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.

(USA Today)   Spain's labor unions "have enjoyed a social prestige and power that was not seen anywhere else in Europe." Yet Spain's unemployment rate is over 24%, highest in the eurozone. Can you explain that?   (usatoday.com) divider line 153
    More: Interesting, Spain, Europe, Francisco Franco, Spanish Civil War, protectionist, public good  
•       •       •

1251 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2012 at 4:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-06-10 10:18:08 PM
Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.
 
2012-06-10 11:10:52 PM
Well sh*t. I got nothing. Well said, kmmontandon.
 
2012-06-11 12:05:05 AM

kmmontandon: Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


Jesus H. Christ. That's beautiful!
 
2012-06-11 12:33:16 AM
*slow claps* well, looks like this thread is done.
 
2012-06-11 12:46:48 AM
Can we just copy and paste that ad infinitum?
 
2012-06-11 12:52:42 AM
Thats a wrap!

/turns off lights
 
2012-06-11 12:58:36 AM
The powerful unions in Germany are doing way better.
 
2012-06-11 01:12:16 AM
It's almost as if Smitty decided to look at one tiny aspect of the nation, and correlate that with the results, while simultaneous ignoring all the OTHER factors that impacted the economy. Almost as if taking an actual look, as opposed to a tiny slice, would be a bit too hard.

Right out of the gate, Smitty got the explanation, so can we please stop trying to make half assed points out a tiny bit of the data and grow the f*ck up? Seriously. This is old. It's old when it's economists who know better try to do it to score points for the folks whose policies they're trying to justify--knowing full well that if things blow here because of similar half assed policies, their butts are going to be overseas so fast, that the Concord pilots are going to say, "Whuddafuxx was THAT?"

That isn't going to stop the folks who like to trot out talking points, instead of facts, that isn't going to stop the Idiot Brigade from repeating half assed lies, and the disingenuous who like to play mouth breathers on Fark to assuage their Mommy and Daddy issues to get some sort of stillborn revenge that the real targets of their internalized and twisted up angst could never actually accomplish because it would be far too much like strapping on a pair and putting on the Big Pants and at least pretending like their an adult.

Are there real issues? Yup. And the distraction that the Idiot Brigade is chittering on like the f*cking Lobstrosities piped up Dad-a-chum? Dum-a-chum? Ded-a-chek? Did-a-chick? certainly doesn't address these real issues. It's just so much mud in the water, and when folks pay enough to put out this much smoke, what in the Holy Motherf*cking Hells do you think might be hiding behind all that effort?

This country has to grow the f*ck up sometime, and soon, and listening to guys who are spinning you fantasies that might as well involve a 24" cheeseburger impaled on your lap while telling you how handsome and smart you are, even with all that disgusting grease and mayonnaise dripping into your chairs, that isn't really helping...
 
2012-06-11 01:23:28 AM

kmmontandon: Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


Is there a way to get more than one star to appear next to someone's name?
 
2012-06-11 01:44:57 AM
The Right Wing in America wants to destoy all but themselves. Once those drones get done over Afghanistan maybe we can fly a few over Fox News ... or maybe your house, subby.
 
2012-06-11 02:32:20 AM
Sounds like subby is butthurt about not having health insurance or a wage that's actually enough to live on.

/if you can't have those, no one can, amirite?
 
2012-06-11 03:20:49 AM

Generation_D: The Right Wing in America wants to destoy all but themselves. Once those drones get done over Afghanistan maybe we can fly a few over Fox News ... or maybe your house, subby.


I've started a new practice of blocking the Fox "News" channel in hotel rooms when I travel. It's quite satisfying to know some dumbass will get all pissy missing Fartbongo porn.
 
2012-06-11 04:13:47 AM
The way to get people off the government teat is to attach more people to the government teat.

Makes perfect sense.
 
2012-06-11 04:17:52 AM

themindiswatching: Sounds like subby is butthurt about not having health insurance or a wage that's actually enough to live on.

/if you can't have those, no one can, amirite?


I have both and I'm not in a union.

At one time unions were absolutely needed as liberals will be quick to remind you of the old days of horrific working conditions, hours, and wages while they try to make you forget that was many decades ago.

The idea that people are "entitled" to certain wages and benefits just for working is also stupid. If the best job you can hold down is mopping floors and emptying the trash you are certainly entitled to be paid for that but the idea that your wage should be set higher than your work is actually worth so you can have a "living wage" and "health benefits" is insane and will ultimately drive anything to bankruptcy.

You cannot pay people more than they deliver in terms of profit for a company.
 
2012-06-11 04:19:51 AM

randomjsa: You cannot pay people more than they deliver in terms of profit for a company.


...unless they're C-level.
 
2012-06-11 04:21:09 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures


Hey now, it's a proven fact that austerity is great for an economy! Sure, it's been tried dozens of times and has never worked once, but dammit, the theories the Austrian economists cooked up say it should work, and who are you gonna believe, them or that lying biatch reality?
 
2012-06-11 04:27:28 AM
Wikipedia lists twenty-two different dog breeds "originating in Spain." Yet the traditional Spanish tortilla de patatas contains 0% dog, lowest of any omelette in the Eurozone (tie). Can you explain that?
 
2012-06-11 04:30:22 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


holy shiat dude
 
2012-06-11 04:36:06 AM
So Spain is EXACTLY THE SAME as the United States? Yes, let's have that talk, subby.

/Also, when did mods join the trolls?
 
2012-06-11 04:37:34 AM

hubiestubert: This country has to grow the f*ck up sometime, and soon


I thought/hoped after Reagan-Bush 1 this country would have learned it's lesson,hoped for the same thing after Dubya.
Ain't gonna happen, they're going to crash the damn thing....again.
and again and again.
If you don't get President Romney in 2012, they'll have another neo-con overlord in place by 2016.
We only think this is a democracy.
 
2012-06-11 04:39:34 AM

randomjsa: the idea that your wage should be set higher than your work is actually worth so you can have a "living wage" and "health benefits" is insane


So if your job can be done in China for $1/day, you feel you should only be paid that amount? I'm not saying that everyone should be paid the same regardless of job description, but it would be nice for a family to be able to live in this country on one income. You know, like we used to.
 
2012-06-11 04:40:33 AM
I don't get it. Is this thread some kind of trollbait or something?

Am I supposed to want Romney to be President now or, what?
 
2012-06-11 04:50:49 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


Quoted for good measure.
 
2012-06-11 04:52:02 AM

whidbey: I don't get it. Is this thread some kind of trollbait or something?

Am I supposed to want Romney to be President now or, what?


You're supposed to want Romney to be President because Zer0B0ng0 isn't using his magical blah powers to fix the economy instantly, therefore we need more of the trickle down bullshiat that caused the crash in the first place.
 
2012-06-11 04:56:54 AM
Can we just close this thread? There's no point in it going any longer.
 
2012-06-11 04:57:42 AM
randomjsa


Counterpoint: Supermarket.
If the floors at a supermarket are filthy, people won't be as tempted to go there and buy stuff. The supermarket loses a farkton of money. Therefore, we should be paying the people who keep the floor clean a lot more than they're getting now, because their job is worth a farkton of money.

There are few jobs in the world that aren't actually worth a lot to a company, they just want to keep the profit margins as wide as possible, no matter what the cost. Fark, think of teachers. Their job is priceless, how much should we pay them?

The only thing I agree with you is the healthcare thing...because I'm in favor of single-payer.
 
2012-06-11 05:14:25 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


The real world is that the Chinese workers get paid a lot less than US and European workers and until the stability in China makes the risk worse, capital will continue to flee. The more socialist and "Keynesian" a country is, the faster it's economy will collapse. The bubble today is that Spain an Greece are riskier places to invest in factories than China.

They are not farked because of unions and socialism, they are only farked faster because of unions.

Governments cannot spend their way to prosperity. Capitalism is egalitarian and until the standard of living in China and the west come be on par, the west is fooling themselves about being able to "stimulate" the economy. All they will do is increase orders in china, not create jobs in the west. In the end, that debt has to be paid and it goes to one place.

BTW, if you saw the article on all the warships being sent to APAC, it was to make western companies raise the risk level of investing in those countries. That's hardball economics.
 
2012-06-11 05:18:26 AM

TenaciousP:
I've started a new practice of blocking the Fox "News" channel in hotel rooms when I travel. It's quite satisfying to know some dumbass will get all pissy missing Fartbongo porn.


That's some kinky shiat right there. Than again, this is the internet, so Rule 34 and all...

/wouldn't surprise me if that was a thing
//I mean, farting on cakes already is
 
2012-06-11 05:25:04 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


Damn, even my asshole hurts after reading that, and I actually agree with you.
 
2012-06-11 05:33:48 AM

kmmontandon: Hayekian dildo


A dildo that looks like Selma Hayek might turn a profit.

*GOOGLE Hayek*

A dildo that looks like Friedrich Hayek would certainly turn a profit... with neo-Nazis. Man, that guy looks just like Hitler.
 
2012-06-11 05:33:49 AM

Chimperror2:
The real world is that the Chinese workers get paid a lot less than US and European workers and until the stability in China makes the risk worse, capital will continue to flee. The more socialist and "Keynesian" a country is, the faster it's economy will collapse. The bubble today is that Spain an Greece are riskier places to invest in factories than China.

They are not farked because of unions and socialism, they are only farked faster because of unions.

