Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

The cruel stupidity that is economic austerity

63 replies

ttosca · 18/04/2012 19:59

In the euro zone, Germany, France, Spain and Italy all managed to reduce their structural budget deficits, the latter three thanks to austerity. All are expected to reduce those deficits further this year. But this is not the good news it seems. Austerity, the IMF has found, could be making Europe?s crisis worse, rather than better.


How bad is it?

In Greece, we now have record unemployment, which includes the majority of young workers. Homelessness is up 20 percent, with soup kitchens in Athens reporting record demand, and the usually low suicide rate having doubled.

Portugal has complied completely with the austerity demands it accepted for its bailout deal, but its debt is growing and its economy is shrinking, its unemployment rate continues to reach new heights, there is a crisis in medical care, and a 40 percent rise in emigration, with the Portuguese government acknowledging its own failure by actually encouraging its citizenry to leave.

In Spain, austerity has  resulted in falling industrial output and deepening debt, with record unemployment and a stunning rate of 50 percent youth unemployment. And the Spanish government's incomprehensible response is to impose even more crushing austerity.

Ireland has fallen back into recession as austerity has led to falling economic output. A better future is being sacrificed, as young workers look for work abroad, "generation emigration" expected to number 75,000 this year.

The success of Italy's wealthy technocrat government was concisely summarized in similar terms:

    Italy's austerity measures are stunting activity in the euro-zone's third-largest economy, recent budget and economic data show, suggesting the steps are backfiring.

Italy's industrial production is falling while its rate of unemployment is at its highest in more than a decade, and its priceless cultural heritage is literally crumbling. But the wealthy technocrats themselves are ensuring that they they don't have to share the suffering.

Even in the Eurozone's stronger economies, such as Holland, austerity is hurting the economy, people, and culture, and risks backfiring even more.

The austerity program of French President Nicolas Sarkozy has led to a stagnant economy, with ten consecutive months of rising unemployment and factory output stalled and business confidence in decline.

Even economic powerhouse Germany, while taking advantage of the new flood of migrant workers fleeing Europe's weaker economies, is facing an austerity backlash.

Outside the Eurozone, the austerity program imposed on Britain by the relentlessly mendacious Cameron government has resulted in an economy that keeps shrinking, with the OECD saying it is back in recession, with unemployment soaring, and the overall brunt being borne by the elderly and minorities and the very young. An additional hundred thousand are predicted to be out of work by autumn.

www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/15/1083315/-The-cruel-stupidity-that-is-economic-austerity

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
rabbitstew · 21/04/2012 21:19

I don't actually have a blanket hatred of bankers - bankers are only human, like the rest of us and I also recognise that "banker" covers a whole host of different jobs and different pay levels and different levels of responsibility. What I do have is a seriously diminished opinion of banking as a profession (and I think, given the level of expertise bankers claim, it should be viewed as a profession). Maybe it was only 20 bankers who virtually pulled down the whole world banking system, but it is very hard for an outsider to believe that only 20 people were in the know and involved in trading the offending products and that there weren't an awful lot of people implicated by their failure to whistle blow, understand what they were involved in, or look in disgust for another career if that was the way banking was being taken. The leaders of banks not involved must surely have had an inkling of the magnitude of what was being done in other banks (which would inevitably affect them, anyway) and could have done something major to react to it, rather than sitting back and letting lobbyists and a minority of other bankers bring the whole industry into disrepute and wreck the world economy. Bankers are, after all, supposed to be the experts on banking, which is why politicians tend to listen to their lobbying. And from an outsider's perspective, the better remunerated a profession and the greater its ability to seriously affect the lives of great swathes of people outside the profession, the more responsibility the members of that profession should take for upholding basic standards of behaviour within the profession as a whole and being held accountable as an entire profession for serious, systemic failures. You may view that as being unrealistic and a poor understanding of how banking remuneration works, but I think that's the way a lot of people view it and such an attitude from within a profession is what can potentially discourage chance takers only in it for personal gain from entering a respected profession in the first place. And that attitude ought also to have led to a more apologetic response from the banking industry to the fact that a small number of people were enabled to wreck from the inside the reputation of thousands of respectable people trying to do an honest day's work.

