Failure to come to an agreement during talks = government collapsing. A little hyperbolic don't you think?
All your voter base are belong to us!
The problem with austerity is it complicates the problems they are trying to solve which is how their economies are performing. Austerity requres higher taxes and lower spending. Lower spending means more jobs lost (government directly, others indirectly). These people who get their jobs cut are now unemployed and not generating tax revenues for the government (which then go down) and most qualify for unemployment benefits which come from the government- meaning higher government expenses along with higher revenues.
Those people in turn are also not going out and spending like they were when they were employed so the shops and businesses they used to go to have their sales go down so now they need fewer workers (or fewer hours for the workers they have). These add even more to the unemployment and lower tax revenues so the gap is bigger again and even more cuts are needed. The result is shrinking the economy- not encouraging or allowing it to grow.
Long term reducing debt is good. Sharp cuts during an economic downturn will make things even worse for you in the shorter term though. Given the length and depth of this crisis so far, short term could end up meaning years.
Freedom is a state of mind. Nobody can take that from you unless you let them.
YES, cutting big will NOT make things better in the SHORT TERM but that's NECESSARY because the artificially low interest-rates & fractional-reserve-banking caused the economy to OVERSPEND & OVERINVEST, by pushing demand & prices TOO HIGH. So cutting government spending will mean that PEOPLE will have more money with them, they may NOT spend it IMMEDIATELY but that's good, at a time when demand & prices are OVERINFLATED, so people not spending & therefore, SAVING it will start building the foundations of the economy again & in the meanwhile demand & prices will FALL & economy may shrink but that CORRECTION is NECESSARY; not allowing the correction to occur will only make things WORSE, just like it was done during Great Depression. And as SAVINGS start building up with people due to less spending & less taxes, & as prices fall/CORRECT, people will start spending & investing again & the economy will start growing again
All this has to do something so simple as laws of supply & demand - when prices rise, demand falls & when prices fall, demand rises - what Keynesians want to do is to prop up the bubble & demand by continuous spending, AGAINST THE WILL OF THE MARKET, due to their lack of understanding of what caused the bubble in the first place while what Austrians want is to let the correction to occur & let it happen QUICKLY rather than prolonging it by trying to prop up the demand, prices & bubble
And yes, you ARE misleading when you say "austerity is not working"
Firstly, as others have pointed out, what they're doing is hardly "austerity", they have NOT scaled back the government much at all, all they're talking about is tinkering around the edges; secondly, "austerity" is NOT supposed to reduce unemploymen or grow the economy in the short-term anyway, it's supposed to squeeze out the malinvestment in the short-term in order to improve the long-term health of the economy so your insinuation that "it is not working" because employment isn't getting better is totally misleading
There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
I think Zippy is very educated about and interested in economics and does his best to present the 'status quo' version of events without trying to too much to defend it.
As far as I can tell he is being very informed, skeptical and rational in his viewpoint, which I appreciate greatly. I don't claim to know his 'true' motivations or beliefs but nothing I've ever read of his indicates he is trying to be deceitful in his point of view or disrespectful to Ron Paul's ideas, and I appreciate that. I enjoy the opinions of those who may or may not necessarily agree with me but who have more knowledge about a subject than I, economics in this case; Zippy and Steve Douglas are two here who I've encountered who I readily admit as to being more educated about economics than I am (there are others of course). While I very much get the impression that Steve Douglas is an open Ron Paul supporter I'm sometimes not quite sure about Zippy, but neither have I seen anything that leads me to believe Zippy really isn't, I just am not sure.
But Zippy to me represents the mindset that most well-educated non-Paul supporters may have, namely that the financial system needs serious reform but not necessarily a complete restructuring on a scale that Ron Paul and most of us would like to see. Perhaps they are uncertain about the unintended consenquences of such drastic reform, perhaps they disagree philosophically with some aspect of Austrian economics, or perhaps they simply understand and have been able themselves to prosper under the current system and so don't want such a drastic change, I don't pretend to know. But I get absolutely no impression that most well-educated non-Paul supporters are 'evil' or 'in on the corruption' or are 'pro-banker' or whatever, and that goes for Zippy as well. If anything he represents the type of person that can be convinced of the benefits of Ron Paul's economic ideas (namely ending the FED and massive decreases in government spending and regulation) if only there were enough evidence showing that the economy would be better off should the USA adopt them.
