UK Politarding Thread

[O.A.F.K.1.1]

I'm not so sure all the independent experts are in agreement.
I suppose what you mean by austerity. I see it as the cutting of services and goods which one would not cut if there was no recession and deficit, and once there is no longer need to reduce the deficit the cuts can legitimately be reinstated.
Otherwise I just see it as legit. cuts.

Mind Blown.

Austerity is not ambiguous. It means reducing the record deficit. Do you even know what the deficit is?

Austerity is not some approach chosen in a vacuum, its a response to a very existant fiscal situation. Its not just cutting services for the sake of it.

[O.A.F.K.1.1]

Also another common fallacy is that large corporates are against Government spending.

Who do you think receives the bulk of Government spending?

They dont want the spending to be financed by taxes on them, but they still want to see spending in General, preferably funded by borrowing. The CBI has been calling for stimulus for months.

[O.A.F.K.1.1]

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Britain could do with a round of stimulus in some way because growth is strongly lagging but austerity in general is the right policy and there is a reason why all the independent experts are in agreement with the Osborne direction.

Its the wrong time for stimulus, we need to wait till all the mal investment from the crazy debt explosion has liquidated, then stimulate so that we know real value adding and sustainable businesses and activities are receiving the monies.

In gardening terms we need to do some heavy weeding, trimming and then pile on with the fertilizer.

Stimulating now would be like pouring a load of plant feed on to a lawn full of brambles and dandelions. Its painful but those ****ers need to die off before we stimulate, and by that time the fiscal situation might be in a situation to handle it better.

[Doctor Zeus]

Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1

International reserve currency, how does that work?

Obviously you have no clue. America is nowhere near us given its reserve currency status, which means it can sell its debt much easier than us. You might have noticed how losing AAA status has impacted the bond yields of other European countries. Its been a disaster for them, and they dont have the largest private debt per capita in the world like we do.

You are a very hostile poster, who focuses on single issues in posts, without responding to the arguments i make- picking out single lines you disagree with without looking at the argument i make. its counterproductive.

Check out this article (by bloomberg...) disagreeing with you. I googled "losing AAA rating effect" and it was the third article, and the first talking about acutal effects-
Bloomberg article

They (rating agencies) love austerity, and see it as the best way to keep a government stable. The real effects are caused by the rating agencies punishing economies for not following policies they like.

Also what do you mean by short term pain like the Japanese. They created a lost decade out of piling trillions into continuous rolling stimulus, literally building roads to nowhere, Japan is the poster child of what is wrong with the Keynesian approach.

The Lost Decade came from savings being too high and investment being too low. The attempts by governments to create stimulus- such as the bank bailouts, never went anywhere because like here the banks were to cozy to their own profits not investing. The investments made which were intended to cause growth failed because the infrastructure as you said wasn't targeted correctly, and an attitude of austerity with firms becoming savers, not investors. These investments ended in 1997, and spending attempts stopped and austerity followed, with purchasing decreasing massively. The slump continued ending only when the world economy took over.

You might want to check there fiscal situation also, its terrible.

That was my point. That demonstrates how you don't read my posts, and just find small points and rabbit on without looking at the arguments behind. You don't try and find logical fallacies or mistakes i make but make your own arguments more adn more complicated.

I am guessing you are a student who reads the Guardian, you are just repeating there talking points and perspective by rote.

And I guess I don't care what you are, as you shouldn't me. This isn't a dick waving contest.

Also the idea that there is media consensus behind Austerity is false.

Where isn't there this? There are a small few collumnists in the leftist papers which are against austerity. What does everyone else here thinik?

Another thing you are completely wrong about is the Iraq war. The media presentation of this and popular opinion (rightfully) ended Tony Blairs political career. The idea that they went to war with full media support is ludicrous, the war was pretty much a pet project of Tony Blairs and nothing was going to stop him.

that means nothing against what i said.
I agree with this.
I said no matter what the opinion of the public the war was going to happen.
You have minimal reading comprehension

[O.A.F.K.1.1]

Originally Posted by Doctor Zeus

that means nothing against what i said.
I agree with this.
I said no matter what the opinion of the public the war was going to happen.
You have minimal reading comprehension

Surprise surprise another gargantuan hypocrite on the internet.

Its your comprehension that is failing. The point is that public opinion is important because yes the war was going to happen, but that opinion still ended the political career of the man who made it happen.

So in this instant if the public was offered the chance by a cynical political opportunist like Hollande to vote against Austerity and for free ponies for all, they would be all over it. The conclusion being that the temptation for Labour must be huge to go after this land slide winning sentiment, but they cant because they know they could not deliver as Austerity is the only real option and thus they would suffer a huge backlash.

As regards that Bloomberg article (thought there was pro austerity consensus in the media) it makes a lazy fallacy. AAA ratings etc are just a short hand for the market. The bond markets will still make there own opinions by looking at the fiscal situation and other factors and sometimes this will diverge from from the ratings agency. It also ignores the matter of CB operations in Bond markets which can have huge short term effects on yields. Also it fails to mention that the USA is a special case, yet leads with a graphic on there debt. Intellectually dishonest imo.

If we dont reduce the deficit its certain that bond markets will want higher yields all other things being equal and to raise a fact again that you have consistently ignored with our highest private debt per capita we are the most exposed economy in the world to any raise in interest rates.

Also as regards the legitimacy of that article. NHS ring fencing, how does that work. NHS has not had its budget cut.

[Doctor Zeus]

Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1

Surprise surprise another gargantuan hypocrite on the internet.