CoteDAzur · 21/04/2012 18:19

rabbit - Humor aside, banks who lobbied for US deregulation are the large banks in the US, not every single bank in the world, and those responsible would be maybe a total of twenty people, not every single banker in the world. So your blanket hatred of "bankers" is grossly misplaced.

Besides, large industries lobby politicians all the time. Miners are lobbying for more deregulation, oil producers are lobbying for new areas to exploit, etc. It is elected governments' responsibility to make rational and reasonable decisions.

CoteDAzur · 21/04/2012 18:15

"Moral" or "ethical" doesn't and shouldn't factor into macroeconomic decision making.

daffodilly2 · 20/04/2012 21:52

Prior to the Osborne announcement posted here, I heard on the radio this morning Christine Le something, Head of IMF, arguing that it was moral for Britain to support the IMF financially for the good of all.

She also said a while ago that Europe's austerity was not aiding growth.

Who is moral in all of this? It appears the money markets run the game - if I am to believe all your interesting posts and they are not ethical.

Morals and financial institutions don't appear to usually blend so her persuasive argument appears hollow.

Jajas · 20/04/2012 18:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

minimathsmouse · 20/04/2012 18:26

but their risk assessment was done in a more optimistic way back in those days, really could no one really see what was going to happen. I beg to differ. like a game of pass the hot potato but for god's sake don't drop it. GS sold off theirs because they knew it was hot.

The issuing banks didn't need to bribe the ratings agencies and quite frankly exactly what the rating agencies would get out of making a more thorough investigation I don't know. I don't think they were incentivised one way or the other. I do however know that at least one bank, knew that they had packaged a lot of bad debt and they were the first to bail out.

On the news five minutes ago, our generous feckless chancellor has just announced he will be lending the IMF money for the bail outs.

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 18:16

So, before we get cross with bankers, we should realise that it was the banks, through Phil Gramm, who wanted the changes in legislation which caused the chaos? And we shouldn't distrust ratings agencies, even though a huge amount of what they do is, on the kindest analysis, based on misplaced trust or distrust, not mathematical models or anything remotely clever that they understand and we don't?

CoteDAzur · 20/04/2012 17:40

minimath - I have some experience with how MBSs are rated and it is not entirely dependent on the ratings of the underlying securities. One particular MBS, for example, was rated AAA despite inferior quality of underlying securities (some subprime, some B-rated, etc) because of extensive guarantees involved. Those guarantees were obviously not infallible, but their risk assessment was done in a more optimistic way back in those days.

What I am trying to say is that a MBS with subprime credits in its portfolio didn't and I'm pretty sure still doesn't get to an investment grade rating with bribes from issuing banks Hmm

CoteDAzur · 20/04/2012 17:31

">>read about Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 signed by Bill Clinton and heavily lobbied by a Senator called Phil Gramm, who then joined UBS

daffodilly2 · 20/04/2012 17:30

I'm genuinely intrigued - what is the magic balance between growth promotion and needed investment to do so and austerity measures to lower debt?

Politicans talk about both but they seem to be a contradiction.

I'm not for a breakdown in the capitalist system because that is not going to happen so in real politics how is this expanding wealth divide going to be slowed down or moderated? How are western economies going to be confident and stable?

Flimflammery · 20/04/2012 16:36

It's scary, really.

claig · 20/04/2012 16:31

That was a good read, Flimflammery

Flimflammery · 20/04/2012 16:16

If you want to understand the causes of the economic collapse this is brilliant and entertaining too.

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 16:12

We're not even allowed to blame bankers for obfuscating everything and telling everyone else to back off because we're too stupid to understand what they now admit they don't understand, either.

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 16:09

The Emperor is the deregulated products - we're not allowed to blame bankers for pushing for deregulation, because it upsets them, and as you point out, the idea wasn't plucked out of the air by politicians to the surprise of the banking industry.

claig · 20/04/2012 15:49

Who is the Emperor? The politician or the banker? Who pays and donates to the political campaigns that help a politician into office?

claig · 20/04/2012 15:46

worldgonecrazy, I know the meaning of the term

A "perfect storm" is an expression that describes an event where a rare combination of circumstances will aggravate a situation drastically

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_storm

I just feel that it use has beome more prevalent in recent times because it is a sort of Orwellian doublespeak which makes 'a rare combination of circumstances will aggravate a situation drastically' sound perfect.