Similarly, I respect Ivash who, unlike Zippy (to my knowledge) has come out and said he isn't a Ron Paul supporter but is a Republican who appreciates the politics of the Ron Paul campaign and who would (to my knowledge) potentially support Ron Paul should he overcome the GOP establishment mindset and actually win the nomination. I guess you could say they (in my mind) fall into the category of the 'loyal opposition', that is someone whose overall all objectives might not be so different than my own (a better world with more benefits for everyone) but who differ over how we should get there.
Of course I could be completely wrong and there could simply be the motivation of an anti-Paul person seeking to spread FUD but I do not get that impression from Zippy (or Ivash) although I do distinctly detect this from others. Note I don't really 'study' this, these are just impressions I get from my reading and communicating with my fellow RPF members. I don't pretend to have seen everything that anyone else here on RPF except me has written, heck I've forgotten much of what I have written myself.
Anyway, everyone is of course free to and should come to their own conclusions about the motivations of folks here, obviously any of us who bother to post and post frequently have some sort of vested interest in Ron Paul's campaign, but I don't think everyone who isn't an obvious gung-ho Ron Paul supporter is automatically here on RPF to derail the Ron Paul campaign either (indeed there are some obvious gung-ho Ron Paul supporters who seem to me to do more harm than good with their posts, some I have little doubt are being deceptive as to their true motivations). I just really like being able to communicate with people who have different beliefs than I do when they are actually contributing to me learning more about my own. That is I never really learn anything new when I only talk to those who agree with me, I learn more when I talk to those who disagree with me and have very good arguments for their positions and am required to defend them with equally valid arguments in order to engage in real debate.
I know you and I have had some sharp exchanges but I don't doubt you are a genuine Ron Paul supporter. I attribute it more to the fact that how we are communicating is inherently clumsy and (at least to me) lends itself to magnifying differences since (to me) I tend to want to debate more than to simply be a 'me-too'er' when I post. I think most disagreements many of us have are actually minor and many would be resolved with a few minutes of face to face conversation.
Last edited by WilliamC; 04-25-2012 at 04:47 AM.
Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.
NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012
I happen to live in the Netherlands, but it would take a lot of time to even explain how our political system is different from the US.
I'm happy to try and answer some questions but I can't give a general outline without explaining the whole things, which would take me a lot more time then I have on hand at the moment.
Very short overview of our political system, once every 4 years, people pick a party they like on the national stage. This party has a number of people on the list, and the more votes the PARTY receives the more people of that party are allowed to go into the body that is equivalent to congress. Parties can decide for themselves who to put where on the list, some parties are democratic in this way, others are not. Then the 'congress' is filled with 150 seats. The 'government' is then formed by usually three parties, but it can be more as they have to reach a majority.
This time around however, there was one party that deserves some special attention. This party is called 'Partij voor de Vrijheid', or in English 'freedom party'. This is a party that was started by one disgruntled member of the Liberal democrats. He does not like Islam, his name is Mr. Wilders, and if you google him you will find enough things about him. His party is called 'extreme right' in the Netherlands, but his policies are more in the National Socialist spectrum, he want's to give his voting base more stuff, says he can magically make 10.000 nurses appear etc.
Anyways, because this Mr. Wilders has made some extreme remarks regarding Muslims and other minority groups, none of the other parties wanted to form a government with them, or him, as his party has no internal democratic structure, he decides upon everything, no dissent allowed.
