Is there any difference between "austerity" and "deficit reduction"?

[oldfart]

As near as I can tell not much. The only significant difference I see is that European style austerity does not include tax cuts for anyone.

The question comes up because we have a lot of recent data on the success or failure of austerity in promoting economic growth (austerity is a total bust) and I'm wondering if and when some thinkers will argue that austerity plus tax cuts for "job-creators" is better than just austerity alone and better than demand based remedies.

What say you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As near as I can tell not much. The only significant difference I see is that European style austerity does not include tax cuts for anyone.

The question comes up because we have a lot of recent data on the success or failure of austerity in promoting economic growth (austerity is a total bust) and I'm wondering if and when some thinkers will argue that austerity plus tax cuts for "job-creators" is better than just austerity alone and better than demand based remedies.

What say you?

The austerity measures in the UK did not even include spending cuts.

 

[Wiseacre]

Austerity in Europe was mostly tax hikes. Didn't have the balls to cut spending so they raised taxes, which is why their economies that followed this path are now royally fucked.

Look at what Canada did in the mid 90s, when they were in dire fiscal straits. They cut spending. Raised taxes a little too, but mostly cut spending. And turned everything around.

 

[expat_panama]

Is there any difference between "austerity" and "deficit reduction"? As near as I can tell not much...

--and that suggests that the "telling" you're capable of is not the "near" kind.

Words mean things. Standard dictionaries say that 'austerity' means "severe and rigid economy". Extreme ultra leftists like Krugman consider the past four years of spending surges to have been "severe and rigid". Whether or not he's an idiot, the deficit has increased. The last time we shrank the deficit was from '03 to '08--

--and the reason the deficit went down was because revenue soared after the '03 tax-cuts. Nobody says those years were 'severe and rigid'.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Didn't oldfart profess to teaching economics?

 

[expat_panama]

Didn't oldfart profess to teaching economics?

May have. Did I ever tell you about the year I won the Nobel Prize in Economics...

 

[Rshermr]

Is there any difference between "austerity" and "deficit reduction"? As near as I can tell not much...

--and that suggests that the "telling" you're capable of is not the "near" kind.

Words mean things. Standard dictionaries say that 'austerity' means "severe and rigid economy". Extreme ultra leftists like Krugman consider the past four years of spending surges to have been "severe and rigid". Whether or not he's an idiot, the deficit has increased. The last time we shrank the deficit was from '03 to '08--

--and the reason the deficit went down was because revenue soared after the '03 tax-cuts. Nobody says those years were 'severe and rigid'.

Expat says:

Extreme ultra leftists like Krugman consider the past four years of spending surges to have been "severe and rigid". Whether or not he's an idiot, the deficit has increased. The last time we shrank the deficit was from '03 to '08--and the reason the deficit went down was because revenue soared after the '03 tax-cuts. Nobody says those years were 'severe and rigid'.

Interesting to see clowns who think they know something about economics criticize an economist of Krugman's stature. Your comments about him are totally your opinion. You can find no impartial source that will back that drivel up.
Then there is the part about the great revenue increase of the bush admin from '03 to '08. Lets see what happened to the deficit during that time. Must have been a great decrease in the deficit, cause we all know expat would not lie. But the facts are the deficit went from $380B to $460B during that time. And those great revenue increases. At the end of his term, Revenue had risen from $1.8T to $2.1T. Pretty small increase.
And we had the worst economic downturn since the great depression. Want to tell me again how great those tax decreases were?? If I did not know better, I would have thought you were kidding. But you are not kidding, just trying to push the great lie, like any good con tool.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A Krugman reader and follower.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

(austerity is a total bust)

1) a drug addict does less not more drugs to cure his addiction
2) a family in debt tries to earn more and spend less to get out of debt
3) a country in debt tries the same or similiar. Austerity is just another word for, "responsible".

4) Europe is trying to steal money from Germany that Germany has thanks to austerity!!

a bust????? too stupid by 1000% !!! austerity in Europe is working wonderfully!! Their numbers are getting better while ours are getting worse!!!The idea that tax and spend idiotic liberalism will get us to a smaller debt is identical to saying more drugs will cure the junkie. How stupid can a liberal be???

Only a blind stupid monkey liberal would say more drugs would work. Why be so afraid to explain how on earth that is possible???? What does your inability tell us say about the IQ and character of liberals???????


Wolfgang Schauble:

"According to the latest estimates, the Euro zone's budget shortfall should be 3.2% of GDP this year, half the level of 2009 and well below the deficits of the USA and Japan. In the last 3 years the structural deficit- the fiscal shortfall adjusted for the change in the business cycle- has shrunk to
2.1% from 4.6%.

After years of steady rises in Spain Portugal and Greece and other places the current account deficits have fallen rapidly driven not just by retreating consumption and imports but also, crucially, by rising exports.

