Quantcast
Europeon Debt Crisis: There isn't another option EXCEPT austerity.

Forums - Politics Discussion - Europeon Debt Crisis: There isn't another option EXCEPT austerity.

sperrico87 said:
makingmusic476 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Why is it austerity when the Government stops spending your money? I mean, this is how badly the "establishment" has engrained the need for big government in our lives... keeping more of your wealth is now a bad thing.


We truly do have fundamentally different views of the role of currency in society.

You're more of the mindset that money ultimately comes from the people, and is taken by the government to be used for various goods.  A view I once held.

 

Why are taxes so important to you?  You probably don't receive social welfare benefits and sit around lounging all day, allowing the working-class to fund your life style.  You seem like a reasonable, educated person.  We wouldn't need so many of those taxes you speak of if we didn't have so many programs to discourage people from looking for work, and worse, discourage businesses from investing.

Redistribution of wealth is morally abhorrent and the worst thing the government's done to us in the last 100 years is implement a central bank to destroy our money, and place an income tax on us, which fundamentally says: "You don't own your money, we just let you keep some of it.  We can spend it more wisely than you can.  You're not smart enough to take care of yourself and your family, so we're going to do it for you, against your will." 

Because I believe there are long term economic benefits that can only be gained through government action.

Take for example high speed rail.  High speed rail has no short term financial gains and generally few if any long term financial gains for any private entities interested in taking on such a project, thus it never happens.  However, there ARE long term economic and social gains to be had for the population at large if a high speed rail system is implemented, and it has had considerable effects on economic activity in places like Japan.   In Japan and Europe, it was the local governments that were responsible for funding such projects, and the same is true here.

In the end, it's a difference of perspective.  You seem to have a more individualistic perspective of the world, in which everyone should focus primarily on accruing their own personal wealth.  I see society more as a collective, where often we must come together and make short term financial sacrifices (taxation) in order to enable long term economic gains that will increase society's overall productivity and well-being.  That includes things like funding for federal rail projects, other mass transit projects, the post office, ports, and a social safety net that catches people when they face unexpected hardships, allowing them to eventually get back to work and be productive members of society.

I'm also in favor of a job guarantee, to ensure that everyone who wants to work is given the opportunity to do so, thus no productivity is lost due to idle hands:

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/mmp-blog-42-introduction-the-the-job-guarantee-or-employer-of-last-resort.html

It's not that the general populace isn't able to take care of themselves or anything of the sort.  It's that certain ventures seem to only be possible through government action.

Also, you mention redistribution of wealth being morally abhorrent, but when it comes to certain individuals, I feel that wealth is being unfairly distributed in the first place, with capital owners using high unemployment and the accompanying decrease in laborers' collective bargaining ability to stall or decrease wages despite productivity going up.  From the Washington Post:

So, if not to workers, where’s the money going? Of the companies that comprise the Standard and Poor’s 500, net income (chiefly, their profits) has risen 23 percent since 2007, the last year of the bubble, the Wall Street Journal reported this week. Their cash reserves have increased 49 percent during that time — in large part because they’re neither hiring in the United States nor boosting their workers’ incomes. Workers are producing more: “In 2007, the companies generated an average of $378,000 in revenue for every employee on their payrolls,” the Journal reported. “Last year, that figure rose to $420,000.” But workers are seeing none of that increase in their pay.

Meanwhile, CEOs are getting paid tens of millions.  This is unfair, and it's something progressive taxation can be used to counteract.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:

Lately there have been more and more articles in the US complaining about Europeon Austerity and how it will destroy the country.

It makes me wonder what other option there actually is.   The europeon Debt Crisis is happening because a number of countries didn't cut spending when they could and are rapidly approaching (or already reached) the point where they can't pay off their debts.

Some people are saying that instead they need to keep spending up, possibly even increase it and hope to outgrow the debt.

Which seems impossible just based on the fact that they weren't outgrowing their debt even when the economy was good.


