If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Britain decides one recession wasn't enough, goes back for the double-dip   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 123
    More: Sad, UK economy, Ed Miliband, Office for National Statistics, public spending, Britain, private data  
•       •       •

1487 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Apr 2012 at 6:34 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-25 07:18:21 PM

farkityfarker: Yet the average Briton is far better off than the average American.

Especially if they should need medical care.


Yea, but those teeth!
 
2012-04-25 07:19:02 PM
Governments are the only entities that can act counter-cyclically, and they have the heft to amass debt.

Recessions\depressions are not overcome by spending less and austerity, they are overcome through grand public works projects, like rebuilding and modernising infrastructure.

The evidence is...OH I DON'T KNOW. JUST EVERY RECESSION FOR 200 YEARS:
 
2012-04-25 07:20:08 PM

farkityfarker: Yet the average Briton is far better off than the average American.

Especially if they should need medical care.


Zing!
 
2012-04-25 07:21:54 PM

soy_bomb: [i.cdn.turner.com image 300x169]
"Let me understand this right, all I have do, President Obama, is blame Bush for my inability to stimulate the economy?"


Positive job growth for over 24 straight months after about 18 months of job losses including 6 months of losing well over 600K jobs per month is NOT considered stimulating the economy.

You heard it here first folks! Take THAT to the bank!
 
2012-04-25 07:22:43 PM

Bungles: Governments are the only entities that can act counter-cyclically, and they have the heft to amass debt.

Recessions\depressions are not overcome by spending less and austerity, they are overcome through grand public works projects, like rebuilding and modernising infrastructure.

The evidence is...OH I DON'T KNOW. JUST EVERY RECESSION FOR 200 YEARS:


socialist.
 
2012-04-25 07:22:59 PM

FlashHarry: austerity is the opposite of what you should do during an economic downturn. you spend in bad times and pay it back in good. this has been proven to work.


but but SOCIALIZZIM!!!!
 
2012-04-25 07:23:41 PM

Serious Black: Dinki: Oh man, this is good. Can't wait to hear what Krugman has to say about this.

/All he needs to say is "told you so"

From his blog today:

It's important to understand that what we're seeing isn't a failure of orthodox economics. Standard economics in this case - that is, economics based on what the profession has learned these past three generations, and for that matter on most textbooks - was the Keynesian position. The austerity thing was just invented out of thin air and a few dubious historical examples to serve the prejudices of the elite.

And now the results are in: Keynesians have been completely right, Austerians utterly wrong - at vast human cost.

I wish I could believe that this would really be enough for us to move on and consider what can be done, now that we know that the ideas behind recent policy were all wrong. But that's wishful thinking, I suppose. Nobody ever admits that they were wrong, and Austerian ideas clearly have an emotional and political appeal that is resilient to any and all evidence.


I LOL'd at your post for your confuzzification of the words austerity and Austrian economics.

I really hope you weren't an econ major, I'm guessing poli sci
 
2012-04-25 07:23:46 PM

farkityfarker: Yet the average Briton is far better off than the average American.

Especially if they should need medical care.


Oh believe me, the NHS was on Cameron's sh*t list. This probably put whatever plans he had for it dead in its tracks though.

/Cameron won't be PM much longer, I think
 
2012-04-25 07:25:03 PM
Zombie Milton Friedman strikes again!
 
2012-04-25 07:26:33 PM

verbaltoxin: farkityfarker: Yet the average Briton is far better off than the average American.

Especially if they should need medical care.

Oh believe me, the NHS was on Cameron's sh*t list. This probably put whatever plans he had for it dead in its tracks though.

/Cameron won't be PM much longer, I think


Unless the party turns on him and kicks him out, I think he still has 3 more years
 
2012-04-25 07:28:13 PM

verbaltoxin: farkityfarker: Yet the average Briton is far better off than the average American.

Especially if they should need medical care.

Oh believe me, the NHS was on Cameron's sh*t list. This probably put whatever plans he had for it dead in its tracks though.

