Austerity is still not working.

[quote name='speedracer']I think this is the root of the disagreement. Msut argues that the business cycle cannot be left to its own devices. You argue that all interference is bad interference. I guess Msut and I just don't believe that the free market fairy will make everything better if only we give the keys to the kingdom to people with zero interest in the interests of all of us. The only people I trust less than the people I vote for are the people I don't.[/QUOTE]

Actually I think the argument is that anarcho-capitalism is a good unto itself. If we take away the govt protections and the system goes into meltdown, then that is OK because that's the way it was supposed to be.

Principles over pragmatism.
 
it's not an equivalent philosophical argument, because the anarcho-capitalist argument is based on a tautology - free market outcomes are fair because they are the outcomes of the free market. So whether we have a benevolent system of nothing but business owners with a Costco philosophy or an aristocracy of billionaires while people who want to earn more than $8/hour are vilified as "greedy," as long as there is no government involvement, it is fair to the anarcho-capitalist.

Which is silly, since (aside from the ridiculously tautological nature of that philosophy), it treats nonintervention as a lack of involvement in the market. Which is false on the surface.

speed, you're a sharp dude, I'm sure you see all that.
 
it's not an equivalent philosophical argument, because the anarcho-capitalist argument is based on a tautology - free market outcomes are fair because they are the outcomes of the free market. So whether we have a benevolent system of nothing but business owners with a Costco philosophy or an aristocracy of billionaires while people who want to earn more than $8/hour are vilified as "greedy," as long as there is no government involvement, it is fair to the anarcho-capitalist.

Which is silly, since (aside from the ridiculously tautological nature of that philosophy), it treats nonintervention as a lack of involvement in the market. Which is false on the surface.

speed, you're a sharp dude, I'm sure you see all that.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I think this is the root of the disagreement. Msut argues that the business cycle cannot be left to its own devices. You argue that all interference is bad interference. I guess Msut and I just don't believe that the free market fairy will make everything better if only we give the keys to the kingdom to people with zero interest in the interests of all of us. The only people I trust less than the people I vote for are the people I don't.[/QUOTE]

In our current system, though, the people you vote for are bought and paid for by the people you don't vote for.

Now, I'm not arguing for a complete market of non-interference. Obviously, there are cases where government needs to get involved (in particular, acting as a third party in a court decision - which is why I believe mandatory arbitration clauses are complete and utter bull**** and should *not* be legal). What I'm arguing against is a system where bought-and-paid-for politicians get to pick the winners and losers by handing out "free" taxpayer money with the excuse of "we gotta make the economy better!".
 
[quote name='speedracer']I think this is the root of the disagreement. Msut argues that the business cycle cannot be left to its own devices. You argue that all interference is bad interference. I guess Msut and I just don't believe that the free market fairy will make everything better if only we give the keys to the kingdom to people with zero interest in the interests of all of us. The only people I trust less than the people I vote for are the people I don't.[/QUOTE]

What kills me is they will post a chart or some bit of data and when it is invariably proven wrong or not applicable it become about something else, principles that never existed before or BS dollar store philosphy.

So "AUSTERITY DOES TOO WORK" to "WHO SAID IT IS GUBBERMENTS JOB".
 
[quote name='camoor']Actually I think the argument is that anarcho-capitalism is a good unto itself. If we take away the govt protections and the system goes into meltdown, then that is OK because that's the way it was supposed to be.

Principles over pragmatism.[/QUOTE]

Not an experiment worth undertaking, given that there could be some people hurt as a result.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Not an experiment worth undertaking, given that there could be some people hurt as a result.[/QUOTE]

The SEC has been so weak for the past decade, we basically performed this experiment and by every measurable objective it failed miserably.

The past decade, the markets operated about as well as the NFL did during the referee strike. Time to stop the insanity - I want a SEC that kicks white collar criminal ass.
 
[quote name='Msut77']What kills me is they will post a chart or some bit of data and when it is invariably proven wrong or not applicable it become about something else, principles that never existed before or BS dollar store philosphy.

