• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

What would successful austerity in the Eurozone look like? How long before we can declare it a definitive failure?


feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,995
What would successful austerity in the Eurozone look like? How long before we can declare it a definitive failure?

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do the austerian fanboiz here have in mind as a successful, positive outcome of austerity for the nations in the current Eurozone?

This is addressed to the pro-austerity mob on here who usually avoid direct difficult questions like vampires avoid sunbathing.

We all know that some time between now and the year 2299 there will be another economic recovery in the zone, with low inflation and full employment.

The question is: how long will we have to wait before inflation, employment and deficits are at acceptable levels, under a continued austerity regime?

If austerity goes on for fifty years without bringing in full employment and low inflation, then we can all agree that in that scenario, austerity is a dismal failure. Are we agreed on that much? If you can't commit to that, you really aren't being honest, are you?

How about five years? Will you accept that after five years of mass joblessness and periods of recession outlasting periods of weak growth, austerity can be definitively, unambiguously declared a failure?

Or it the perfection and holiness of austerity so untouchable that no mountain of economic data can ever bring its rightness into question?

If we get even five of the hundreds of p.ie austerians answering in a straight, non-evasive manner, I will be stunned.
 

TODevastated

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
1,334
Just out of curiosity, what exactly do the austerian fanboiz here have in mind as a successful, positive outcome of austerity for the nations in the current Eurozone?

This is addressed to the pro-austerity mob on here who usually avoid direct difficult questions like vampires avoid sunbathing.

We all know that some time between now and the year 2299 there will be another economic recovery in the zone, with low inflation and full employment.

The question is: how long will we have to wait before inflation, employment and deficits are at acceptable levels, under a continued austerity regime?

If austerity goes on for fifty years without bringing in full employment and low inflation, then we can all agree that in that scenario, austerity is a dismal failure. Are we agreed on that much? If you can't commit to that, you really aren't being honest, are you?

How about five years? Will you accept that after five years of mass joblessness and periods of recession outlasting periods of weak growth, austerity can be definitively, unambiguously declared a failure?

Or it the perfection and holiness of austerity so untouchable that no mountain of economic data can ever bring its rightness into question?

If we get even five of the hundreds of p.ie austerians answering in a straight, non-evasive manner, I will be stunned.
a successful outcome would leave us

1. living within our means by running a deficit of less than 3%
2. with a cost base in both the public and the private sectors which we can afford, we pay too much for both public and private sector services
3. reform of our political system-say half the number of politicans and leave them on a decent wage-cut out the myriad of allowances
4. reform of our welfare system so that there is a genuine gap in income between those who work and those who don't

we should have a genuine debate as to what type of society we want is it a high tax or a low tax one? as opposed to the usual dismal type of debate our "leaders" dish up here

we should also, in my view, take our medicine as to the **** up those in power made of things rather than kicking our debts down the road for future generations to pay

finally what our masters call hard decisions is a joke-get on with it and put us out of our misery-it is going on now for too long because they do't have the guts to implement proper reform

you mention 50 years, i doubt the public will take even 5 more
 

neiphin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
5,579
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,995
a successful outcome would leave us

1. living within our means by running a deficit of less than 3%
2. with a cost base in both the public and the private sectors which we can afford, we pay too much for both public and private sector services
3. reform of our political system-say half the number of politicans and leave them on a decent wage-cut out the myriad of allowances
4. reform of our welfare system so that there is a genuine gap in income between those who work and those who don't

we should have a genuine debate as to what type of society we want is it a high tax or a low tax one? as opposed to the usual dismal type of debate our "leaders" dish up here

we should also, in my view, take our medicine as to the **** up those in power made of things rather than kicking our debts down the road for future generations to pay

finally what our masters call hard decisions is a joke-get on with it and put us out of our misery-it is going on now for too long because they do't have the guts to implement proper reform

you mention 50 years, i doubt the public will take even 5 more
As predicted, you evaded the question completely.

I repeat: what would unemployment rates be in your scenario?

I repeat: what would inflation rates be in your scenario?

And most importantly: how long would we have to endure the non-appearance of decent employment rates before we can finally definitively say "well, that was a failure"?

Five years?

Ten?

A thousand?

Can dismal failure continue forever without you admitting to it?
 

R3volution_R3ady

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
2,370
If we get even five of the hundreds of p.ie austerians answering in a straight, non-evasive manner, I will be stunned.
What are you talking about? It's like a child throwing a tantrum because mammy can't buy a shiny new bike.

THIS COUNTRY IS BROKE. WE DON'T HAVE A POT TO PISS IN!

And they haven't even started to cut yet! They're still refusing to face reality.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,995
Well, we're at zero non-evasive answers so far. Let's see how this develops.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,995
What are you talking about? It's like a child throwing a tantrum because mammy can't buy a shiny new bike.