/Cameron won't be PM much longer, I think



Given the absolute clusterfark of the last three months, the fact Cameron is only 8 points behind Labour in the polls really shows how weak Ed Miliband is. If his brother had won leadership, I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron was forced into a snap election soon.
 
2012-04-25 07:28:19 PM
Austerity works. Look, the math is very simple.

The economy is how much money we are spending as a country. We can divide that into two categories, Government Spending and Private Spending.

So let's say the economy looks like this:

Government spending = 100
Private spending = 400

Therefore the economy is 100+400=500

Now in a recession private spending is reduced, so we get something like this:

Government spending = 100
Private spending = 350
Economy = 450

Clearly the way to kick start the economy, or at least hold things steady until private spending picks up is to implement austerity, or in other words cut back on government spending.

Government spending = 75
Private spending = 350
Economy = 425

See, it works perfectly since 425 is much bigger than 450 or even 500. Proof that austerity works.

Oh wait....
 
2012-04-25 07:29:00 PM
Spending only makes sense if you spend it on things that are productive. Clearly, if a country borrows money to pay people to dig ditches and fill them back up, this will not be beneficial to the economy in the long run. If you believe it will, you are brainwashed and somewhat retarded.

The Keynesian idea that all we need is undirected spending is extremely dangerous. Suppose we decided to spend it all on building purple umbrellas and creating designs out of them in the Midwest. A massive industry would appear in the Midwest, along with many towns and other businesses. There would be a booming economy there, as long as the purple umbrella industry was booming. The moment the spigot turns off though, that industry and all industries and towns based on it will die.

A similar thing will happen once we realize we cannot keep spending 500 billion dollars a year on defense. All of the towns and businesses supported by those massive defense plants will collapse. The question is, is it better to have those towns and companies collapse now, or have those towns and companies collapse down the road?
 
2012-04-25 07:29:41 PM

Mrtraveler01: verbaltoxin: farkityfarker: Yet the average Briton is far better off than the average American.

Especially if they should need medical care.

Oh believe me, the NHS was on Cameron's sh*t list. This probably put whatever plans he had for it dead in its tracks though.

/Cameron won't be PM much longer, I think

Unless the party turns on him and kicks him out, I think he still has 3 more years


His own party don't trust him all that much (they think he's too centrist), and the government is a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. There's plenty of potential for the government to fall apart. The only thing stopping the Lib Dems from sinking it is fear of their own electoral annihilation.
 
2012-04-25 07:29:58 PM

theknuckler_33: Positive job growth for over 24 straight months after about 18 months of job losses including 6 months of losing well over 600K jobs per month is NOT considered stimulating the economy.
You heard it here first folks! Take THAT to the bank!


As long as you ignore the Labor Participation Rate, you are 100% correct. Great job!

/best time ever for recent college graduates!
 
2012-04-25 07:30:24 PM

Bungles: Given the absolute clusterfark of the last three months, the fact Cameron is only 8 points behind Labour in the polls really shows how weak Ed Miliband is. If his brother had won leadership, I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron was forced into a snap election soon.


The Conservatives are awful, but Ed Millibond is unelectable. It's like Thatcher/Kinnock all over again.
 
2012-04-25 07:37:06 PM

Brosef13: Serious Black: Dinki: Oh man, this is good. Can't wait to hear what Krugman has to say about this.

/All he needs to say is "told you so"

From his blog today:

It's important to understand that what we're seeing isn't a failure of orthodox economics. Standard economics in this case - that is, economics based on what the profession has learned these past three generations, and for that matter on most textbooks - was the Keynesian position. The austerity thing was just invented out of thin air and a few dubious historical examples to serve the prejudices of the elite.

And now the results are in: Keynesians have been completely right, Austerians utterly wrong - at vast human cost.