So "AUSTERITY DOES TOO WORK" to "WHO SAID IT IS GUBBERMENTS JOB".[/QUOTE]
The pivot is so always neatly done. If you're not paying attention you won't even see the goalposts move. I sometimes wish "we" had such a sneaky tool. It's incredibly effective, even against grizzled interweb political nutjobs (like me).

[quote name='mykevermin']speed, you're a sharp dude, I'm sure you see all that.[/QUOTE]
Huh. Thanks dude.

Bob, Clusterstock has an article up today that made me think of our conversation. Weisenthal (a lib sort of business reporter, I guess?) argues that unemployment = deficit. Correlation is not causation, but that's a helluva long time worth of correlation over the course of just about every economic environment imaginable.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-...tock+(ClusterStock)&utm_content=Google+Reader

He doesn't argue how to fix it (it's not a stimulus argument), just that it's the primary driver of deficits. I found it interesting in the context of our posts in this thread.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']two decades at least. Harry Markopolous' book about Madoff is fucking fascinating.[/QUOTE]

How can you stand to read those books. It makes me so mad how broken the system is, and I don't like getting angry in my free time.
 
[quote name='speedracer']The pivot is so always neatly done. If you're not paying attention you won't even see the goalposts move. I sometimes wish "we" had such a sneaky tool. It's incredibly effective, even against grizzled interweb political nutjobs (like me). [/quote]

lol. I wasn't aware the unemployment chart was proven "wrong". What, exactly, was wrong about it? The part where unemployment went farther up beyond all predictions, the part where our unemployment when higher than the UKs (which is against historical trends) or the part where we are now moving back to the historical trend of lower unemployment than the UK, but even then, our number is still higher?


Bob, Clusterstock has an article up today that made me think of our conversation. Weisenthal (a lib sort of business reporter, I guess?) argues that unemployment = deficit. Correlation is not causation, but that's a helluva long time worth of correlation over the course of just about every economic environment imaginable.
Click to expand...

I'll give it a read, but my first reaction would be that a lack of "more income" does not cause a loss of money. Spending is what causes a loss of money.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']l Spending is what causes a loss of money.[/QUOTE]

And here I thought Spending the money is what brought it into existence in the first place.
:lol:

In all seriousness . This is whats wrong with the premise that we 'Have a spending problem , not a revenue problem.' We clearly have both. However , nobody has or ever will (Nobody in office that is) make the claim that we need a giant Reserve savings account to stave off ruin.A concept that , since its true for your own personal finances, it must be the case for government. I havent heard that concept proposed once , by anyone.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']lol. I wasn't aware the unemployment chart was proven "wrong". What, exactly, was wrong about it? The part where unemployment went farther up beyond all predictions, the part where our unemployment when higher than the UKs (which is against historical trends) or the part where we are now moving back to the historical trend of lower unemployment than the UK, but even then, our number is still higher?[/QUOTE]
That's not what we were talking about.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']And here I thought Spending the money is what brought it into existence in the first place.
:lol:

In all seriousness . This is whats wrong with the premise that we 'Have a spending problem , not a revenue problem.' We clearly have both. However , nobody has or ever will (Nobody in office that is) make the claim that we need a giant Reserve savings account to stave off ruin.A concept that , since its true for your own personal finances, it must be the case for government. I havent heard that concept proposed once , by anyone.[/QUOTE]

Actually, while I don't think we should have a "giant" reserve, I'd be happy to have - and most people are likely okay with it, a rainy-day fund for government.

But, with that said, shall we discuss how much gold (you know, that stuff that Ron Paul and his ilk are considered nutters for caring about) our government has stashed back? I wonder if they're on to something...
 
It'll never happen. Like I said : I dont even hear it being proposed by anyone on either side.

Aside from that , in my eyes its just a flawed hypothetical. : If Greece didnt spend X on entitlements they might have had Y in Reserve. Again I need to point out China had a ton of money in savings. That helped. They also have super strict banking regulation where big banks arent allowed to mess with their bonds. So Rainy day fund only gets you so far.
 
Actually from what I can tell, republicans think that the national budget is exactly like a household budget. At least that's what they used to go on about.
 
[quote name='Clak']Actually from what I can tell, republicans think that the national budget is exactly like a household budget. At least that's what they used to go on about.[/QUOTE]

Not really, as then the focus on cutting spending wouldn't seem like a realistic option.

