[Ryre]

(10-07-2015 06:20 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

These people don't really have any conviction, if it really was a struggle or desperate issue then you wouldn't be seeing them smiling like that. Its a fashion thing, I know some of these people personally, I actually recognize the guy on the far right of that photo from sometime ago. They will take photos of them doing a protest and post it on Facebook. They feign outrage but it genuinely means nothing to them. A lot of them grew up listening to music and musicians from the 60s/80s when this counter establishment stuff was the fad. They don't realise that they now are the establishment. If they wanted to be truly radical and trendy, then they would ditch feminist, multiculturalism, and go to marry mormons or if they are males, then they would grow a set of balls and join the 'neo masculine movement'.

The working class just doesn't exist anymore, even the Poles who came over to work in the labour industry a few years back have even gone back home or managed to climb up the social ladder. Let alone the native Brits. You have an aspiring middle class and underclass. The closest thing you will get to having a working class is more of a temporary stage in which people usually drop or accelerate from. All of this Charlotte Church 'I come from a working class background and used to get free lunches in school' is absolute rubbish.

Real working class people don't show off about this unless they are rappers. The working class is like some sort of weird forbidden fruit for the middle class trendy types in Britain. They will imitate their accents during university or perhaps later during their 20s when they decide to settle in a gentrified area. But in reality they just don't have anything in common with them. For one poor people are nationalistic, it doesn't matter if they are muslim, white or black; they have strong connections to their nationality or local tribe. Onto a second point they are doers not thinkers, so don't get me started on how relations between men and women are viewed. You will never meet a 'working class feminist'.


On to a last point, which is related to the on going Migrant crisis. When you look at most ethnic groups aside from Black Brits, they actually do very well for themselves. Even among muslims, on the surface their communities are poor and run down, but you will always see that they look out for themselves. Selling businesses to other muslims, or sending money back to Pakistan that will lead to big houses and vast amounts of wealth. Hindus live in relatively a strong diaspora, you wouldn't believe how much they operate by their own economy.

The be all end all is that these goofy idiots are essentially useful idiots. God every intelligent person and their dog understand truly that multiculturalism, environmentalism and feminism are 'progressive' causes just to push political agendas. I.e. Big oil companies will pay environmentalists to campaign against their competitors pipeline plans while maintaining that they care for the environment. Anyone who believes that political correctness or these left wing causes have any real merit are just usually the ignorant offspring from sheltered families.

I don't know why you are focused on 'working class' as opposed to middle class. The 2007-2008 financial crisis and subsequent slowdown (which is still going on--the recession is technically over but Britain and Europe are still experiencing slow growth at best) hit the middle class as hard as anyone. Why must you be 'working class' to have legitimate concerns about stupid economic policy? Why does it matter if you work in a factory or a service industry? You work for a living, you stand to lose your job in a slowdown or at the least experience a flat income. Blue collar or white makes no difference.

[Lizard King]

Ryre, C45's post is on point. I don't know if he is born in the UK, but his observations are very accurate indeed.

The UK is a very (socio-economic)class divided nation. The types of people at this protest will be 90% middle class, white-collar or idealistic students from middle class backgrounds. They will mostly be comfortable financially, or from families that are comfortable financially in the case of the students.

I agree completely that the financial crisis hit the middle class hard, but now most of them are doing OK. They're doing well enough to have time off from their jobs and spend a day out in London virtue-signalling. They'll be posting about their valiant efforts trying to bring down the evil government on social media and will garner many likes from their middle class friends. I guarantee there will be hardly any working class people at this protest, apart from the odd die-hard socialist.

I also guarantee that most(90%+) of the people at this protest will be fully supportive of the current economic migration flooding in to Europe. These types of people think they are politically and economically literate, but have ZERO idea why the migration is taking place(mandated and encouraged by EU leaders and bureaucrats) and the net effects it causes to a society(pushes wages down, pushes costs of essential services such as health care up due to increased workload). They will all think that the migrants are refugees escaping horrific conditions.

