You obviously have very little understanding of economic realities. Austerity is not a choice, it is what must happen or utter disaster. It might seem ****, consequences of terrible historical choices often are, but the alternative is even worse.

The UK has the highest private debt exposure per capita in the world and masses of public debt to. When the Tories came to power, the government had to borrow 24Billion a month to cover the gap between revenues and expenditure. Obviously not sustainable.

If the UK losses its AAA rating due to not cutting its deficit then interest rates will rise, and the interest payments of all those in hoooge debt will rise also. This would create a terrible shock to the economy cause massive amounts of defaults, the housing market would insta crash and we would have a recession that makes the current stagnation look like a huge boom.

Yes there is debate about how much Austerity, but there is no debate about austerity itself. Which is why all parties support it.

Its easy to be economically competent if you dont say what you would do and the people judging economic competence have no idea what to do either.

The reality is that the Tories are making the correct but hard choices that need to be made.

This seem's at odds with lots of other economists opinions. Austerity will make things worse. What is needed is large infrastructure spending and inflows of money, demand, supply, and confidence in the economy. This will make the economy grow again in a sustainable manner. France's Hollande will hopefully show us how.
Cutting back on stupid spending is obviously true, but that's always true for more reasons than just austerity.
Taxing more, and better, makes just as much sense. To believe the Tory rhetoric though this is an impossibility and the only way to reduce the deficit is through austerity.

True. But raising taxes works too.

All parties support it because its what the media made them support. Austerity is different to deficit reduction, which will be better served through a better tax regime, and stopping spending on things we don't need.

LOL No. Its at odds with a few lefty Keynesian, but Austerity is the consensus view of the economic community. Which is why all parties fully support it even though ideologically it goes against the standard credo of the Labour and Liberal parties. Again I repeat, all parties support it, this penny does not seem to be dropping for you.

The rest of your post shows the same inability to comprehend how big a deficit of 24 Billion a month is, that is 288 Billion a year of fresh debt. Just cutting some stupid spending and raising taxes will not touch a deficit that big, real cuts have to be made. Obviously your economic master stroke it to borrow even moah money to spend on stimulus that will only lend very temporary relief and put us in an even worse fiscal situation and train wreck the economy as we lose our AAA rating.

People seem unable to understand the concept of short term pain for long term gain,its always must have growth NOOOW, regardless of the long term consequences.

LOL WAT. This is pure fantasy.

There is huge populist pressure to oppose Austerity, and it is perhaps the one credit of our political system that so far all parties have been responsible enough to ignore that pressure given the huge gains possible by making false promises about any spending if they came to power.

However its just sheer pragmatism, Labour would love to promise loads of new spending if it came to power, but understands there is no way it could deliver on such promises.

I suppose political parties have never been wrong. Unfortunately, the French have a party opposing austerity. THANK CHRIST NOW I'VE PROVEN YOUR POINT WRONG. Or so your logic would hold...
Austerity is represented in the media, and by the Tories as a talking point, which has to be embraced. If any other parties so "we don't need austerity" its easy to ignore the rest of what they say and jump on that soundbite.
Those Keynesian's also include French economists, and many schools within political economy. Austerity kerplunked Japan for the last 20 years. There are other pieces of evidence like this.

Why are you in love with the AAA rating? America is in the same situation as us despite losing it. Though it's impact is real, you seem to place alot more effect on it than you should.
Borrow more money, nationalise oil/rail, and stimulate demand by giving confidence to savers and spenders to invest. This is done with attitudes. preaching austerity, preaches the individual to austerity, which decreaces spending and investment, which stalls the economy.
Raising taxes can generate alot of income.
Cutting nuke's, and the military, can provide us a whole bunch of money and provide as much revenue as austerity ever could.

As food for thought, Argentina defaulted when it was in a god awful situation, and they aren't in a terrible situation now, despite the same people who preach austerity saying they would.

Short term pain like the Japanese?
Long term gain by creating a mindset of austerity?

How about short term pain through raising taxes? Making radical changes to tax systems?

"LOL WAT". Well done.
The media's impact is large and real, more so than "populist pressure." Populist pressure affects policy minimally, whereas organised fiscal groups provide actual opposition.
Compare and contrast the minimal impact of the anti-Iraq War movement against the Green movement, or the Tax&Alcohol lobbies.

This isn't revolutionary, or a mocked view as you seem to believe.

Though it doesn't actually tell you much cogent about this argument it is interesting to note that Austerity is favoured by large corporations who donate money heavily to the political parties; whereas raising taxes is favoured by the disenfranchised & unorganised. The unions care directly about getting labour elected and the welfare of their workers which is more acheivable by opposing austerity measures in their areas of interest (as they do) whilst saying nothing about other austerity measures (so as to keep political favour.)

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.

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.

As such, who are the independent experts in agreement?
The French and many leftist and pol.econ. experts i've read don't.
The IMF, Germans, Chicago school, etc., are all in favour based upon the fast that they are all reliant on the Chicago school's dominance of these large financial organisations. "Economics" has been captured in the West by a certain school of economics who refuse to engage or promote people who contradict them.
This isn't made up, this comes from studying the material, admittedly at an alternative place (Development school at Manchester university.)

austerity isn't necessary, cuts are, as are tax hikes.

I just wanna see the French economy explode, whilst everyone else "goes Japan".

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.

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

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

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

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 and/or pressure is ludicrous, the war was pretty much a pet project of Tony Blairs and nothing was going to stop him.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.


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

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?

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.

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.


.

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.

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

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.



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.

No it doesn't.
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.

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.

Its 14 FYI

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.

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.

^^Thisthisthis.

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.

LOOOOOL.