How is austerity doing in Europe

Do you know what got them into their Economic Crisis in the first place?

It certainly was not austerity!
Greece News - Breaking World Greece News - The New York Times

French president François Hollande has bowed to massive pressure for business tax cuts to pull France’s economy out of slump and stave off industrial decline, ditching a core element of his socialist platform.

Francois-Hollande-lurches-Right-in-historic-U-Turn-to-save-French-economy.html
Critics call it the most humiliating U-turn in French politics since François Mitterrand abandoned his disastrous experiment of "Socialism in one country" under a D-Mark currency peg in 1983.

All of Europe made three big mistakes causing their Economic Crisis.

Our President is taking us forward to an even greater Economic Crisis.

The Democrats have no idea that the President continues to pursue an economic policy that has never worked. Europe is a perfect example of how this Economic Theory fails.

Do you even know what the name of this failed Economic Theory is?

You are living proof of just how bad our Public Education System has become.

The main reason for economic problems in Europe is the world wide recession, not EU economic policies.

The real reason is European Socialism continued to tax, spend and borrow ( Keynesian Economics ) which served to make the recession worse by increasing their National Debts.
Nanny states appear to be good until they run out of money.

Greece certainly didn't try austerity. Their liberals spent and spent but somehow it never produced prosperity or got their economy going.

So maybe they should have tried austerity?? and maybe a drunk should drink less??
 
Only in the deranged liberal mind....

Excessive uncontrolled spending and entitlements create massive debt, drag the economy down and practically bankrupt a country, they use austerity measures to try to get things under control and it's the austerity measures that are the problem.

Liberalism is a grave mental disorder.
So, you believe austerity is working?? Any proof?? Links??

As I pointed out before, there is no austerity in Europe. Although some countries are austere. To be honest, I don't know how austere countries are doing to the countries that spend till drop currently. The EU economies are vastly different anyway and it's impossible to know if it's because of austereity or some other things with that particular country that something is going bonkers. For example, Estonia is doing great, but so are some not so austere countries.

And yes, the austerity does work. In countries that are austere the debt does go down. I believe you are mistaken in believing this leads to any parties. It's not supposed to. It's supposed to reduce the debt. And it's doing that.


However, I wish many of these countries would be more austere in the good times. Perhaps then you could actually have some room for the debt during the bad times, without bankrupting the whole nation and continent. I mean I don't think even you believe the policies of greece were good.
 
Austerity is the term given to the circumstance where the country runs out of money, can't borrow any more and is forced to live within its means.
 
So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries. Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks. Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending. The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.
I have been waiting to determine what the outcome is likely to be. My want is that it would be most likely that Austerity would be a disaster. But I felt I owed it a look before mouthing off about the absurdity of the whole thing. And in my opinion, my opinion is of little value until there is some proof of the likely outcome. So, I kept watching, and after a year or two, I think the verdict is close to in. Increasingly. impartial sources close to the subject have become more and more and more pessimistic. And we are close to a time when it will be the decesion of most, by a wide margin, that austerity has failed, or is failing, in pretty much every country where it has been instituted.
Here is an article out of the UK that is very representative of what is being said:
Democracy in Europe has not been suspended, and the collision course is more apparent than ever. "Stop the world, we want to get off!" was The Wall Street Journal's verdict on the mounting European anti-austerity backlash. The truth is that the real world has paid the high priests of austerity an unwelcome visit. Their policies have sucked growth out of the economy, failed to tackle debt, dramatically increased unemployment, and devastated living standards. It would be utterly baffling if people did not fight back.

No wonder Greece is at the forefront of the backlash. A modern European society is being dismembered by austerity. The economy has shrunk by nearly a fifth, and the country's debt continues to mount. Over half of young people are without work; the minimum wage has been slashed to desperately low levels; and wages have fallen by a third since 2009. Then there's the ultimate indicator of despair: the number of people taking their own lives. Greece had one of the lowest suicide rates in the world, but experts suggest it may have doubled since the crisis began. Austerity is literally killing people.
Owen Jones: This austerity backlash across Europe could transform Britain - Commentators - Voices - The Independent
We should be interested. Austerity has some major similarities to our own fiscal cliff issues. We should be interested. European austerity is the model for neo conservative policies. Looking at how things are going, from a realistic point of view, should be useful.

Austerity is really a misnomer for what's going on in most of Europe. They apparently are only reducing spending a small amount AND raising taxes significantly. What would happen if they reduced spending significantly and left taxes alone with a promise to lower taxes in the future??

It's all to predictable that the NY Times and other left leaning sources are trying to focus on the failure of cutting back all over the world, when right here at home, the opposite approach, a stimilus, is a failure. In fact, Keynesian economics which advocates increased govt spending to stimulate the economy, has a lousy track record. It didn't really work during the great depression, it hasn't worked in Japan, and isn't working now. If a stimulus is so good, then why don't we raise the tax rate for everyone to 90%??? Clearly that would destroy the economy. So why would any increase in govt spending and it's subsequent tax increases lead to anything positive???
 