It is a faux counter-culture movement. These idiots will decline a referendum on leaving the EU, they'll post about the day on their iphones and shout about how unfair their corporate led government are. They are truly the useful idiots.

The so-called austerity policies are actually very mixed, as Foolsgold mentions. On the one hand, it is good that single parents popping out kids are having their welfare payments capped and other long term welfare claimants are forced out of torpor, but it is bad that essential and vital services are running on vapours. For example, there is even discussion to combine police and fire service to save money.

I think the austerity policies are a way to mop up the mess caused by the Eurozone and to prop up the soon to collapse Euro currency. If these idiots had any brains they'd be protesting to leave the EU.

[Saweeep]

We've been here before.

Labour policy under Brown for 13 years replaced the word spend with investment. All we ended up with was a maxi out credit card.

Socialists and the magic money trees.

[Ryre]

(10-07-2015 09:34 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Ryre, C45's post is on point. I don't know if he is born in the UK, but his observations are very accurate indeed.

The UK is a very (socio-economic)class divided nation. The types of people at this protest will be 90% middle class, white-collar or idealistic students from middle class backgrounds. They will mostly be comfortable financially, or from families that are comfortable financially in the case of the students.

I agree completely that the financial crisis hit the middle class hard, but now most of them are doing OK. They're doing well enough to have time off from their jobs and spend a day out in London virtue-signalling. They'll be posting about their valiant efforts trying to bring down the evil government on social media and will garner many likes from their middle class friends. I guarantee there will be hardly any working class people at this protest, apart from the odd die-hard socialist.

I also guarantee that most(90%+) of the people at this protest will be fully supportive of the current economic migration flooding in to Europe. These types of people think they are politically and economically literate, but have ZERO idea why the migration is taking place(mandated and encouraged by EU leaders and bureaucrats) and the net effects it causes to a society(pushes wages down, pushes costs of essential services such as health care up due to increased workload). They will all think that the migrants are refugees escaping horrific conditions.

It is a faux counter-culture movement. These idiots will decline a referendum on leaving the EU, they'll post about the day on their iphones and shout about how unfair their corporate led government are. They are truly the useful idiots.

The so-called austerity policies are actually very mixed, as Foolsgold mentions. On the one hand, it is good that single parents popping out kids are having their welfare payments capped and other long term welfare claimants are forced out of torpor, but it is bad that essential and vital services are running on vapours. For example, there is even discussion to combine police and fire service to save money.

I think the austerity policies are a way to mop up the mess caused by the Eurozone and to prop up the soon to collapse Euro currency. If these idiots had any brains they'd be protesting to leave the EU.

I notice this thread has moved largely from discussing austerity itself to discussing the character of the protesters. I have little knowledge, opinion, or interest in arguing about that.

If anyone would like to point to any real-world historical examples of nations imposing austerity in the face of recession and quickly cutting their way back to a growing economy, I'd be interested. Since the wisdom of austerity is so fall-off-a-log obvious, clear examples of this wisdom in practice should be easy to come by.

[Phoenix]

(10-08-2015 09:23 AM)Ryre Wrote:  

If anyone would like to point to any real-world historical examples of nations imposing austerity in the face of recession and quickly cutting their way back to a growing economy, I'd be interested. Since the wisdom of austerity is so fall-off-a-log obvious, clear examples of this wisdom in practice should be easy to come by.

1919/1920 US recession.
https://mises.org/library/forgotten-depression-1920

Quote:

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."[2] By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

[Constitution45]

(10-07-2015 07:04 PM)Ryre Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 06:20 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

These people don't really have any conviction, if it really was a struggle or desperate issue then you wouldn't be seeing them smiling like that. Its a fashion thing, I know some of these people personally, I actually recognize the guy on the far right of that photo from sometime ago. They will take photos of them doing a protest and post it on Facebook. They feign outrage but it genuinely means nothing to them. A lot of them grew up listening to music and musicians from the 60s/80s when this counter establishment stuff was the fad. They don't realise that they now are the establishment. If they wanted to be truly radical and trendy, then they would ditch feminist, multiculturalism, and go to marry mormons or if they are males, then they would grow a set of balls and join the 'neo masculine movement'.