The only real way to get out of it, is to try and spur growth while NOT increasing debt.  In otherwords, Austerity, and then a bit beyond normal austerity to provide pro-growth changes.


In otherwords cut more then you need to and put that extra money elsewhere.

Forget religion...  politics and economics is the one area we do always seem to agree (apologies for the time we fell out over religion, its best I stay away from religion threads as I care to little to have a sound opinion).

I agree here totally.

Whenever I see protests against cuts I feel like rallying together some like minded individuals for some protests to complain about the lack of cuts!  They aren't deep enough or strong enough imo.

Austerity... I wish everyone would stop being so selfish and living for the now and think about the future, about our kids and live with the austerity.... its the only way and a chance to put right a hell of a lot of recent-history wrongs.



I'm not really here!

Link: Shipment History Since 1995


d21lewis said:
Austerity. I don't know the meaning of the word.


In Europe it essnetially seems to means having the government spending less then 130% of what they make.

So if your making $300 a week, keep it down to 389 in spending... preferably ~350.



kowenicki said:
Kasz216 said:

Lately there have been more and more articles in the US complaining about Europeon Austerity and how it will destroy the country.

It makes me wonder what other option there actually is.   The europeon Debt Crisis is happening because a number of countries didn't cut spending when they could and are rapidly approaching (or already reached) the point where they can't pay off their debts.

Some people are saying that instead they need to keep spending up, possibly even increase it and hope to outgrow the debt.

Which seems impossible just based on the fact that they weren't outgrowing their debt even when the economy was good.


The only real way to get out of it, is to try and spur growth while NOT increasing debt.  In otherwords, Austerity, and then a bit beyond normal austerity to provide pro-growth changes.


In otherwords cut more then you need to and put that extra money elsewhere.

Forget religion...  politics and economics is the one area we do always seem to agree (apologies for the time we fell out over religion, its best I stay away from religion threads as I care to little to have a sound opinion).

I agree here totally.

Whenever I see protests against cuts I feel like rallying together some like minded individuals for some protests to complain about the lack of cuts!  They aren't deep enough or strong enough imo.

Austerity... I wish everyone would stop being so selfish and living for the now and think about the future, about our kids and live with the austerity.... its the only way and a chance to put right a hell of a lot of recent-history wrongs.

I think the problem is... the economy is built on people and people act based on culture, which is different everywhere and as such people react to things totally differently.

Stimulus based economics were born in an era where people were argueably less self centered then today.  I think in general the "Person" that economic theory was based around no longer exists.

France will be intersting.  56% of GDP is government spending...



makingmusic476 said:
sperrico87 said:
makingmusic476 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Why is it austerity when the Government stops spending your money? I mean, this is how badly the "establishment" has engrained the need for big government in our lives... keeping more of your wealth is now a bad thing.


We truly do have fundamentally different views of the role of currency in society.

You're more of the mindset that money ultimately comes from the people, and is taken by the government to be used for various goods.  A view I once held.

 

Why are taxes so important to you?  You probably don't receive social welfare benefits and sit around lounging all day, allowing the working-class to fund your life style.  You seem like a reasonable, educated person.  We wouldn't need so many of those taxes you speak of if we didn't have so many programs to discourage people from looking for work, and worse, discourage businesses from investing.

Redistribution of wealth is morally abhorrent and the worst thing the government's done to us in the last 100 years is implement a central bank to destroy our money, and place an income tax on us, which fundamentally says: "You don't own your money, we just let you keep some of it.  We can spend it more wisely than you can.  You're not smart enough to take care of yourself and your family, so we're going to do it for you, against your will." 

Because I believe there are long term economic benefits that can only be gained through government action.

Take for example high speed rail.  High speed rail has no short term financial gains and generally few if any long term financial gains for any private entities interested in taking on such a project, thus it never happens.  However, there ARE long term economic and social gains to be had for the population at large if a high speed rail system is implemented, and it has had considerable effects on economic activity in places like Japan.   In Japan and Europe, it was the local governments that were responsible for funding such projects, and the same is true here.

