why would any professor select someone who obviously knows as little about the subject as you do, to teach for them?

Yet according to you...LOTS of college professors at the college you went to (eye-roll) did just that! Not just your econ professor but others as well? Amazingly, no OTHER college I know of lets it's professors assign their classroom lectures to undergrads. But at YOUR college it was commonplace? All kinds of other professors in other classes used undergrads to teach for them? Gotta love ya, Tommy! When you tell a lie you tell a whopper and you stick to it come Hell or high water!

 

[Oldstyle]

Here's a "hint" for you, Tommy...

When someone asks for an explanation to something that sounds unlikely? (Like you having a degree in anything) Giving them an explanation that is even MORE unlikely than what they were questioning is generally NOT going to satisfy them.

It's the whole "give them enough rope to hang themselves" concept. In your case it was you claiming to be well versed in economics and backing that rather hard to believe (given what you've shown here by such things as not knowing that someone using the term the Chicago School was not a referrence to a actual college in Chicago but to a school of economic thought) claim with another even harder to believe claim...that you taught college level economics as an undergrad.

 

[Rshermr]

Here's a "hint" for you, Tommy...

When someone asks for an explanation to something that sounds unlikely? (Like you having a degree in anything) Giving them an explanation that is even MORE unlikely than what they were questioning is generally NOT going to satisfy them.

It's the whole "give them enough rope to hang themselves" concept. In your case it was you claiming to be well versed in economics and backing that rather hard to believe (given what you've shown here by such things as not knowing that someone using the term the Chicago School was not a referrence to a actual college in Chicago but to a school of economic thought) claim with another even harder to believe claim...that you taught college level economics as an undergrad.

Right. Caught, red handed, lying like a rug. So, you simply attack again. Without facts, of course. Just your opinion. Here is the thing, Oldstyle. No one has any interest in the opinion of a LIAR. And funny, when caught lying, as I have caught you time after time, you immediately attack, trying to prove that I have lied.

So, Oldstyle, you should really eo a search to prove that I said that I had been a BP executive. If I wrote it in this post, then you could find it in under 5 minutes. Yet you can not come up with proof of what you have said. That I said I was a BP executive, that is. Because you know that I did not EVER, at any time, say that I had been. Nor anything that could even be confused as such. Because, of course, you were lying. Again. Another simple case of Oldstyle LYING. Another of many.
Now, most would be ashamed. If you had integrity, you would provide a mea culpa . Because lying is just part of what you do. If you are totally ignorant of economic policy, then you need to lie, in your little pea brain. Because you can not argue based on fact. Sad, Oldstyle.
By the way, you should probably loose the "eye roll" comments. Makes you sound like a ignorant teenager. And we all know you are not a teenager.

 

[Rshermr]

Here's a "hint" for you, Tommy...

When someone asks for an explanation to something that sounds unlikely? (Like you having a degree in anything) Giving them an explanation that is even MORE unlikely than what they were questioning is generally NOT going to satisfy them.

It's the whole "give them enough rope to hang themselves" concept. In your case it was you claiming to be well versed in economics and backing that rather hard to believe (given what you've shown here by such things as not knowing that someone using the term the Chicago School was not a referrence to a actual college in Chicago but to a school of economic thought) claim with another even harder to believe claim...that you taught college level economics as an undergrad.

But you are a proven liar. Proven many times. Why should anyone care about your opinon.

Jesus, Oldstyle, are you really that stupid?? Or simply a little person with no life, nothing that you have ever accomplished, reduced to trying to bring others down to your level? Or both. Really obvious, Oldstyle, it is BOTH.

 

[Oldstyle]

Hmmm...unlike you I'm content with my life...content to the point where I don't have to embellish it by claiming to have taught college economics courses. So who REALLY has the "little" life?

And pointing out that what you claim is absurd isn't bringing you down to anyone's level. You bring yourself down by making ridiculous claims like that one.

 

[Rshermr]

Hmmm...unlike you I'm content with my life...content to the point where I don't have to embellish it by claiming to have taught college economics courses. So who REALLY has the "little" life?

And pointing out that what you claim is absurd isn't bringing you down to anyone's level. You bring yourself down by making ridiculous claims like that one.

But Oldstyle. Of course you are not unhappy with your life. Study the subject, and you will find that stupid people are never unhappy with their lives. Visit a mental institution, and you will see a whole lot of people who are happy with their lives. I would be ashamed, but I am sure you are happy. Good for you, Oldstyle. No need for you to ever set your aspirations beyond what you are capable of.