The working class just doesn't exist anymore, even the Poles who came over to work in the labour industry a few years back have even gone back home or managed to climb up the social ladder. Let alone the native Brits. You have an aspiring middle class and underclass. The closest thing you will get to having a working class is more of a temporary stage in which people usually drop or accelerate from. All of this Charlotte Church 'I come from a working class background and used to get free lunches in school' is absolute rubbish.

Real working class people don't show off about this unless they are rappers. The working class is like some sort of weird forbidden fruit for the middle class trendy types in Britain. They will imitate their accents during university or perhaps later during their 20s when they decide to settle in a gentrified area. But in reality they just don't have anything in common with them. For one poor people are nationalistic, it doesn't matter if they are muslim, white or black; they have strong connections to their nationality or local tribe. Onto a second point they are doers not thinkers, so don't get me started on how relations between men and women are viewed. You will never meet a 'working class feminist'.


On to a last point, which is related to the on going Migrant crisis. When you look at most ethnic groups aside from Black Brits, they actually do very well for themselves. Even among muslims, on the surface their communities are poor and run down, but you will always see that they look out for themselves. Selling businesses to other muslims, or sending money back to Pakistan that will lead to big houses and vast amounts of wealth. Hindus live in relatively a strong diaspora, you wouldn't believe how much they operate by their own economy.

The be all end all is that these goofy idiots are essentially useful idiots. God every intelligent person and their dog understand truly that multiculturalism, environmentalism and feminism are 'progressive' causes just to push political agendas. I.e. Big oil companies will pay environmentalists to campaign against their competitors pipeline plans while maintaining that they care for the environment. Anyone who believes that political correctness or these left wing causes have any real merit are just usually the ignorant offspring from sheltered families.

I don't know why you are focused on 'working class' as opposed to middle class. The 2007-2008 financial crisis and subsequent slowdown (which is still going on--the recession is technically over but Britain and Europe are still experiencing slow growth at best) hit the middle class as hard as anyone. Why must you be 'working class' to have legitimate concerns about stupid economic policy? Why does it matter if you work in a factory or a service industry? You work for a living, you stand to lose your job in a slowdown or at the least experience a flat income. Blue collar or white makes no difference.

I don't really understand your point, who was hit harder by the financial crisis has nothing to do with my post.

British society has always been about class. The austerity protests are meant to be about the 'working man' although that is translated in today's age as meaning, muslims, transgenders and women. The austerity protests are meant to represent this working class that just doesn't exist in the same way that it used to.

We are commenting on the character of the protesters because they are representing the opposition party today in Britain, which is still living 30 years in the past. How can they be anti capitalism yet pro globalism, it is baffling. Especially as Londoners are being priced out by tycoons from the Middle East, China and Russia.

[Ryre]

(10-08-2015 10:17 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 07:04 PM)Ryre Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 06:20 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

These people don't really have any conviction, if it really was a struggle or desperate issue then you wouldn't be seeing them smiling like that. Its a fashion thing, I know some of these people personally, I actually recognize the guy on the far right of that photo from sometime ago. They will take photos of them doing a protest and post it on Facebook. They feign outrage but it genuinely means nothing to them. A lot of them grew up listening to music and musicians from the 60s/80s when this counter establishment stuff was the fad. They don't realise that they now are the establishment. If they wanted to be truly radical and trendy, then they would ditch feminist, multiculturalism, and go to marry mormons or if they are males, then they would grow a set of balls and join the 'neo masculine movement'.