I wish I could believe that this would really be enough for us to move on and consider what can be done, now that we know that the ideas behind recent policy were all wrong. But that's wishful thinking, I suppose. Nobody ever admits that they were wrong, and Austerian ideas clearly have an emotional and political appeal that is resilient to any and all evidence.

I LOL'd at your post for your confuzzification of the words austerity and Austrian economics.

I really hope you weren't an econ major, I'm guessing poli sci


Either I'm missing something, or you misread his post. Are the Austrians practicing austerian economics? I honestly have no idea. Or did Serious Black coin the term 'austerian'? It's the first time I've seen the word, but that doesn't mean anything.
 
2012-04-25 07:39:10 PM

Brosef13: I LOL'd at your post for your confuzzification of the words austerity and Austrian economics.

I really hope you weren't an econ major, I'm guessing poli sci


Ummmm . . . he was quoting Krugman, who, whether you believe in his ideas or not, certainly knows the difference between the terms "austerity" and "Austrian Economics".
 
2012-04-25 07:54:22 PM
I was confused, I'll get my coat. I thought this was a rant against Austrian economics as opposed to people who believed in Austerity. Krugman often does that but I never heard term Austerians. I'm pretty sure that is just west Austria maybe....
 
2012-04-25 07:55:27 PM

Corvus: Porsche914: We'll be right behind them, if we don't get the socialist out of the White House.

You are aware that Britain did drastic cuts in spending and this happened?


To be fair, those who claim that deregulation and spending/tax cuts really work tend to also be the ones who claim that the good US economy of the 90's was the result of Regan's policies in the 80's. Since the economic recovery happened after 1992, that's at least 12 years between the start of policy change and it's impact. Britain has now been on austerity measures since what, 2009?

Nobody there should have been expecting to pull out of this recession until 2018 at the earliest.
 
2012-04-25 07:56:08 PM

Brosef13: Serious Black: Dinki: Oh man, this is good. Can't wait to hear what Krugman has to say about this.

/All he needs to say is "told you so"

From his blog today:

It's important to understand that what we're seeing isn't a failure of orthodox economics. Standard economics in this case - that is, economics based on what the profession has learned these past three generations, and for that matter on most textbooks - was the Keynesian position. The austerity thing was just invented out of thin air and a few dubious historical examples to serve the prejudices of the elite.

And now the results are in: Keynesians have been completely right, Austerians utterly wrong - at vast human cost.

I wish I could believe that this would really be enough for us to move on and consider what can be done, now that we know that the ideas behind recent policy were all wrong. But that's wishful thinking, I suppose. Nobody ever admits that they were wrong, and Austerian ideas clearly have an emotional and political appeal that is resilient to any and all evidence.

I LOL'd at your post for your confuzzification of the words austerity and Austrian economics.

I really hope you weren't an econ major, I'm guessing poli sci


Austrian vs. Austerian - the single vowel difference is perhaps too subtle?

/Krugman humor.
 
2012-04-25 07:57:06 PM

MattStafford: Spending only makes sense if you spend it on things that are productive. Clearly, if a country borrows money to pay people to dig ditches and fill them back up, this will not be beneficial to the economy in the long run. If you believe it will, you are brainwashed and somewhat retarded.

The Keynesian idea that all we need is undirected spending is extremely dangerous


That's a nice strawman argument. Naturally, it's better to have useful spending than useless spending, that's common sense. It's better to build infrastructure and have investment than to dig ditches and fill them in again. But, if you can't find enough useful things to spend money on at the moment, then digging ditches can be better than doing nothing. Business cycles are to a large part based on confidence, on people's optimism about the future. If people are unemployed or are worried about losing their jobs, then they will spend less. So companies have less income and they don't invest, and they lay off people, who end up spending less. When you pay people to dig ditches then at least you're putting money in their pocket, who then go out and spend it. People and companies aren't so despondent about the future, so they spend and invest. Then there's the destructive effect that long-term unemployment has on people. They lose their confidence, they lose their skills, they become less employable. Lots of potential gets lost forever.