THIS COUNTRY IS BROKE. WE DON'T HAVE A POT TO PISS IN!

And they haven't even started to cut yet! They're still refusing to face reality.
Your tacit admission that you know that there's no chance in hell of austerity ever being a success in the Eurozone is duly noted.
 

TODevastated

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
1,334
As predicted, you evaded the question completely.

I repeat: what would unemployment rates be in your scenario?

I repeat: what would inflation rates be in your scenario?

And most importantly: how long would we have to endure the non-appearance of decent employment rates before we can finally definitively say "well, that was a failure"?

Five years?

Ten?

A thousand?

Can dismal failure continue forever without you admitting to it?
unemployment rates-lower than they are now
would inflation rates be in your scenario-possibly higher than now
i answered the question by saying that it did not think we will put up with it for more than 5 years-economically that period may be longer but i do not agree i think we have had it dismal for long enough

having said that what we have seen here is merely tinkering at the edges not real austerity

i have no problem admitting to anything being a failure if it is done properly in the first instance

there is no need for such a pious tone in your posts
 

goosebump

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
4,953
I repeat: what would unemployment rates be in your scenario?
"Austerity" is not related to the creation of jobs. That's an invention of the Left to try and discredit the adjustment we have to undertake.

"Austerity" is about reducing the Budget deficit to a manageable level. That's all it is about. Our Budget deficit has been dramatically reduced in the last 3 years, so it is a verifiable fact that "Austerity" is working.

Once that is done, then you can start thinking about creating jobs.

The Left's take on this is that we should borrow money at 6% to create economic growth of 2%. Go figure.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,897
The question is: how long will we have to wait before inflation, employment and deficits are at acceptable levels, under a continued austerity regime?
Who knows?

If austerity goes on for fifty years without bringing in full employment and low inflation, then we can all agree that in that scenario, austerity is a dismal failure. Are we agreed on that much? If you can't commit to that, you really aren't being honest, are you?
It is not the job of austerity to bring about full employment and low inflation- no government alone can actually do so for any sustained period. the job of austerity is to prevent a sovereign default.

How about five years? Will you accept that after five years of mass joblessness and periods of recession outlasting periods of weak growth, austerity can be definitively, unambiguously declared a failure?
I would agree that if after five years the budget is not balanced or at least if the deficit is not so tiny as to be insignificant, then austerity can be declared a failure. The rest of it- employment and growth- depends on far more than the budget.

Or it the perfection and holiness of austerity so untouchable that no mountain of economic data can ever bring its rightness into question?
Depends on the data.

If we get even five of the hundreds of p.ie austerians answering in a straight, non-evasive manner, I will be stunned.
If we run 20 billion Euro deficits for any prolonged period of time and we do not default, I would be equally as stunned.
 

Taxi Driver

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
4,296
Just out of curiosity, what exactly do the austerian fanboiz here have in mind as a successful, positive outcome of austerity for the nations in the current Eurozone?

This is addressed to the pro-austerity mob on here who usually avoid direct difficult questions like vampires avoid sunbathing.

We all know that some time between now and the year 2299 there will be another economic recovery in the zone, with low inflation and full employment.

The question is: how long will we have to wait before inflation, employment and deficits are at acceptable levels, under a continued austerity regime?

If austerity goes on for fifty years without bringing in full employment and low inflation, then we can all agree that in that scenario, austerity is a dismal failure. Are we agreed on that much? If you can't commit to that, you really aren't being honest, are you?

How about five years? Will you accept that after five years of mass joblessness and periods of recession outlasting periods of weak growth, austerity can be definitively, unambiguously declared a failure?

Or it the perfection and holiness of austerity so untouchable that no mountain of economic data can ever bring its rightness into question?

If we get even five of the hundreds of p.ie austerians answering in a straight, non-evasive manner, I will be stunned.
The purpose of austerity is to reduce the budget deficit. It has no other objectives.

The budget deficit is falling. In 2014 Ireland will be running a primary surplus. In 2015 Ireland will be running a deficit less than 3% of GDP. If that is achieved austerity will have been hugely successful and we can turn to some of the more proper goals of policy - growth, employment, incomes etc. Prior to then they play second fiddle to the deficit.
 

Mackers

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,526
It might be a cross in economic terms between Berlin 1945 and Beirut 1975.
 

nonpartyboy

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
6,857
In the end the germans will be forced to print euros, why ?.......because there is no other way for the debts to be paid, it took the guts of 10 years for our country to be wrecked by the traitors with their hands on the levers of power.

The germans will not agree to print in the morning, but they will in the end because they will be brought to a point where there is no other choice, that is how the eu operates.