The working class just doesn't exist anymore, even the Poles who came over to work in the labour industry a few years back have even gone back home or managed to climb up the social ladder. Let alone the native Brits. You have an aspiring middle class and underclass. The closest thing you will get to having a working class is more of a temporary stage in which people usually drop or accelerate from. All of this Charlotte Church 'I come from a working class background and used to get free lunches in school' is absolute rubbish.

Real working class people don't show off about this unless they are rappers. The working class is like some sort of weird forbidden fruit for the middle class trendy types in Britain. They will imitate their accents during university or perhaps later during their 20s when they decide to settle in a gentrified area. But in reality they just don't have anything in common with them. For one poor people are nationalistic, it doesn't matter if they are muslim, white or black; they have strong connections to their nationality or local tribe. Onto a second point they are doers not thinkers, so don't get me started on how relations between men and women are viewed. You will never meet a 'working class feminist'.


On to a last point, which is related to the on going Migrant crisis. When you look at most ethnic groups aside from Black Brits, they actually do very well for themselves. Even among muslims, on the surface their communities are poor and run down, but you will always see that they look out for themselves. Selling businesses to other muslims, or sending money back to Pakistan that will lead to big houses and vast amounts of wealth. Hindus live in relatively a strong diaspora, you wouldn't believe how much they operate by their own economy.

The be all end all is that these goofy idiots are essentially useful idiots. God every intelligent person and their dog understand truly that multiculturalism, environmentalism and feminism are 'progressive' causes just to push political agendas. I.e. Big oil companies will pay environmentalists to campaign against their competitors pipeline plans while maintaining that they care for the environment. Anyone who believes that political correctness or these left wing causes have any real merit are just usually the ignorant offspring from sheltered families.

I don't know why you are focused on 'working class' as opposed to middle class. The 2007-2008 financial crisis and subsequent slowdown (which is still going on--the recession is technically over but Britain and Europe are still experiencing slow growth at best) hit the middle class as hard as anyone. Why must you be 'working class' to have legitimate concerns about stupid economic policy? Why does it matter if you work in a factory or a service industry? You work for a living, you stand to lose your job in a slowdown or at the least experience a flat income. Blue collar or white makes no difference.

I don't really understand your point, who was hit harder by the financial crisis has nothing to do with my post.

British society has always been about class. The austerity protests are meant to be about the 'working man' although that is translated in today's age as meaning, muslims, transgenders and women. The austerity protests are meant to represent this working class that just doesn't exist in the same way that it used to.

We are commenting on the character of the protesters because they are representing the opposition party today in Britain, which is still living 30 years in the past. How can they be anti capitalism yet pro globalism, it is baffling. Especially as Londoners are being priced out by tycoons from the Middle East, China and Russia.

This is the part of your post I was reacting to:

The working class just doesn't exist anymore...You have an aspiring middle class and underclass. The closest thing you will get to having a working class is more of a temporary stage in which people usually drop or accelerate from...Real working class people don't show off about this unless they are rappers. The working class is like some sort of weird forbidden fruit for the middle class trendy types in Britain.

Sounds like you are describing the British version of Brooklyn hipsters wearing lumberjack shirts and growing beards, or wearing trucker caps. Fine, those styles annoy me too (and so do a lot of the attitudes that go along with them).

But that has nothing to do with the national economy and what is wise policy. Hipsters are affected by economic slowdowns just like everyone else. If you are overburdened with student debt, working in a coffee shop because you can't get a better job, and forced to move back home with your parents, you have my sympathy even if I don't agree with your style choices. The two things aren't even close to being on the same level.

I don't care if people do or do not have 'authentic working class roots' or whatever. I care about the unemployment rate, wage growth, economic growth.

[Ryre]

(10-08-2015 09:26 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 09:23 AM)Ryre Wrote:  

If anyone would like to point to any real-world historical examples of nations imposing austerity in the face of recession and quickly cutting their way back to a growing economy, I'd be interested. Since the wisdom of austerity is so fall-off-a-log obvious, clear examples of this wisdom in practice should be easy to come by.

