Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

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:
ttosca · 20/04/2012 13:21

Edith-

"this narrative"?

Yes, this 'narrative'. Narrative as in 'story', or 'explanation for'...

The debt crisis cannot be "spun" away by telling different stories about it or pretending it doesn't exist.

The UK doesn't have a debt crisis (yet), it has a deficit crisis, and nobody is trying to spin anything away pretending that it doesn't exist.

The reason we have austerity is because the time for story-telling is over.

The reason we have austerity is because of the financial crisis caused by gambling bankers. The financial crisis caused a recession, dramatically lowering tax receipts. The bank bailouts also cost tax payers tens of billions of pounds in the UK, and hundreds of billions of pounds in total. This added to our national debt.

The 'story telling', i.e. 'narrative', which I'm referring to is the story that the cause of the deficit crisis is because of lavish public spending. This is a false narrative, as public spending was not the cause of our current financial problems or deficit crisis.

The fiction that you can spend your way out of a debt is known to be just that, fiction.

The fiction that you can cut public spending more and more without dampening growth is a fiction. That's why the european-wide austerity measures are compounding the financial crisis in to a growth problem.

'Managing the discourse' is merely a form over spin over substance.

Yes, it is. You should tell that to the Tory scum, and the people on here who like to manage the discourse by creating a narrative that the the economic crisis and deficit problem we're experiencing was caused by Labour or by lavish public spending. This is utterly false.

The reason that opposition parties across Europe are in general not opposing effectively is because they don't actually disagree with the need for austerity, and the public understands the necessity too.

I think you'll find the public are generally against the austerity measures. The mainstream parties, of course, support the austerity measures because they see the crisis as an opportunity to implement neo-liberal economic policies of cutting public services.

I think you'll also find that resistance to the austerity measures is growing daily. Prepare for an exciting spring!

OP posts:
ttosca · 20/04/2012 13:25

Purits-

That makes it sound like it's a bad thing. Has everyone forgotten the 70s inflation nightmare? hmm Try describing wages as 'stable' instead of 'stagnant' and, hey presto, it sounds so much better. arf

For most of the 20th Century, people have seen real-term gains in income. It was widely accepted that the next generation would have a higher standard of living than the one preceding it.

Because we, as a society, generate wealth. It is right that we all share in the proceeds.

Instead, what has happened in the past three decades, is that income for the top 5% has skyrocketed, income for the top 20% (including the 5%) has increased slightly, while wages for 80% of the population have stagnated or declined.

So maybe you should be complaining about wage 'inflation' for the top 5%?...

OP posts:
JuliaScurr · 20/04/2012 13:28

You mean Teaching Assistants' pensions didn't cause Lehman Brothers to collapse?

CoteDAzur · 20/04/2012 13:39

"the public are generally against the austerity measures"

Naturally. People don't like to suffer, even if it is for long term benefit. And those who don't have the required knowledge base in macroeconomics cannot be expected to understand why these policies are necessary.

CoteDAzur · 20/04/2012 13:42

"financial crisis caused by gambling bankers"

Like, in a casino?

Is it your sincere belief that some bankers made some risky investments, lost the money, and that is why the UK (and all these other countries?) are in financial trouble?

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 13:46

Economics is not pure maths or even science, CoteDAzur, so don't go pretending people with an understanding of economic theory have the answers we all seek or that current majority opinion won't be looked back on in future, pulled apart and found to be seriously wanting.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 20/04/2012 13:53

If it's evidence you want... (and here I get to indulge in a bit of annoying and lazy-arse copy/pasting)... link to article

"Repayments outstripped new borrowing on credit cards by £39m in February (2012). The repayment in unsecured lending was driven by weak demand, and continued payback, of loans and overdrafts.

Unsecured lending by the banks contracted by 1.8% in the 12 months to February.

"Businesses and households continue to be cautious about their finances in the face of difficult economic times and this shows up in a reluctance to take on new credit, or where possible, seeking to pay back bank borrowing," said BBA statistics director David Dooks.

If earnings are so depleted and costs are so high what exactly are people paying down this debt with? The answer can only be that there is a lot of spare in the system... spare which was merrily spent in the past on non-essentials.

ttosca · 20/04/2012 13:55

CoteDAzur-

Naturally. People don't like to suffer, even if it is for long term benefit. And those who don't have the required knowledge base in macroeconomics cannot be expected to understand why these policies are necessary.