Ok, there's a downside in that you have higher debt, but if you don't do anything, or worse, if you implement austerity then you will also have higher debt. Cutting spending is not a good way to get out of debt, because it reduces output and reduces revenue and your debt to GDP ratio shoots up and you're back were you started, except everybody's poorer. Its far better, in the long and the short term to grow your way out of debt, instead of cutting your way out. But you know, I must be brainwashed, or retarded or something.
 
2012-04-25 07:57:18 PM
And I agree with Krugman on many things, including is hard-on for hating of Repubican economics policies, which generally out derp reality, although my apologize for my derp, Austrian economics makes me sad faced.
 
2012-04-25 07:57:46 PM

FlashHarry: austerity is the opposite of what you should do during an economic downturn. you spend in bad times and pay it back in good. this has been proven to work.


I recon that makes sense, but when the good times start, the libtards don't wanna pay anything back.
 
2012-04-25 08:00:11 PM

theknuckler_33: falcon176: theknuckler_33: winterwhile: yea, funny, the great depression had big spending

it did nothing, except make the depression last longer

then again Obama wants that to happen, everone to be on the gov dole

Seems someone doesn't know history. Shocking.

someone doesn't own the official Texas Edition of Fox News presents the History of the World as written by Sarah Palin, a true American hero (banned in 250 countries!)

I'm sure winterwhile doesn't have it either. I highly doubt he reads at all. Rush Limbaugh [Choirs of Angels singing] and Sean Hannity [Cherubs trumpets blasting] are all he needs and that's the way God intended.


I always say

prove me wrong

and I will shut up

come on, you can do it
 
2012-04-25 08:00:25 PM
So this turned out exactly like every mainstream economist said? What a shock!
 
2012-04-25 08:03:27 PM
ok ok if Krugman wants to invent new terminology I guess he's perty smart enuff to do eet. I'll go back to me cave.
 
2012-04-25 08:03:30 PM

MattStafford: The Keynesian idea generic, tired strawman idea anti-Keynesians spout that all we need is undirected spending is extremely dangerous.


FIFY.
 
2012-04-25 08:13:36 PM

Bad_Seed: . But, if you can't find enough useful things to spend money on at the moment, then digging ditches can be better than doing nothing.


You are making the worse off by doing that though! You are malinvesting in ditch diggers, and ditch digging related industries! Suppose I am one of those ditch diggers the government employs. I take my check, and buy stuff at the local shop. As long as the government is paying my check, I'm paying the local shop's check, and everything is good. In fact, the local shop might even expand.

But the government must necessarily stop paying me eventually, right? And once they stop paying my check, I stop paying the local shop's check. The shop has to close its doors because it lost all the ditch digging business. The only way for this to prevent this is if the rest of the economy grew strong enough so that the government could continue to pay me indefinitely (how safety nets work). It is important to note, though, that the economy growing elsewhere had absolutely nothing to do with my ditch digging.

Keynesians love to talk up the money multiplier. If the government spends a dollar on a ditch digger, he'll spend in on clothes, the tailor will spend it on food, the farmer will spend it on whatever, and it gets the economy going again. But the moment the government stops spending the money on the ditch digger, the exact same chain happens, except in reverse. We are in the exact same situation as before, except with more debt, and our resources misallocated (towards ditch diggers and the stuff they like).

It is impossible to print money and give it to a person and have the economy improve in a sustainable, long term manner strictly because of that action.
 
2012-04-25 08:24:39 PM
Whoa, that's a full Recession All the way. Double Recession. All the way. It's a double Recession all the way. Whoa. So intense. Whoa. Man. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa!!! My God!!! Oh my God! Oh my God! Woooo! Oh Wow! Woooo! Yeah!!! Oh my, oh my, oh my God look at that. It's starting to look like a triple Recession. Oh my God. It's full. Double Recession all the way across the sky. Oh my God. (audible sobs). Oh God. What does this mean? Oh my God. It's so bright. Oh my God it's so bright and vivid. Oh. Oh. Oh. It's so beautiful. (audible sobs). Oh my God. Oh my God. Oh my God. Double complete Recession. Right in my front yard. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!! Oh my God. What does this mean? Tell me! It's too much. I don't know what it means. Oh my God. It's so intense. (big sigh). Oh my God."

www.economicshelp.org

Tories are becoming more like republitards.
 