Governments cannot spend their way to prosperity. Capitalism is egalitarian and until the standard of living in China and the west come be on par, the west is fooling themselves about being able to "stimulate" the economy. All they will do is increase orders in china, not create jobs in the west. In the end, that debt has to be paid and it goes to one place.

BTW, if you saw the article on all the warships being sent to APAC, it was to make western companies raise the risk level of investing in those countries. That's hardball economics.


First off, you do realize that China is arguably the most Keynesian country out there, right? Their government has stimulated their economy with massive spending in construction, infrastructure, etc. Most companies in China are still at least partially government owned. We can argue the wisdom of that for China, if you want, but it sort of makes your "Keynes bad because China" point moot.

Furthermore, if you're right then austerity is still a bad policy. Government may not be able to make up for the loss of capital to China, but stimulus spending can provide a buffer until things are equalized. While private capital flees, the government can make up some of the difference.

Lastly, "that debt" does not go only to one place. China hardly owns more of our debt than Japan, and Americans still own most of our public debt.
 
2012-06-11 05:36:12 AM

rdu_voyager: A dildo that looks like Friedrich Hayek would certainly turn a profit... with neo-Nazis. Man, that guy looks just like Hitler.


Not too sure neo-Nazis would like Hayek that much...
 
2012-06-11 05:36:49 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


Fantastic. I can't imagine a school of economic thought that knows less about economics than Austrians. What retards.
 
2012-06-11 05:37:37 AM
themindiswatching
randomjsa: the idea that your wage should be set higher than your work is actually worth so you can have a "living wage" and "health benefits" is insane

So if your job can be done in China for $1/day, you feel you should only be paid that amount? I'm not saying that everyone should be paid the same regardless of job description, but it would be nice for a family to be able to live in this country on one income. You know, like we used to.


Oh sure, watch people here trying to get by on pennies a day on a mass scale - then watch the guns come out and a lot of walking trash hitting the pavement. Good times, I tell ya.

/just another reason I steal cheese.
 
2012-06-11 05:39:30 AM

NobleHam: Chimperror2:
The real world is that the Chinese workers get paid a lot less than US and European workers and until the stability in China makes the risk worse, capital will continue to flee. The more socialist and "Keynesian" a country is, the faster it's economy will collapse. The bubble today is that Spain an Greece are riskier places to invest in factories than China.

They are not farked because of unions and socialism, they are only farked faster because of unions.

Governments cannot spend their way to prosperity. Capitalism is egalitarian and until the standard of living in China and the west come be on par, the west is fooling themselves about being able to "stimulate" the economy. All they will do is increase orders in china, not create jobs in the west. In the end, that debt has to be paid and it goes to one place.

BTW, if you saw the article on all the warships being sent to APAC, it was to make western companies raise the risk level of investing in those countries. That's hardball economics.

First off, you do realize that China is arguably the most Keynesian country out there, right? Their government has stimulated their economy with massive spending in construction, infrastructure, etc. Most companies in China are still at least partially government owned. We can argue the wisdom of that for China, if you want, but it sort of makes your "Keynes bad because China" point moot.

Furthermore, if you're right then austerity is still a bad policy. Government may not be able to make up for the loss of capital to China, but stimulus spending can provide a buffer until things are equalized. While private capital flees, the government can make up some of the difference.

Lastly, "that debt" does not go only to one place. China hardly owns more of our debt than Japan, and Americans still own most of our public debt.


Right wingers tend to use "KEYNES!" as a slur against any sort of actual egalitarian wealth producing enterprise. Was that moron actually trying to claim China isn't a mixed economy?
 
2012-06-11 05:44:12 AM
Yeah, I live here in Spain, and pretty much what this guy said. Austerity measures combined with no real main export (olives and sherry, I guess) and only seasonal tourism has led to a lot of unemployment.

But the people that do have work get paid well, and those that don't have family and and friends that are not so strapped as to not be able to help them for a bit. Completely non-scientifically and personally speaking, people here seem much happier with their way of life and there station within, and a hell of a lot less stressed out. Probably comes with knowing that even with a lost job, your retirement plan you've been building hasn't vanished into a CEO's pocket overnight and that your health care isn't going to bankrupt you in order to pay for a million dollar consultant firm owner's new yacht.
 
2012-06-11 05:45:07 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


Boom, headshot.

/Estonia represents.
//As do those Latvian six-toes, as well
 
2012-06-11 05:46:27 AM

Methadone Girls: *slow claps* well, looks like this thread is done.


Wow, stick a fork in it.
 
2012-06-11 05:47:02 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


I was supposed to have quoted this guy. Far king on a tablet is HARD.
 
2012-06-11 05:48:20 AM
Far king? Really? I farking quit.
 
2012-06-11 06:04:40 AM
Thanks to Franco Spain has never really developed a proper diversified economy. So whenever something goes bad, it goes real bad. There's nothing to offset things.
 
2012-06-11 06:05:39 AM

randomjsa: but the idea that your wage should be set higher than your work is actually worth so you can have a "living wage" and "health benefits" is insane and will ultimately drive anything to bankruptcy.


J.P. Morgan and Henry Ford would like a word. Come to think of it so would a bunch of current CEO's.
 
2012-06-11 06:15:19 AM
Oh, it's attack unions day again?
 
2012-06-11 06:19:36 AM

WhyteRaven74: randomjsa: but the idea that your wage should be set higher than your work is actually worth so you can have a "living wage" and "health benefits" is insane and will ultimately drive anything to bankruptcy.

J.P. Morgan and Henry Ford would like a word. Come to think of it so would a bunch of current CEO's.


I just don't understand the idea of saying that people don't deserve a living wage. I'm not saying a man should buy a boat for walking trash out to the road a couple times a day. But to earn enough to feed himself doesn't seem outrageous, and good for the economy too. Kept that money circulating.
 
2012-06-11 06:26:36 AM
Scandinavian countries have the strongest unions in the world. They also have strong and stable economies. Perhaps there are some other factors.
 
2012-06-11 06:27:25 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


Austerity worked pretty damn well for Canada in the late 90s and Estonia has almost exclusively run its free economy and as a result, is in a better shape to weather the debt crisis than its Balkan counterparts.

You know, 10 years ago it used to be that the whole of Europe would come up in arguments as to why the US is getting it wrong. I heard so much about how the retirement age was 45 and how you could take 2 months off a year and there were countless "free" public services. Now it seems that Sweden and Germany are the only countries left which the Keynesians can hump as success stories. Too bad that Sweden has an economy that is 70% state-directed and is propped up by the fact that it owns massive oil, fishing, timber and gas resources and Germany is trying to hold the line on the PIIGS states reforming their social structures so they can pay off all their debts or at least keep their heads above water.


I seem to recall an article around here a little while ago that Espana's push towards green jobs cost 2.5 private jobs for every public-backed green job that it created and that was somehow ignored by the Keynes crowd. Funny

Shadowknight: Yeah, I live here in Spain, and pretty much what this guy said. Austerity measures combined with no real main export (olives and sherry, I guess) and only seasonal tourism has led to a lot of unemployment.


Then it sounds like Spain needs more industry, less government workers that cripple the private sector, reduced public benefits and a higher retirement age.
 
2012-06-11 06:28:38 AM

John Dewey: Can we just copy and paste that ad infinitum?

I see no problem with that.

kmmontandon [TotalFark]


Smartest
Funniest

2012-06-10 10:18:08 PM

Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.
 
2012-06-11 06:30:24 AM

NewportBarGuy: kmmontandon: Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.

Jesus H. Christ. That's beautiful!

 
2012-06-11 06:37:03 AM
Social prestige power?
 
2012-06-11 06:41:25 AM
o5iiawah: Then it sounds like Spain needs more industry, less government workers that cripple the private sector, reduced public benefits and a higher retirement age.

Industry, maybe, but how the hell would taking the social safety net away really help anything? The reason people have been able to survive unemployment brought on by austerity and lacking export industry (itself brought on by generations of stagnating and uncaring extremist facism). Even as desperate as the situation is for some, life is still enjoyed and able to be lived.
 
2012-06-11 06:42:49 AM

Ablejack: Scandinavian countries have the strongest unions in the world. They also have strong and stable economies. Perhaps there are some other factors.


It's always nice to use Scandinavia as an example to show the reality of how a fair amount of socialism can actually help your country do better overall, and doesn't necessarily lead to some nightmarish dystopia from 1984, but when you talk with a conservative about this their only response is "The numbers don't really matter, America is still the world's #1 superpower, just look at how we enjoy all the freedoms that they don't!"... there is a reason why Finland is #1 in Education and we are something like #17, and I'm pretty sure it's not because they focus on cutting school programs and teacher pay in the name of "freedom". And just look at how batshiat insane Texas is when it comes to writing textbooks... creationism? removal of Thomas Jefferson? They don't care about facts or history, they've manufactured their own fantasy world they want everyone else to live in. It's insane.
 
2012-06-11 06:43:30 AM

Shadowknight: o5iiawah: Then it sounds like Spain needs more industry, less government workers that cripple the private sector, reduced public benefits and a higher retirement age.

Industry, maybe, but how the hell would taking the social safety net away really help anything? The reason people have been able to survive unemployment brought on by austerity and lacking export industry (itself brought on by generations of stagnating and uncaring extremist facism). Even as desperate as the situation is for some, life is still enjoyed and able to be lived.


Because if we don't make the poor pull themselves up by their bootstraps, Marx wins.
 