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 15:40

So, is the argument that the Emperor had no clothes thanks to evil and reckless politicians, but the poor bankers couldn't point this out for fear of losing their jobs and their bonuses, so had to keep on pretending they knew what they were doing with these deregulated products - because they were supposed to be "sophisticated parties" in the transactions, not clueless dolts???? And that when it all blew up in everyone's faces, it wasn't the fault of the people who traded these products with each other? And that now we have all admitted the Emperor is naked, we should trust the bankers to advise how to get him dressed appropriately again?

worldgonecrazy · 20/04/2012 15:26

claig are you unfamiliar with the modern usage of the phrase 'perfect storm'. I'm guessing you're not, from your response. It is a negative phrase, and means a set of events occurring at the same time, aggravating the situations caused by those events. (That's probably not a great explanation - googling should help.)

minimathsmouse · 20/04/2012 15:09

Standard & Poor?s, the ratings agency that recently downgraded the credit of the United States, is giving a higher rating to a group of subprime mortgage loans ? yup, just like the type that lead to the financial crisis ? than the bonds issued by the U.S. government. The mortgage trust ? 59% of which is set to get a AAA rating from S&P ? is mostly made up of loans to borrowers with below average credit scores who have made little or no downpayment on their houses,

business.time.com/2011/08/31/more-sp-outrage-subprime-mortgage-deal-gets-higher-rating-than-u-s/

I'm afraid the agencies did give AAA ratings to packages of mortgages that incl sub-prime lending and they continue to do so. And when you wrap all the Greek debt up with other debt and rate that, sell it on and then ask insurance companies to underwrite the debt, we will find we are back where we started.

claig · 20/04/2012 15:00

'I need to go now, but I urge you all to read about Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 signed by Bill Clinton and heavily lobbied by a Senator called Phil Gramm, who then joined UBS.'

Who do you think lobbied politicians to do it?

'It's the "perfect storm"'

Since when was a storm perfect and perfect for whom? Storms cause damage, but to some people they are 'perfect'.

CoteDAzur · 20/04/2012 14:36

I need to go now, but I urge you all to read about Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 signed by Bill Clinton and heavily lobbied by a Senator called Phil Gramm, who then joined UBS.

Before you start attacking bankers, you need to understand how derivatives were deregulated, and how that led to the mortgage backed securities marketed as investments, underlying securities of which nobody knew much about.

With hindsight, it was very stupid. Eventual results should have been obvious.

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 14:31

I thought nobody knew exactly where all the bad debt had ended up? So how could anything possibly have been correctly rated, if nobody knew what was actually going on? And did the ratings agencies put warnings on their ratings, that they didn't actually understand the products, or did they keep quiet on that one at the time?

worldgonecrazy · 20/04/2012 14:30

Three decades - that's 30 years? I didn't start thinking about austerity or tightening my belt until the last 3-4 years, though obviously the rumblings of the current economic situation started prior to 3 years ago, I think around the late 90s for the rumblings with effects being felt around 2005-ish?

I'm with Cote d'Azur on this one, I think we need the austerity measures so that people will get themselves straight and then start spending sensibly again.

I'm not an economics expert, but I don't think that the financiers were entirely to blame for the problem. Some of the problem has been caused by governance, and some by the behaviour of the population, e.g. self-assessed mortgages, housing price inflation and huge credit card bills, expecting cheap food and goods to continue indefinitely whilst wages rose. It's the "perfect storm" of all these things causing problems at the same time that has resulted in the situation we are in.

CoteDAzur · 20/04/2012 14:20

I am quite familiar with the sub-prime crisis in the US, and yes, sub-prime credits were repackaged and sold but no, they were not rated AAA.

If you intend to counter me on this, please find an example.

Swipe left for the next trending thread