1919/1920 US recession.
https://mises.org/library/forgotten-depression-1920

Quote:

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."[2] By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

1) Harding took office in March 1921, so recovery can hardly be attributed to his policies.

2) "The recession lasted from January 1920 to July 1921, or 18 months, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. This was longer than most post–World War I recessions...."

3) "According to Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz the recession of 1920–21 was the result of an unnecessary contractionary monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.[14] Paul Krugman agrees that high interest rates due to inflation fighting of the Fed caused the problem. This did not cause a deficiency in aggregate demand but in Aggregate supply. Once the Fed relaxed its monetary policy the economy did rapidly recover.

4) "Daniel Kuehn's recent research calls into question many of the assertions Woods makes about the 1920–21 recession:[18]

the most substantial downsizing of government was attributable to the Wilson administration, and occurred well before the onset of the 1920–21 recession. [...]
Kuehn also argues that Woods underemphasizes the role the monetary stimulus played in reviving the depressed economy and that, since the 1920–21 recession was not characterized by a deficiency in aggregate demand, fiscal stimulus was unwarranted." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression...E2%80%9321

Sounds like what you have here is a recession that was brought on by a combination of the cuts to government under Wilson, and unduly tight monetary policy. Relaxed, monetary policy induced recovery; Harding's cuts came to late to have been responsible for the improvement.

Also there are different kinds of recessions. Fiscal stimulus is important when recession is due to lack of demand. This sounds like an unusual supply-side recession.

So you've successfully identified a recession that was not caused by a fall in demand and therefore recovered without stimulation of demand. You have not identified a demand-side recession that was cured by austerity, which was what I asked for (I'll amend my request to specify demand-side). I'm not sure why you would want to claim this recession as an example of your preferred policies in action anyway, given that it was "longer than most post-WWI recessions," i.e. recovery was in fact slower than average, not faster as would be necessary to prove your point.

Again, if this is so dead obvious there should be many clear examples. This example appears to be at best highly debatable.

[Que enspastic]

Tories are a big welfare party. If you're old and turning grey you vote for them in return for goodies. You get free TV, free bus pass, triple lock pension rises, protected final salary public service pensions, and over-65 pensioner bonds at 4%. None of these are means-tested.

Could save a fortune for the govt by making hand-outs means-tested but I'm no politician. Good politics is more important than good policy. Austerity is tripling student loans, cutting benefits for young people, hitting them with state's pension obligations in the future which will be financially overwhelming, the favour never to be returned.

If you want the Tories to build more houses to reduce the welfare bill (set to hit 25bn GBP per year in 2 years) then good luck. That is the kind of welfare that doesn't get cut back. Housing benefit bill keeps growing because house prices keep rising, and that's because politicians intentionally keep in place the myriad planning restrictions that choke construction (supply) of houses while stoking demand. This is done on purpose while they spout propaganda about helping turn Generation Rent into Generation Buy.

Tories are a handout party where it suits them and a party of harsh cuts only where it doesn't hurt them.

[Eskhander]

I made my decision simply by looking at the pictures of the protesters. That said the Tories suck and only care about money when they have golden opportunities to turn their country around with the collapse of Labour.

[Praetor Lupus]

It's funny that when an individual spends too much, they have to reduce their spending, possibly even having to cut down on what might be called essentials. This is considered a wise, even blatantly obvious course of action. Borrowing more would be out of the question.

Yet when a government has spent too much and has to do the same, everyone is up in arms. That government must borrow more!

Am I missing something here?

[Phoenix]

Ah whatever Ryre, you're clearly one of the sophist leftist economist class.

There isn't a single example of a recession you wouldn't be able to blame on lack of govermment intervention, and not a single government intervention that you'd ever give the blame for a recession other than "they didn't do enough". No doubt you wouldn't blame the 1929 depression on government intervention, but rather a lack of it. No doubt you wouldn't blame the ongoing Japanese stagnation since the 80s bubble on lack of government intervention, but on "not enough".