2012-06-11 06:47:40 AM

NobleHam: Chimperror2:
The real world is that the Chinese workers get paid a lot less than US and European workers and until the stability in China makes the risk worse, capital will continue to flee. The more socialist and "Keynesian" a country is, the faster it's economy will collapse. The bubble today is that Spain an Greece are riskier places to invest in factories than China.

They are not farked because of unions and socialism, they are only farked faster because of unions.

Governments cannot spend their way to prosperity. Capitalism is egalitarian and until the standard of living in China and the west come be on par, the west is fooling themselves about being able to "stimulate" the economy. All they will do is increase orders in china, not create jobs in the west. In the end, that debt has to be paid and it goes to one place.

BTW, if you saw the article on all the warships being sent to APAC, it was to make western companies raise the risk level of investing in those countries. That's hardball economics.

First off, you do realize that China is arguably the most Keynesian country out there, right? Their government has stimulated their economy with massive spending in construction, infrastructure, etc. Most companies in China are still at least partially government owned. We can argue the wisdom of that for China, if you want, but it sort of makes your "Keynes bad because China" point moot.

Furthermore, if you're right then austerity is still a bad policy. Government may not be able to make up for the loss of capital to China, but stimulus spending can provide a buffer until things are equalized. While private capital flees, the government can make up some of the difference.

Lastly, "that debt" does not go only to one place. China hardly owns more of our debt than Japan, and Americans still own most of our public debt.


I just took the train from tianjin to shenyang. At a modest clip of 119 mph.
In fact there is a thousands year old saying in China that if you want prosperity you gotta fix the roads first. You do realise, Mr. Chimperror, that China's heavy investment in education essentially subsidizes any US industry that needs smart people.
The current popular narrative that somehow things will be more egalitarian if we allow our domestc markets to dry up is pure onanism. You cant grow withou investment in people and the things that sustain them. Once the US has been exhausted as a "human resource," you will see the wisdom of ignoring the demand side.
 
2012-06-11 06:48:34 AM
Spain's labor unions "have enjoyed a social prestige and power that was not seen anywhere else in Europe." Yet Spain's unemployment rate is over 24%, highest in the eurozone. Can you explain that?

I think it speaks for itself.
 
2012-06-11 06:51:24 AM

tony41454: Spain's labor unions "have enjoyed a social prestige and power that was not seen anywhere else in Europe." Yet Spain's unemployment rate is over 24%, highest in the eurozone. Can you explain that?

I think it speaks for itself.


I don't know what everyone is talking about. I can't get a good view of the forest with all these damn trees in the way.
 
2012-06-11 06:59:42 AM

tony41454: Spain's labor unions "have enjoyed a social prestige and power that was not seen anywhere else in Europe." Yet Spain's unemployment rate is over 24%, highest in the eurozone. Can you explain that?

I think it speaks for itself.


It certainly speaks for you.
 
2012-06-11 07:01:35 AM

NobleHam: Chimperror2:
The real world is that the Chinese workers get paid a lot less than US and European workers and until the stability in China makes the risk worse, capital will continue to flee. The more socialist and "Keynesian" a country is, the faster it's economy will collapse. The bubble today is that Spain an Greece are riskier places to invest in factories than China.

They are not farked because of unions and socialism, they are only farked faster because of unions.

Governments cannot spend their way to prosperity. Capitalism is egalitarian and until the standard of living in China and the west come be on par, the west is fooling themselves about being able to "stimulate" the economy. All they will do is increase orders in china, not create jobs in the west. In the end, that debt has to be paid and it goes to one place.

BTW, if you saw the article on all the warships being sent to APAC, it was to make western companies raise the risk level of investing in those countries. That's hardball economics.

First off, you do realize that China is arguably the most Keynesian country out there, right? Their government has stimulated their economy with massive spending in construction, infrastructure, etc. Most companies in China are still at least partially government owned. We can argue the wisdom of that for China, if you want, but it sort of makes your "Keynes bad because China" point moot.

Furthermore, if you're right then austerity is still a bad policy. Government may not be able to make up for the loss of capital to China, but stimulus spending can provide a buffer until things are equalized. While private capital flees, the government can make up some of the difference.

Lastly, "that debt" does not go only to one place. China hardly owns more of our debt than Japan, and Americans still own most of our public debt.


Keynesian economics works only when the private sector can benefit and multiply on the spending. If there is no intrinsic value, then it will fail. Examples such as building rail and road to places that can use it works. Building a new school in a place that doesn't need it or a bridge to nowhere , doesn't work. Keynesian spending has to create something useful, not just create it. Chinese spending attracted capital. Western stimulus spending did not.. Whence, more debt but same unemployment and no growth

China dumped our debt because it wil collapse and they know it. Why hold dollar debt when the dollar will weaken against their own currency? Right now the West maintains it's standard of living through borrowing and It is not sustainable. Eventually the debt will grow too high to support stimulus and we will devalue the dollar and see inflation (i.e.lower standard of living). Inflation is how the debt pronlem gets solved by the market.

The reality is simple: an auto/chip/textile worker in China is just as skilled and knowledgeable as one in the west. Either the west's standard of living for those workers will drop to the level of those in China or the Chinese standard of living will rise. They will meet, though barring some change in the risk/reward ratio.

Spain and Greece are about to face this as their currency will devalue until the above is true. They may evenfall below China if civil unrest makes them even less attractive. They EU can prolong it but not stop it. In the end it will be a race to the bottom and the EU will need to jettison them to survive.
 
2012-06-11 07:01:53 AM

randomjsa: You cannot pay people more than they deliver in terms of profit for a company.


Does this go for investors as well??
 
2012-06-11 07:12:09 AM
Anyone comparing unions between the US and Spain has no idea what they are talking about. They are not even close to the same type of organisation. Labour unions here are more similar to advocacy organisations as worker protection is safeguarded by a special division of the Spanish court system. Workers are just guaranteed to have the right to strike should they want, but the idea of compulsory membership due to working in a certain field is unheard of.

You also tend to join a union based on political affiliation, not job function. UGT (unión general de trabajadores) being generally socialist and CCOO (comisiones obradoras) being very leftist.

/American working in Spain
 
2012-06-11 07:26:51 AM

randomjsa: themindiswatching: Sounds like subby is butthurt about not having health insurance or a wage that's actually enough to live on.

/if you can't have those, no one can, amirite?

I have both and I'm not in a union.

At one time unions were absolutely needed as liberals will be quick to remind you of the old days of horrific working conditions, hours, and wages while they try to make you forget that was many decades ago.

The idea that people are "entitled" to certain wages and benefits just for working is also stupid. If the best job you can hold down is mopping floors and emptying the trash you are certainly entitled to be paid for that but the idea that your wage should be set higher than your work is actually worth so you can have a "living wage" and "health benefits" is insane and will ultimately drive anything to bankruptcy.

You cannot pay people more than they deliver in terms of profit for a company.


Can we ask Drew if he can put a stupid tag next to the other two?

/woulda clicked it for this comment
//and no I won't explain why, i don't think randomjsa would even try to understand any rebuttal
 
2012-06-11 07:31:36 AM

randomjsa: themindiswatching: Sounds like subby is butthurt about not having health insurance or a wage that's actually enough to live on.

/if you can't have those, no one can, amirite?

I have both and I'm not in a union.


And you're here all farking day. Tell us again how union workers are lazy.
 
2012-06-11 07:37:21 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


Great rant. Some nonsense and of course the requisite left wing failure to recognize the contribution that far left policies contribute to economic stagnation, but still a great rant.

Hint: it's not austerity that is causing hard times now, it's the hangover from the unsustainable boom years.

And Germany is doing well now because they have an efficient liberalized economy that doesnt let unions extract as much economic rent as they do in countries like Spain and Greece.

You can recognize that a balance between social insurance and economic liberalization is necessary, and southern European countries have erred on the side of being too generous to entrenched labor interests, or you can continually stick your head in the sand and blame all economic problems on austerity.
 
2012-06-11 07:39:15 AM

themindiswatching: Sounds like subby is butthurt about not having health insurance or a wage that's actually enough to live on.

/if you can't have those, no one can, amirite?


That's the gist of it all. Oh my god, someone has better benefits and pay than I do. They should lose all that so we are equally miserable.
 
2012-06-11 07:40:39 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Hint: it's not austerity that is causing hard times now, it's the hangover from the unsustainable boom years.


Still Blaming Bush?
 
2012-06-11 07:45:49 AM
It's amazing how the bankers screw up the economies, but the first thing that these countries do is cut off services to poor people, instead of going after the bankers who causes the crashes and economic problems.
 
2012-06-11 07:46:22 AM

weave: Debeo Summa Credo: Hint: it's not austerity that is causing hard times now, it's the hangover from the unsustainable boom years.

Still Blaming Bush?


Was Bush president of Spain? Was bush a 16 year old kid in buttfark Spain who quit school in 2004 to go to work in the construction industry? Did bush go out and buy Spanish property in 2005 at bubble prices?

WTF does Bush have to do with Spain?
 
2012-06-11 07:48:12 AM

Without Fail: randomjsa: You cannot pay people more than they deliver in terms of profit for a company.

Does this go for investors as well??


Investors get whatever the residual profit is after all expenses, including wages, are paid.
 
2012-06-11 07:49:01 AM
OK, back on topic:

The banks' problems are losses in a real estate crash, but Spain's job woes are due largely to labor laws that protect older workers at the expense of younger ones, business experts say. Things won't change until Spain fixes the problem, they say.