2012-04-25 08:28:47 PM
www.topnews.in
Miss me yet?

... no, huh.
 
2012-04-25 08:40:48 PM

MattStafford: It is important to note, though, that the economy growing elsewhere had absolutely nothing to do with my ditch digging.


It does, because your ditch digging earns you the money to spend elsewhere, both through the money you spend, but more importantly, through the confidence that's created, which spurs the economy.

Keynesians love to talk up the money multiplier. If the government spends a dollar on a ditch digger, he'll spend in on clothes, the tailor will spend it on food, the farmer will spend it on whatever, and it gets the economy going again. But the moment the government stops spending the money on the ditch digger, the exact same chain happens, except in reverse. We are in the exact same situation as before, except with more debt, and our resources misallocated (towards ditch diggers and the stuff they like).

Misallocation of resources compared to what? In a recession, especially in a deep once-in-a-century recession people aren't allocating resources at all. They hold cash or zero-yeilding bonds because they have no idea what will happen next. They are essentially stuffing money under mattresses. If the central bank prints more money (you seem to be confused about the difference between fiscal and monetary policy) then they will stuff that money under the mattress too. Paying ditch diggers takes the money out of from under the mattress and puts it back into circulation.

When the economy picks up again then you dial back the fiscal stimulus. Not all at once, so you don't cause a big shock, but gradually. A growing economy will be able to absorb this far better than one in a recession. This is called counter-cyclical fiscal policy and it's what Keynesian actually believe instead of the strawman notions that you put up. And we wouldn't be in the same situation compared to doing nothing, because we've prevented people from panicking too much and overreacting and we've prevented the deterioration of skills and the closing of businesses and the destruction of capital. Those things don't just pop into existence as and when needed, they take time to grow and to reach their full potential, but if they get destroyed then they're gone and you have to start from square one. By lessening the impact of a recession you're maintaining a better economic base from which the recovery can begin.
 
2012-04-25 08:44:59 PM
We're misallocating resources towards ditch diggers and people associated with ditch diggers. Imagine if the government borrowed 500 billion dollars a year and spent it on digging and filling up ditches. Don't you think it would massively distort the economy? Ditch digging companies would be monstrous and be able to wield massive amounts of influence in Washington. In addition, they would employ so many people that niche industries would pop up just to serve the ditch digging companies. In addition, where the big ditch fields were entire communities would spring up offering services to the ditch digging employees. All of this for an industry that produces nothing of value. That is what I mean by misallocating resources.
 
2012-04-25 08:49:31 PM
You mean Republicans are wrong about everything and don't know their elbows from their assholes when it comes to economics?

Never would have guessed.
 
2012-04-25 08:55:13 PM

MattStafford: We're misallocating resources towards ditch diggers and people associated with ditch diggers. Imagine if the government borrowed 500 billion dollars a year and spent it on digging and filling up ditches. Don't you think it would massively distort the economy? Ditch digging companies would be monstrous and be able to wield massive amounts of influence in Washington. In addition, they would employ so many people that niche industries would pop up just to serve the ditch digging companies. In addition, where the big ditch fields were entire communities would spring up offering services to the ditch digging employees. All of this for an industry that produces nothing of value. That is what I mean by misallocating resources.


Misallocating compared to what? Distorting compared to what? What is the alternative scenario? Let's assume that digging ditches produced nothing of value, but unemployment and closed businesses destroy value. They destroy both economic value and human value. So which is better?