To the sophist economist, the house is on fire because you haven't poured enough gasoline on it. It's your fault it burned down because you should've poured twice as much on it. And if you disagree, I'll still be right no matter what, because I can talk shit longer and more thoroughly than you, and you'll just give up. As was the case with the famous book "General Theory", which Hayek never rebutted because he couldn't take it seriously.

The future of Western civilization comes down to a left - right constitutional question, and specifically if leftists like you remain in the halls of power, or are uprooted and thrown out onto the streets, along with the oppressive and socially damaging governments you exist in a symbiotic relationship with.

[Ryre]

(10-09-2015 02:43 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Ah whatever Ryre, you're clearly one of the sophist leftist economist class.

There isn't a single example of a recession you wouldn't be able to blame on lack of govermment intervention, and not a single government intervention that you'd ever give the blame for a recession other than "they didn't do enough". No doubt you wouldn't blame the 1929 depression on government intervention, but rather a lack of it. No doubt you wouldn't blame the ongoing Japanese stagnation since the 80s bubble on lack of government intervention, but on "not enough".

To the sophist economist, the house is on fire because you haven't poured enough gasoline on it. It's your fault it burned down because you should've poured twice as much on it. And if you disagree, I'll still be right no matter what, because I can talk shit longer and more thoroughly than you, and you'll just give up. As was the case with the famous book "General Theory", which Hayek never rebutted because he couldn't take it seriously.

The future of Western civilization comes down to a left - right constitutional question, and specifically if leftists like you remain in the halls of power, or are uprooted and thrown out onto the streets, along with the oppressive and socially damaging governments you exist in a symbiotic relationship with.

I agree that we--you and I--aren't going to get anywhere further by talking about it. Let's watch how things play out. From what I understand, pro-austerity people are predicting that countries that practice austerity will return relatively soon to stead, solid growth. While countries that pursue expansionary fiscal and monetary policies will experience inflation, bubbles, and more crashes. We'll see who is more correct.

(Recessions, of course, do happen. My view is simply that they are shorter and recovery better without austerity. I fully expect pro-austerity types to trumpet the next U.S. recession as proof that Obama ruined the country, whether it comes in 5, 10, or 20 years.)

[Ryre]

(10-09-2015 01:20 AM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  

It's funny that when an individual spends too much, they have to reduce their spending, possibly even having to cut down on what might be called essentials. This is considered a wise, even blatantly obvious course of action. Borrowing more would be out of the question.

Yet when a government has spent too much and has to do the same, everyone is up in arms. That government must borrow more!

Am I missing something here?

Yes. It is called Keynesianism.

Let me ask you something. Have you heard of Keynes? How many other economists from the 1930's can you name? Do you think that the fact you have heard of Keynes indicates he might have done something important? Are you able to state what his central insight was?

[Saweeep]

(10-09-2015 09:46 AM)Ryre Wrote:  

(10-09-2015 01:20 AM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  

It's funny that when an individual spends too much, they have to reduce their spending, possibly even having to cut down on what might be called essentials. This is considered a wise, even blatantly obvious course of action. Borrowing more would be out of the question.

Yet when a government has spent too much and has to do the same, everyone is up in arms. That government must borrow more!

Am I missing something here?

Yes. It is called Keynesianism.

Let me ask you something. Have you heard of Keynes? How many other economists from the 1930's can you name? Do you think that the fact you have heard of Keynes indicates he might have done something important? Are you able to state what his central insight was?

That's a weak argument.

[Lance Blastoff]

(10-07-2015 10:57 AM)Ryre Wrote:  

Austerity measures have been shown to be terrible for economic growth/recovery. The protests may not so much be people demanding free stuff as people who want the government to stop pursuing dumb, self-defeating economic policies that hold down growth and increase unemployment.

They've worked just fine for Germany. But, of course, the Germans are hard-working by nature, and the lower classes in Britain are not.

