Does austerity work

Like brexit?
The problem isn't the idea (atleast in some senses), it's the architects...

No it's nothing to do with Brexit. We have debt and we have to sort it out, regardless of whether we're in the EU. And we're not the only country in this position.

Not sure what you mean about architects? Doesn't take a genius to realise you can't keep spending more than you earn when you have too much debt already. Anyone with half a brain would reach the same conclusion.
 
Have you previously supported the household budget analogy, or banking deregulation?

Possibly, but revision of views is how society progresses, if you are fixed in your views, then you are a zealot, not a debater.

As for banking deregulation, the banks are far from unregulated, there are extensive national and international banking regulations in place. Don't confuse poor regulation with a lack of it.
 
No it's nothing to do with Brexit. We have debt and we have to sort it out, regardless of whether we're in the EU. And we're not the only country in this position.

Not sure what you mean about architects? Doesn't take a genius to realise you can't keep spending more than you earn when you have too much debt already. Anyone with half a brain would reach the same conclusion.

Yet the architects only have half a brain because it's all political, cut too far and the other team of quasi socialists would be in.

Then there's the British public itself, who are about as intelligent as a Sun/Dailymail headline.

It's impossible not to mention the elephant in the room because it means that we basically have to sell the nation at this point.
 
Possibly, but revision of views is how society progresses, if you are fixed in your views, then you are a zealot, not a debater.

As for banking deregulation, the banks are far from unregulated, there are extensive national and international banking regulations in place. Don't confuse poor regulation with a lack of it.
Having spent years combating the poor analogy of household budgets and the almost unprecidented cost of free market banking, I want anyone like you or Alan Greenspan who steered our ship into the iceberg to preface your suggested "new" course with that fact. Given that both will have cost human life it is a bare minimum of what should happen!

I'm glad that positions can shift, based on glaring evidence of how idiotic yours/greenspans previous position now appears!
 
Last edited:
On these issues the lib/con coalition discounted the potential of a published ex professor of economics who warned of banking deregulation before the crisis and had previously been in charge of a major corporations finance, for a bulingdon boy who had worked in data entry for the nhs and worked at selfridges!

edit: I voted lib at that election :(
 
Last edited:
Additionally, I'm not advocating those with distaste for Corbyn vote for him!
I will say before the membership elected him, where was the discussion/thinking?

undoubtably he will be replaced, as long as the direction is fresh I believe he'd think it is "job done" it's pretty much why a non personality was elected and will likely be taken with good grace!

Anything is better than pure free market jungle politics at this point!
 
QE i.e. printing money and a zero-interest rate policy, and the resulting over inflation of assets is what will ruin this country for years to come, not Brexit.

The politicians went for the quick fix of the time, and now we're stuck in an even more precarious scenario than before.
 
Having spent years combating the poor analogy of household budgets and the almost unprecidented cost of free market banking, I want anyone like you or Alan Greenspan who steered our ship into the iceberg to preface your suggested "new" course with that fact. Given that both will have cost human life it is a bare minimum of what should happen!

I'm glad that positions can shift, based on glaring evidence of how idiotic yours/greenspans previous position now appears!


An actual Free market would have let those banks fail rather than be bailed out. Government/cronyism let the rot stay alive.
Would we have been in a worse situation now if we had let the worst hit banks fail rather than bailout?
It seems anecdotally that we have dragged out the pain far longer than we needed to.
 
An actual Free market would have let those banks fail rather than be bailed out. Government/cronyism let the rot stay alive.
Would we have been in a worse situation now if we had let the worst hit banks fail rather than bailout?
It seems anecdotally that we have dragged out the pain far longer than we needed to.


And this is why pure capitalism doesn't work. What would happen to those millions of people of all their money, life's savings , pension and assets just disappeared because they were unlucky in picking a failed bank?

A governments primary job is to protect the people. Capitalism on my works when it is highly controlled and regulated, otherwise there is zero respect for people's lives, society or the environment, and furthermore the future of these.
 
