Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, Spain, Europe, Francisco Franco, Spanish Civil War, protectionist, public good  
•       •       •

1261 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2012 at 4:04 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report