In the end, it's a difference of perspective.  You seem to have a more individualistic perspective of the world, in which everyone should focus primarily on accruing their own personal wealth.  I see society more as a collective, where often we must come together and make short term financial sacrifices (taxation) in order to enable long term economic gains that will increase society's overall productivity and well-being.  That includes things like funding for federal rail projects, other mass transit projects, the post office, ports, and a social safety net that catches people when they face unexpected hardships, allowing them to eventually get back to work and be productive members of society.

I'm also in favor of a job guarantee, to ensure that everyone who wants to work is given the opportunity to do so, thus no productivity is lost due to idle hands:

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/mmp-blog-42-introduction-the-the-job-guarantee-or-employer-of-last-resort.html

It's not that the general populace isn't able to take care of themselves or anything of the sort.  It's that certain ventures seem to only be possible through government action.

Also, you mention redistribution of wealth being morally abhorrent, but when it comes to certain individuals, I feel that wealth is being unfairly distributed in the first place, with capital owners using high unemployment and the accompanying decrease in laborers' collective bargaining ability to stall or decrease wages despite productivity going up.  From the Washington Post:

So, if not to workers, where’s the money going? Of the companies that comprise the Standard and Poor’s 500, net income (chiefly, their profits) has risen 23 percent since 2007, the last year of the bubble, the Wall Street Journal reported this week. Their cash reserves have increased 49 percent during that time — in large part because they’re neither hiring in the United States nor boosting their workers’ incomes. Workers are producing more: “In 2007, the companies generated an average of $378,000 in revenue for every employee on their payrolls,” the Journal reported. “Last year, that figure rose to $420,000.” But workers are seeing none of that increase in their pay.

Meanwhile, CEOs are getting paid tens of millions.  This is unfair, and it's something progressive taxation can be used to counteract.


Europe and Japan are broke, so I don't see any reason to use their model for this high speed rail business.  Inventions and progress comes from inventors and the productive effort of the people, not bureaucrats and politicians.  I'm all for tax credits for inventing something the government sees as good or necessary, but I couldn't support wealth redistribution because someone in the government decides unilaterally that "this high speed rail is good.  We shall tax our citizens money to make it." 

And I think the idea of a job guarantee will have the opposite effect you're suggesting it will have.  If everyone is guaranteed work no matter what, then there is no incentive for anyone to improve or better themselves.  It would lead to people being forced into a professions they make not like, but because the government has them take a test, they are in that profession from 22-retirement.  I can see that going very badly, and it draws some pretty horrible parallels with Communism, among other things.  Next thing you know we'll all be wearing matching gray uniforms and sleeping in bunk houses.  I think it would literally destroy our society.  No joke.

Social safety nets create a moral hazard, and the ultimate impact they have is that certain people will purposefully underperform in order to qualify for benefits.  We already have a lot of that in our society.    It breeds crime, resentment, and poverty cycles itself from generation to generation, rather than only occuring once and being over and done with. 

I'm not against taxes or excises, per se.  I am opposed to an income tax, however.  Because the income tax implies that it is the government that earns our money, and they simply allow us to keep a certain percentage.  That to me is immoral.  We work for a living, it's our money.  I think taxes should be relegated to only products or services that we use, as we go, rather than scraping off the top everything society brings in.  Taxes for gas or tolls on roads is totally fine.  Because, if you use gas or drive on a road, you should pay for your use of it.  Same with the Post office.



 

Around the Network
sperrico87 said:
makingmusic476 said:

Because I believe there are long term economic benefits that can only be gained through government action.

Take for example high speed rail.  High speed rail has no short term financial gains and generally few if any long term financial gains for any private entities interested in taking on such a project, thus it never happens.  However, there ARE long term economic and social gains to be had for the population at large if a high speed rail system is implemented, and it has had considerable effects on economic activity in places like Japan.   In Japan and Europe, it was the local governments that were responsible for funding such projects, and the same is true here.