QE i.e. printing money and a zero-interest rate policy, and the resulting over inflation of assets is what will ruin this country for years to come, not Brexit.

The politicians went for the quick fix of the time, and now we're stuck in an even more precarious scenario than before.

Well if they just failed then the entire ethos around the global economy would have collapsed with it, the state is always there to mitigate excess... hopefully not create it.

Regardless, QE is fine if done correctly, i'm not entirely sure it was, if we ignore the immediate concern in 2008 of the QE saving the more important systems of banking, then the rest of it really should have been used on infrastructure projects honestly.

The state of US civil projects is more laughable than even ours, and that's a feat, the only saving grace with the US is that individual states have much more control over their own affairs, not entirely comparable here as if it ain't benefiting Canary Wharf, it's political trash.
 
Having spent years combating the poor analogy of household budgets and the almost unprecidented cost of free market banking, I want anyone like you or Alan Greenspan who steered our ship into the iceberg to preface your suggested "new" course with that fact. Given that both will have cost human life it is a bare minimum of what should happen!

I'm glad that positions can shift, based on glaring evidence of how idiotic yours/greenspans previous position now appears!

I was speaking out about the irresponsible way our public finances were being run before the crash, and it was the position of public finances at the time of the crash, not the crash itself, that meant that austerity seemed like the right choice. We had indulged in counter-keynesian spending for 5 years before the crash in 2007, to suddenly discover Keynes at that point wouldn't have helped, just as our failure to take stock properly hasn't really helped. I wasn't the only one, the ifs, the oecd etc were warning us in 2002 of what Brown was doing and the danger of it.

Likewise, I opposed many of the regulatory changes to banking and lending, because some of them were going to have unintended consequences (such as the shift to requiring ratings to be commissioned by the seller of a bond, rather than something the buyer could do, which changed the credit regulation market and the focus of those selling their rating services.)

Don't claim that those who supported austerity (not that we actually had any in the UK at any rate) were quiet before the crash, or supported what was happening before the crash, because it isn't true.
 
And this is why pure capitalism doesn't work. What would happen to those millions of people of all their money, life's savings , pension and assets just disappeared because they were unlucky in picking a failed bank?

A governments primary job is to protect the people. Capitalism on my works when it is highly controlled and regulated, otherwise there is zero respect for people's lives, society or the environment, and furthermore the future of these.

The state could have protected the people rather than the bank. That's pretty much what they did with northern rock, but not with RBS and HBOS.

As for capitalism, it has flaws, but it's still better than the alternatives that have been tried. Likewise, regulations and government control are not always of a benefit in capitalism. Otherwise the terms unintended consequences and regulatory failure wouldn't be needed.
 
Last edited:
I was speaking out about the irresponsible way our public finances were being run before the crash, and it was the position of public finances at the time of the crash, not the crash itself, that meant that austerity seemed like the right choice. We had indulged in counter-keynesian spending for 5 years before the crash in 2007, to suddenly discover Keynes at that point wouldn't have helped, just as our failure to take stock properly hasn't really helped. I wasn't the only one, the ifs, the oecd etc were warning us in 2002 of what Brown was doing and the danger of it.

Likewise, I opposed many of the regulatory changes to banking and lending, because some of them were going to have unintended consequences (such as the shift to requiring ratings to be commissioned by the seller of a bond, rather than something the buyer could do, which changed the credit regulation market and the focus of those selling their rating services.)

Don't claim that those who supported austerity (not that we actually had any in the UK at any rate) were quiet before the crash, or supported what was happening before the crash, because it isn't true.

So you supported Vince cable as Chancellor over Osborne? Cable certainly expressed concerns about the banking sector in parliament (unlike Osborne) before the "innovative banking" problems and actually has some qualifications in the field.

