How is austerity doing in Europe

[Rshermr]

There you go, me boy. Proof that deficit, or stimulative, spending works. And that your heroe admitted that it indeed did.

if it was proof and the matter was closed at least one economist would see it that way but none do. In fact you may be the only person on earth who sees it that way. what does that tell us about your IQ?

If deficits were stimulative then Obama's economy would be roaring since his deficts have totaled $5.8 trillion in 4 years while Reagans totaled only $1.86 trillion in 8 years. How slow are you?

Poor ed. Again we see why the kindergardeners know more of economics than he does.
Ed thinks he can buy a new car at the same price as during the Reagan administration. Knows NOTHING of inflation, excepts when he wants to suggest that inflation is the dem's fault. Funny.
Reagan tripled the national debt. Now,ed would think that is a knock on Reagan, because he is stupid. But truth is, it was only Reagan spending to get the economy going, and it worked. No one stopped him, though they could have. Because they saw the value and the results of stimulative spending.
So, we have ed, who thinks stimulative spending is a bad thing. So, ed thinks I suggested deficits were stimulative. Which, of course, I did not. Because they are not. Deficits are neither good nor bad, depending on the condition of the economy. They help nothing, and hurt nothing generally. But spending stimulatively did work for reagan, as he and his advisers all knew. The fact that the deficit tripled proves he spent more than the economy brought in. Which any economic team would do if faced with 10.8% unemployment and a deficit growing too fast. And again, faced with extremely high unemployment and a slow economy, reagan did not cut taxes and stop spending as ed said he would, but rather he did just the opposite. BECAUSE SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS HAD FAILED AND MADE THE ECONOMY MUCH WORSE FROM EARLY 1981 THROUGH LATE 1982. Stimulative spending, however, worked as planned.

 

[Oldstyle]

There you go, me boy. Proof that deficit, or stimulative, spending works. And that your heroe admitted that it indeed did.

if it was proof and the matter was closed at least one economist would see it that way but none do. In fact you may be the only person on earth who sees it that way. what does that tell us about your IQ?

If deficits were stimulative then Obama's economy would be roaring since his deficts have totaled $5.8 trillion in 4 years while Reagans totaled only $1.86 trillion in 8 years. How slow are you?

Poor ed. Again we see why the kindergardeners know more of economics than he does.
Ed thinks he can buy a new car at the same price as during the Reagan administration. Knows NOTHING of inflation, excepts when he wants to suggest that inflation is the dem's fault. Funny.
Reagan tripled the national debt. Now,ed would think that is a knock on Reagan, because he is stupid. But truth is, it was only Reagan spending to get the economy going, and it worked. No one stopped him, though they could have. Because they saw the value and the results of stimulative spending.
So, we have ed, who thinks stimulative spending is a bad thing. So, ed thinks I suggested deficits were stimulative. Which, of course, I did not. Because they are not. Deficits are neither good nor bad, depencing on the condition of the economy. They help nothing, and hurt nothing generally. But spending stimulatively did work for reagan, as he and his advisers all knew. The fact that the deficit tripled proves he spent more than he taxed. Which any economic team would do if faced with 10.8% unemployment and a deficit growing too fast. And again, faced with extremely high unemployment and a slow economy, reagan did not cut taxes and stop spending as ed said he would, he did just the opposite. BECAUSE SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS HAD FAILED AND MADE THE ECONOMY MUCH WORSE FROM EARLY 1991 THROUGH LATE 1992. Stimulative spending, however, worked as planned.

Ah, yes...the board's "economist" surfaces yet again! You're the US Message Board's answer to George Costanza "architect"!

 

[Rshermr]

So how IS austerity working out. Here are the first couple of hits from google.

Europe is sinking into a protracted period of deepening poverty, mass unemployment, social exclusion, greater inequality, and collective despair as a result of austerity policies adopted in response to the debt and currency crisis of the past four years, according to an extensive study being published on Thursday.

"Whilst other continents successfully reduce poverty, Europe adds to it," says the 68-page report from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. "The long-term consequences of this crisis have yet to surface. The problems caused will be felt for decades even if the economy turns for the better in the near future … We wonder if we as a continent really understand what has hit us."
Austerity pushing Europe into social and economic decline, says Red Cross | World news | The Guardian

Bold added by me.

US success proves European disciples of austerity wrong
Opinion: None of the horrendous consequences predicted by hawks has come to pass

Fintan O'Toole
Tue, Mar 4, 2014, 12:01

We’ve been living, over the past five years, through a giant open-air experiment. Two vast economic blocs, the European Union and the United States, faced the same problem: a banking crisis had turned into a profound economic recession. But the two blocs responded in strikingly different ways. The EU decided, as Angela Merkel put it in 2010, that “all members of the euro zone have to reduce their deficit with determination and great speed” – hence the policy of slash-and-burn austerity. The head of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, issued the sweeping command in 2010: “Stimulate no more, it is now time for all to tighten.” The great binge had to be paid for with the great purge.
The US, on the other hand, had a mildly progressive president who went instead for a mild dose of economic stimulus. Barack Obama insisted that a deep recession was not the time to become obsessed with government deficits. It was the time to use the power of government spending to make up at least some of the fall in private economic activity. In 2009 he introduced a stimulus plan worth $831 billion, most of it spent over the following three years.
There is now real, living evidence against which to measure the sharply opposed claims of conservatives and progressives. A crucial part of that evidence is now in. Oddly enough, you have to look very hard for it in mainstream political discourse in Ireland and Europe. The experiment has shown that the claims of the deficit hawks – the ideas behind the dreadful suffering imposed on citizens in Ireland and elsewhere – are wrong.
US success proves European disciples of austerity wrong

It is easy enough to see the austerity failures.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is easy enough to see the austerity failures.

of course if capitalism fails then China would be shrinking rather than growing at 10% a year setting world records and saving million from enmasse liberal starvation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, we have ed, who thinks stimulative spending is a bad thing.

actually dear there are other people like Milton Friedman. Sorry to rock your world!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it was only Reagan spending to get the economy going,

Econ 101 for you:

1) tax and spend slows the economy since the people taxed cant spend what was taxed away from them! A child could figure that out, just not a liberal.

Do you understand that draining water from one side of lake and pouring it in another does not raise the level of the lake?

Do you see why conservatives think liberalism is based in pure ignorance.