In the end, it's a difference of perspective.  You seem to have a more individualistic perspective of the world, in which everyone should focus primarily on accruing their own personal wealth.  I see society more as a collective, where often we must come together and make short term financial sacrifices (taxation) in order to enable long term economic gains that will increase society's overall productivity and well-being.  That includes things like funding for federal rail projects, other mass transit projects, the post office, ports, and a social safety net that catches people when they face unexpected hardships, allowing them to eventually get back to work and be productive members of society.

I'm also in favor of a job guarantee, to ensure that everyone who wants to work is given the opportunity to do so, thus no productivity is lost due to idle hands:

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/mmp-blog-42-introduction-the-the-job-guarantee-or-employer-of-last-resort.html

It's not that the general populace isn't able to take care of themselves or anything of the sort.  It's that certain ventures seem to only be possible through government action.

Also, you mention redistribution of wealth being morally abhorrent, but when it comes to certain individuals, I feel that wealth is being unfairly distributed in the first place, with capital owners using high unemployment and the accompanying decrease in laborers' collective bargaining ability to stall or decrease wages despite productivity going up.  From the Washington Post:

So, if not to workers, where’s the money going? Of the companies that comprise the Standard and Poor’s 500, net income (chiefly, their profits) has risen 23 percent since 2007, the last year of the bubble, the Wall Street Journal reported this week. Their cash reserves have increased 49 percent during that time — in large part because they’re neither hiring in the United States nor boosting their workers’ incomes. Workers are producing more: “In 2007, the companies generated an average of $378,000 in revenue for every employee on their payrolls,” the Journal reported. “Last year, that figure rose to $420,000.” But workers are seeing none of that increase in their pay.

Meanwhile, CEOs are getting paid tens of millions.  This is unfair, and it's something progressive taxation can be used to counteract.


Europe and Japan are broke, so I don't see any reason to use their model for this high speed rail business.  Inventions and progress comes from inventors and the productive effort of the people, not bureaucrats and politicians.  I'm all for tax credits for inventing something the government sees as good or necessary, but I couldn't support wealth redistribution because someone in the government decides unilaterally that "this high speed rail is good.  We shall tax our citizens money to make it." 

And I think the idea of a job guarantee will have the opposite effect you're suggesting it will have.  If everyone is guaranteed work no matter what, then there is no incentive for anyone to improve or better themselves.  It would lead to people being forced into a professions they make not like, but because the government has them take a test, they are in that profession from 22-retirement.  I can see that going very badly, and it draws some pretty horrible parallels with Communism, among other things.  Next thing you know we'll all be wearing matching gray uniforms and sleeping in bunk houses.  I think it would literally destroy our society.  No joke.

Social safety nets create a moral hazard, and the ultimate impact they have is that certain people will purposefully underperform in order to qualify for benefits.  We already have a lot of that in our society.    It breeds crime, resentment, and poverty cycles itself from generation to generation, rather than only occuring once and being over and done with. 

I'm not against taxes or excises, per se.  I am opposed to an income tax, however.  Because the income tax implies that it is the government that earns our money, and they simply allow us to keep a certain percentage.  That to me is immoral.  We work for a living, it's our money.  I think taxes should be relegated to only products or services that we use, as we go, rather than scraping off the top everything society brings in.  Taxes for gas or tolls on roads is totally fine.  Because, if you use gas or drive on a road, you should pay for your use of it.  Same with the Post office.

That would only make sense as taxation to use things that the government has provided, gas not being one of them. The issue being that the government provides generally only public goods (aside from the little matter of the post office) that are more difficult to monetize. Sure roads have tolls, but how do you monetize, say, environmental cleanliness?