Think of your own lives. We all would like to have nicer things, retire earlier, have bigger savings for a rainy day etc.

Is cutting spending one way to try and do that? Sure. Do most of us have enough wasteful spending that can be cut without severely impacting our quality of life to really make a dent in advancing those goals? No.

If one is going to really improve their financial situation it requires finding a way to advance their career and up their income for the vast majority of people.

The government is much the same. There are some things that can be cut without doing much harm to quality of life (cutbacks in defense, don't start wars of choice etc., cutback SS and Medicare benefits for wealthy people etc.), but it's really a drop in the bucket compared to expenditures and debt and increasing revenue is the easier way to get there without cutting back needed social services and letting our infrastructure further crumble and lag behind the rest of the first world.
 
Well that differs from the BS they used to spew about how the government needed to cut back the same way a family would during hard times. I think that during the Obama v McCain election it was compared quite often.
 
[quote name='Clak']Actually from what I can tell, republicans think that the national budget is exactly like a household budget. At least that's what they used to go on about.[/QUOTE]


lolz Romney should release his financial records or else he's a terrible person!
 
[quote name='Clak']Well that differs from the BS they used to spew about how the government needed to cut back the same way a family would during hard times. I think that during the Obama v McCain election it was compared quite often.[/QUOTE]

Oh, they spew it. Just saying it doesn't make sense as it's not feasible for families either as the vast majority are barely scrapping by.

Sure, they could drop cable or whatever, but that extra $80 a month or whatever isn't going to make much of a difference in their financial stability. Just like cutbacks in federal spending can't make much a dent in the deficit as there's just not much truly wasteful spending that can be cut without further diminishing quality of life, infrastructure, education etc. that will have long term negative impacts on the US's standing in eh world.
 
...and yet, if any employer offered employees a raise of $20/week, employees would jump on the chance.

It's like the concept of limited resources doesn't exist.
 
All we need to know about austerity can be learned by looking at what happened in Chile during Pinochet. While he was elbow deep fisting the country, the Austrian economics god, Milton Friedman was balls deep skullfucking it from the other end while having his Chicago Boys running a train on it.
 
[quote name='Clak']Actually from what I can tell, republicans think that the national budget is exactly like a household budget. At least that's what they used to go on about.[/QUOTE]

I think a lot of people , not just Republicans and teaparty radicals , think that.

Someone needs to explain to me how a government savings account would even come into being.
If the funds arent attached to some sort of investment , whats the mechanism for generating the money? Its going against the whole money as debt parameters. The Fed chairman is going to say "Lets generate a savings account" .. then what is the value based on?
Lets say hypothetically the investment was something valuable like oil (or Gold)
So when the disaster strikes we can then sell that commodity.
You have to remember: The lenders out there like China and the Saudi's dont want 'the thing'. They dont want the oil or gold , they want our debt. The debt is whats worth something. Thats the true value in the entire money as debt system.

So no , Our own personal finances are nothing like how Government operates.
You know when you're broke personally , its hard to sell your own commodities like your big TV or your Car to the people that you already owe money to.
Not hard to imagine the worth of what ever investment we made as the United States into a savings account would plummet when the economy plummets. Not hard to imagine a China responding with "Dont you already owe me money? No I dont want to buy your oil or gold"
 
I'm wondering how long we need to wait before we can call it a total and complete failure. Bob et al, what do you think is a fair time horizon?

Not only are they not getting better, they continue to do actively worse.
The pound has fallen by more than half a cent against the dollar as a sharp fall in manufacturing output raised the likelihood that the UK could slip back into recession.

Sterling dropped from just under $1.492 to $1.484 in intraday trading after the Office for National Statistics reported a 1.5% fall in manufacturing output in January.

The figures, which analysts had expected to be flat, feed directly into the first estimate of UK gross domestic product, which will determine whether Britain is back in recession.

They add to growing fears that the UK economy has slumped decisively over the past six months, and will raise the prospect that the Bank of England acts to pump more stimulus into the economy at its next Monetary Policy Committee meeting.