The people who are protesting are a combination of radical intellectuals who's pointless jobs are dependent on government spending and permanent dole recipients who are seeing their benefits cut. Neither of these classes of people will ever work, and they don't matter. They are parasites and if I had my way, they'd have no political voice whatsoever.

[Ryre]

(10-10-2015 01:41 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(10-09-2015 09:46 AM)Ryre Wrote:  

(10-09-2015 01:20 AM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  

It's funny that when an individual spends too much, they have to reduce their spending, possibly even having to cut down on what might be called essentials. This is considered a wise, even blatantly obvious course of action. Borrowing more would be out of the question.

Yet when a government has spent too much and has to do the same, everyone is up in arms. That government must borrow more!

Am I missing something here?

Yes. It is called Keynesianism.

Let me ask you something. Have you heard of Keynes? How many other economists from the 1930's can you name? Do you think that the fact you have heard of Keynes indicates he might have done something important? Are you able to state what his central insight was?

That's a weak argument.

When you go see your doctor, do you refuse to take antibiotics unless he can prove to your satisfaction that the germ theory of disease is true?

Yes, it is something of a weak argument, out of frustration. It's frustrating to argue with people who are act like the last 80 years of economic theory don't exist. If I can get him to acknowledge that maybe there's something there worth knowing, we might have a starting place. Hey, Keynes might have been wrong (I'm sure he was in some ways); we've heard of Freud, too, and I think he was mostly wrong. But at least show me you understand--at least show me you've heard of--what you are disagreeing with.

[Ryre]

(10-10-2015 05:56 AM)Lance Blastoff Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 10:57 AM)Ryre Wrote:  

Austerity measures have been shown to be terrible for economic growth/recovery. The protests may not so much be people demanding free stuff as people who want the government to stop pursuing dumb, self-defeating economic policies that hold down growth and increase unemployment.

They've worked just fine for Germany. But, of course, the Germans are hard-working by nature, and the lower classes in Britain are not.

The people who are protesting are a combination of radical intellectuals who's pointless jobs are dependent on government spending and permanent dole recipients who are seeing their benefits cut. Neither of these classes of people will ever work, and they don't matter. They are parasites and if I had my way, they'd have no political voice whatsoever.

Germany imposed less austerity than almost any other country in Europe. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02...austerity/

[Peregrine]

(10-09-2015 09:44 AM)Ryre Wrote:  

(10-09-2015 02:43 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Ah whatever Ryre, you're clearly one of the sophist leftist economist class.

There isn't a single example of a recession you wouldn't be able to blame on lack of govermment intervention, and not a single government intervention that you'd ever give the blame for a recession other than "they didn't do enough". No doubt you wouldn't blame the 1929 depression on government intervention, but rather a lack of it. No doubt you wouldn't blame the ongoing Japanese stagnation since the 80s bubble on lack of government intervention, but on "not enough".

To the sophist economist, the house is on fire because you haven't poured enough gasoline on it. It's your fault it burned down because you should've poured twice as much on it. And if you disagree, I'll still be right no matter what, because I can talk shit longer and more thoroughly than you, and you'll just give up. As was the case with the famous book "General Theory", which Hayek never rebutted because he couldn't take it seriously.

The future of Western civilization comes down to a left - right constitutional question, and specifically if leftists like you remain in the halls of power, or are uprooted and thrown out onto the streets, along with the oppressive and socially damaging governments you exist in a symbiotic relationship with.

I agree that we--you and I--aren't going to get anywhere further by talking about it. Let's watch how things play out. From what I understand, pro-austerity people are predicting that countries that practice austerity will return relatively soon to stead, solid growth. While countries that pursue expansionary fiscal and monetary policies will experience inflation, bubbles, and more crashes. We'll see who is more correct.

(Recessions, of course, do happen. My view is simply that they are shorter and recovery better without austerity. I fully expect pro-austerity types to trumpet the next U.S. recession as proof that Obama ruined the country, whether it comes in 5, 10, or 20 years.)