So why would any increase in govt spending and it's subsequent tax increases lead to anything positive???

well, when liberal government bureaucrats take your money and spend it, that money somehow becomes magical and stimulative, but when you spend your own hard earned money it doesn't.

Here's a partial list of where Obama's soviet magical money went:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy=
 
Do you know what got them into their Economic Crisis in the first place?

It certainly was not austerity!
Greece News - Breaking World Greece News - The New York Times

French president François Hollande has bowed to massive pressure for business tax cuts to pull France’s economy out of slump and stave off industrial decline, ditching a core element of his socialist platform.

Francois-Hollande-lurches-Right-in-historic-U-Turn-to-save-French-economy.html
Critics call it the most humiliating U-turn in French politics since François Mitterrand abandoned his disastrous experiment of "Socialism in one country" under a D-Mark currency peg in 1983.

All of Europe made three big mistakes causing their Economic Crisis.

Our President is taking us forward to an even greater Economic Crisis.

The Democrats have no idea that the President continues to pursue an economic policy that has never worked. Europe is a perfect example of how this Economic Theory fails.

Do you even know what the name of this failed Economic Theory is?

You are living proof of just how bad our Public Education System has become.

The main reason for economic problems in Europe is the world wide recession, not EU economic policies.

The real reason is European Socialism continued to tax, spend and borrow ( Keynesian Economics ) which served to make the recession worse by increasing their National Debts.
Nanny states appear to be good until they run out of money.

You would like to believe this, but it isn't true. Have you lived and worked in Europe? I have, and what you say simply is not true: it's what you want to believe.
 
The main reason for economic problems in Europe is the world wide recession, not EU economic policies.

The real reason is European Socialism continued to tax, spend and borrow ( Keynesian Economics ) which served to make the recession worse by increasing their National Debts.
Nanny states appear to be good until they run out of money.

You would like to believe this, but it isn't true. Have you lived and worked in Europe? I have, and what you say simply is not true: it's what you want to believe.

So what is true, Esmerelda? Are the "Pigs" not in dire fiscal straits because their promised entitlements can't be supported by their economies? Explain why that "isn't" the case because it certainly appears that it is.
 
The main reason for economic problems in Europe is the world wide recession, not EU economic policies.

The real reason is European Socialism continued to tax, spend and borrow ( Keynesian Economics ) which served to make the recession worse by increasing their National Debts.
Nanny states appear to be good until they run out of money.

You would like to believe this, but it isn't true. Have you lived and worked in Europe? I have, and what you say simply is not true: it's what you want to believe.

oh its true!! France has the per capita income of Arkansas, about our poorest state, thanks to so much liberal intervention in the economy!!.
 
Do you know what got them into their Economic Crisis in the first place?

It certainly was not austerity!
Greece News - Breaking World Greece News - The New York Times

French president François Hollande has bowed to massive pressure for business tax cuts to pull France’s economy out of slump and stave off industrial decline, ditching a core element of his socialist platform.

Francois-Hollande-lurches-Right-in-historic-U-Turn-to-save-French-economy.html
Critics call it the most humiliating U-turn in French politics since François Mitterrand abandoned his disastrous experiment of "Socialism in one country" under a D-Mark currency peg in 1983.

All of Europe made three big mistakes causing their Economic Crisis.

Our President is taking us forward to an even greater Economic Crisis.

The Democrats have no idea that the President continues to pursue an economic policy that has never worked. Europe is a perfect example of how this Economic Theory fails.

Do you even know what the name of this failed Economic Theory is?

You are living proof of just how bad our Public Education System has become.

The main reason for economic problems in Europe is the world wide recession, not EU economic policies.

The real reason is European Socialism continued to tax, spend and borrow ( Keynesian Economics ) which served to make the recession worse by increasing their National Debts.
Nanny states appear to be good until they run out of money.

First of all, a sovereign country, which issues its own currency, cannot go bankrupt. It's operationally impossible. Taxing, borrowing and spending has nothing to Keynes or the General theory. As a matter of fact, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, taxes don't fund expenditures, they simply regulate aggregate demand.

However, EU countries no longer issue their own currencies, since they had to cede sovereignty to the ECB. Unlike the US, Australia, the UK, Canada or Japan, for example, EU countries have to operate under fixed budget constraints similar to a pseudo-gold standard. This obsession with debt is illogical, since deficits create net financial assets for the private sector. People, especially pundits in the media, like to compare the finances of sovereign nations to that of households which is simply ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
First of all, a sovereign country, which issues its own currency, cannot go bankrupt. It's operationally impossible.

