How is austerity doing in Europe

[itfitzme]

My "survey" of articles gave me the impression of

a) solid data that pointed to poor results for austerity or

b) really reaching to find something to support it.

 

[Rshermr]

Yup. Same for me. And the later the articles, the more likely that the results reported for countries implementing austerity is bad.
Which is what one would expect. A couple years ago, i listened to a presentation via radio of an economist from Australia. He had written an award winning book explaining why austerity would not work, and he was quite well organized as far as his reasoning.
Problem is, I did not record his name and can not find the book. Maddening. I keep looking for help. Sound at all familiar???

 

[Rshermr]

These are easy google searches. *

IMF Confirms Automatic Austerity Is Wrecking U.S. Economic Growth

The IMF chimes in on the US.

"One week after conceding that it underestimated the negative impact of austerity measures in Greece, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is condemning American lawmakers’ rapid turn to spending cuts. The fund’s analysts say that “an excessively rapid pace of fiscal deficit reduction” will cost the country between 1.25 and 1.75 percent points of GDP growth this year, and it now projects just 1.9 percent total growth for 2013."

Of course, you know that IMF.

Yup. I know of no time in history when cutting spending during a bad economy has had a good impact on that economy. During times of a good economy, no problem. But in never works in a bad economy, as far as I have been able to determine.
In my readings, it is the exact time to do the opposite. Stimulus spending has worked in our history, and should do so again. But then, that does not pass the koch test.

 

[ScienceRocks]

These are easy google searches. *

IMF Confirms Automatic Austerity Is Wrecking U.S. Economic Growth

The IMF chimes in on the US.

"One week after conceding that it underestimated the negative impact of austerity measures in Greece, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is condemning American lawmakers’ rapid turn to spending cuts. The fund’s analysts say that “an excessively rapid pace of fiscal deficit reduction” will cost the country between 1.25 and 1.75 percent points of GDP growth this year, and it now projects just 1.9 percent total growth for 2013."

Of course, you know that IMF.

Yup. I know of no time in history when cutting spending during a bad economy has had a good impact on that economy. During times of a good economy, no problem. But in never works in a bad economy, as far as I have been able to determine.
In my readings, it is the exact time to do the opposite. Stimulus spending has worked in our history, and should do so again. But then, that does not pass the koch test.

YEP!

We should be building infrastructure that=jobs
We should be expanding our tech sector=jobs
We should be giving more jobs to our future scientist

This is how we stay number one. Do you people that want to destroy these area's even care about that anymore?

 

[itfitzme]

I see that the conservative stronghold are the sparcly populated, rural counties. I also notice that as proffession becomes more of a group activity or deals more with the larger public, the tendency is towards a more democratic lean. There also seems to be a bit of an educational correlation. *Also, I believe that there are regional distinctions in income levels. *I wonder if there is also some distinction in terms of the flow and availability of goods to outlying population areas. *I am a firm believer that the differences between individuals are based primarily on a few early childhood experiences and immediate personal localized environment combined with long term adult professional influences.

The distinctiveness of voting patterns based on county poulation density surely supports the local environment. *Population dispersion is the only obvious thing. *Obviously, that is a gross measure and is a driver of whatever the factors are that affect attitudes. *I have always gotten this "John Wayne, rugged individualism" sense of it for conservatives. And it is interesting that Alaska, with its rugged individualism, frontier, gun toting, moose hunting Republican lean has the most socialist free paycheck from state oil royalties thing going on. *Clearly that isn't the effect on attitude.

My sense with Democrats is that it is the greater social contact and involvement. *Hollywood is known as democratic and everytime I watch the credits roll at the end of a movie, I am amazed at how many people and companies are involved.*

 

[itfitzme]

Yup. *I know of no time in history when cutting spending during a bad economy has had a good impact on that economy. *During times of a good economy, no problem. * But in never works in a bad economy, as far as I have been able to determine. *
In my readings, it is the exact time to do the opposite. *Stimulus spending has worked in our history, and should do so again. *But then, that does not pass the koch test.