"The unions have enjoyed a social prestige and power that was not seen anywhere else in Europe," said Mariano Guindal, a business analyst and author of a book on the pitfalls of the Spanish economic system, The Days We Lived Dangerously. "They were very politicized and were very protectionist of those who had jobs, but they didn't think about the jobless."

...When the [Franco] regime fell in 1975, Spain began passing laws to protect worker security and make it difficult for companies to modify the jobs of employees or lay off workers to survive poor economic times.

Governments also required companies to provide boosts in pay and benefits. As a result, older workers keep their jobs with high salaries in industries that can't modernize and compete, and younger workers aren't being hired because companies fear they cannot afford them in the long term.

The numbers tell the story. Spain's unemployment rate for younger workers, many with college degrees, is nearing 50%.


The only way a system like this can work is if there's a shiatload of explicit and implicit government subsidies for it. But if the money for those subsidies goes away...
 
2012-06-11 07:49:59 AM
I don't see what those two topics in the headline have to do with each other. Neither causation nor correlation.
US (no unions to speak of across huge areas of different businesses) = high unemployment
Germany (worker representation on the board of every company, very strong unions) = very low unemployment
Spain = well you know
 
2012-06-11 07:54:01 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The way to get people off the government teat is to attach more people to the government teat.

Makes perfect sense.


And the alternative (ripping the government's teats out) is any better?
 
2012-06-11 07:55:28 AM

randomjsa: You cannot pay people more than they deliver in terms of profit for a company.


But you can always pay them less. And let's face it, we've been paying them less since at least the 1970's. The only people who don't think this are the ones profiting from it.
 
2012-06-11 08:00:42 AM
Taft-Hartley
 
2012-06-11 08:11:36 AM
Ok, runaway unions with unchecked power = BAD
Removing all unions until companys have nothing to keep them in check = ALSO BAD

Why cant you farking people understand? The concept of Balance is farking lost on this species.
 
2012-06-11 08:17:42 AM
done in farking one.


when you live inside your little fox news bubble, submittard, you don't get all the facts. this is why when you leave the bubble to spread your bullshiat, you get smacked down.
 
2012-06-11 08:19:09 AM
orclover

Ok, runaway unions with unchecked power = BAD
Removing all unions until companys have nothing to keep them in check = ALSO BAD

Why cant you farking people understand? The concept of Balance is farking lost on this species.



How do you get them to give up even some power?
 
2012-06-11 08:20:01 AM
This may be the most immediately satisfying thread I've ever posted in.
 
2012-06-11 08:25:45 AM
I can explain the difference between correlation and causation, if that helps.
 
2012-06-11 08:28:04 AM

randomjsa: themindiswatching: Sounds like subby is butthurt about not having health insurance or a wage that's actually enough to live on.

/if you can't have those, no one can, amirite?

I have both and I'm not in a union.

At one time unions were absolutely needed as liberals will be quick to remind you of the old days of horrific working conditions, hours, and wages while they try to make you forget that was many decades ago.

The idea that people are "entitled" to certain wages and benefits just for working is also stupid. If the best job you can hold down is mopping floors and emptying the trash you are certainly entitled to be paid for that but the idea that your wage should be set higher than your work is actually worth so you can have a "living wage" and "health benefits" is insane and will ultimately drive anything to bankruptcy.

You cannot pay people more than they deliver in terms of profit for a company.


Here's the problem with that mindset. If walmart pays someone $7.25 for 30 hours a week of work there is no way they can live and survive off that. Do you know what happens? WE make up the difference with welfare and food stamps. The federal government is subsidizing wal-mart's payroll. doesn't seem fair to me.
 
2012-06-11 08:32:29 AM

Shadowknight: Yeah, I live here in Spain, and pretty much what this guy said. Austerity measures combined with no real main export (olives and sherry, I guess) and only seasonal tourism has led to a lot of unemployment.


Sorry to say but you are extremely far south. Similar to judging the US by Mississippi. There is a fair amount of industrial activity in the North. Asturias, Cantabria, and Basque Country are actually fairly productive.
 
2012-06-11 08:40:27 AM
Germany certainly had a different way of dealing with its labor issues.

I'm not sure that would work (or be welcome) anywhere else...
 
2012-06-11 08:41:17 AM
Back in the day, lots of Spanish workers were paid under-the-table by bars, restaurants, etc.

They would collect unemployment, but then work for cash on the weekend.

Is that still going on?

/Salgan de mi cesped.
 
2012-06-11 08:48:47 AM
Unrelated,but I've been staring at the picture for days now, and haven't seen this done
i.chzbgr.com

/Yes, I have posted this identical post in a bunch of politics threads.
 
2012-06-11 08:51:08 AM

madnessupmysoul: Counterpoint: Supermarket.
If the floors at a supermarket are filthy, people won't be as tempted to go there and buy stuff. The supermarket loses a farkton of money. Therefore, we should be paying the people who keep the floor clean a lot more than they're getting now, because their job is worth a farkton of money.


Counter-counter point: Cleaning floors isn't skilled labor. You can teach pretty much anyone to do at least a competent job at it. Therefore, supply and demand comes into play: There is plenty of supply (people able to clean floors), and a fairly low demand, so the price the supermarkets have to pay to hire someone to do that is low.

Now, look at the flip side of that: Say, someone who manages the store. Not every one can do that effectively. It's a skilled position that encompasses a lot of different areas (accounting, HR, scheduling, etc.). Therefore while the demand is even lower than for floor-cleaners, the supply of workers who can do the job competently is *MUCH* lower. Therefore, you have to pay more to get a competent person in that job.
 
2012-06-11 08:55:30 AM

dittybopper: madnessupmysoul: Counterpoint: Supermarket.
If the floors at a supermarket are filthy, people won't be as tempted to go there and buy stuff. The supermarket loses a farkton of money. Therefore, we should be paying the people who keep the floor clean a lot more than they're getting now, because their job is worth a farkton of money.

Counter-counter point: Cleaning floors isn't skilled labor. You can teach pretty much anyone to do at least a competent job at it. Therefore, supply and demand comes into play: There is plenty of supply (people able to clean floors), and a fairly low demand, so the price the supermarkets have to pay to hire someone to do that is low.

Now, look at the flip side of that: Say, someone who manages the store. Not every one can do that effectively. It's a skilled position that encompasses a lot of different areas (accounting, HR, scheduling, etc.). Therefore while the demand is even lower than for floor-cleaners, the supply of workers who can do the job competently is *MUCH* lower. Therefore, you have to pay more to get a competent person in that job.


But you can't pay more to get a competent person in that job when the damn Unions don't let you fire the incompetent wastrels actively bringing down your company's productivity.
 
2012-06-11 08:59:39 AM

rvabenji: randomjsa: themindiswatching: Sounds like subby is butthurt about not having health insurance or a wage that's actually enough to live on.

/if you can't have those, no one can, amirite?

I have both and I'm not in a union.

At one time unions were absolutely needed as liberals will be quick to remind you of the old days of horrific working conditions, hours, and wages while they try to make you forget that was many decades ago.

The idea that people are "entitled" to certain wages and benefits just for working is also stupid. If the best job you can hold down is mopping floors and emptying the trash you are certainly entitled to be paid for that but the idea that your wage should be set higher than your work is actually worth so you can have a "living wage" and "health benefits" is insane and will ultimately drive anything to bankruptcy.

You cannot pay people more than they deliver in terms of profit for a company.

Here's the problem with that mindset. If walmart pays someone $7.25 for 30 hours a week of work there is no way they can live and survive off that. Do you know what happens? WE make up the difference with welfare and food stamps. The federal government is subsidizing wal-mart's payroll. doesn't seem fair to me.


You're thinking about it incorrectly. If the fed govt eliminated food stamps/welfare, it wouldn't affect the supply of labor to walmart. In fact, by removing social safety nets, you would presumably increase the supply of labor as people formerly dependent on the government are now forced to seek more employment to survive.

There are negative ramifications to that obviously - I'm not advocating eliminating the safety net, just pointing out the error in your analysis.
 
2012-06-11 09:02:33 AM
[pirates_and_global_warming.jpg]
 
2012-06-11 09:07:53 AM
Haiti exports a lot of coffee. I conclude that coffee causes poverty.
 
2012-06-11 09:10:17 AM
Spain's labor unions "have enjoyed a social prestige and power that was not seen anywhere else in Europe." Yet Spain's unemployment rate is over 24%, highest in the eurozone. Can you explain that?

While I can not do so with the eloquence of kmmontandon, I can probably explain it in small enough words for the Subby to understand.

The unions have elevated power and prestige because the unemployment rate is so high. If everyone had a job, the rold of the unions would be minimized. However, if the only way to get a job you can live off of is through the unions, then the harder it is to get a job the more powerful they become. Kickbacks, bribes, and favoritism all increase as demand for jobs increases. That, in economic terms, is power. They may even be working to artificially keep that unemployment number high, I don't know enough about Spanish labor unions to say one way or the other. It wouldn't surprise me though.
 
2012-06-11 09:10:46 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


Wonderful. I love it!

Done in one.
 
2012-06-11 09:11:51 AM
Rug Doctor

Join? My dear friend, they always were one and the same.
 
2012-06-11 09:16:38 AM
Yes, unions suck because they won us the five-day work week, the 8-hour work day, and gave the United States of America the highest standard of living in the entire world -- for about a generation. And since prosperity and security are such shiatty things, the capitalists decided to start tearing it down. Better to have a nation of fearful serfs who live from hand to mouth.
 