Nice to have another liberal illiterate in the conversation. Of course a country can go bankrupt. When Ron Paul asked Bernanke why we don't switch to a gold standard Bernanke said, we operate the Fed as if it were on a gold standard. So, if the Fed mandate were to say it can't create inflation then it couldn't prevent bankruptcy by printing liberal easy money.



Taxing, borrowing and spending has nothing to Keynes or the General theory.

a liberal illiterate's gibberish
 
As a matter of fact, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, taxes don't fund expenditures, they simply regulate aggregate demand.

too stupid and liberal!! Of course you fund a bridge or road or welfare expenditure with taxes. A child would know this. Taxes have little to do with aggregate demand since aggregate demand stays about the same whether taxpayers spend their money or the government taxes it and then spends it. Again, a child should know this.
 
to compare the finances of sovereign nations to that of households which is simply ridiculous.

actually its 100% logical. When a household cant pay its bills its in big trouble because men guns show up to take the house or car or something else.

When a government cant pay its bills it faces the same exact problem. The printing money free lunch liberal option (illegal under a gold standard Fed) only covers up the problem letting it grow worse rather than correcting it. Now the liberal knows his ABC's
 
Last edited:
to compare the finances of sovereign nations to that of households which is simply ridiculous.

actually its 100% logical. When a household cant pay its bills its in big trouble because men guns show up to take the house or car or something else.

When a government cant pay its bills it faces the same exact problem. The printing money free lunch liberal option (illegal under a gold standard Fed) only covers up the problem letting it grow worse rather than correcting it. Now the liberal knows his ABC's

Ed how many times do we have to go over this: a sovereign government, which issues its own currency, cannot go bankrupt. For the 189,765,234th time, all government spending is 'printing money' under a fiat system, since there is an increase in reserve balances, regardless of tax receipts or bonds sales. The US Government can’t involuntarily run out of dollars because it has the constitutional authority to create dollars without any limit. Congress is the only entity that can regulate this ability.

Lastly, for 230,567,113th time, the federal government doesn't operate like a household. Households can’t issue their own currency and require that people use said money to pay taxes. A household has a limited supply of dollars; the government's supply of dollars boils down to policy decisions.
 
Last edited:
As a matter of fact, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, taxes don't fund expenditures, they simply regulate aggregate demand.

too stupid and liberal!! Of course you fund a bridge or road or welfare expenditure with taxes. A child would know this. Taxes have little to do with aggregate demand since aggregate demand stays about the same whether taxpayers spend their money or the government taxes it and then spends it. Again, a child should know this.

I was referring to federal taxes, not state or sales taxes. The federal government taxes to regulate aggregate demand which is another way of saying spending power. In other words, if the economy is overheating, then raising taxes will help cool it down. Conversely, if the economy is cooling down, then cutting taxes will heat it up. Taxes aren't about obtaining money for expenditures, they're about regulating spending power (aggregate demand) so we don't cause inflation with too much spending power or not enough spending power which results in unemployment and recessions.
 
Last edited:
First of all, a sovereign country, which issues its own currency, cannot go bankrupt. It's operationally impossible.

Nice to have another liberal illiterate in the conversation. Of course a country can go bankrupt. When Ron Paul asked Bernanke why we don't switch to a gold standard Bernanke said, we operate the Fed as if it were on a gold standard. So, if the Fed mandate were to say it can't create inflation then it couldn't prevent bankruptcy by printing liberal easy money.

Ron Paul's understanding of macroeconomics and monetary theory is almost laughable. If I thought he was trolling us, he would be hilarious, but he's serious, which means he's off his rocker. He thinks money is a commodity, as opposed to a social unit of account and means of exchange.

Also, the gold standard was a disaster for various reasons. I could start a thread on it.



Taxing, borrowing and spending has nothing to Keynes or the General theory.

a liberal illiterate's gibberish

Perhaps you could enlighten us. :cuckoo:
 
to compare the finances of sovereign nations to that of households which is simply ridiculous.

actually its 100% logical. When a household cant pay its bills its in big trouble because men guns show up to take the house or car or something else.

When a government cant pay its bills it faces the same exact problem. The printing money free lunch liberal option (illegal under a gold standard Fed) only covers up the problem letting it grow worse rather than correcting it. Now the liberal knows his ABC's

Ed how many times do we have to go over this: a sovereign government, which issues its own currency, cannot go bankrupt. For the 189,765,234th time, all government spending is 'printing money' under a fiat system, since there is an increase in reserve balances, regardless of tax receipts or bonds sales. The US Government can’t involuntarily run out of dollars because it has the constitutional authority to create dollars without any limit. Congress is the only entity that can regulate this ability.

Lastly, for 230,567,113th time, the federal government doesn't operate like a household. Households can’t issue their own currency and require that people use said money to pay taxes. A household has a limited supply of dollars; the government's supply of dollars boils down to policy decisions.