YEP!

We should be building infrastructure that=jobs
We should be expanding our tech sector=jobs
We should be giving more jobs to our future scientist

This is how we stay number one.

I agree on the governmemt directly spending on infrastructure improvment, even just to maintain and upgrade existing infrastructure. The first stimulus package did fund infrastructure projects. *Shovel ready, they called it. *And I've seen some of the signs. They do that around here, "This project funded by ...."

Technology can be invested in by the government, at least in terms of making money available to borrow at low rates. *I should look up the details on govt business loans. *They do fund research and there is every reason to have them fund the long shots. *But, in general, tech investment is a pervue of the private sector.

*Do you people that want to destroy these area's even care about that anymore?

No idea who you mean. *You gotta be more specific.

 

[itfitzme]

European Union Unemployment

From the EU Central Bank

Euro area 17 (fixed composition) - Standardised unemployment, Rate, Total (all ages), Total (male & female); unspecified; Eurostat; Seasonally adjusted, not working day adjusted, percentage of civilian workforce - Quick View - ECB Statistical Data Wa

It strikes me that, though I hadn't previously given it but a couple of thoughts, the performance of the EU may be critical to the US recovery. *The US will certainly recover on its own but I suspect that the world will recover faster in unison than any singlen county will alone. *The interdependency on foriegn trade makes this so.

 

[Rshermr]

I see that the conservative stronghold are the sparcly populated, rural counties. I also notice that as proffession becomes more of a group activity or deals more with the larger public, the tendency is towards a more democratic lean. There also seems to be a bit of an educational correlation. *Also, I believe that there are regional distinctions in income levels. *I wonder if there is also some distinction in terms of the flow and availability of goods to outlying population areas. *I am a firm believer that the differences between individuals are based primarily on a few early childhood experiences and immediate personal localized environment combined with long term adult professional influences.

The distinctiveness of voting patterns based on county poulation density surely supports the local environment. *Population dispersion is the only obvious thing. *Obviously, that is a gross measure and is a driver of whatever the factors are that affect attitudes. *I have always gotten this "John Wayne, rugged individualism" sense of it for conservatives. And it is interesting that Alaska, with its rugged individualism, frontier, gun toting, moose hunting Republican lean has the most socialist free paycheck from state oil royalties thing going on. *Clearly that isn't the effect on attitude.

My sense with Democrats is that it is the greater social contact and involvement. *Hollywood is known as democratic and everytime I watch the credits roll at the end of a movie, I am amazed at how many people and companies are involved.*

Pretty much agree. Alaska is particularly funny. They have over years shaken down the oil companies, in particular, who pay the resident population of the state to live there. As a result, there is far more of a free lunch for alaska residents than for residents of any other state.

And it is not just money. Free netting of salmon, and other benefits are unique to alaska. Then you get politicians like palin, who rail against socialist tendencies. Funny.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yup. I know of no time in history when cutting spending during a bad economy has had a good impact on that economy.

it can only have a good impact because the government does not invent new products and improve the economy. That's done by the private sector so the more they spend the better and the less the gvernment spends the better.

 

[Rshermr]

Yup. I know of no time in history when cutting spending during a bad economy has had a good impact on that economy.

it can only have a good impact because the government does not invent new products and improve the economy. That's done by the private sector so the more they spend the better and the less the gvernment spends the better.

So, you were about to name the time when cutting spending during a bad economy had a good effect on that economy??? Or is it just ed, being the resident troll.

 

[itfitzme]

Yup. I know of no time in history when cutting spending during a bad economy has had a good impact on that economy.

it can only have a good impact because the government does not invent new products and improve the economy. That's done by the private sector so the more they spend the better and the less the gvernment spends the better.

So, you were about to name the time when cutting spending during a bad economy had a good effect on that economy??? Or is it just ed, being the resident troll.

I'll add it to the list. He also owes us;

What is a Carnout ologopoly of m firms?

When capitalism first began to be undermined?

A historic example of a nation that was predominately seperate capitalism and gov't.