2012-06-11 09:17:02 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


This truly is the Fark I fell in love with ten years ago.

well done sir.
 
2012-06-11 09:17:03 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Investors get whatever the residual profit is after all expenses, including wages, are paid.


Only if "expenses" are defined as "anything that isn't paid to the investors." Of course, that's not what "expenses" means.
 
2012-06-11 09:18:20 AM

Gunther: kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures

Hey now, it's a proven fact that austerity is great for an economy! Sure, it's been tried dozens of times and has never worked once, but dammit, the theories the Austrian economists cooked up say it should work, and who are you gonna believe, them or that lying biatch reality?


Why do liberals love to demonstrate ignorance? Austerity has worked many times. 1930s Australia for one glaring example, exited the great depression way before the us. Most crashes pre new.deal were much shorter as well. In fact recessions have gotten longer the more government has tried a managed economy.
 
2012-06-11 09:20:57 AM

thurstonxhowell: Haiti exports a lot of coffee. I conclude that coffee causes poverty.


Maybe if they drank some of that coffee instead of selling it, they'd be a little more boot-strappy.
 
2012-06-11 09:21:30 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


*applause.gif*
 
2012-06-11 09:22:19 AM

NobleHam: Chimperror2:
The real world is that the Chinese workers get paid a lot less than US and European workers and until the stability in China makes the risk worse, capital will continue to flee. The more socialist and "Keynesian" a country is, the faster it's economy will collapse. The bubble today is that Spain an Greece are riskier places to invest in factories than China.

They are not farked because of unions and socialism, they are only farked faster because of unions.

Governments cannot spend their way to prosperity. Capitalism is egalitarian and until the standard of living in China and the west come be on par, the west is fooling themselves about being able to "stimulate" the economy. All they will do is increase orders in china, not create jobs in the west. In the end, that debt has to be paid and it goes to one place.

BTW, if you saw the article on all the warships being sent to APAC, it was to make western companies raise the risk level of investing in those countries. That's hardball economics.

First off, you do realize that China is arguably the most Keynesian country out there, right? Their government has stimulated their economy with massive spending in construction, infrastructure, etc. Most companies in China are still at least partially government owned. We can argue the wisdom of that for China, if you want, but it sort of makes your "Keynes bad because China" point moot.

Furthermore, if you're right then austerity is still a bad policy. Government may not be able to make up for the loss of capital to China, but stimulus spending can provide a buffer until things are equalized. While private capital flees, the government can make up some of the difference.

Lastly, "that debt" does not go only to one place. China hardly owns more of our debt than Japan, and Americans still own most of our public debt.


Why is there such a misunderstanding of keynes on the left? It is like liberals see "increased government spending" and stop reading his theory. His theory calls for cut backs.during good times, never happens, and stimulus only at the deepest part of recession, not continued government spending during.the rebuild. What liberals and Europe are doing is not keynesian. They are simply continuously spending.
 
2012-06-11 09:25:08 AM
Religion is the cloak that evil men use to do as they please.
 
2012-06-11 09:25:12 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


Tell us how you really feel.
 
2012-06-11 09:28:05 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: thurstonxhowell: Haiti exports a lot of coffee. I conclude that coffee causes poverty.

Maybe if they drank some of that coffee instead of selling it, they'd be a little more boot-strappy.


But no less shaky! *rimshot*
 
2012-06-11 09:28:08 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: rvabenji: randomjsa: themindiswatching: Sounds like subby is butthurt about not having health insurance or a wage that's actually enough to live on.

/if you can't have those, no one can, amirite?

I have both and I'm not in a union.

At one time unions were absolutely needed as liberals will be quick to remind you of the old days of horrific working conditions, hours, and wages while they try to make you forget that was many decades ago.

The idea that people are "entitled" to certain wages and benefits just for working is also stupid. If the best job you can hold down is mopping floors and emptying the trash you are certainly entitled to be paid for that but the idea that your wage should be set higher than your work is actually worth so you can have a "living wage" and "health benefits" is insane and will ultimately drive anything to bankruptcy.

You cannot pay people more than they deliver in terms of profit for a company.

Here's the problem with that mindset. If walmart pays someone $7.25 for 30 hours a week of work there is no way they can live and survive off that. Do you know what happens? WE make up the difference with welfare and food stamps. The federal government is subsidizing wal-mart's payroll. doesn't seem fair to me.

You're thinking about it incorrectly. If the fed govt eliminated food stamps/welfare, it wouldn't affect the supply of labor to walmart. In fact, by removing social safety nets, you would presumably increase the supply of labor as people formerly dependent on the government are now forced to seek more employment to survive.

There are negative ramifications to that obviously - I'm not advocating eliminating the safety net, just pointing out the error in your analysis.


that's bullshiat. jobs aren't created by people wanting them. otherwise there would never be high unemployment. it would fix itself. what creates jobs is people with money purchasing goods and services. if you eliminate food stamps and welfare then you take a lot of money directly out of the economy that goes to people who put it right back in and buy those goods and services every day. what you create is more hungry people fighting over less jobs. who will turn to crime to feed themselves or their families. who will then end up in prison and become more an even more costly burden on the taxpayer.
 
2012-06-11 09:29:26 AM

PonceAlyosha: Oh, it's attack unions day again?


Pew Pew Pew!!
 
2012-06-11 09:30:05 AM
So after reading the article (apologies for doing that instead of just spouting off some rehashed talking points), it appears that Spain's baby boomers gave future generations a big middle finger by setting themselves up with unsustainable benefits.

Wonderful.
 
2012-06-11 09:30:25 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Yes, unions suck because they won us the five-day work week, the 8-hour work day, and gave the United States of America the highest standard of living in the entire world -- for about a generation. And since prosperity and security are such shiatty things, the capitalists decided to start tearing it down. Better to have a nation of fearful serfs who live from hand to mouth.


We bombed the competition back into the stone age during WWII, that can make anyone prosperous.
 
2012-06-11 09:30:27 AM
Austerity never, ever, ever, works.

/never
 
2012-06-11 09:30:42 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Yes, unions suck because they won us the five-day work week, the 8-hour work day, and gave the United States of America the highest standard of living in the entire world -- for about a generation. And since prosperity and security are such shiatty things, the capitalists decided to start tearing it down. Better to have a nation of fearful serfs who live from hand to mouth.


Revisionist union history is always so fun. The 40 hour work week was started in a non union shop by ford who studied marginal return on work by hours and.found a cut off around 40 hours. Unions did jack shiat except take.credit. industries were already adopting the same work schedules as ford.
 
2012-06-11 09:32:09 AM
Unemployment is very high but the country's debt is not as bad as most and the real problem with Spain stems from banks that took on way too much risky debt and now it is not being repaid (BTW unions did not borrow the money) so keep on try to blame unions while bending over for your corporate overlords and maybe some day the Kock brothers will give you a sammich.
 
2012-06-11 09:34:38 AM

soy_bomb: Austerity never, ever, ever, works.

/never


I'm all for austerity. as long as it's austerity for the 1%
 
2012-06-11 09:35:50 AM

soy_bomb: Austerity never, ever, ever, works.

/never


So when should austerity be used? Is there a better time to cut benefits/entitlements?
 
2012-06-11 09:40:46 AM

derpdeederp: soy_bomb: Austerity never, ever, ever, works.

/never

So when should austerity be used? Is there a better time to cut benefits/entitlements?


You are really living up to your handle there.
 
2012-06-11 09:42:45 AM

orclover: Ok, runaway unions with unchecked power = BAD
Removing all unions until companys have nothing to keep them in check = ALSO BAD

Why cant you farking people understand? The concept of Balance is farking lost on this species.


Are you coming in late? Did you just notice this? If so, welcome to the Society, we'll send you contact info shortly.
 
2012-06-11 09:43:54 AM

LoneWolf343: derpdeederp: soy_bomb: Austerity never, ever, ever, works.

/never

So when should austerity be used? Is there a better time to cut benefits/entitlements?

You are really living up to your handle there.


Thought it was a legitimate question.
 
2012-06-11 09:53:26 AM

Hobodeluxe: Debeo Summa Credo: rvabenji: randomjsa: themindiswatching: Sounds like subby is butthurt about not having health insurance or a wage that's actually enough to live on.

/if you can't have those, no one can, amirite?

I have both and I'm not in a union.

At one time unions were absolutely needed as liberals will be quick to remind you of the old days of horrific working conditions, hours, and wages while they try to make you forget that was many decades ago.

The idea that people are "entitled" to certain wages and benefits just for working is also stupid. If the best job you can hold down is mopping floors and emptying the trash you are certainly entitled to be paid for that but the idea that your wage should be set higher than your work is actually worth so you can have a "living wage" and "health benefits" is insane and will ultimately drive anything to bankruptcy.

You cannot pay people more than they deliver in terms of profit for a company.

Here's the problem with that mindset. If walmart pays someone $7.25 for 30 hours a week of work there is no way they can live and survive off that. Do you know what happens? WE make up the difference with welfare and food stamps. The federal government is subsidizing wal-mart's payroll. doesn't seem fair to me.

You're thinking about it incorrectly. If the fed govt eliminated food stamps/welfare, it wouldn't affect the supply of labor to walmart. In fact, by removing social safety nets, you would presumably increase the supply of labor as people formerly dependent on the government are now forced to seek more employment to survive.