Just because some abuse social safety nets does not mean that the system itself is inherently flawed. There will be people who abuse all things, and no mechanism is perfect for solving all ills, but such social safety nets mean that society will provide for its own, to make sure that they have the dignity that they are morally entitled to. The need for government employment is to correct against those who want to work but cannot, because most people want to work on the whole, and this underlies the need for government intervention. It's not about "unilateral decisionmaking" it's about accounting for things that the free market cannot grasp, public goods like the health and education of the people, the cleanliness of the environment, industries that need a push before they can become self-sufficiently competitive, or large-scale mass transit systems. The ideal balance of Social Democracy is for the free market to work where the free market works (which is still the vast majority of commerce), and for the government to pick up the slack everywhere else. Much like too much democracy is a bad thing, verifiably, so a too-liberated market is also verifiably bad.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
sperrico87 said:
makingmusic476 said:
 

Because I believe there are long term economic benefits that can only be gained through government action.

Take for example high speed rail.  High speed rail has no short term financial gains and generally few if any long term financial gains for any private entities interested in taking on such a project, thus it never happens.  However, there ARE long term economic and social gains to be had for the population at large if a high speed rail system is implemented, and it has had considerable effects on economic activity in places like Japan.   In Japan and Europe, it was the local governments that were responsible for funding such projects, and the same is true here.

In the end, it's a difference of perspective.  You seem to have a more individualistic perspective of the world, in which everyone should focus primarily on accruing their own personal wealth.  I see society more as a collective, where often we must come together and make short term financial sacrifices (taxation) in order to enable long term economic gains that will increase society's overall productivity and well-being.  That includes things like funding for federal rail projects, other mass transit projects, the post office, ports, and a social safety net that catches people when they face unexpected hardships, allowing them to eventually get back to work and be productive members of society.

I'm also in favor of a job guarantee, to ensure that everyone who wants to work is given the opportunity to do so, thus no productivity is lost due to idle hands:

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/mmp-blog-42-introduction-the-the-job-guarantee-or-employer-of-last-resort.html

It's not that the general populace isn't able to take care of themselves or anything of the sort.  It's that certain ventures seem to only be possible through government action.

Also, you mention redistribution of wealth being morally abhorrent, but when it comes to certain individuals, I feel that wealth is being unfairly distributed in the first place, with capital owners using high unemployment and the accompanying decrease in laborers' collective bargaining ability to stall or decrease wages despite productivity going up.  From the Washington Post:

So, if not to workers, where’s the money going? Of the companies that comprise the Standard and Poor’s 500, net income (chiefly, their profits) has risen 23 percent since 2007, the last year of the bubble, the Wall Street Journal reported this week. Their cash reserves have increased 49 percent during that time — in large part because they’re neither hiring in the United States nor boosting their workers’ incomes. Workers are producing more: “In 2007, the companies generated an average of $378,000 in revenue for every employee on their payrolls,” the Journal reported. “Last year, that figure rose to $420,000.” But workers are seeing none of that increase in their pay.

Meanwhile, CEOs are getting paid tens of millions.  This is unfair, and it's something progressive taxation can be used to counteract.


Europe and Japan are broke, so I don't see any reason to use their model for this high speed rail business.  Inventions and progress comes from inventors and the productive effort of the people, not bureaucrats and politicians.  I'm all for tax credits for inventing something the government sees as good or necessary, but I couldn't support wealth redistribution because someone in the government decides unilaterally that "this high speed rail is good.  We shall tax our citizens money to make it." 

And I think the idea of a job guarantee will have the opposite effect you're suggesting it will have.  If everyone is guaranteed work no matter what, then there is no incentive for anyone to improve or better themselves.  It would lead to people being forced into a professions they make not like, but because the government has them take a test, they are in that profession from 22-retirement.  I can see that going very badly, and it draws some pretty horrible parallels with Communism, among other things.  Next thing you know we'll all be wearing matching gray uniforms and sleeping in bunk houses.  I think it would literally destroy our society.  No joke.

Social safety nets create a moral hazard, and the ultimate impact they have is that certain people will purposefully underperform in order to qualify for benefits.  We already have a lot of that in our society.    It breeds crime, resentment, and poverty cycles itself from generation to generation, rather than only occuring once and being over and done with. 