Unit labor costs in Ireland and Greece have dropped 12% since 2009 and by 6% and 5% in Spain and Portugal respectively. As the OECD acknowledged in its recent "Going for Growth"
the crisis has served as a catalyst for structural reform in those countries that most needed it, particularly in the labor market.

As these trend show Europe's crises management has proved itself."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is there any difference between "austerity" and "deficit reduction"? As near as I can tell not much...

--and that suggests that the "telling" you're capable of is not the "near" kind.

Words mean things. Standard dictionaries say that 'austerity' means "severe and rigid economy". Extreme ultra leftists like Krugman consider the past four years of spending surges to have been "severe and rigid". Whether or not he's an idiot, the deficit has increased. The last time we shrank the deficit was from '03 to '08--

--and the reason the deficit went down was because revenue soared after the '03 tax-cuts. Nobody says those years were 'severe and rigid'.

Expat says:

Extreme ultra leftists like Krugman consider the past four years of spending surges to have been "severe and rigid". Whether or not he's an idiot, the deficit has increased. The last time we shrank the deficit was from '03 to '08--and the reason the deficit went down was because revenue soared after the '03 tax-cuts. Nobody says those years were 'severe and rigid'.

Interesting to see clowns who think they know something about economics criticize an economist of Krugman's stature. Your comments about him are totally your opinion. You can find no impartial source that will back that drivel up.
Then there is the part about the great revenue increase of the bush admin from '03 to '08. Lets see what happened to the deficit during that time. Must have been a great decrease in the deficit, cause we all know expat would not lie. But the facts are the deficit went from $380B to $460B during that time. And those great revenue increases. At the end of his term, Revenue had risen from $1.8T to $2.1T. Pretty small increase.
And we had the worst economic downturn since the great depression. Want to tell me again how great those tax decreases were?? If I did not know better, I would have thought you were kidding. But you are not kidding, just trying to push the great lie, like any good con tool.

Isn't Krugman the guy who thinks the Obama job record is wonderful, yet used better numbers under Bush to prove his jobs record sucked?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

--and that suggests that the "telling" you're capable of is not the "near" kind.

Words mean things. Standard dictionaries say that 'austerity' means "severe and rigid economy". Extreme ultra leftists like Krugman consider the past four years of spending surges to have been "severe and rigid". Whether or not he's an idiot, the deficit has increased. The last time we shrank the deficit was from '03 to '08--

--and the reason the deficit went down was because revenue soared after the '03 tax-cuts. Nobody says those years were 'severe and rigid'.

Expat says:

Extreme ultra leftists like Krugman consider the past four years of spending surges to have been "severe and rigid". Whether or not he's an idiot, the deficit has increased. The last time we shrank the deficit was from '03 to '08--and the reason the deficit went down was because revenue soared after the '03 tax-cuts. Nobody says those years were 'severe and rigid'.

Interesting to see clowns who think they know something about economics criticize an economist of Krugman's stature. Your comments about him are totally your opinion. You can find no impartial source that will back that drivel up.
Then there is the part about the great revenue increase of the bush admin from '03 to '08. Lets see what happened to the deficit during that time. Must have been a great decrease in the deficit, cause we all know expat would not lie. But the facts are the deficit went from $380B to $460B during that time. And those great revenue increases. At the end of his term, Revenue had risen from $1.8T to $2.1T. Pretty small increase.
And we had the worst economic downturn since the great depression. Want to tell me again how great those tax decreases were?? If I did not know better, I would have thought you were kidding. But you are not kidding, just trying to push the great lie, like any good con tool.

Isn't Krugman the guy who thinks the Obama job record is wonderful, yet used better numbers under Bush to prove his jobs record sucked?

OMG that is so true!! Krugman hounded Bush for 8 years saying he had the worst employment record since the depression!

Krugman: This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

 

[jillian]

As near as I can tell not much. The only significant difference I see is that European style austerity does not include tax cuts for anyone.

The question comes up because we have a lot of recent data on the success or failure of austerity in promoting economic growth (austerity is a total bust) and I'm wondering if and when some thinkers will argue that austerity plus tax cuts for "job-creators" is better than just austerity alone and better than demand based remedies.

What say you?

sure there's a difference.

austerity creates a vicious cycle whereby government cuts, which then reduces funds to states... which cut funds to local municipalities... in turn, states and local municipalities have to lay off fire fighters, police, teachers... and cut other services.. which in turn further reduce revenues because there is reduced payment of taxes and increased need for unemployment benefits...which in turn increases the deficit... which in turn requires more cuts...

actual deficit reduction requires both an intelligent reduction in expenses vis a vis waste cutting as well as an increase in revenues.

 

[Mad Scientist]

A Krugman reader and follower.