It isn't for their long-term benefit. It's for the long term benefit of the banks. As the thread article highlights, the austerity measures are dampening growth. This is not a new phenomenon. It's a well-known phenomenon. Putting tens of thousands of people out of work during a recession is no way to bring back growth.

Is it your sincere belief that some bankers made some risky investments, lost the money, and that is why the UK (and all these other countries?) are in financial trouble?

There are quite a few things the financial sector did which caused the crisis. Some of them were, yes, investment in special packages which not even they understood. The main problem was buying, repackaging, and then re-selling bad debt. Crediting agencies are private organisations who are also out to make a profit. So banks hired credit agencies to give good ratings to dodgy debt, so that they could be sold on. Naturally, they complied. This bad debt was then sold on again and again. Eventually, the whole house of cards came crumbling down. What else would you call this apart from gambling? Financial fraud, perhaps?

Why do you think Western economies are in financial trouble? Because they spent too much money on hospitals? Seriously?!

OP posts:
ttosca · 20/04/2012 13:59

Cogito-

If earnings are so depleted and costs are so high what exactly are people paying down this debt with? The answer can only be that there is a lot of spare in the system... spare which was merrily spent in the past on non-essentials.

Bwahahaha! That's your argument? People are paying back debt, therefore previously they were spending lavishly?

Did it occur to you that people are now making basic sacrifices in their standard of living - such as, you know, selling their homes and moving into smaller houses? Cutting down on food and clothes? etc.?

Has it not also occurred to you that the problem is not people were 'spending lavishly', but that they simply tried to maintain their standard of living in the face of stagnating wages and rising living costs?

I see you still haven't disputed either of these facts - or assertions, if you like.

OP posts:
minimathsmouse · 20/04/2012 14:00

investment in special packages which not even they understood. The main problem was buying, repackaging, and then re-selling bad debt. Crediting agencies are private organisations who are also out to make a profit. So banks hired credit agencies to give good ratings to dodgy debt, so that they could be sold on. Naturally, they complied. This bad debt was then sold on again and again. Eventually, the whole house of cards came crumbling down. What else would you call this apart from gambling? Financial fraud, perhaps

And this is how the Greek hole is being plugged now.

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 14:07

Well obviously, ttosca, we are in the current crisis because lots of very crafty, clever people pulled the wool over the banks' eyes and asked for loans for stupid things they didn't need and the banks thought they were lending money on credit for noble reasons and that it really was all going to be paid back. So of course, it isn't the fault of the banks - what were they supposed to do about it? Poor, weak banks, they had their hands tied (by each other...).

CoteDAzur · 20/04/2012 14:12

"It isn't for their long-term benefit."

If you know what you are talking about, please explain.

There are some options available that don't include an austerity program, but they will not be in anybody's long term benefit.

"It's for the long term benefit of the banks."

How do you figure that? Easy money and economic expansion is in the interest of banks, not austerity measures leading to dampened growth, as you so cleverly observed Hmm

"Putting tens of thousands of people out of work during a recession is no way to bring back growth."

Many people will inevitably lose their jobs during a recession. That is what a recession is. Governments will usually try to spend lots and lessen the blow, but if you don't have lots of money to spend, what do you expect the government to do? Sell more bonds and increase debt levels? Print loads of money and cause high inflation? Please share your magic Econ policy with us that doesn't involve austerity measures.

"investment in special packages which not even they understood. The main problem was buying, repackaging, and then re-selling bad debt."

That is not "gambling bankers", though. That is insufficient regulation and again, preference for short term gain over long term benefit. This is a very human trait and is one of the main reasons why we have regulations in the same place - so morons and greedy bastards can't do things that will cause trouble for all of us.

" Crediting agencies are private organisations who are also out to make a profit. So banks hired credit agencies to give good ratings to dodgy debt, so that they could be sold on."

Now I know you don't really know about investment banking because this is not what happens at all.

minimathsmouse · 20/04/2012 14:17

" Crediting agencies are private organisations who are also out to make a profit. So banks hired credit agencies to give good ratings to dodgy debt, so that they could be sold on.

Ttosca does know and that is correct. As I said earlier, with the Sub-prime mortgages. They were also re-packaged and they were rated AAA by the ratings agencies.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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'.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.