By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 22 March 2013
Edit Thread
fordy said:
Kasz216 said:

I know what they were, though the truth was, Australia really wasn't facing any big issues due to the GFC in general.   Australia never had a reccession in the first place.  The GFC measures it took were pretty much just shadowboxing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-51352693/how-australia-ducked-the-crisis/


Responsible countries avoided the GFC, irresponsible ones got hit.

The arguement now is irresponsible countries should be more irresponsible to get out of it's problems.

 

 

Austerity is actually doing a fairly decent job in places like Australia, it's just covered up because well... GDP includes government spending in GDP.  So of course GDP takes a hit when government spending is reduced.

How is stimulus and tax cuts considered Austerity? They seem to be the polar opposites of what you're claiming. Also, how is "doing nothing" considering taking Austerity measures?

 

Actually, there is one state government that's currently in recession, the state of Victoria. The reason? The conservative Baillieu government came in and slashed the hell out of investment in the public sector in order to pursue a surplus, despite opinion that it was not necessary.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/its-the-recession-victoria-didnt-have-to-have-20130306-2flqf.html

Funny how the so called "liberal media" doesn't show more about what kinds of things can happen with Austerity...

 

Your joking right?   The media always complains about austerity.  Espeically the liberal part like MSNBC.

Again, by austerity I was talking about being responsible in the first place... It's not like 0 Spending is good, nor is running GIANT deficits.

Counties should try and balance there budgets more like responsible countries who were able to duck the GFC in general.

 

As for your link though.... GDP dropped... mostly thanks to a drop in government spending.  Like i said above... no duh.   GDP is calculated including government spending.

If you were to cut government spending, and the entire rest of the economy stayed exactly the same.  You would see a decline in GDP.   You need to look at a lot more complicated data then GDP... or at least private sector GDP.

It's like the Paddy Dollars in "It's always Sunny"

the Paddy Dollars keep flowing so their intake (GDP) is up... but it's not really saying anything real. 

 

You need to look deeper.

 

 

(Note, I'm not claiming correlation here.  This is just to show how GDP growth can be unduly influenced by government spending and hide private sector and public sector health, both positive and negative.)