I'm not against taxes or excises, per se.  I am opposed to an income tax, however.  Because the income tax implies that it is the government that earns our money, and they simply allow us to keep a certain percentage.  That to me is immoral.  We work for a living, it's our money.  I think taxes should be relegated to only products or services that we use, as we go, rather than scraping off the top everything society brings in.  Taxes for gas or tolls on roads is totally fine.  Because, if you use gas or drive on a road, you should pay for your use of it.  Same with the Post office.

That would only make sense as taxation to use things that the government has provided, gas not being one of them. The issue being that the government provides generally only public goods (aside from the little matter of the post office) that are more difficult to monetize. Sure roads have tolls, but how do you monetize, say, environmental cleanliness?

Just because some abuse social safety nets does not mean that the system itself is inherently flawed. There will be people who abuse all things, and no mechanism is perfect for solving all ills, but such social safety nets mean that society will provide for its own, to make sure that they have the dignity that they are morally entitled to. The need for government employment is to correct against those who want to work but cannot, because most people want to work on the whole, and this underlies the need for government intervention. It's not about "unilateral decisionmaking" it's about accounting for things that the free market cannot grasp, public goods like the health and education of the people, the cleanliness of the environment, industries that need a push before they can become self-sufficiently competitive, or large-scale mass transit systems. The ideal balance of Social Democracy is for the free market to work where the free market works (which is still the vast majority of commerce), and for the government to pick up the slack everywhere else. Much like too much democracy is a bad thing, verifiably, so a too-liberated market is also verifiably bad.


Arguably?  By having people care about enviromental cleanliness and willing to pay a few cents more for ecologically responsible products.  Of course, that's probably overestimating the average consumer.



Centralized action from an entrenched interest only gets you so far. The question I would ask is how does Europe and the civilized world incentivize those capable workers who have willingly left the work force? How do you get those minds into your organization to push it to the next level?

I believe that we are living in a poverty of imagination. Those who are invested are anything but creative or imaginative. Rather, they are derivative looking to borrow from others and synthesize into what they feel is their own. This is why we have games like L.A. Noire which are nothing more than a shoddy Hollywood film with button sequences. This is why we have Mass Effect 3 multiplayer being nothing more than a rip-off of Gears of War Horde mode.

Very little today is original. The beast, that is the status quo, lives and breathes off of the derivative and latest iteration of something that was first done 20+ years ago.

It could be the economy. It could be that those undergoing a creative endeavor are too smart and too cowardly to separate from the pack mentality. Whatever the cause, everyone is hoarding their chips waiting for those around them to fall where they may



I can't be bothered going into too much detail but I will sum up my position by the following points.

1. I am fundamentally opposed to austerity as it doesn't solve the problem and only hurts the vulnerable more.
2 I would eliminate private central banking which is an unnecessary plague on our economies. For every dollar in circulation tax payers must pay interest to these private banks which print the money we use.
3. Increase taxes and make sure that tax dodging especially by corporations is minimised.
4. Governments should have a mandatory policy of maintaining a budget surplus. Once the country recovers from debt the taxes should be lowered.
5. Add a tax on financial transactions including stock trading in order to prevent manipulation of the market and economy by stock traders.

These are just a few points but are key to true recovery. I don't see it ever happening though as the corporations own the governments and people have no say. The economic crisis also serves to justify bringing in ever more draconian laws which bring us closer to becoming like the peasants of old every day.

 

 

edit. I will just add that I am against austerity as it is being implemented. I am all for fiscal responsibility as the rest of my post actually outlines.



 

 

There is a huge irrational fear of debt within society whether it is personal or government debt.
Why are governments accepting bailouts from the IMF/World Bank and going into even more debt?
In acceptance of the bailouts the government must enforce unpopular austerity measures onto the people to make interest repayments upon the debt: through tax increases, national asset sales and public service cuts.