 

[Grandma]

Oldstyle,

Kent State has undergrad teachers in all departments.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle,

Kent State has undergrad teachers in all departments.

thanks for that, Grandma. I know Oldstyle knows that it is not unusual. Just a game he plays. But I do appreciate someone else filling in that answer.

 

[Oldstyle]

Hmmm...unlike you I'm content with my life...content to the point where I don't have to embellish it by claiming to have taught college economics courses. So who REALLY has the "little" life?

And pointing out that what you claim is absurd isn't bringing you down to anyone's level. You bring yourself down by making ridiculous claims like that one.

But Oldstyle. Of course you are not unhappy with your life. Study the subject, and you will find that stupid people are never unhappy with their lives. Visit a mental institution, and you will see a whole lot of people who are happy with their lives. I would be ashamed, but I am sure you are happy. Good for you, Oldstyle. No need for you to ever set your aspirations beyond what you are capable of.

I hate to point out the obvious here, Tommy...but if "I'm" the stupid one...then why am I always having to correct your 8th grade level grammar? Duh?

I've been successful with my career. Why would I be "ashamed"? You on the other hand seem to have to make up things about your life which can only lead one to believe that you haven't been very successful with yours. So who's the person who's really ashamed?

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle,

Kent State has undergrad teachers in all departments.

I'll check that out, Grandma. I find it rather hard to believe to be quite honest with you. I've never seen that practice at any of the colleges that I've attended. I've got a query into the Kent State admissions office now. Let's see what they have to say about your claim.

 

[Rshermr]

Hmmm...unlike you I'm content with my life...content to the point where I don't have to embellish it by claiming to have taught college economics courses. So who REALLY has the "little" life?

And pointing out that what you claim is absurd isn't bringing you down to anyone's level. You bring yourself down by making ridiculous claims like that one.

But Oldstyle. Of course you are not unhappy with your life. Study the subject, and you will find that stupid people are never unhappy with their lives. Visit a mental institution, and you will see a whole lot of people who are happy with their lives. I would be ashamed, but I am sure you are happy. Good for you, Oldstyle. No need for you to ever set your aspirations beyond what you are capable of.

I hate to point out the obvious here, Tommy...but if "I'm" the stupid one...then why am I always having to correct your 8th grade level grammar? Duh?

I've been successful with my career. Why would I be "ashamed"? You on the other hand seem to have to make up things about your life which can only lead one to believe that you haven't been very successful with yours. So who's the person who's really ashamed?

Right, Oldstyle. A history degree and a job in food services. Good for you. I did not say you should be ashamed. I simply said I would feel shamed if I accomplished nothing more than to toss my college degree away and washed dishes all my life. You, on the other hand, feel no concerns. Good for you.
As for making things up about my background, simple. Never, ever happened. So how about your recent lie about me, Oldstyle. A lie made up from whole cloth. You remember, the BP executive job you said I claimed. If you want to check something out, use the search capabilities of this board. You could find if I ever posted such a claim in a couple minutes. But you will not, because I did not make such a claim. Just another lie on your part. And, if I had posted such a claim, you would have posted it, several times by now. But you can not, because you are lying. Sad fellow. Very, very sad. You simply ignore my statement that you are lying about the BP Exec thing, because you know that you are lying. Which, me boy, proves that you are lying. AGAIN!!!

You claimed I did not have a college degree. Easy enough to find out. If you are in to checking with universities, simply check Central Washington University for 1969 and Oregon State University for 1971. But you know better. And you have had your chance, still open to you, to come on out and we will see if my degrees can be validated. $10K to you if I do not have either degree. Hell, $20K if I have neither. Or, you pay me $10K for the trouble, when I prove the degrees. But you will refuse again, because you know you are full of crap, me boy. Just posting personal attacks. Which seems all you are capable of.

Or the claim that I had a personal secretary. Jesus, that was an interesting one. Why you think that is bumping my rep is a mystery, oldstyle. But again, a standing offer to provide you $10K if I am lying. But again, you simply post personal attacks based on evidence of any kind. And refuse the offer to prove your claim. Because you know you will loose again. Just another personal attack.

So, now you claim you have a question in to Kent State to see if they have undergrads teaching subjects. Calling another person posting here a liar. And you would expect anyone to believe you are actually checking anything? Again, me boy, why would anyone believe a proven liar?

So, that is what you do. Post personal attacks over and over and over. Just plain garbage. Wasting everyone's time. What a waste of space you are, Oldstyle. What a total and complete waste of time.

 

[Rshermr]

Hmmm...unlike you I'm content with my life...content to the point where I don't have to embellish it by claiming to have taught college economics courses. So who REALLY has the "little" life?