While it may be technically true that a sovereign government cannot go bankrupt because they can keep printing money to pay their debts...it is simply a matter of time, if you keep printing huge sums of paper money, before the value of that money becomes so worthless it's not longer a viable commodity. As cases in point, take the Weimar Republic of Germany...or Hungary...or dozens of other countries. The truth of the matter is that if a government prints more and more money to pay it's debts at some point that money will not be taken as payment. Once you've reached that point goods have value and money has little to none. What the Fed is doing now with nonstop "quantitative easing" will at some point lead to a US dollar that is worth less and less with a corresponding spike in the cost of goods. I think we're starting to see that now.
 
Last edited:
While it may be technically true that a sovereign government cannot go bankrupt because they can keep printing money to pay their debts...it is simply a matter of time, if you keep printing huge sums of paper money, before the value of that money becomes so worthless it's not longer a viable commodity. As cases in point, take the Weimar Republic of Germany...or Hungary...or dozens of other countries. The truth of the matter is that if a government prints more and more money to pay it's debts at some point that money will not be taken as payment. Once you've reached that point goods have value and money has little to none.

Weimar, Zimababe or Hungary are not good examples when making comparisons to the United States or any modern, insutrialized country. An analysis of modern economic examples of hyperinflation display striking similarities. Historically, these countries have been involves in war, suffered from massive corruption, had foreign denominated debt, went through violent regime change, etc. This was the case with Weimar, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Russia, China, Greece, Argentina and Zimbabwe during the 20th century.

For example, the Weimar Republic had most of its debts denominated in Sterling, and its industrial capacity was rendered useless since other nations controlled its output. The money they printed wasn't being off-put by a supply of real goods and services which is what caused hyperinflation. The US doesn't have any of these problems.

These hyperinflations weren't solely monetary events. It wasn't a result of inflation or excessive spending, but rather full blown rejection of the currency due to exogenous events. This is a completely different animal than inflation, which is completely normal in a healthy economy.


What the Fed is doing now with nonstop "quantitative easing" will at some point lead to a US dollar that is worth less and less with a corresponding spike in the cost of goods. I think we're starting to see that now.

Quantitative Easing isn't 'printing money', it's nothing more than a glorified asset swap which changes the composition of balance sheets.

Inflation only becomes an issue when there is an increase in the supply of money without a tandem increase in real goods and services. I don't see inflation on the horizon with all the high unemployment and excess capacity out there. If we were at full employment and the economy was at full capacity, then I'd worry about inflation.
 
Kimura's view seems to be that if you spend the money, goods will come. I am completely opposed to this view and as I said before I view inflation/money printing as a tax.

Basically his logic goes like this: If economy is not at full employment inflation can not exist. Since inflating the money supply will create demand which in turn will create goods. Correct?

However, I disagree with that (although not entirely). I think that inflation is just taxing and spending and will just redirect resources to less than ideal places. There is nothing stopping the government from spending the printed money to dole out unemployment benefits, which will just increase the inneffecency of an economy (IE you actually get LESS productivity because of the inflation). Further inflation is likely occur even if productivity gains are made by inflating. Since the productivity gains are nowhere near as high, most likely.

I also disagree with the view that economy can overheat or any of these keynesian "CORRECT by god" constants. Cultures change etc.


However, one thing where I don't just disagree with Kimura, I think he is flat out wrong on this. He claims that QE isn't money printing but an asset swap. I think QE is, yes an asset swap, but what does FED fund those assets with? MONEY PRINTING. This can be verified. If it increases the money supply, it's money printing. Pretty simple. Guess what? All money printing is basically an asset swap! Whether it be government bonds or mortgages. Not so cool things would happen if FED tried to reverse those asset swaps.

Also, I think the assesment that debt problem can't exist because... money printer, is ridiculous. The debt problem is not that the debt can not be nullified, you can always default etc! The problem is that pretty many people will be pissed when you do so!
 
What caused hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic was the printing of huge amounts of paper marks in order to buy other foreign currencies to pay their Treaty of Versailles debts because their creditors were no longer willing to take paper marks. In effect they caused their own paper currency to be worth less and less which is what the Fed is doing every time that it prints more paper dollars to buy more US government debt.

What I find amusing is that a quick look at the long list of countries that have been beset by hyperinflation would make it seem rather obvious that sovereign nations really AREN'T that different than households when it comes to their finances. The fiddler at some point has to be paid. Having the ability to print your own currency may very well put off that date...but at some point that bill is going to come due.
 
Taxes aren't about obtaining money for expenditures, they're about regulating spending power (aggregate demand) so we don't cause inflation.

of course this is too stupid!! Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by taxes. This is Econ 101. Welcome to your first lesson.
 

Forum List

Back
Top