Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's great and all but they still have the same laws of economics as every other country.
Which means the more governmen spending the poorer the citizenry.
Correct.
More from the OP link;
Countries with the largest spending increases fared statistically significantly worse during the recession. Ireland, Iceland, Estonia, Spain and Greece are the most dramatic examples.
The increases in per capita government spending in these countries — summing over these three years — ranged from 11.1% to 26.1%.
These countries also suffered the deepest declines in GDP, contracting on average by 4.4% between 2007 and 2010. And the share of working-age people who were employed also declined by, on average, 6.6%.
Your argument is that its a 2d nail in the kneecap instead of a 3d nail. That is not frictional unemployment. I define not austerity as full employment. Of course the kind of employment they have in Britain is rather crappy exiting entirely upon financial regulatory arbitrage.
I would say you have to have a spending reduction to have austerity.
Finally, somebody addresses the OP. Others here have just blathered on about side issues.
I actually agree with some of your second paragraph. It just wouldn't take ten years and could be done gradually.
Have you ever once addressed my objections to your endlessly stupid OPs? Just say yes or no to we have a FIRE sector problem and perhaps I can just learn to avoid your thread bare OP.
1937 is not a good example to use given that it did not result from less government spending. It resulted from less money being available. That's not the same thing.
But anyway, if the government is spending less money, then less revenue is needed. The argument that less government spending results in less revenues is circular. The revenues are only needed to cover the spending. And that's the entire point of working towards balancing the budget. To break the cycle.
First, 1937 is the year that government decided to scale back the New Deal. Second, from a macro economic view, cutting back spending in a weak recovery slows the economy, falling back into recession, which leads to lower revenues and higher social spending.
I would say you have to have a spending reduction to have austerity.
I gave you a real world definition and you give me this junk? This is childlike. Spending less floating in the Aether. OK, make it 0. Why not? It fits the definition as does the Soviet Empire spending one less kopeck .
Countries with the largest spending increases fared statistically significantly worse during the recession. Ireland, Iceland, Estonia, Spain and Greece are the most dramatic examples.
The increases in per capita government spending in these countries — summing over these three years — ranged from 11.1% to 26.1%.
These countries also suffered the deepest declines in GDP, contracting on average by 4.4% between 2007 and 2010. And the share of working-age people who were employed also declined by, on average, 6.6%.
RoadKing don't a simpleton. To try and foist that these are cookie cutter economies whose root cause for their economic crisis even remotely the same and whose fiscal and monetary responses were the same. In short jumping up and down about fiscal policy is... well just plain stupid.
It did NOT turn us into a communist nation, did it? And who says the same people would remain unemployed through all of it? People would temporarily take lower paying jobs or study.
People throw pets into the streets all the time when they hit hard times. Guess who has to deal with those pets? City and local authorities. They have to trap them, house them for x number of days, and then euthanize them. After that, they have to dispose of them. They have to have a facility to do this plus staff. All of this costs money.
If giving out pet food stamps works out to be cheaper, I'm all for it.
So now we will ruin two ethical principles and create an underclass of ex-military trained to kill.
I would say you have to have a spending reduction to have austerity.
The coalition instituted public spending cuts, in an attempt to reduce the ongoing deficit of the UK government. The closure programme was initially focused upon public bodies funded by government, often known as quangos, which were abolished or merged. By July 2010, a total of 54 such bodies had either been abolished or had their funding withdrawn. In October 2010 a list of 192 quangosto be abolished was officially released, with 118 to be merged
Savings estimated at about £83bn are to be made over four years. The plan is to cut 490,000 public sector jobs. Most Whitehall departments face budget cuts of 19% on average. The retirement age is to rise from 65 to 66 by 2020.
The budget deficit is about 10% of GDP and unemployment - officially 2.67 million (8.4%). That is its highest level since 1994.
In the 2012 budget, Chancellor George Osborne announced several measures to ease taxes - including a 5% cut to the top rate of tax and a rise in the personal income tax allowance threshold.
However, he also cut the personal income tax allowance pensioners receive, reduced child benefit and raised taxes on tobacco and other items.
Public anger over the cuts has grown. More than 250,000 people demonstrated in London in March 2011 - the city's biggest protest since the 2003 Iraq war.
Protest camps sprang up in cities across the UK towards the end of 2011, echoing similar "occupy" sit-ins around the world.
You can see that the austerity measures have not had immediate impact (at least not in the right direction)
UK quarterly GDP growth since the Coalition took over in the middle of Q2 2010
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 02-26-2013 at 03:30 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