There are negative ramifications to that obviously - I'm not advocating eliminating the safety net, just pointing out the error in your analysis.

that's bullshiat. jobs aren't created by people wanting them. otherwise there would never be high unemployment. it would fix itself. what creates jobs is people with money purchasing goods and services. if you eliminate food stamps and welfare then you take a lot of money directly out of the economy that goes to people who put it right back in and buy those goods and services every day. what you create is more hungry people fighting over less jobs. who will turn to crime to feed themselves or their families. who will then end up in prison and become more an even more costly burden on the taxpayer.


You prove my point. By eliminating food stamps you create more people fighting for jobs which lowers the cost of labor.

Again, that isn't a desirable scenario but economically it's pretty farking obvious that welfare and food stamps don't subsidize labor costs for walmart.
 
2012-06-11 10:04:47 AM
I don't think I've ever seen a subby destroyed that quickly and completely before. Kudos.
 
2012-06-11 10:08:12 AM

MyRandomName: Why is there such a misunderstanding of keynes on the left? It is like liberals see "increased government spending" and stop reading his theory. His theory calls for cut backs.during good times, never happens, and stimulus only at the deepest part of recession, not continued government spending during.the rebuild. What liberals and Europe are doing is not keynesian. They are simply continuously spending.


Yeah, you never hear the left talking about how we should have been saving money instead of cutting taxes and starting wars back before the start of the recession. Good point.
 
2012-06-11 10:11:56 AM

MyRandomName: Why is there such a misunderstanding of keynes on the left? It is like liberals see "increased government spending" and stop reading his theory. His theory calls for cut backs.during good times, never happens, and stimulus only at the deepest part of recession, not continued government spending during.the rebuild. What liberals and Europe are doing is not keynesian. They are simply continuously spending.


Didn't Bill Clinton leave us with a budget surplus?
 
2012-06-11 10:12:36 AM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


While hayekian dildo is hilarious, this comment is completely wrong. Spain's in trouble because far-leftists in power tried to convert the entire Spanish economy into a green economy. That failed spectacularly.

BARCELONA, Spain -- It was just last year that President Obama was touring Solyndra headquarters and telling us green technology was the future:

"The future is here. We are poised to transform the ways we power our homes and our cars and our businesses," Obama said.

One the nations he held up as an example for America's green technology effort was Spain.

However, President Obama may like Spain's green technology program, but the Spanish -- not so much. One study has declared it a colossal failure.

The Spanish recently threw out their socialist government over their terrible economy and a 22 percent unemployment rate.

What the Spanish got was a big helping of a Solyndra style business debacle: a lot of taxpayer money down the drain and jobs that cost a fortune to create.

Calzada, an economist, studied Spain's green technology program and found that each green job created in Spain cost Spanish taxpayers $770,000. Each Wind Industry job cost $1.3 million to create.

"President Zapatero, for example, when he came in to power, said he knew, 'he knew' that solar energy was the future," Calzada said. "He 'knew' this, so he put all the public money and investment into this model."

But Calzada's study found that for every four jobs created by Spain's expensive green technology program, nine jobs were lost.

Electricity generated was so expensive that each "green" megawatt installed in the power grid destroyed five jobs elsewhere in the economy by raising business costs.
 
2012-06-11 10:14:56 AM
TenaciousP: Generation_D: The Right Wing in America wants to destoy all but themselves. Once those drones get done over Afghanistan maybe we can fly a few over Fox News ... or maybe your house, subby.

I've started a new practice of blocking the Fox "News" channel in hotel rooms when I travel. It's quite satisfying to know some dumbass will get all pissy missing Fartbongo porn.


I am going to start doing that.
 
2012-06-11 10:15:33 AM

soy_bomb: Austerity never, ever, ever, works.


On the off chance anyone is dumb enough to listen to soy_bomb:

A) Estonia isn't doing NEARLY as well as they claim:

img.photobucket.com

B) Estonia is a really poor example of austerity:

RexTalionis: For some reason, a lot of people have been trying to put forth Estonia as some sort of proof that government austerity leads to economic growth in the last few days. However, I don't know if you can really hold them up as a paragon of austerity. They receive over 3.4 billion euros from the EU as part of a structural fund, and if you look at the breakdown of their annual budget for 2011, practically every government revenue for every sector of spending is supplemented by foreign funding.

Besides, if you look at the Eurozone right now, there's 10 countries in recession right now, all of whom are in it because austerity measures (even ones where there isn't a particularly immediate debt problem) became such a drag on the economy that they all fell back. Given the track record of austerity, I'd say it's still a bust.

 
2012-06-11 10:18:43 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: You prove my point. By eliminating food stamps you create more people fighting for jobs which lowers the cost of labor.


so is that the goal here for you? to bring wages down to 3rd world levels? is that what we need to be working towards?
 
2012-06-11 10:32:18 AM

Hobodeluxe: Debeo Summa Credo: You prove my point. By eliminating food stamps you create more people fighting for jobs which lowers the cost of labor.

so is that the goal here for you? to bring wages down to 3rd world levels? is that what we need to be working towards?


Cripes. Does nobody read context or the caveats included in fark posts?

I was originally responding to someone's claim that the government was subsidizing walmart by offering supplemental aid such as food stamps to people who make $7.25 per hour there.

I was merely refuting that point by noting that without such governmental aid programs the supply of labor would be higher as it would increase the need of such people to find work. I WAS NOT ADVOCATING elimination of these programs.
 
2012-06-11 10:39:10 AM

dickfreckle: kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.

Damn, even my asshole hurts after reading that, and I actually agree with you.


prior to the global crash in 2007, Spanish unemployment, at its lowest point in decades, was a cool 8.263%
 
2012-06-11 10:40:47 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Cripes. Does nobody read context or the caveats included in fark posts?


Have you been here before? I mean, c'mon!
 
2012-06-11 10:57:31 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Hobodeluxe: Debeo Summa Credo: You prove my point. By eliminating food stamps you create more people fighting for jobs which lowers the cost of labor.

so is that the goal here for you? to bring wages down to 3rd world levels? is that what we need to be working towards?

Cripes. Does nobody read context or the caveats included in fark posts?

I was originally responding to someone's claim that the government was subsidizing walmart by offering supplemental aid such as food stamps to people who make $7.25 per hour there.

I was merely refuting that point by noting that without such governmental aid programs the supply of labor would be higher as it would increase the need of such people to find work. I WAS NOT ADVOCATING elimination of these programs.



I got where you were going. You were showing that those programs don't subsidize Wal-mart because even though without those programs there is a problem, it isn't Walmart's problem. It might be horrible for society, but in this situation society's loss is Wal-mart's gain.
 
2012-06-11 11:10:18 AM

fracto73: Debeo Summa Credo: Hobodeluxe: Debeo Summa Credo: You prove my point. By eliminating food stamps you create more people fighting for jobs which lowers the cost of labor.

so is that the goal here for you? to bring wages down to 3rd world levels? is that what we need to be working towards?

Cripes. Does nobody read context or the caveats included in fark posts?

I was originally responding to someone's claim that the government was subsidizing walmart by offering supplemental aid such as food stamps to people who make $7.25 per hour there.

I was merely refuting that point by noting that without such governmental aid programs the supply of labor would be higher as it would increase the need of such people to find work. I WAS NOT ADVOCATING elimination of these programs.


I got where you were going. You were showing that those programs don't subsidize Wal-mart because even though without those programs there is a problem, it isn't Walmart's problem. It might be horrible for society, but in this situation society's loss is Wal-mart's gain.


Walmart definitely doesn't have any incentive to put downwards pressure on wages to keep costs low.
 
2012-06-11 11:23:19 AM

qorkfiend: fracto73: Debeo Summa Credo: Hobodeluxe: Debeo Summa Credo: You prove my point. By eliminating food stamps you create more people fighting for jobs which lowers the cost of labor.

so is that the goal here for you? to bring wages down to 3rd world levels? is that what we need to be working towards?

Cripes. Does nobody read context or the caveats included in fark posts?

I was originally responding to someone's claim that the government was subsidizing walmart by offering supplemental aid such as food stamps to people who make $7.25 per hour there.

I was merely refuting that point by noting that without such governmental aid programs the supply of labor would be higher as it would increase the need of such people to find work. I WAS NOT ADVOCATING elimination of these programs.


I got where you were going. You were showing that those programs don't subsidize Wal-mart because even though without those programs there is a problem, it isn't Walmart's problem. It might be horrible for society, but in this situation society's loss is Wal-mart's gain.

Walmart definitely doesn't have any incentive to put downwards pressure on wages to keep costs low.



I believe his argument was that a race to the bottom lowers wal-mart's costs, since people will be willing to take less money for the limited amount of work that is available. A glut of cheap labor would put downward pressure on wages.
 
2012-06-11 11:38:04 AM
Boy. If there's one thing that can bring down an economy, it's equal bargaining power. *facepalm*

/kicks subby in the rectum
 
2012-06-11 11:45:48 AM

SlothB77: Spain's in trouble because far-leftists in power tried to convert the entire Spanish economy into a green economy.


While I somewhat believe that (be wary of any politician that "knows" something is the future) from what I've read Spain's problems are two fold:

1) there was a major construction boom a couple years back with people from England and Germany retiring there. Just coming back from Spain I can vouch for that 95% of the people not working there are from England. You can tell because they are all pasty white and are annoyed that the waiters don't speak English. Anyway when those economies went sour there's no money for second houses and thus there's a huge crash.

2) their employment culture is really wack. It is near impossible to fire anyone after a certain time, so businesses are forced to keep on any boob that started work a while back. Meanwhile the kids out of college can't find jobs as everyone's weary about hiring someone. When was the last time you heard of anything tech company out of Spain? Their economy is built on tourism and olive oil.