A government was formed between the 'VVD' (31 out of 150 seats) which are Liberal Democrats, these people are seen as 'right wing' in the Netherlands, they are somewhat interested in the free market, at least so they claim. They like NATO, Europe, etc. They talk about free market principles and self responsibility but when it comes down to it, they like to regulate. BUT!! They want to bring down the deficit to 3% (but not less). The other party that formed the Government was the 'CDA' or Christian Democrats, this used to be the biggest party with over 40 seats, but they suffered a major credibility loss after re-running our ex prime minister, Mr. Balkenende (google him). Their policies are about the same as the VVD, differences on minor points like more aid to farmers and more religious freedom in schools etc. Anyways, their number of seats was halved, so they were unable to form a government with these two parties.
All the other parties were too small to get the 76 seat majority, except for the socialist party and the 'freedom party', well even to these pseudo- free market socialists, the socialist party is a step too far, and as 4 party agreements were failing, they finally settled for something completely different. A minority government, that would be 'tolerated' by this Mr. Wilders' 'freedom party'. What it came down to was, they made an initial agreement and the CDA and VVD got the secretaries of the different bureaucracies and the prime minister, with all the responsibility and flak that comes with it. And Mr. Wilders with his never very friendly rhetoric was handed the button to blow the whole thing up when the polls look favorable to him.
So they agreed to cut 16 billion from the budget (probably from the proposed increases), and then it was found that more money had to be cut, and then the plug was pulled. That's the whole story...
This is about the shortest background I can give without mixing my opinion in it too much, well I already did. Happy to answer questions if able to.
Last edited by luctor-et-emergo; 04-25-2012 at 05:03 AM.
The collapse is coming...
I have been warning people for over a year now. The propping up through bailouts has only kicked the can down the road. It never addressed structural issues while piling more debt on governments, the people, etc.
I am hearing this June when shit could hit the fan in Europe.
Be responsible. Take care of yourself. Don't tread on other people. Slow down. Question everything. Start now.
"Everything the State says is a lie and everything it has it has stolen" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Add the UK to the list of countries officially classified as in a double- dip recession.
The UK economy has returned to recession, after shrinking by 0.2% in the first three months of 2012.
A sharp fall in construction output was behind the surprise contraction, the Office for National Statistics said.
A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of contraction. The economy shrank by 0.3% in the fourth quarter of 2011.
BBC economics editor Stephanie Flanders says it "adds to the picture that the economy is bumping along the bottom".
She said economic output was slightly smaller now than it was in the autumn of 2010.In Britain, government spending is a very big portion of the economy- which is why government cuts or spending can have a big impact on the overall economy there- and does need to be reeled in. It should also be noted that it only barely climbed back into the recession category.The ONS said output of the production industries decreased by 0.4%, construction decreased by 3%. Output of the services sector, which includes retail, increased by 0.1%, after falling a month earlier.
It added that a fall in government spending had contributed to the particularly large fall in the construction sector.
"The huge cuts to public spending - 25% in public sector housing and 24% in public non-housing and with a further 10% cuts to both anticipated for 2013 - have left a hole too big for other sectors to fill," said Judy Lowe, deputy chairman of industry body CITB-ConstructionSkills, said.
We are seeing economic experiments being conducted on a grand scale and it remains to be seen which is the better approach. In Europe the recession is trying to be met with efforts to reduce government deficits which at this time is acting as a break or headwinds on their economies while in the US the government has been trying to use higher government spending (increasing deficits) to try to spur the economy on and worry about reducing the debt later (if ever). It remains to be seen which approach will be the best in the long run.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-25-2012 at 11:42 AM.
Freedom is a state of mind. Nobody can take that from you unless you let them.
See what he is saying? They are merely TRYING to reduce government spending, when in fact they aren't really managing to do so besides some symbolic stuff for the sake of appearances. Someone reading through his post could easily wrongly assume they are actually successful in their mere efforts to reduce spending.
You just can't stop spreading that BS can't you?
My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right, tend to be unwilling or unable to accept blame )
Yes, I do always lie and post BS. Thank you for pointing that out so I can mend my ways. I am sorry and it will never happen again.
Thank you for showing me the error in my judgement and facts.
Now what part was a lie again and can you support that position? Call BS- OK, but show why it is BS. Opposing views are good. Share and support them.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-25-2012 at 01:41 PM.
Freedom is a state of mind. Nobody can take that from you unless you let them.