Overall industrial production, which also includes mining and quarrying, dropped 1.2% in January – far worse than the 0.1% increase economists had expected.
[...]
“We have already had poor construction numbers for the start of the quarter so the prospect of yet another return to technical recession is very real.

"This will intensify the pressure on the BoE to do more to help support the economy given government officials suggests they have no intention of letting up on austerity.

“As a result more QE remains probable with sterling very much biased to the downside.”
Click to expand...
...
The UK risks entering a triple-dip recession as new economic data comes in horrible.

Today's industrial production data was frightful.

The British pound is one of the most hated currencies in the world.

The UK was recently stripped of its AAA credit rating for the first time ever.

Current Prime Minister David Cameron came to power with an agenda of austerity. But now economists regard the UK as an experiment in what not to do when you're in a huge slump.

All of this is unfortunate for the country, and it's people who have to suffer through this.

But what's interesting is that when David Cameron took power in 2010, he was widely praised for pursuing a brave austerity agenda.

Cameron was particularly popular among non-ideological "centrist" pundits, who liked his tough approach to getting ahead of a future debt crisis, and preserving UK's creditworthiness.

Bottom line. People extolled Cameron's bravery, but today the credit rating is lower, the pound is cratering, the economy is weakening, and people believe that the only way out is to reverse austerity and spend more.
Click to expand...
...
[quote name='speedracer']They cut government to cut debt. Income goes down. Debt goes up. So they cut government to cut debt. Income goes down. Debt goes up. When does the free market fairy get here again? Why isn't it working? And after all this, they STILL HAVE MORE DEBT THAN WHEN THEY STARTED.

Anyone?[/QUOTE]
1y


Meanwhile, in the colonies:
February retail sales were released Wednesday morning and it’s hard to imagine how the numbers could have been stronger. Overall retail sales rose 1.1 percent in February, more than double the 0.5 percent gain analysts had expected. January retail sales data was revised upward, to an 0.2 percent gain from 0.1 percent. Even excluding volatile food and auto sales, the February number was up 0.4 percent, double the 0.2 percent forecast.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Austerity advocates will never rely on empirical data, and they will not falter on their firm belief in gut instinct.

Confidence fairies are too tough to withstand mounds of evidence, but I appreciate your effort.
 
You mean if the government stops spending money in response to the private sector not spending money, economic activity decreases? That's not logical at all.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']You mean if the government stops spending money in response to the private sector not spending money, economic activity decreases? That's not logical at all.[/QUOTE]

Ya see, if businesses have more money, then they just hire people irregardless of where that money came from! That's why we need to cut taxes even more when when economic activity decreases. You just got LOGIC'D, motherfucker!:lol:

*Note to mods, this is a joke. Please don't ban me. I don't think willardhaven is a motherfucker.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I'm wondering how long we need to wait before we can call it a total and complete failure. Bob et al, what do you think is a fair time horizon?[/QUOTE]

Well, apparently two years isn't enough when looking at the results of state budgets. Considering the larger scale of Federal/State budgets, I say we need to wait a heck of a lot longer than whatever time frame you put on individual states.

With that said, again, I'm not interested in our government propping up private businesses in the name of "making the economy better".
 
And Britain is still in the toilet. GDP down from even the government's own projections just 12 months ago:
GDP is expected to rise 0.6 percent in 2013, compared with 1.2 percent in the autumn statement, and 1.8 percent in 2014, from 2 percent in the AS.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile in Nobummer's Communist hellhole:
“In our view, the most important implication from the reduction in the budget deficit for the near-term economic outlook is reduced pressure for further fiscal retrenchment. Partly for this reason, we expect the drag from fiscal policy on real GDP growth to decline sharply from around 2% of GDP in 2013 to around 0.5% in coming years. This is a key reason for our expectation that real GDP growth will accelerate from around 2% (annualized) in Q2/Q3 2013 to 3%-3.5% in 2014-2016.”
Click to expand...
So to put it all together in an easily digested tidbit:
I’d only add that it’s important that the private sector’s de-leveraging is slowing and even turning into a re-leveraging to some degree. This means the private sector is healthier than most presume and that the government deficit isn’t needed to power private growth as much as it has been in the last few years. This passing of the baton is important in understanding the future trajectory of the economy. The decline in the deficit is as much as a result of mild government austerity as it is a sign of increased private sector health.
Click to expand...
tl:dr:

USA: Mild austerity + stimulus = GDP growth and a revived private sector = substantial debt reduction.