I can't find the exact article but this one is pretty good stating how much of Spain's economy was dependent on construction.

In 2006, Spain constructed more new homes than Germany, France and the U.K. combined, even though Spain has about one fifth of the total population of those countries. So when the bust inevitably reared its ugly head, the country was left with a long way to fall.

Mark Stucklin, head of SpanishPropertyInsight.com and writer of the "Spanish Property Doctor" column in The Sunday Times (U.K.), estimated that approximately 18 to 20 percent of Spain's economy is dependent on the construction sector. In comparison, other European countries average 8 to 9 percent, he said. This means that a hefty correction is likely in order before Spain's market can truly begin to heal.
 
2012-06-11 11:53:48 AM

lelio: SlothB77: Spain's in trouble because far-leftists in power tried to convert the entire Spanish economy into a green economy.

While I somewhat believe that (be wary of any politician that "knows" something is the future) from what I've read Spain's problems are two fold:

1) there was a major construction boom a couple years back with people from England and Germany retiring there. Just coming back from Spain I can vouch for that 95% of the people not working there are from England. You can tell because they are all pasty white and are annoyed that the waiters don't speak English. Anyway when those economies went sour there's no money for second houses and thus there's a huge crash.

2) their employment culture is really wack. It is near impossible to fire anyone after a certain time, so businesses are forced to keep on any boob that started work a while back. Meanwhile the kids out of college can't find jobs as everyone's weary about hiring someone. When was the last time you heard of anything tech company out of Spain? Their economy is built on tourism and olive oil.

I can't find the exact article but this one is pretty good stating how much of Spain's economy was dependent on construction.

In 2006, Spain constructed more new homes than Germany, France and the U.K. combined, even though Spain has about one fifth of the total population of those countries. So when the bust inevitably reared its ugly head, the country was left with a long way to fall.

Mark Stucklin, head of SpanishPropertyInsight.com and writer of the "Spanish Property Doctor" column in The Sunday Times (U.K.), estimated that approximately 18 to 20 percent of Spain's economy is dependent on the construction sector. In comparison, other European countries average 8 to 9 percent, he said. This means that a hefty correction is likely in order before Spain's market can truly begin to heal.


The bottom line is life is a biatch once you max out the credit card. It is going to take a long time to pay it down.
 
2012-06-11 12:34:04 PM

Lupine Chemist: Shadowknight: Yeah, I live here in Spain, and pretty much what this guy said. Austerity measures combined with no real main export (olives and sherry, I guess) and only seasonal tourism has led to a lot of unemployment.

Sorry to say but you are extremely far south. Similar to judging the US by Mississippi. There is a fair amount of industrial activity in the North. Asturias, Cantabria, and Basque Country are actually fairly productive.


True enough. It's also very similar to Mississippi in terms of the horrendous accent when learning a language. It's like moving to Mississippi or Alabama to learn English...
 
2012-06-11 12:42:16 PM

kmmontandon: Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures from a government that, prior to the 2007 crash caused by assholes building a securities bubble, had a balanced budget and was paying down their national debt.

Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat? Because no.

In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy. See also: Sweden. Or don't, subby, because you might encounter the real f*cking world, and the Hayekian dildo you've been riding so hard would break.


I got nothing to add.
 
2012-06-11 12:49:26 PM
Established labor unions can be quite conservative - they want to hold onto their jobs and power and can even exclude potential members. US unions have a history of being anti-Chinese (during the railroad days), anti-black, and anti-immigration.

During the 60's culture wars Nixon was able to recruit unions to be on his side to oppose the hippies, Negros, and other communists.
 
2012-06-11 12:58:11 PM

HairBolus: Established labor unions can be quite conservative - they want to hold onto their jobs and power and can even exclude potential members. US unions have a history of being anti-Chinese (during the railroad days), anti-black, and anti-immigration.

During the 60's culture wars Nixon was able to recruit unions to be on his side to oppose the hippies, Negros, and other communists.



All true, and if you've ever worked on a site where there were both union and non-union people (I have) you know that the union guys can be positively arrogant and condescending to the non-union guys. Some of these guys really do have a "screw you, I got mine" attitude.

Having said that, while many unions are in serious need of reform, the idea that unions should just disappear entirely is a terrible one.
 
2012-06-11 01:20:59 PM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7155620/77414238#c77414238" target="_blank">Wooly Bully</a>:</b> <i>Having said that, while many unions are in serious need of reform, the idea that unions should just disappear entirely is a terrible one.</i>

I agree. I was just pointing out that unions are not automatically liberal/progressive and can have many conservative attributes. Hell, the Communist Party during the last stages of the Soviet Union was very conservative - if you can understand that "conservative" doesn't automatically mean pro property rights and pro free-trade.
 
2012-06-11 01:34:20 PM

MyRandomName: Revisionist union history is always so fun. The 40 hour work week was started in a non union shop by ford who studied marginal return on work by hours and.found a cut off around 40 hours. Unions did jack shiat except take.credit. industries were already adopting the same work schedules as ford.


Holy shiat, you are a stupid lying asshole, aren't you? the eight-hour day movement started in the early 1800s. Radical labor led the way for a farking century; the major American eight-hour-day movement started in 1836, and organized labor gained successes there all through the 1800s. What the fark is wrong with you? Are you completely incapable of telling the truth?
 
2012-06-11 01:45:52 PM

HairBolus: I was just pointing out that unions are not automatically liberal/progressive


And that's a very good point (picture of bears here); the notion that unions are inherently "liberal" is ludicrous.
 
2012-06-11 02:08:47 PM

hubiestubert: It's almost as if Smitty decided to look at one tiny aspect of the nation, and correlate that with the results, while simultaneous ignoring all the OTHER factors that impacted the economy. Almost as if taking an actual look, as opposed to a tiny slice, would be a bit too hard.

Right out of the gate, Smitty got the explanation, so can we please stop trying to make half assed points out a tiny bit of the data and grow the f*ck up? Seriously. This is old. It's old when it's economists who know better try to do it to score points for the folks whose policies they're trying to justify--knowing full well that if things blow here because of similar half assed policies, their butts are going to be overseas so fast, that the Concord pilots are going to say, "Whuddafuxx was THAT?"

That isn't going to stop the folks who like to trot out talking points, instead of facts, that isn't going to stop the Idiot Brigade from repeating half assed lies, and the disingenuous who like to play mouth breathers on Fark to assuage their Mommy and Daddy issues to get some sort of stillborn revenge that the real targets of their internalized and twisted up angst could never actually accomplish because it would be far too much like strapping on a pair and putting on the Big Pants and at least pretending like their an adult.

Are there real issues? Yup. And the distraction that the Idiot Brigade is chittering on like the f*cking Lobstrosities piped up Dad-a-chum? Dum-a-chum? Ded-a-chek? Did-a-chick? certainly doesn't address these real issues. It's just so much mud in the water, and when folks pay enough to put out this much smoke, what in the Holy Motherf*cking Hells do you think might be hiding behind all that effort?




i humbly bow to thee
 
2012-06-11 02:23:58 PM

Gunther: soy_bomb: Austerity never, ever, ever, works.

On the off chance anyone is dumb enough to listen to soy_bomb:

A) Estonia isn't doing NEARLY as well as they claim:

[img.photobucket.com image 480x290]

B) Estonia is a really poor example of austerity:

RexTalionis: For some reason, a lot of people have been trying to put forth Estonia as some sort of proof that government austerity leads to economic growth in the last few days. However, I don't know if you can really hold them up as a paragon of austerity. They receive over 3.4 billion euros from the EU as part of a structural fund, and if you look at the breakdown of their annual budget for 2011, practically every government revenue for every sector of spending is supplemented by foreign funding.

Besides, if you look at the Eurozone right now, there's 10 countries in recession right now, all of whom are in it because austerity measures (even ones where there isn't a particularly immediate debt problem) became such a drag on the economy that they all fell back. Given the track record of austerity, I'd say it's still a bust.



If you weren't trying so hard to lick Krugman's nutsack, you might notice that the graph starts at the end of our own property bubble. If you extend it out a few more years, you don't get to ride your hobby horse quite so hard.

/Estonian
 
2012-06-11 02:25:18 PM

Mentat: MyRandomName: Why is there such a misunderstanding of keynes on the left? It is like liberals see "increased government spending" and stop reading his theory. His theory calls for cut backs.during good times, never happens, and stimulus only at the deepest part of recession, not continued government spending during.the rebuild. What liberals and Europe are doing is not keynesian. They are simply continuously spending.

Didn't Bill Clinton leave us with a budget surplus?


If not, it was the closest we've been in a long freakin' time. And then the Republicans cut taxes, weakened regulations, stuck their dick in Medicare, and had us invade two Middle Eastern countries.

So, because Obama didn't fix things fast enough, let's elect Republicans who want to cut taxes, weaken regulations, stick their dick in Medicare, and invade another Middle Eastern country, That'll fix everything!
 
2012-06-11 02:25:33 PM

Gunther: soy_bomb: Austerity never, ever, ever, works.

On the off chance anyone is dumb enough to listen to soy_bomb:

A) Estonia isn't doing NEARLY as well as they claim:

[img.photobucket.com image 480x290]

B) Estonia is a really poor example of austerity:

RexTalionis: For some reason, a lot of people have been trying to put forth Estonia as some sort of proof that government austerity leads to economic growth in the last few days. However, I don't know if you can really hold them up as a paragon of austerity. They receive over 3.4 billion euros from the EU as part of a structural fund, and if you look at the breakdown of their annual budget for 2011, practically every government revenue for every sector of spending is supplemented by foreign funding.