Does nobody think it is a coincidence, that one of the only countries in the eu where the people get a vote every treaty, now finds itself in a position where we are now on life support of the ecb/eu/imf ?????????????????????
 

Normal Lord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
499
Printing money is just an effort to dodge the problems it's been used before in the past. The reality is currency has no real value anyway (it's not linked to anything anymore not even gold) is has no physical reality.

A good dose of 'Zeitgeist: The Movie' will give you quite a good idea of the reality of fiscal policy. It's really smoke and mirrors and not a lot else

Austerity

Austerity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quite simple policies to reduce spending/tax increases to cut a deficit

My take and a view shared by many is:
John Maynard Keynes said in 1937: “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.” Contemporary Keynesian economists argue that budget deficits are appropriate when an economy is in recession, to reduce unemployment and help spur GDP growth.

Economist Paul Krugman explained that a government is not like a household. Across an economy, one person's spending is another person's income. If everyone is trying to reduce their spending, the economy can be trapped in what economists call the paradox of thrift, worsening the recession as GDP falls. If the private sector is unable or unwilling to consume at a level that increases GDP and employment sufficiently, he argued the government should be spending more.
 

nonpartyboy

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
6,857
Printing money is just an effort to dodge the problems it's been used before in the past. The reality is currency has no real value anyway (it's not linked to anything anymore not even gold) is has no physical reality.

A good dose of 'Zeitgeist: The Movie' will give you quite a good idea of the reality of fiscal policy. It's really smoke and mirrors and not a lot else

Austerity

Austerity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quite simple policies to reduce spending/tax increases to cut a deficit

My take and a view shared by many is:
John Maynard Keynes said in 1937: “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.” Contemporary Keynesian economists argue that budget deficits are appropriate when an economy is in recession, to reduce unemployment and help spur GDP growth.

Economist Paul Krugman explained that a government is not like a household. Across an economy, one person's spending is another person's income. If everyone is trying to reduce their spending, the economy can be trapped in what economists call the paradox of thrift, worsening the recession as GDP falls. If the private sector is unable or unwilling to consume at a level that increases GDP and employment sufficiently, he argued the government should be spending more.
What i said was in the end politicians will print money because it is the easy route for them, the right thing never even comes into it for them...........
 

PlanetBertie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
752
Ze austerity will end when the stronger countries with strong economies and work ethic will rise to glory, to be, where there destiny is to rule. Other countries the Untermenschen will remain in poverty due to laziness and corruption. Resistance is futile.
 

CarnivalOfAction

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
16,545
The purpose of austerity is to reduce the budget deficit. It has no other objectives.

The budget deficit is falling. In 2014 Ireland will be running a primary surplus. In 2015 Ireland will be running a deficit less than 3% of GDP. If that is achieved austerity will have been hugely successful and we can turn to some of the more proper goals of policy - growth, employment, incomes etc. Prior to then they play second fiddle to the deficit.
Nope; the purpose & practice is to make hard working people pay for the greed & incompetence of FF/FG's banker & bondholder backers. And it's succeeding.
 

Lempo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
6,314
In the end the germans will be forced to print euros, why ?.......because there is no other way for the debts to be paid, it took the guts of 10 years for our country to be wrecked by the traitors with their hands on the levers of power.

The germans will not agree to print in the morning, but they will in the end because they will be brought to a point where there is no other choice, that is how the eu operates.
Where did you get the silly notion the debts are going to be paid?

Yes, you can debase the money and claim that after-print-orgy 1 Bn is as good as the pre-print-orgy 1 Bn debt that will be paid with it, but in reality the creditor is not going to get his money's worth back.

Or it might be that everyone will actually face the facts that the euro is not working as it is and hope that the people in power are enough in their senses to row back with the whole federationalism rather than go for full fiscal and economic union which is a very bad deal.
 

Fr.Ted Crilly

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
13,267
What are you talking about? It's like a child throwing a tantrum because mammy can't buy a shiny new bike.

THIS COUNTRY IS BROKE. WE DON'T HAVE A POT TO PISS IN!

And they haven't even started to cut yet! They're still refusing to face reality.
If the country is broke and we don't have a pot to piss in, why do we stil pay the scumlikes of ahern €150,000 PA for destroying the economy?
Why does Enda still earn more than Obama?
Why do we still pay over €500,000 PA to defacto state employees running AIB?
Why do we almost double the pay scales of 'special' advisors to ministers?
Why do we still impoverish the ordinary people of Ireland in order to pay the gambling debts of bondholders and speculators?
Why does NAMA employ the very developers who screwed over the banks and pay them €200,000 PA?
The list goes on and on.

We're bankrupt alright, MORALLY BANKRUPT!
 
Top