The first question is: What is defined as austerity? Programs that are providing money today that is quickly re-circulated into the economy because it is paying for people to live, should not be cut — that is bad austerity.
Raising taxes in general is probably bad austerity, but what about actually collecting taxes on all those who have avoided paying what they owe? Plans to reduce long-term benefits must go forward — minimal current cost to the economy, but necessary for any long-term solution. So while “austerity” hasn’t worked, it is not all bad, and some forms need to be maintained to have any hope that the situation can be turned around in the future.
The second, and more important question is: Why does any sane person think spending for growth will work? Just pause for one moment. How were these massive deficits built up? Was all the spending frivolous? I don’t think so. A lot of spending was meant to target growth in certain areas. It is just very difficult to achieve.
The excitement over “spending for growth” is almost mind boggling, because it basically goes against a decade of history showing the inability of governments to spend and achieve real growth. But, there is one part that does make sense, at least from a Wall Street perspective.
So the final question is: Who will finance all that spending? Ahhh, the real reason Wall Street is enthusiastic about spending for growth.
The reality is that spending won’t solve anything. It will grow debt faster than the spending can improve the economy. Stopping longer-term austerity programs will make the future debt to GDP ratios look even more horrific. There will ultimately need to be restructuring on a massive scale.
It really makes me wonder what the answer is. I don't see how spending MORE money makes it better...but maybe me and the author of this article are missing something.
FredHayek wrote: I explained that I was changing the quote, but if it will make you happy, I won't edit LJ's posts when she whines that Americans are under fascist rule.
(Damned by their own words?)
I didn't say we were under "fascist rule"--You did...
I said YOU were a fascist, since you love to throw the term "socialist" around so freely and incorrectly.
You change my post again, and I'll add you to my IGNORE list.
Yes lionshead2010 it makes good sense. But we will go happily spending more than we have without any concern. The only hope I see is Europe going down the tubes faster and sooner rather than later so that maybe we see some light and don't follow them.
bumper sticker - honk if you will pay my mortgage
"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." attributed to Margaret Thatcher
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson
FredHayek wrote: I explained that I was changing the quote, but if it will make you happy, I won't edit LJ's posts when she whines that Americans are under fascist rule.
(Damned by their own words?)
I didn't say we were under "fascist rule"--You did...
I said YOU were a fascist, since you love to throw the term "socialist" around so freely and incorrectly.
You change my post again, and I'll add you to my IGNORE list.
in what way am I a fascist? This should be interesting. Do you even know what the term means? I will admit to being a capitalist.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
lol LJ at her best - saying whatever is on the tip of her tongue.
bumper sticker - honk if you will pay my mortgage
"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." attributed to Margaret Thatcher
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson
FredHayek wrote: I explained that I was changing the quote, but if it will make you happy, I won't edit LJ's posts when she whines that Americans are under fascist rule.
(Damned by their own words?)
I didn't say we were under "fascist rule"--You did...
I said YOU were a fascist, since you love to throw the term "socialist" around so freely and incorrectly.
You change my post again, and I'll add you to my IGNORE list.
in what way am I a fascist? This should be interesting. Do you even know what the term means? I will admit to being a capitalist.
You obviously don't know what the word "socialist" means. So, it's only appropriate that anyone as far off the rails that espouses that all Democrats are "socialists" is a fascist. In fact, one of the tenets of modern-day fascism is the pro-war, pro-nationalism, and Social Darwinism that you all espouse. World English Dictionary: "any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc"
You want to keep slinging the word "socialist" around, I'll see your "socialist" and call you a fascist.
I am not pro-war, didn't support the first Iraq war, the 2nd Iraq war, or the occupation of Afghanistan.
I don't support excessive military spending and would cut our carrier groups in half, and prefer to upgrade current aircraft rather than the current hybrid boondoggle.
Got me on the point that I think America is, for the most part, better than other countries, but am willing to learn from other nations.
As opposed to Dems who aspire to turn America into Europe.
Social darwinism, guilty, think the movie "Idiocracy" is foreshadowing.
Think the current healthcare system of unresponsive insurance companies with little real competition isn't very much better than a single payer system, so in that way, I think Obamacare doesn't go far enough.
And am much too much of a libertarian to support most Fascist ideals.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
And there are so many things where I differ from the classical definition of "socialist" it's absurd.
If you continue to throw around the word "socialism", I'll keep throwing around the word "fascism"... You don't like it? Don't do it. Otherwise, you have me confused with someone who cares about your personal belief system.
LadyJazzer wrote: And there are so many things where I differ from the classical definition of "socialist" it's absurd.
If you continue to throw around the word "socialism", I'll keep throwing around the word "fascism"... You don't like it? Don't do it. Otherwise, you have me confused with someone who cares about your personal belief system.
Anarcho-syndicalist instead?
I used to be sympathetic to this political philosophy when I was younger.
Sidebar from the twitterverse: "The great thing about being Hitler is no one compares him to Hitler."
Maybe socialism is thrown around a bit too much, but fascism and Hitler comparisons are used much too often.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
in what way am I a fascist? This should be interesting. Do you even know what the term means? I will admit to being a capitalist.
Sidebar from the twitterverse: "The great thing about being Hitler is no one compares him to Hitler."
