Austerity Stormtroopers Forget Their Economics

Then why are you in this thread? That wouldn't be quite consistent with the assumption of rational economic man

No, I mean you have presented bogus statistics and believe you can get away with it through rant.

I've already proved that your opinion isn't consistent with economic reality, as shown by Osborne's upgraded debt predictions. We also know that this reflects Britain's low growth performance, accentuated by austerity dogma. We also know that US growth is outstripping Britain's.

 

Banking is a Ponzi Scheme and always has been. It is simply about to burst and we have our heads in the sand.

 

The problem is/was neo-liberalism. Not a good idea to confuse that was austerity and how that threatens growth and therefore debt increases

 

Why do your Posts consistently turn good English into inferior labels .Cool Water , has summarised a very complex subject neatly and captured the essence of everything :-

Bankers are gamblers .
They follow a basic "doubling up" system they call leverage .
The Pyramid collapses .
Chaos results
The ordinary person goes into denial .

Then you turn this into an example of neo -liberalism .
What horse manure?
It's good for the sale of bad text books but the crisis policies were about greed and a lack of sensible controls and balances .
Not Neo Liberalism .

 

Again you show your innocence of economics! Neo-liberalism informs us of the hegemony of the financial class (plus the instabilities inherently created through the subsequent profiteering behaviour)

You fellows should think about adding some economics to your comments, just for the crack!

 

Just look at the first sentence of your last Post . It is perfect for getting people to fall off their chairs in laughter . It's gobbledygook .
Just write something like ,
Greed and corruption are ultimately the downfall of all elite power factions .

Don't try to wrap it up in verbose code . It's a style seen far too often among under graduates who have swallowed their first few text books on a subject . It makes your Posts unreadable for the masses and extremely specious and pretentious for others .And it rather looks as though it makes you believe that you are a lot more able than you clearly are .
Your Posts paint a student of verbosity and pomposity but not a particularly insightful economist .

 

That would be vacuous. First, it is emotional claptrap (any boo-hooing over greed would signal a 'invisible hand' counter-attack). Second, it isn't accurate in terms of the required political economy. Reference to neo-liberalism has to be made as that then summarises the links between macroeconomic instabilities and the associated economic rents.

Again, your argument is just "we don't need economics on an economics sub-forum". Sorry, but that is quite ridiculous

 

Does the fact that we're stagnating, despite record stimulus while the UK still continues to grow as it embraces austerity, not indicate which path is preferable? I realize it's anecdotal and probably short sighted, but evidence is evidence.

The stimulus did very little to simulate demand, most Americans were up to their eyes in credit card debt so rather than going out and buying that new widget, they just sent that money over to Visa or Mastercard.

 

Eh? Check out the UK growth figures and compare it to the US. The Bank of England have again had to react with further quantitative easing

 

Deficit spending is stimulus, the stimulus in the US is $1.3T this year.

Pity the children, they have to pay that bill.

 

Wrong! Brtain's austerity, for example, has increased debt because of the negative economic effects. Calling that stimulus would make zero sense

 

Yet, you state reduced spending is having a depressive effect on the British economy. And, that more spending would stimulate it.

 

I'm stating that austerity has had a depressive effect and, given it then leads to increased debt because of lower growth and higher welfare expenditure, it is irrational.

 

Reiver's posts leave me with the distinct impression that his Economics are gleaned from text books and not day to day economic experience .
The UK so called QE programme is founded on exactly the same premiss behind US imaginary money printing ..
To re-capitalise Banks and theoretically loosen inter Bank lending plus lending to the private sector .
Naturally it is sold as an economy stimulus in order to minimise the chance of Serf Rebellions that would start tomorrow if they really knew what was going on .
There are no ways out for industrialised States now , but from the politician's perspective it makes best sense to delay the final collapse for as long as possible and that means , stopping global banks going bust at all costs . Literally .
Behind that approach is the forlorn hope that a miracle might occur and that private sector growth might morph from out of thin air .
It will not , but in the mean time ,each State that still has some remaining breathing space , needs to desperately reduce on- going spending in order to produce an atmosphere that is conducive to further borrowing at affordable rates to keep the pack of cards from collapsing .
That such activity reduces Serf finances is irrelevant if you can keep riots and rebellion at a minimum .
Presently the UK Gov't are brilliantly walking an incredibly fine tight rope . America is doing exactly the same with bigger numbers , a poorer spin machine and fiddling official figures so drastically that they will suffer hugely once Jo Bloggs realises the extent of the lies .

 

No, given my consultancy role, its just I have to know some economics. In contrast, you've been found guilty of deliberate misrepresentation in order to feed a non-economic dogma (see your false comments on government deby earlier in the thread!)

