You can be upset with what they cut.  I think they've left a lot of stuff uncut that should be myself.  Like their military buildup for their coldwar against turkey over cyprus that will likely never evolve into anything.

However,  without austerity, they would of defaulted on their debts harder, been forcibly kicked out of the europeon Union, defaulted on their debt, and been forced to return to the Dracmha.  Which would of been devalued to Zimbabwe/Post World War 1 german levels.

Leaving Greece in the position of REAL third world countries, like Somalia. 

Unable to import things like even simple medicine...

You think 30% unemployment is bad... we're talking >50%  Unemployment.

It would probably be better for them if they left the EU. I'm sure the Germans must be fed with bailing them out all the time, even if it gives them power over Greece. They need to at least get off the euro so they can control currency issues again. 

I feel like you have no concept of what greece would look like without the EU.

Greece fundamentally screwed up it's economy after joining the EU.  The above is what would happen if the Drachma decoupled.

I agree with you.

_____________________________________________

Smoothies Recipes 

I mean, i'll put it this way.

Currency manipulation would be one of their strongest moves

Greece should of never joined the Euro.

If Greece could detangle themselves from the Euro without committing Seppeku they should.

They just... can't though.

I'd say there strongest move would be to greatly reduce regulations on opening buisnesses, running and hiring and go hard against the rampant tax evasion done by the rich.

I mean shit...

"If Greece’s 1,500 biggest tax debtors paid, the government would easily wipe out its budget deficit for 2013. Analysts estimate that the taxes avoided by Greeks of all income levels total 55 billion euros, which would help Greece return to firmer financial footing."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/business/global/greek-tax-crackdown-yields-little-revenue.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Currency manipulation doesn't mean much if nobody is paying the government.  

No.  Spain's recent problems aren't related to debt.  Just the construction bubble bursting.

Spain's economy has recovered fairly quickly and pretty nicely off from an unsustainable bubble...

  but Spain's economic problems were big before the financial crisis ever occured, hidden by the data in some regards... and the same base issues are there.

Spain's pretty much always had a huge unemployment rate. .. espeically for younger employees.

What Spain needs is less rigid employment laws and buisnsess laws... which are unlikely to pass, because of just how stupid Franco was in pushing things the opposite way.

Unions and labor laws protect workers... but the problem is, they only protect current workers.  Letting older workers stay around past their prime, and past the point of where they have more then enough money to live out their retirements.

It's hard to lay off workers, making it harder for companies in Spain to take risks, knowing that if the risks fail they're stuck with employees they can't use.

Yep.  It's just a good idea for most of the effected places.

Though I don't think Austerity ended up hurting anything, it didn't help.

The economy has recovered on it's own... because that's what economies do.

It's pretty simple... because government spending isn't real.

Government spending outside a few very rare cases doesn't actually create any real economic growth.

If you aren't running a deficit, that money that taxes are using to pay someone else, would end up being spent or invested privately, and it'd all go around all the same.

If you are deficit spending, you are pulling ahead economic activity, but in the end, it's been shown time and time again in research that the debt you have to pay is far greater.  Even the studies that people like to pull forth on how much stimulus increases the economy tend to note that the decrease ends up wiping out any gains PLUS some.

Not nearly as much as you think, no.  Belief in the economy is usually strong right before crashes, and public confidence actually often tends to lag behind economic indicators.

The USA has been a good example of both.

Consumer confidence can help the economy run better... but it can't actually improve the economy...

and sometimes too much confidence is a bad thing.

Sacrificing a future stronger base market to make a crappier market run smoother doesn't work out.  You just end out dragging out prosperity and making prospeirty shorter.

And what's government spending?

A lie.  It's not real.   We're past the age where companies and dumb enough to expand due to temporary demand created by"fake" money.

As for what runs better but doesn't imrpove the economy means... it's pretty simple.

The market fundamentals are the size of the pipe... and consumer confidence how it flows.

When you deficit spend, you increase the flow at the expense of shrinking the pipe.  (Though you don't increase the flow much at all when you have a huge trade deficit, see Keynes)

Ask your teachers how useful consumer sentiment surveys and confidence are in predicting the economy, and you'll find they don't, at all.

I don't think  every professor you've had is wrong, i just think you've misunderstood every proffessor you've taken.  (Well not every one, but a decent number of them... really i suppose it depends which country your from.)

Really the even keel, not overstimulating the economy countries weathered the GFC greatest, and recovered quickest. 

There is really no reasonable reason to ever run a deficit outside of an unavoidable war or gigantic humanitarian need... spain doesn't really fit either.

Also, it's not really trade a meal now, for two when you aren't starving, so much as, trade for a meal now, so you can starve again in the future.