Its your comprehension that is failing. The point is that public opinion is important because yes the war was going to happen, but that opinion still ended the political career of the man who made it happen.

It didn't stop it. Once the war began, and was criticized and was god awful- a money drainer, a killer, unproven, it became a real liability, and organised financial groups got behind finishing what created it.
Its not about public opinion its about political realities. Easily picked up on policies. Democracy is responsive to public opinion when its public opinion which leads people to hate, anger, or causes tangible impact in electability.

So in this instant if the public was offered the chance by a cynical political opportunist like Hollande to vote against Austerity and for free ponies for all, they would be all over it.

.

No they wouldn't. Its political death in this country. But we will never agree on this in the end will we. Lets see what other people think. The tories still have public support based upon the fact they still have support. There's a small "99%" movement.

AAA ratings etc are just a short hand for the market.

If that was true they would be no where near as important as you say. Has the French economy tanked?

The bond markets will still make there own opinions by looking at the fiscal situation and other factors and sometimes this will diverge from from the ratings agency.

That's true, but the effects of AAA ratings compound the rest of the market. Further your point was "we will get trainwrecked when we lose our AAA rating". Also, looking through your whole discussion again your argument was derived from the deficits prescence, not austerity. You just see austerity as the best way to do it. I've never been against this.

If we dont reduce the deficit its certain that bond markets will want higher yields all other things being equal and to raise a fact again that you have consistently ignored with our highest private debt per capita we are the most exposed economy in the world to any raise in interest rates.

You once again say reducing the deficit is only possible through austerity. There are some massive cuts possible, and tax collection and raises can be succesfull. Cut defence, cut the nukes, nationalise oil. I don't want the deficit. Austerity isn't cutting the deficit, its cutting the deficit in a particular way.


But then lets return to everything i've been saying- austerity isn't good. Raising tax is. Stimulus is. Closing tax loopholes. Maybe nationalisation of a few industries. Cut things like defence- which will not be raised again after the end of the recession.

[Doctor Zeus]

Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1

Mind Blown.

Austerity is not ambiguous. It means reducing the record deficit. Do you even know what the deficit is?

No it doesn't.

Austerity is not some approach chosen in a vacuum, its a response to a very existant fiscal situation. Its not just cutting services for the sake of it.

Exactly. Its cutting services which otherwise wouldn't be cut.

If austerity just meant deficit reduction then it wouldn't have as much hostility. Deficit reduction is deficit reduction. Austerity is going through important, otherwise untouchable, cuts to reduce the deficit.
Is just raising taxes austerity?
Is nationalisation of oil?
Would the seizure of land and then selling off be austerity?
Would the legalisation and then taxation of drugs be austerity?
There all possible ways to reduce the deficit but you wouldn't call them austerity measures.

[Wamy Einehouse]

The only more stupid people than those claiming to understand economics are the one's siding with those same idiots.

There is literally no scientific difference between this type of debate and arguing about how many angels you can fit on a pin head.

[Doctor Zeus]

Its 14 FYI

[chezlaw]

Originally Posted by Wamy Einehouse

The only more stupid people than those claiming to understand economics are the one's siding with those same idiots.

There is literally no scientific difference between this type of debate and arguing about how many angels you can fit on a pin head.

Yes if you follow a consistant policy of reducing the deficit until its gone its crazy to think the deficit will eventually be gone and you will stop reducing it.

Who are these fools with there stupid ideas? Dont they understand that if the consistantly reduce the deficit the deficit is just as likely to go up.

[DiegoArmando]

Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1

LOL No. Its at odds with a few lefty Keynesian, but Austerity is the consensus view of the economic community..

No it's not. Many economists say the opposite.

[SuperSic]

Originally Posted by DiegoArmando

No it's not. Many economists say the opposite.

I'll take a stab and say O.A.F.K reads papers and blogs which swing to the right of the political spectrum, so feature comments and analysis from mainly right-wing economists, hence he thinks that most economists are right wing.

I'll guess that you visit centre-left news outlets, which do the same except with lef-wing experts, so you think the majority of economists veer somewhat to the left.


Can we try to keep this thread alive, please? If I see another debate about gun-control I'm gonna shoot the place up.

[SuperSic]

Originally Posted by Wamy Einehouse

The only more stupid people than those claiming to understand economics are the one's siding with those same idiots.

There is literally no scientific difference between this type of debate and arguing about how many angels you can fit on a pin head.

^^Thisthisthis.

[DiegoArmando]

Originally Posted by SuperSic

I'll take a stab and say O.A.F.K reads papers and blogs which swing to the right of the political spectrum, so feature comments and analysis from mainly right-wing economists, hence he thinks that most economists are right wing.

I'll guess that you visit centre-left news outlets, which do the same except with lef-wing experts, so you think the majority of economists veer somewhat to the left.
.

I agree. Although I'm not naive enough to say the majority oppose austerity.

What I've read has mostly come via the LSE, and I honestly haven't read or listened to anyone who supports austerity. There may well be right leaning ideas in the LSE, but I haven't come across them.

I'd be interested in reading some of these right leaning economists. If some links could be posted I'd be grateful.

[O.A.F.K.1.1]

Originally Posted by SuperSic

I'll take a stab and say O.A.F.K reads papers and blogs which swing to the right of the political spectrum, so feature comments and analysis from mainly right-wing economists, hence he thinks that most economists are right wing.

I'll guess that you visit centre-left news outlets, which do the same except with lef-wing experts, so you think the majority of economists veer somewhat to the left.


Can we try to keep this thread alive, please? If I see another debate about gun-control I'm gonna shoot the place up.

LOOOOOL.