Crikey, even the Daily Mail are closer to economic reality. The increase in debt and terrible growth performance demonstrates the invalidity of that remark. I suppose we could be optimistic, at least they haven't listened to Friedman and engineered a depression directly (as the Milk Snatcher managed)

 

You certainly forget uncomfortable Posts very quickly .
Why would you expect growth when no new money is being pumped into the private sector of any sizeable amount ?
Why would you want growth , when essentially money can only be used either for saving the basic financial system OR obtaining short term unemployment reductions .
At the very worst , a non manufacturing based economy , as we have in the UK , might have negative growth of about 1% , based on the most pessimistic of expert forecasts .
So What?
What a small price to pay IF the system can be saved .


I suspect the Daily Mail ( regarded as a comic here by those with brains) and consultants have much in common .Useless .
I want my economists to have degrees in Statistics and Logic and Psychology before trying to grapple with Future Guessing ( Economics ).

 

I forget ponce and prance, nothing more. I certainly haven't forgotten how you misrepresented British macro performance. Ed Balls, despite his unfortunate football preferences, has been proved perfectly correct. Economic theory and empirical evidence in harmony!

 

It's nice when your opponent concedes .
Since The Balls unfortunately ( for him) started waffling about Future Guessing --- a subject he knows nothing about -- his party have totally hidden him . Not side lined him . Buried him .
He is a forgotten and doomed political figure , ridiculed by the Right and Left and a topic of silence when his equally dim boss is asked about him .
He has no serious supporters anywhere , but he would be overcome with joy to know that his star is waxing now that you have glued yourself to him . The Kiss of Death I imagine .

 

I just wish I had an opponent. Unfortunately fibbing about the Government's record wouldn't count! We both know that you have no answer to the current Government's failings: with austerity leading to higher debt because of the macroeconomic problems created. Economic rationality is a terror for the dogmatic!

 

In writing this , you demonstrate yet again your now assumed inability to read other people's posts accurately ,being selective in terms of attributed meaning and completely failing to respond to points made against you .
Up. Water . Impossible .Pushing .Is . Hill .

 

No, I've merely referred to the macroeconomic performance whilst acknowledging that you misrepresented it. Next time you're going to have to put more effort in your blag!

 

The American economy has far deeper problems than just middle class people being afraid to spend money. You cannot just "stimulate" the economy back to health!

The solution is for the USA to be more careful about where it allocates the money it spends. People are already taxed plenty.

And I think a land value tax would go a long way in helping to improve things.

The USA should have never got in debt. If the USA cannot begin to start paying down its debt now, when will it? Perhaps the USA would be better off just completely suspending interest payments on its Treasury bonds, not issuing any more bonds or notes. That would ruin its credit rating and prevent it from ever borrowing money again, which might not be a bad thing. (the only problem is that it would be unable to borrow in a future war if there was an emergency)

The USA should not get into any more debt. what you do not understand is that debt creates inflation, and inflation just augments the effects of normal taxation. So borrowing money that the government does not have just gives the central banks ("federal reserve" in USA) more collateral assets to buy and order the printing of more money (even if the federal reserve did not buy the treasury bonds, additional treasury bonds act like adding new money into the economy). If there is more money, it means that the value of services and products increases in dollar ammount. To pay taxes on exchanges, people have to somehow obtain the new dollars from the government, which is spending it. So in effect, it is just raising taxes. This is the complete opposite policy from which you advocate.

I AM TELLING YOU THAT RAISING TAXES IS ESSENTIALLY NO DIFFERENT FROM BORROWING MORE MONEY!!!

Borrowing more money will cause inflation and people will have less incentive to engage in economic transactions because the effective taxes will be increased.

Right now, about HALF the value of the US dollar is backed with treasury bonds, which are just promises to pay back more dollars.
Somewhat circular logic, it is a similar phenomena to the multiplier effect with reserve requirements.

I believe you forget your economics: there is no "free lunch"!

It is hardly austerity to stop getting into more debt! Austerity would be if a country began to start paying down its debts.

Printing more money will just undermine peoples faith in the currency, a damage that cannot easily be undone.

Forbid the central banks thfrom using new government debt as collateral assets to print more money!
It is a pyramid scheme that will come crashing down.

 

You can wriggle and squirm but the facts just repeatedly knock your boat right over the water fall .
Read the comments posted today by Moody's which re-iterate the same points outlined by the OECD and the IMF about Team GB's economy .
In brevity ( no waffle here ) they say , Carry On , Good Route , Priorities right .
No mention of Keynes ,Galbraith, Friedman or Uncle Tom Cobbley .

 

Facts? I'm not the one that completely misrepresented Britain's macroeconomic performance. That would be you!

I'll use the IMF's Chief Economist's words: "Decreasing debt is a marathon, not a sprint. Going too fast will kill growth". Sanity!

 

But not said about , or aimed at , Team GB .The quote is self evident and therefore not advancing your monologue .
Would you suddenly write , ''Running across the road in heavy traffic should not be done without the most careful preparation"
No . Of course you would not .
So why introduce truisms as though you had grasped some amazing new discovery ?
And stop bumbling on about macroeconomic performance . There is no such thing .
There is Economic performance . You are Gobbledy Gooking again .