Of course we're already arguing over the worst-case scenario. In any normal situation there are many projects that can be funded that are more productive. There's infrastructure that needs to be build or replaced, there are people that can be educated, there is research that can be funded. All those things produce value in both the short and long term. I'm saying that even if, all those possibilities were exhausted and there are no more useful things that can be funded, then spending money for the sake of spending money is still better than doing nothing because it maintains your productive capacity instead of letting it rot and get destroyed. And it is far better than cutting spending and implementing austerity, which is like trying to cure a headache by smashing your head against the wall.
 
2012-04-25 09:05:21 PM
Republican economic policy has been empirically proven to not work. The tax cuts have not stimulated the economy, austerity deepens and worsens recessions, trickle down is a failure that has lead to great income disparity and the rising tide has not lifted all boats.

So double down on tax cuts and austerity?
 
2012-04-25 09:11:13 PM
Keynes said nothing about massive government spending being a positive thing in general. He actually said deficit spending in prosperous times was extremely dangerous and should never be done.

What he did say, is that massive deficit spending is how you get out of a hole in bad times, and that fiscal austerity never works during a recession.

The problem with the US is that you have Democrats wanting to blow massive amounts of money in bad times and you have Republicans wanting to blow massive amounts of money in good.

Reagan, Bush, Nixon, you name it -- there isn't a single Republican president in the past half-century who hasn't blown an economic upturn on massive government spending (and remember, it's still spending even if you agree with what it's spent on) the moment he was able to justify it. "Deficits don't matter" Bush/Cheney was just quoting Reagan, who himself was just quoting... etc, etc.

And you Tea Party folks... don't even get me started. Every last one of you was defending Bush's massive spending the whole way through those eight years, just like you still worship Reagan for putting us -- what was it, $5T in the hole? -- during his time in office.
 
2012-04-25 09:16:09 PM

ps69: Republican economic policy has been empirically proven to not work. The tax cuts have not stimulated the economy, austerity deepens and worsens recessions, trickle down is a failure that has lead to great income disparity and the rising tide has not lifted all boats.

So double down on tax cuts and austerity?


you did spend a trillion dollars

what did it do? 2 million still out of work.
 
2012-04-25 09:18:48 PM

winterwhile: ps69: Republican economic policy has been empirically proven to not work. The tax cuts have not stimulated the economy, austerity deepens and worsens recessions, trickle down is a failure that has lead to great income disparity and the rising tide has not lifted all boats.

So double down on tax cuts and austerity?

you did spend a trillion dollars

what did it do? 2 million still out of work.


Which is 3.6 million less out of work than in 2009.
 
2012-04-25 09:20:03 PM

jaerik: Keynes .


you need to re read what Keynes said.. you must have missed that lecture.

You spend money (you saved in the good times) in a recession, not what Obama has done.
 
2012-04-25 09:21:05 PM

jaerik: winterwhile: ps69: Republican economic policy has been empirically proven to not work. The tax cuts have not stimulated the economy, austerity deepens and worsens recessions, trickle down is a failure that has lead to great income disparity and the rising tide has not lifted all boats.

So double down on tax cuts and austerity?

you did spend a trillion dollars

what did it do? 2 million still out of work.

Which is 3.6 million less out of work than in 2009.


correct

when you count those who quit looking
 
2012-04-25 09:25:33 PM

winterwhile: jaerik: winterwhile: ps69: Republican economic policy has been empirically proven to not work. The tax cuts have not stimulated the economy, austerity deepens and worsens recessions, trickle down is a failure that has lead to great income disparity and the rising tide has not lifted all boats.

So double down on tax cuts and austerity?

you did spend a trillion dollars

what did it do? 2 million still out of work.

Which is 3.6 million less out of work than in 2009.

correct

when you count those who quit looking


Someone didn't read the link.

Not trying very hard, are you?
 
2012-04-25 09:58:42 PM

Rent Party:
Hey, could you point out for me where on this here plot of GDP over time all that "big spending" went into place, and where we may have cut taxes?

