No, GDP drops when either Consumption, Investment or Net Exports drop. That's basic economics. You somehow forgot that Government Expenditures is a component of GDP.
No, I did not.
Government as a percentage of GDP details how large Public Sector spending is as a percentage of your economy. If this component decreases, the GDP decreases as well if the other components do no pick up the slack.
Obviously.
If your public sector consumption is increasingly larger and larger, this means that Government Spending is driving your economy. How exactly can it be austerity if Government Spending is driving your economy? It can't.
Sorry. Gov spending can increase as a percentage of gdp even though it is decreasing. Easily. Way to simple to have to explain. You must know how that is possible. See another example below.
In Greece Government Final Consumption Expenditures are falling at a rate of -4.3% Y/Y, but the economy is contracting at a rate of -4.7% Y/Y. Meaning, Government Spending is lagging behind the contraction. It can't be driving it. Especially since you have already seen the small upticks in government spending. Private spending is decreasing by the same rate as government spending. The only different is that you have had Q/Q increases in government spending, while you've had a consistent Q/Q decrease in private spending.
And Greece is just one example. There may be other things driving it's decline, such as gross fixed capital formation. This has a -16.2% Y/Y decrease in this area, 4 times the effect consumption has on the economy. But it's pretty easy to see that Government spending isn't the catalyst. It has the lowest drop of any component of Greece's GDP. Aside from exports, tt's probably the only thing driving it's economy right about now.
Yup. Greece is a mess. Probably the worst of all the eu countries. Funny how it is the one always singled out by conservatives. Not even close to one of the largest. But you are misleading, again. Gov spending in greece decreased in an absolute sense, but unemployment and private spending decreased more. So, see the example below.
So, the question is, how is austerity working there?? Or are you saying that there has been no austerity in Greece???
Quote:
Please try to find a study that suggests that austerity has not occurred, then we can examine the premice. Simple graphs or stats showing expenditures as a percentage prove NOTHING. OBVIOUSLY.
First off,I can't disprove a negative.That a logic fallacy.
Finding a study that shows that austerity is working is NOT DISPROVING A NEGATIVE. Where did that one come from. It is finding a study of a european country where austerity is found to have worked.
Secondly the data wasn't for you,
Then I would suggest you not post it in a public forum. Do you know some rules that I do not???
and third a study is not required. The definition of what austerity is quite clear and easy for everyone to understand. The only thing anyone needs to look at are primary sourced statistics. The data is pretty easy to understand if you know what you are doing. Just because you cannot understand the data doesn't mean the data is wrong.
Nice to see you are so high on yourself, expecially when you have proven nothing. See below.
Example 2 for Amazon: So if the GDP was $100B, and the portion of that $100B that was gov spending was $30B, and the following year austerity measures brought gov spending to $20B, and the private sector dropped to $40B, and new gdp was $60B, then gov expenditures as a percentage of gdp just went from 30% to 33%. So, through austerity the gov spending decreased by $10B, but gov spending as a percentage of gdp increased by 3%. Which was the point I was making in my last post. Get it yet??? Talking about gov expenditures as a percentage of gdp, or gnp for that matter, is of no real value. Which is why, when you look out there, you will find out that your analysis leaves you pretty much by yourself, except among the conservative web sites, where I suspect your ideas came from.
What is left out is employment. If all you care about is percentages of gdp, then you could say by your unique definition of austerity, that it did not exist in this case. However, in the real world, you are incorrect. Spending did decrease substantially, and in the real examples, unemployment went up greatly.
Which is why I asked you if you had a study showing that austerity was working. Obviously, it would be difficult for you.
Quote:
So, for instance, if your little country had gnp of $100B, but after austerity measures it had gnp $75B, but expenditures dropped by 15%, then according to your analysis, austerity did not happen. Which is, as has been shown numerous times, exactly what the right is saying. Just does not pass the giggle test.
Of course it doesn't, because that doesn't make sense, and it's also not funny.
See above, and you will understand your major malfunction. Indeed, austerity can and does exist while spending becomes a bigger percentage of gdp. If you can not yet understand it, that would be because you are either incapable of understanding basic math, which I do not believe, or simply trying to redefine austerity.
Quote:
So, again, where is it that austerity is working???
I've already named names.
I missed that. So, I assume you named none.
You are trying to show that austerity has not occurred by showing percentages. Just as a number of far right conservative web sites are doing. That has been debunked by impartial sites (you know, the ones you do not read). And you are now posting nonsensical data. If you were in the rational world, and did a simple google search, you would find a whole lot of very economically capable folks who have proven your hypothesis wrong. And yes, I know, you do not read that stuff, because you draw your own graphs.