UK: Severe austerity + no stimulus = GDP growth is virtually dead with a private sector still on life support = substantial debt increase.

People that say that they care about the deficit and also say that they want severe austerity are full of shit and should be beat about the head and chest with sticks. They don't care about the deficit. Period. It's a lie.
 
Hey, I bet we can all play this game too:

USA: Private Health Care = GDP growth and a revived private sector.
UK: Public Health Care = GDP growth is virtually dead with a private sector still on life support.

This can be fun if we ignore the fact that the US economy is vastly different than the UK economy.

Not to mention, it ignores the overall idea of not using the government as a tool for propping up winners in the private sector while letting the losers fail...
 
Yep that's right, the fact that they have a public health care system totally explains it. I swear that Keynes himself could rise from the grave and tell bob why he's full of shit and it still wouldn't matter. This is why it's pointless to bring up any sort of knowledge or expertise in an area when dealing with these people, because it doesn't, and never will, fucking matter.
 
Clak - how do you explain the difference in the Illinois and Texas economies after two years of economic policies that mirror what is being discussed in this thread?
 
The fact that we are still the reserve currency of the world allows us to get away with a ton of funny business. If we lose that status, then we are gonna have to face some harsh realities. It would take a major world event, ie World War 3, to bring this about I think. China owns way too much of our debt to want to take our place just yet. Britian's sterling lost this coveted status after WW 2. Comparing economies is difficult because of all these differences. A solid reduction and reformation of ALL our gov't spending to reduce waste, redundancies, and inefficiencies should always be viewed as a good thing. Subsidies, military spending, welfare, the tax system, foreign aid, pork and earmarks, cronyism....it could all use a major revolution. Politicians living like royalty off of the tax payer dime is criminal, especially when technology allows for tele-conferencing and the like. I truly wish that Obama would fulfill his campaign promises of transparency and corporate loophole closing.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Clak - how do you explain the difference in the Illinois and Texas economies after two years of economic policies that mirror what is being discussed in this thread?[/QUOTE]
Independent monetary policy? That thing they teach on the first day of every business student's first economics class?
 
Why would I take the time to write up a post about how facts don't matter when speaking to people like yourself, only to try and reason with you using facts? I'm not stupid bob, take the troll routine somewhere else.
 
I like how liberals say that the U.S. budget situation isn't like your family budget because the government can just print more money. So then why not just print more money instead of having all the budget battles and tax fights? (QE infinity x 2 anyone?)
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']I like how liberals say that the U.S. budget situation isn't like your family budget because the government can just print more money. So then why not just print more money instead of having all the budget battles and tax fights? (QE infinity x 2 anyone?)[/QUOTE]

open and closed economic systems one aspect of the actual argument. one is open, one is closed; therefore, the enormous difference.

christ.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']I like how liberals say that the U.S. budget situation isn't like your family budget because the government can just print more money. So then why not just print more money instead of having all the budget battles and tax fights? (QE infinity x 2 anyone?)[/QUOTE]

Remember, some of these people actually supported the trillion dollar coin idea. :D
 
[quote name='Clak']Why would I take the time to write up a post about how facts don't matter when speaking to people like yourself, only to try and reason with you using facts? I'm not stupid bob, take the troll routine somewhere else.[/QUOTE]

He's really not worth interacting with on any level. At the very least many of the others who share has viewpoints on this board have some thoughts worthy of at least some discussion...

[quote name='soonersfan60']I like how liberals say that the U.S. budget situation isn't like your family budget because the government can just print more money. So then why not just print more money instead of having all the budget battles and tax fights? (QE infinity x 2 anyone?)[/QUOTE]

Ask Zimbabwe about how well that monetary policy works out...
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']He's really not worth interacting with on any level. At the very least many of the others who share has viewpoints on this board have some thoughts worthy of at least some discussion...[/QUOTE]

Haha...like who?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Comparatively speaking man, comparatively...[/QUOTE]

Don't get sucked in by that guys style, he'd laud a doughnut if it agreed with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top