Besides, if you look at the Eurozone right now, there's 10 countries in recession right now, all of whom are in it because austerity measures (even ones where there isn't a particularly immediate debt problem) became such a drag on the economy that they all fell back. Given the track record of austerity, I'd say it's still a bust.


And Gunther, do you know what our GDP is, right now? Any guess for our crippled economy?
 
2012-06-11 04:20:18 PM

MyRandomName: Why is there such a misunderstanding of keynes on the left? It is like liberals see "increased government spending" and stop reading his theory. His theory calls for cut backs.during good times, never happens, and stimulus only at the deepest part of recession, not continued government spending during.the rebuild. What liberals and Europe are doing is not keynesian. They are simply continuously spending.


That is a misunderstanding I typically see from the right, not the left. The right talks about those "tax and spend" Democrats, and ignores that after WWII we cut spending and reduced the deficit, that during the good years under Clinton we cut spending and reduced the deficit, etc. Meanwhile the Republicans spend excessively through the good times and then decide the deficit is important when deficit spending is actually needed. Stimulus is not only for the deepest part of the recession, though, it is also to make up for deficits in demand when supply is still healthy but the economy is flat.
 
2012-06-11 04:55:16 PM

Tripp Johnston Private Eye:
Fantastic. I can't imagine a school of economic thought that knows less about economics than Austrians. What retards.


Austria has the lowest unemployment rate of the entire Eurozone.

/Visited there recently
//They seem to be doing quite well
 
2012-06-11 06:06:11 PM

derpdeederp: LoneWolf343: derpdeederp: soy_bomb: Austerity never, ever, ever, works.

/never

So when should austerity be used? Is there a better time to cut benefits/entitlements?

You are really living up to your handle there.

Thought it was a legitimate question.


Not helping your case.
 
2012-06-12 12:35:28 AM

kmmontandon: "Yeah, it's because the ECB is demanding harsh austerity measures...In the meantime, Germany is doing pretty damned good, thanks to a mix of fiscal sensibility, employer subsidies, and broad-based government investment in the private economy."



It's pretty awesome how well you can live on borrowed money, isn't it? For a time, I mean...


kmmontandon: "Oh, gosh subby, was that not the reality-based answer that you were expecting? Should I talk about what a Commie Paul Krugman is, and say LOLStimufail, or some other anti-Keynesian bullshiat?"



Paul Krugman isn't a "Commie", he's an attention whore who (a) values his own authority more than the welfare of his country and (b) trades on the unfortunate fact that if you say something enough times, people will perceive it to be true. Clearly this strategy is working well for him.

As for anti-Keynesianism being "bullshiat": can you name a single time in American history when the other side of Keynesian policy -- that inconvenient part that dictates that when times are good, you save up and pay down -- has ever been carried out? One-sided Keynesian economics, which is the only side we've ever known, is a recipe for large-scale collapse. Borrowing a few trillion dollars to stave off that collapse long enough to hold you through the next election -- presumably in the naive hope that some macroeconomic miracle will come along and throw you a lifeline -- doesn't make you morally superior to your opposition or an effective leader.

Krugman's entire critique can be summed up as, "You're not doing enough to sabotage the country". We have borrowed enough since Obama's inauguration day to incur an additional $150 billion per year in interest alone -- on just that part of the debt that didn't exist before 2009. That's 20% of the entire defense budget. Tell me: if the government did Krugman's bidding, what exactly would that look like in terms of debt today, in a year, in 5 years, in 10 years...? Be sure to figure the impact of increased interest payments on cash flow into your calculus.

Austerity hurts a little in the short term. (Back to subby's point, unions demanding higher-than-market labor rates may not be the main problem, but they certainly don't help.) Drunken-sailor spending of future generations' money might hurt less temporarily, but hurts substantially more in the long term. I guess it comes down to which you care about more.
 
2012-06-12 12:38:08 AM

NobleHam: "...after WWII we cut spending..."


Inevitably, yes.

NobleHam: "...and reduced the deficit"


But not the debt. In other words, we started living a little less drastically beyond our means.


NobleHam: "during the good years under Clinton we cut spending and reduced the deficit, etc."


Are you kidding? Clinton was blessed with a technology-driven economic boom the likes of which haven't occurred for literally decades before or since his term. It would be impossible NOT to reduce the deficit -- we had more money coming in than we'd had in any point in modern history, and (thanks to relative peace and low-and-falling unemployment) less than almost ever to spend it on. And yet notice we STILL didn't reduce the debt - only the deficit (no, we didn't have a surplus).


NobleHam: "Meanwhile the Republicans spend excessively through the good times..."


No argument there. But so do Democrats. Pot, kettle, etc. Hardly fair to characterize that as a strictly (or even primarily) Republican problem.
 
2012-06-12 01:45:01 AM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: If you weren't trying so hard to lick Krugman's nutsack,


What the fark are you even talking about? Why even bring up Krugman? Man, you guys are obsessed with him, aren't you?

I mean shiat, I even pointed out that Estonia is getting billions in funding from the EU and your budget shows enormous amounts of foreign spending. Krugman is an idiot to make the "Estonia's shiatty GDP proves Austerity is bad" argument when by any sane definition you guys aren't even using Austerity measures, and you're a bigger idiot for a) falling for your government's bullshiat and b) not reading posts before replying to them.
 
2012-06-12 04:11:26 AM

Gunther: Mart Laar's beard shaver: If you weren't trying so hard to lick Krugman's nutsack,

What the fark are you even talking about? Why even bring up Krugman? Man, you guys are obsessed with him, aren't you?

I mean shiat, I even pointed out that Estonia is getting billions in funding from the EU and your budget shows enormous amounts of foreign spending. Krugman is an idiot to make the "Estonia's shiatty GDP proves Austerity is bad" argument when by any sane definition you guys aren't even using Austerity measures, and you're a bigger idiot for a) falling for your government's bullshiat and b) not reading posts before replying to them.



I brought up Krugman BECAUSE that's who you stole that graphic from.

Not using austerity measures? I took at 10 percent wage haircut, right off the top, because I'm a public servant (university professor). Everyone did. And it's been a biatch. But you know what? It worked. If that's not an 'austerity measure', I don't know what is.

It's funny watching people talk about places that they would have trouble finding on a map.
 
2012-06-12 04:42:54 AM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: I brought up Krugman BECAUSE that's who you stole that graphic from.


That graph is the first thing that comes up when you google "estonia GDP graph present". I'm sorry that using it somehow convinced you I was secretly supporting Krugman or whatever, but if I posted a graph from the Wall Street Journal, that wouldn't mean I agreed with them; it's just data. In point of fact; I don't agree with him when he says Estonia is using austerity measures.

Mart Laar's beard shaver: Not using austerity measures? I took at 10 percent wage haircut, right off the top, because I'm a public servant (university professor). Everyone did. And it's been a biatch. But you know what? It worked


Post hoc ergo propter hoc. You may have seen your wages cut, but your country has received 3.4 billion from the EU in structural assistance since 2007. For a country with only 1.3 million people, that's a reasonable Keynesian stimulus package.
 
2012-06-12 05:03:24 AM

Gunther: Mart Laar's beard shaver: I brought up Krugman BECAUSE that's who you stole that graphic from.

That graph is the first thing that comes up when you google "estonia GDP graph present". I'm sorry that using it somehow convinced you I was secretly supporting Krugman or whatever, but if I posted a graph from the Wall Street Journal, that wouldn't mean I agreed with them; it's just data. In point of fact; I don't agree with him when he says Estonia is using austerity measures.

Mart Laar's beard shaver: Not using austerity measures? I took at 10 percent wage haircut, right off the top, because I'm a public servant (university professor). Everyone did. And it's been a biatch. But you know what? It worked

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. You may have seen your wages cut, but your country has received 3.4 billion from the EU in structural assistance since 2007. For a country with only 1.3 million people, that's a reasonable Keynesian stimulus package.



And do you know how much Estonia has paid OUT in assistance to the PIIG states, despite having a 18% decline in GDP in 1998?
 
2012-06-12 05:07:02 AM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: And do you know how much Estonia has paid OUT in assistance to the PIIG states, despite having a 18% decline in GDP in 1998?


Enlighten me. How much has Estonia paid out since the GFC started?
 
2012-06-12 10:11:38 AM
I haven't a clue (why I asked the question), but I know it's substantial.

Only 40% of that grant money had been allocated through 2010 (mostly in roads; because ours are crap), but that figure has dropped to zero in the last two years, so to use that as a "but" is relatively meaningless.

What I do know; Estonia's government (while still bloated in comparison to our neighbors), made serious, deep cuts in 2009. I felt them. Everyone I know did. But you can't argue with our growth rate right now. The U.S. would crawl on its belly for half the amount.

I wonder what it would take for public servants in the U.S. to take a 10 percent haircut?
 
Ehh
2012-06-12 07:08:29 PM
Came for Spanish Civil War posters, leaving disappointed. Link.
 
2012-06-12 11:30:37 PM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: I haven't a clue (why I asked the question), but I know it's substantial.


So basically, you have no evidence for your viewpoint, and you think I should go find you some.

Do you know how arguments farking work?
 
Displayed 153 of 153 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report