Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
Presumably they spent the money on other things. Don't know what though.
Does austerity work
- Thread starter Christmas themed thank
- Start date
We didn't cut spending in total. The government spent more in total but departments did see cuts.
If you compare the three graphs you will see that both the US and Portugal saw significant actual cuts in spending, the UK didn't.
We did not reduce spending, it carried on increasing. Both the USA and Portugal actually reduced their spending.
To claim that the USA and Portugal are examples of no austerity is nonsense on stilts. What they did was actually cut spending, then let it rise again.
They did more austerity than we did...
You are misrepresenting traditional economic indicators showing spending not as a percentage of gdp!
https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm
If you set %gdp government spending and look at the same 3 countries 2004 to 2016 it's a fairly different story.
https://data.oecd.org/chart/4V05
https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm
If you set %gdp government spending and look at the same 3 countries 2004 to 2016 it's a fairly different story.
https://data.oecd.org/chart/4V05
Do you "realise" that now and why?
A nations ability to service debt and it's inhabitants requirements are generally treated as related to gdp, absolute values are fairly misleading when you can print your own money!
One of the reasons for our problems was politicians doing just this. Gordon Brown vowed to keep the deficit below 3% of GDP, increasing spending throughout the boom. This was the key reason we didn't have the flexibility as when the recession hit, that 3% of GDP overspend was suddenly much higher despite the same amount of money being spent. The same effect was seen with debt. Brown increased the national debt by 50% prior to the recession hitting, hiding it behind the temporary gdp increase of the boom.
Debts and deficits don't exist as a percentage of gdp, they are actual numbers, irrespective of GDP.
Our debt against gdp went down because of gdp growth, not spending cuts.
If it fits your narrative to ignore the widely recognised measure of spending do so!
You do understand we are a sovereign state who can and has printed more money?
Well no, because debt and deficit are absolute values. If the economy grows and the debt % of GDP goes down have we paid that debt off or is something else going on?
The problem is not the measure, it's the way you are using (or misusing) it.
You appear to be blindly quoting headline figures without any care for what is actually happening underneath, and yet somehow it's my fault that I call you on the underlying picture not reflecting your desired narrative.
Is there any reason you choose to start throwing insults without addressing my points:
Most economists use spending as a % GDP to measure governments spending behaviour, (it doesn't even imply how much one should spend and its not a special "Gordon Brown Only" thing) using the absolute values are often misleading for a number of reasons, some nations can control printing their own currency and spend that, which is why suggesting we were heading the way of Greece was always idiotic.
By the way I quoted zero Headline figures. just as you did, I posted a graph comparing spending of the 3 nations, I just used the widely agreed economic measure of spending as a % of GDP and a less misleading timeline!
You provided spending by gdp trends for comparison, but no analysis of the underlying changes driving those trends. That's the key point, and that analysis doesn't support the claims that the USA and Portugal provided an alternative to austerity that was more successful.
The UK kept increasing government spending, but grew GDP by more, hence the percentage went down.
The USA reduced government spending and grew GDP, leading to their percentage going down.
Portugal reduced spending, but also reduced GDP, hence their line went up.
Neither Portugal or the USA spent their way out of anything. The country that tried that was the UK.
Hence, pointing at the spending by gdp trend and claiming that it shows the failure of austerity in the UK is just wrong.
If you feel quoting your belief about Portugal, the USA and the UK re spending, austerity and the relative merits of Keynsian approaches, backed up with graphs of absolute values and then typifying the problem with spending as a % of gdp as an economic measure, relating to Gordon Brown is an "Analysis", bully for you!
I suspect it's more complicated than absolute positions will admit!
I will say the absolute value of government spending in this banana republic has put a lot of people out of work, including police, nhs, fireservices and a range of other public sector workers, whilst freezing those who survived the axe pay! At this point I'm not sure your absolutist graphs will convince many we haven't actually had Austerity, perhaps you could trot out a household analogy for them!
My analysis, though far from complete, is certainly better than rants like this one.
You do know maths is axiomatic? And that's what this is at this point.
As long as we have a deficit which is most of the time debt increases.
We currently owe about 1.7 trillion, in 2010 we owed about 450 billion so 'austerity' has increased the debt four fold.
IMO that would have been ok if we had spent the money on stuff that would medium to long term give a sustainable pay back. Unfortunately that didn't happen and it's all gone.
Now some eminent people think we can get out of this by printing money for ever. I'm not so sure, real austerity appears to be unpalatable though.
Do you become un employed by not having a job, or qualifying for benefits these days?
It was over 1tr in 2010.
Depends whether you trust the figures — many would argue that they've been inflated by people in part-time work or on zero-hours contracts.