Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
Flimflammery · 20/04/2012 16:16

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

claig · 20/04/2012 16:31

That was a good read, Flimflammery

Flimflammery · 20/04/2012 16:36

It's scary, really.

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?

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

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

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?

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.

Jajas · 20/04/2012 18:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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.

CoteDAzur · 21/04/2012 18:15

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

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.

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.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page