 

[Rshermr]

Poor guy is just mentally ill. Not his fault. Just plain bad luck. And, you know, those Camout oligopolies are the worst.

 

[itfitzme]

Poor guy is just mentally ill. Not his fault. Just plain bad luck. And, you know, those Camout oligopolies are the worst.

C - o -u - r - n - o - t

Opps, gotta fix that. Damn French

Not fair, makes it hard for him to google.

nah, I'm going with c-o-r-n-n-u-t.

From here forth, it is officially the cornnut oligopoly.

 

[itfitzme]

Poor guy is just mentally ill. Not his fault. Just plain bad luck. And, you know, those Camout oligopolies are the worst.

I get durned excited about his theories. I keep hoping they will be right. Just one will get a Nobel Prize in economics, if it's right.

 

[Oldstyle]

You don't just cut government spending...you cut government spending while at the same time you cut taxes...that's what stimulates the economy. It was the course of action employed by JFK to counteract a slowed economy back in the 60's.

As for spending more money on infrastructure? You might want to ask your elected officials what they've done with all the tax money that we've given them in the form of gas taxes over the years. It's obvious that they HAVEN'T been spending that money on the upkeep of roads and bridges. We get hit with an average tax of 27.4 cents on every gallon of gasoline (and higher taxes if you're buying diesel) that we purchase at the pump...money that is SUPPOSED to be going towards maintaining "infrastructure" but as usual much of that money has been diverted to pay for an ever increasing government structure.

 

[Oldstyle]

Poor guy is just mentally ill. Not his fault. Just plain bad luck. And, you know, those Camout oligopolies are the worst.

Gee, more "personal attacks" from the poster who always whines about personal attacks? Life goes on as usual in "Tommy Land"!

 

[Kimura]

You don't just cut government spending...you cut government spending while at the same time you cut taxes...that's what stimulates the economy. It was the course of action employed by JFK to counteract a slowed economy back in the 60's.

That’s not entirely correct; JFK was the first POTUS who supported the idea of planned deficits in a non-wartime time setting. His goal was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand and kick start the economy from the bottom up. He favored tax cuts and increased spending to stimulate aggregate demand. This makes complete sense, of course. He pushed for tax cuts because spending increases weren’t politically an option at the time.

 

[itfitzme]

You don't just cut government spending...you cut government spending while at the same time you cut taxes...that's what stimulates the economy. *It was the course of action employed by JFK to counteract a slowed economy back in the 60's.

That’s not entirely correct; JFK was the first POTUS who supported the idea of planned deficits in a non-wartime time setting. His goal was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand and kick start the economy from bottom up. He favored tax cuts and increased spending to stimulate aggregate demand. This makes complete sense of course. *He pushed for tax cuts because spending increases weren’t politically an option at the time.

*The cuts were implememted by Johnson. *And government outlays were also increased.

I prefer outlays per capita, but in the case of increases, it doesn't matter. *I've graphed the two, outlays and reciepts. Problem is that outlays have always been increased with tax decreases, except for Clinton. *Clinton had a booming economy and they didn't know what to do with all the capital gains taxes. *And the unfortunate thing is that the decrease in the deficit was followed by a recession.

 

[itfitzme]

The ARRA returned one job for every $125k spent.

In total, the paper estimates 2.0 million jobs for 2010q1 to 3.4 million for 2011q1. (total non-farm sector)

The additional tax cuts increase the jobs added.

The results are robust and significant. The circumastances were unique.


http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/working-papers/2010/wp10-17bk.pdf

 

[Oldstyle]

The ARRA returned one job for every $125k spent.

In total, the paper estimates 2.0 million jobs for 2010q1 to 3.4 million for 2011q1. (total non-farm sector)

The additional tax cuts increase the jobs added.

The results are robust and significant. The circumastances were unique.


http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/working-papers/2010/wp10-17bk.pdf

So for every $125,000 that the ARRA spent...we got 1 job? What's scary to me is that you seem to view that as a success.