That's proof of stupidity right there!

 

[Mad Scientist]

As near as I can tell not much. The only significant difference I see is that European style austerity does not include tax cuts for anyone.

The question comes up because we have a lot of recent data on the success or failure of austerity in promoting economic growth (austerity is a total bust) and I'm wondering if and when some thinkers will argue that austerity plus tax cuts for "job-creators" is better than just austerity alone and better than demand based remedies.

What say you?

sure there's a difference.

austerity creates a vicious cycle whereby government cuts, which then reduces funds to states... which cut funds to local municipalities... in turn, states and local municipalities have to lay off fire fighters, police, teachers... and cut other services.. which in turn further reduce revenues because there is reduced payment of taxes and increased need for unemployment benefits...which in turn increases the deficit... which in turn requires more cuts...

actual deficit reduction requires both an intelligent reduction in expenses vis a vis waste cutting as well as an increase in revenues.

You left out the Banks that will take all the peoples tax money.

Oh you thought taxes and cuts in services went to paying off debt?

 

[expat_panama]

...The last time we shrank the deficit was from '03 to '08--

--and the reason the deficit went down was because revenue soared after the '03 tax-cuts. Nobody says those years were 'severe and rigid'.

from '03 to '08... ...the deficit went from $380B to $460B during that time

Sort of.

Here're the numbers from Historical Tables Barack H. Obama. Monday, February 14, 2011. Table 1.3 - Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (–) in Current Dollars.. showing how after the '03 cuts the years from 03 to 08 saw soaring revenue and shrunken deficit seen both in current dollars--

Year Receipts Outlays Deficit

2003 1,782.3 2,159.9 -377.6
2004 1,880.1 2,292.8 -412.7
2005 2,153.6 2,472.0 -318.3
2006 2,406.9 2,655.0 -248.2
2007 2,568.0 2,728.7 -160.7
2008 2,524.0 2,982.5 -458.6​

--and as % GDP:

As Percentages of GDP
Year Receipts Outlays Deficit
2003 16.2 19.7 -3.4
2004 16.1 19.6 -3.5
2005 17.3 19.9 -2.6
2006 18.2 20.1 -1.9
2007 18.5 19.6 -1.2
2008 17.5 20.7 -3.2
​

There's no way around the fact that tax cuts were followed by increased revenue; we saw it after '03 as well as previous cuts--

--and that any deficit growth had to be caused by excessive spending.

 

[mudwhistle]

Is there any difference between "austerity" and "deficit reduction"? As near as I can tell not much...

--and that suggests that the "telling" you're capable of is not the "near" kind.

Words mean things. Standard dictionaries say that 'austerity' means "severe and rigid economy". Extreme ultra leftists like Krugman consider the past four years of spending surges to have been "severe and rigid". Whether or not he's an idiot, the deficit has increased. The last time we shrank the deficit was from '03 to '08--

--and the reason the deficit went down was because revenue soared after the '03 tax-cuts. Nobody says those years were 'severe and rigid'.

Expat says:

Extreme ultra leftists like Krugman consider the past four years of spending surges to have been "severe and rigid". Whether or not he's an idiot, the deficit has increased. The last time we shrank the deficit was from '03 to '08--and the reason the deficit went down was because revenue soared after the '03 tax-cuts. Nobody says those years were 'severe and rigid'.

Interesting to see clowns who think they know something about economics criticize an economist of Krugman's stature. Your comments about him are totally your opinion. You can find no impartial source that will back that drivel up.
Then there is the part about the great revenue increase of the bush admin from '03 to '08. Lets see what happened to the deficit during that time. Must have been a great decrease in the deficit, cause we all know expat would not lie. But the facts are the deficit went from $380B to $460B during that time. And those great revenue increases. At the end of his term, Revenue had risen from $1.8T to $2.1T. Pretty small increase.
And we had the worst economic downturn since the great depression. Want to tell me again how great those tax decreases were?? If I did not know better, I would have thought you were kidding. But you are not kidding, just trying to push the great lie, like any good con tool.

You've got some of your lib talking points down.

It's also total crapola.

 

[usmcstinger]

As near as I can tell not much. The only significant difference I see is that European style austerity does not include tax cuts for anyone.

The question comes up because we have a lot of recent data on the success or failure of austerity in promoting economic growth (austerity is a total bust) and I'm wondering if and when some thinkers will argue that austerity plus tax cuts for "job-creators" is better than just austerity alone and better than demand based remedies.

What say you?

Do you know how to use a dictionary?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

austerity creates a vicious cycle .

dear, austerity or living within your means is another way of saying, intelligent. Cutting governemnt is always good, it is what our Founders wanted,i.e, freedom from liberal soviet government.

Did you notice what happened to Red China when it switched to freedom?