The real world is far more complex than A, therefore B. If Country X pursues austerity and Country Y doesn't and the latter "outperforms" the former, you haven't proven a damn thing. The reverse is also true.

[Lance Blastoff]

(10-10-2015 10:14 AM)Ryre Wrote:  

Germany imposed less austerity than almost any other country in Europe. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02...austerity/

Paul Krugman is not an trustworthy as a source of anything, he is a SJW.

Germany has done reasonably well over the last 15 or so years because of it's culture and it's people.

The problem with most other western countries is that the lower classes are actually, largely, truly inferior. They're the lowest IQ, laziest, most socially-retarded, ugliest people in our society. This is why the vast majority of poor people are poor. No amount of social spending is going to change that. All you're going to do is artificially prop up the standard of living to these people.

Welfare is a luxury good. It's an obvious that is what you cut back on when the revenues from taxation are expected to fall.

[Que enspastic]

I'd argue what Germany got right was keeping its manufacturing jobs in Germany and equipping its "lower class" population with advanced skills to work in key industries : luxury car making, steel elevators, artillery, planes, etc.


Germany has an education system that is tailored to meet the needs of their job market. German workers produce high quality manufactured goods that are highly sought after by global consumers. The education Germans receive depends on the IQ and potential they show as kids around 11-12 year old. At this early age as a German you are earmarked for either the technical track or the academic route. Contrast this to Blair's UK where 50% of the population were encouraged to take a degree that in most cases turned out to be a wishy washy arts degree that provided no commercially valuable skill set to UK businesses.


Germany isn't intrinsically better than other European countries. They were known as "the sick man of Europe" in the late 1990s and early 2000s, due to their paltry growth rates and high unemployment figures. This was a title first bestowed on the Ottoman Empire which was economically and institutionally backward vis a vis Western Europe, even relative to Russia which itself lagged the West in the 1800s. Check out this article from 1999 :
http://www.economist.com/node/209559


Currently Germany has the right institutions in place for economic success. Germans didn't became smarter between 2000 and now but their labour market institutions, monetary policy and employment laws did. Germany's position now, as previously, is not set in stone - their demographic outlook is horrendous with the population due to age and decline massively in future years : https://www.rt.com/op-edge/germany-econo...abyss-870/


Arguably France and UK have a better outlook long term. It's not always about 'IQ levels of lower classes' in each country. It's about economic competitiveness, demographics, educational institutions and monetary exchange rates all of which fluctuate over time.

[Ryre]

(10-10-2015 01:14 PM)Lance Blastoff Wrote:  

The problem with most other western countries is that the lower classes are actually, largely, truly inferior. They're the lowest IQ, laziest, most socially-retarded, ugliest people in our society. This is why the vast majority of poor people are poor. No amount of social spending is going to change that. All you're going to do is artificially prop up the standard of living to these people.

Did they suddenly get dumber, lazier, uglier, and more socially retarded between 2007 and 2009? Or between 1928 and 1930? Because a whole hell of a lot of people got a lot poorer over those years.

[Lance Blastoff]

(10-10-2015 06:16 PM)Ryre Wrote:  

(10-10-2015 01:14 PM)Lance Blastoff Wrote:  

The problem with most other western countries is that the lower classes are actually, largely, truly inferior. They're the lowest IQ, laziest, most socially-retarded, ugliest people in our society. This is why the vast majority of poor people are poor. No amount of social spending is going to change that. All you're going to do is artificially prop up the standard of living to these people.

Did they suddenly get dumber, lazier, uglier, and more socially retarded between 2007 and 2009? Or between 1928 and 1930? Because a whole hell of a lot of people got a lot poorer over those years.

The two are very different periods. The wealth created by the booms in the periods leading up to those depressions / recessions was largely illusory. When those people got poorer, it was because they were returning to their natural state.