And pointing out that what you claim is absurd isn't bringing you down to anyone's level. You bring yourself down by making ridiculous claims like that one.

But Oldstyle. Of course you are not unhappy with your life. Study the subject, and you will find that stupid people are never unhappy with their lives. Visit a mental institution, and you will see a whole lot of people who are happy with their lives. I would be ashamed, but I am sure you are happy. Good for you, Oldstyle. No need for you to ever set your aspirations beyond what you are capable of.

I hate to point out the obvious here, Tommy...but if "I'm" the stupid one...then why am I always having to correct your 8th grade level grammar? Duh?

I've been successful with my career. Why would I be "ashamed"? You on the other hand seem to have to make up things about your life which can only lead one to believe that you haven't been very successful with yours. So who's the person who's really ashamed?

By the way, Oldstyle. When you started with the "undergrads don't teach classes at the college level" refrain, you asked me to provide you with specific information. And, you stated, as I recall, that if I did so, it would prove that I was not lying. And you would eat your words, or some such. I provided the information you requested, yet you have gone on for months saying that I am lying. So, me boy. You lied again. No integrity, Oldstyle. None at all. A person with integrity would keep their word. But you just ignore your commitments, and keep on with the personal attacks. Damn, it must by awful being you. A person with integrity would be ashamed, but you, oldstyle, have no shame.

 

[Norman]

Here are some sources that say that Austerity is NOT working. And they say that Austerity is making things worse where it is being used. These sources are all economists, and well respected in the field. They are not politicians. Here is a short list:

Mark Blyth is Professor of International Political Economy at Brown University.
Austerity
The History of a Dangerous Idea
Oxford University Press: Austerity: Mark Blyth

Paul Krugman: Austerity Is So Wrong!
Paul Krugman: Austerity Is So Wrong! - The Daily Beast

Europe Pushed to ‘Suicide’ on Austerity, Stiglitz Says
Joseph Stiglitz, Europe Pushed to ‘Suicide’ on Austerity, Stiglitz Says

Nobel Winner Stiglitz Warns Job-Killing Austerity Measures Hurt Economies
Nobel Winner Stiglitz Warns Job-Killing Austerity Measures Hurt Economies - Bloomberg

An amazing mea culpa from the IMF’s chief economist on austerity
An amazing mea culpa from the IMF?s chief economist on austerity

Austerity in theory and in practice
Fiscal policy: Austerity in theory and in practice | The Economist

Why Politicians Ignore Economists On Austerity
Why Politicians Ignore Economists On Austerity

European, US Austerity Drive is Suicidal: Nobel Economist Stiglitz
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/04/27-1

Voters, Economists Agree: Austerity Not The Answer
Voters, Economists Agree: Austerity Not The Answer : NPR

This list is simply a short list of economists, and took a few minutes to put together. I did not find an economist who believes that austerity is a successful strategy. So, can anyone post some economists who believe that Austerity is working, or that it will work???

You can find out all those links but can't find a single year in history that the economy had reduced taxes and a fading recession at the same time? It's pretty hard to believe such an individual could graduate.

Let me ask you similar annoying question to you as your defacto question.

Find me a SINGLE economy that practiced true austerity, that has had a deficit.


Perhaps now you understand what austerity is, and what it isn't. (answers you both questions at once: What is real austerity, and what it is supposed to do, for the 10th time).



As for Kimura, it sounds like you graduated as bookkeeper, your defintions are very non standard. That doesn't matter, what matters is saying things like: "The private sector has net assets because of debt", mean nothing at all. The first thing you would have to do after such statment is to explain "Then what?", as every bookeeping item behaves that exact same way. It tells you nothing of real world.

Let's divide an economy into two items. We call the first part "china", the second "USA". Yeah, one parts deficit is net asset of the 2nd part's. Does that mean deficit is good? of course not, but not necessarily the other way around either. You can do similar thing with any kind of division of an economy into "sectors". In your world there is two, Goernment and private sector, such imaginary division explains nothing though.

And in the real world, these deficits are a PROBLEM, that must be dealt with. There is a limit on deficit spending on bad times, if the govt policy would not always be to "go into more debt", perhaps it COULD spend more in the bad times without ultimately turning into Greece. And god forbid, perhaps there could actually be some savings that would be directed to actual investment so the economy could grow in the long run. The 0% interest rates that are used to


Anyway, now that yet a other legendary troll "Rshermr" has entered this discussion, it remains to be seen if we can discuss this any further without all hell breaking loose.