People of your position, now talking of the problems of 'Discovering Keynes' in mainstream politics and economics are something of a joke.
It was literally Thatcherism that dumped Keynes approach in 79, which continued on and on, by an ever further, step-wise to the right position, favouring letting the market decide all spheres of life. This ran through to it's inevitable idiocy in nearly entirely destroying the infrastructure of capitalism itself.

Now people like you say, reversing Austerity in Portugal and the following Economic benefits are proof that we haven't had enough Austerity and I used to like household analogies but I'm alright now?

As he says in the movie, in ancient times when men had failed so utterly, they fell on their swords!

Keynesian ascendancy 1939–79[edit]
Main article: Keynesian Revolution
From the end of the Great Depression to the mid-1970s, Keynes provided the main inspiration for economic policy makers in Europe, America and much of the rest of the world.[55] While economists and policy makers had become increasingly won over to Keynes's way of thinking in the mid and late 1930s, it was only after the outbreak of World War II that governments started to borrow money for spending on a scale sufficient to eliminate unemployment. According to the economist John Kenneth Galbraith (then a US government official charged with controlling inflation), in the rebound of the economy from wartime spending, "one could not have had a better demonstration of the Keynesian ideas."[67]

The Keynesian Revolution was associated with the rise of modern liberalism in the West during the post-war period.[68] Keynesian ideas became so popular that some scholars point to Keynes as representing the ideals of modern liberalism, as Adam Smith represented the ideals of classical liberalism.[69] After the war, Winston Churchill attempted to check the rise of Keynesian policy-making in the United Kingdom and used rhetoric critical of the mixed economy in his 1945 election campaign. Despite his popularity as a war hero, Churchill suffered a landslide defeat to Clement Attlee whose government's economic policy continued to be influenced by Keynes's ideas.[67]



Neo-Keynesian IS–LM model is used to analyse the effect of demand shocks on the economy
In the late 1930s and 1940s, economists (notably John Hicks, Franco Modigliani, and Paul Samuelson) attempted to interpret and formalise Keynes's writings in terms of formal mathematical models. In what had become known as the neoclassical synthesis, they combined Keynesian analysis with neoclassical economics to produce neo-Keynesian economics, which came to dominate mainstream macroeconomic thought for the next 40 years.

By the 1950s, Keynesian policies were adopted by almost the entire developed world and similar measures for a mixed economy were used by many developing nations. By then, Keynes's views on the economy had become mainstream in the world's universities. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the developed and emerging free capitalist economies enjoyed exceptionally high growth and low unemployment.[70][71]Professor Gordon Fletcher has written that the 1950s and 1960s, when Keynes's influence was at its peak, appear in retrospect as a golden age of capitalism.[55]

In late 1965 Time magazine ran a cover article with a title comment from Milton Friedman (later echoed by U.S. President Richard Nixon), "We are all Keynesians now". The article described the exceptionally favourable economic conditions then prevailing, and reported that "Washington's economic managers scaled these heights by their adherence to Keynes's central theme: the modern capitalist economy does not automatically work at top efficiency, but can be raised to that level by the intervention and influence of the government." The article also states that Keynes was one of the three most important economists who ever lived, and that his General Theory was more influential than the magna opera of other famous economists, like Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations.[72]

Keynesian economics out of favour 1979–2007[edit]
Main article: Post-war displacement of Keynesianism
Keynesian economics were officially discarded by the British Government in 1979,
 
Question re Keynes, how much are you supposed to spend during the good times?
It's an interesting question although I'm not aware that Keynes advised specific levels of investment and as with all investment how it is spent likely matters. However to the notion of pure Austerity Time said this of Keynes in 1999!

When Time magazine included Keynes among its Most Important People of the Century in 1999, it said that "his radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."[10]The Economist has described Keynes as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."[11] In addition to being an economist, Keynes was also a civil servant, a director of the Bank of England, and a part of the Bloomsbury Group of intellectuals.[12]

But we let people continue household analogies, select bullingdon boys with zero experience over published professionals and free market banking advocates keep a hand at the wheel having crashed the ship!
 
Back
Top Bottom