Thanks!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 614x415]


What do I win?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-25 10:15:45 PM
i734.photobucket.com

i734.photobucket.com

i734.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-25 10:20:42 PM
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

/it's really quite simple
//austerity never works
 
2012-04-25 11:29:23 PM

Brosef13: Serious Black: Dinki: Oh man, this is good. Can't wait to hear what Krugman has to say about this.

/All he needs to say is "told you so"

From his blog today:

It's important to understand that what we're seeing isn't a failure of orthodox economics. Standard economics in this case - that is, economics based on what the profession has learned these past three generations, and for that matter on most textbooks - was the Keynesian position. The austerity thing was just invented out of thin air and a few dubious historical examples to serve the prejudices of the elite.

And now the results are in: Keynesians have been completely right, Austerians utterly wrong - at vast human cost.

I wish I could believe that this would really be enough for us to move on and consider what can be done, now that we know that the ideas behind recent policy were all wrong. But that's wishful thinking, I suppose. Nobody ever admits that they were wrong, and Austerian ideas clearly have an emotional and political appeal that is resilient to any and all evidence.

I LOL'd at your post for your confuzzification of the words austerity and Austrian economics.

I really hope you weren't an econ major, I'm guessing poli sci


I really hope your major in college didn't involve reading comprehension, because that was clearly a quote from Paul Krugman as evidenced by my link that goes to the quoted post and my clear attribution of the passage to him.
 
2012-04-25 11:31:30 PM
Problem: the economy is contracting because people aren't spending money.
Solution: deliberately impose further contraction by spending less money.

It's so obvious!
 
2012-04-26 12:14:11 AM

MattStafford: We're misallocating resources towards ditch diggersdefense contractors and people associated with ditch diggers defense contractors. Imagine if the government borrowed 500 billion dollars a year and spent it on digging and filling up ditches blowing up Middle Eastern countries. Don't you think it would massively distort the economy? Ditch digging defense companies would be monstrous and be able to wield massive amounts of influence in Washington. In addition, they would employ so many people that niche industries would pop up just to serve the ditch diggingdefense companies. In addition, where the big ditch fields military bases where entire communities would spring up offering services to the ditch digging employees soliders and contractors. All of this for an industry that produces nothing of value destroys. That is what I mean by misallocating resources.


I don't have to imagine any of this. It already exists.

Pay $500 billion to build some roads. When the show's over, you still have a infrastructure to show for it.

Pay $500 billion to occupy countries and wield unnecessary amounts of hard power. When this show's over, we'll have nothing to show for it.
 
2012-04-26 12:22:47 AM
Labour made a total farkup of the UK, but damned if this lot aren't at least as bad in the other direction. I am so farking happy I left and will never go back.
 
2012-04-26 03:45:45 AM

Slaxl: GAT_00: FlashHarry: austerity is the opposite of what you should do during an economic downturn. you spend in bad times and pay it back in good. this has been proven to work.

And Britain has been arguing for austerity as the cure harder than anyone else. If this doesn't disprove that austerity is the solution, nothing will.

Yep, we pushed austerity pretty hard. I'll admit that being just a common man the rationale sounded sensible enough to me at first, 'we spend too much, we're in debt, so stop spending', but seeing the effect it has had should be enough to open anyones eyes. Which makes me wonder what the real reason for austerity across Europe is. It clearly hasn't worked anywhere, it's made problems worse but governments keep trying it? Why? They can't all be completely blind to the facts. Therefore I say they're doing it deliberately to destroy the populace then the lizard people who run illuminati can take over and create a North Korea of Europe.

Oops, I forgot to end my posts a sentence early.


Conservatives here want to more gradually move to sustainability, which was the default state before the crisis anyway. However the Germans and their fear of any sort of inflation that is akin to not drinking water because your great grandfather drowned are running the deficit targets. There is a lot of increasing resentment toward Germany because they broke rules Spain followed and now they get to inflict the pain because they are so deathly afraid of one iota of devaluation and are willing to destroy their export markets to avoid it.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report