Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    What a lot of bonkers nonsense. Perhaps you can clarify precisely what window of public spending next year will not make us murderers?
    I think I made a thread about this a while back.

    They're completely nuts- the government is literally morally responsible for every possible thing. If a car hits a pothole the council forgot to fix that is social murder. They think morality is a social construct and the state is God.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Austerity is no where near as respected in the economics community as the mainstream media and poeple like L i b let on. It's arguable a largely discredited position and those that do sing its praises are a minority.

    Just am example from a professor of economics who is a mainstream economist so you can be assured this isn't just hard left wingbattery or heterodox bias.

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2...-when-our.html
    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2...ke-happen.html

    Austerity, by which I mean cutting public services and privatasing will not stop under the Tories as it is an ideological mission. The notion that it is neutral sound economics is just good politics to get the public to vote fot them. If "austerity" goes out of fashion and becomes a poltcial liability they will try and come up with another name for it.
    Saying that mainstream economists and the media don't like austerity is like saying that Hitler didn't like Jews, Keynesian economists will not like austerity because it runs contrary to their views, to call them neutral is absurd. It's made all the more absurd by the fact that you are linking something on blogspot endorsed by the New Statesman, it's almost as if these people are ideologically against a smaller state :rolleyes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Saying that mainstream economists and the media don't like austerity is like saying that Hitler didn't like Jews, Keynesian economists will not like austerity because it runs contrary to their views, to call them neutral is absurd. It's made all the more absurd by the fact that you are linking something on blogspot endorsed by the New Statesman, it's almost as if these people are ideologically against a smaller state :rolleyes:
    I didn't say the mainstream media doesn't like austerity. Quite the opposite in fact. MM gives the impression that austerity is the right thing to do on the whole. Then you admit you are a fringe economic community then? That is what I am saying. Your arragonce of being correct is not reflected in those who's job it is to work this stuff out.

    Why are you for a smaller state? Ideology? Empirical observation?

    Or there isn't really any empiral evidence to suggets that austerity even does what people like you say it does. It only make sense when you relaise it is being carried out by ideolgues that have come from the thatcherite tradtion and want these things for their own sake. For sure poeple like Freidman and Heyek were definitly motivated by empircism, but that was decades ago. Austerity pushers are either ignorant or are just pushing it for it;s own sake becuase it allows them to do what they want to do, to hell with reality.

    It;s not my fault that objective reality is confirming the views and prejudices of the centre left. But sure you can try an argue a professor of economics doesn't know anything about economics if you like. Or that objective reality should play no part in poltics (like all the postmodern leftist boogie men).
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I didn't say the mainstream media doesn't like austerity. Quite the opposite in fact. MM gives the impression that austerity is the right thing to do on the whole. Then you admit you are a fringe economic community then? That is what I am saying. Your arragonce of being correct is not reflected in those who's job it is to work this stuff out.

    Why are you for a smaller state? Ideology? Empirical observation?

    Or there isn't really any empiral evidence to suggets that austerity even does what people like you say it does. It only make sense when you relaise it is being carried out by ideolgues that have come from the thatcherite tradtion and want these things for their own sake. For sure poeple like Freidman and Heyek were definitly motivated by empircism, but that was decades ago. Austerity pushers are either ignorant or are just pushing it for it;s own sake becuase it allows them to do what they want to do, to hell with reality.

    It;s not my fault that objective reality is confirming the views and prejudices of the centre left. But sure you can try an argue a professor of economics doesn't know anything about economics if you like. Or that objective reality should play no part in poltics (like all the postmodern leftist boogie men that have you all ******** yourselves).
    I mean, the person you're citing is a Labour economic adviser (can hardly call that centre left) and he names Krugman who also has a left wing bias. I also find it intriguing how many people who call themselves Keynesians oppose austerity even though it is a necessary part of Keynesian thinking. I'm also intrigued what this "objective reality" you speak of is given that centre left thinking is what has created messes in places like Italy, France, and Greece.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I wouldn't expect a cold right winger such as yourself to ever leave your bubble and look at what your poltics have done.
    Stop with your virtue signalling, you brain-dead leftist idealist. Government shouldn't be providing half the services that it does anyway; most of these industries, like healthcare, would be much better off in the hands of individuals and the free market. Government is inefficient. More government spending doesn't increase the welfare of citizens, because, government, by nature, is inefficient. The solution is less government and less spending, more privitasition, deregulation and competition. That is basic economics, and you need to get out of your selfish, leftist bubble to understand it.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Keynesian economics is cancer, and has ruined this country politically economically and socially
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I mean, the person you're citing is a Labour economic adviser (can hardly call that centre left) and he names Krugman who also has a left wing bias. I also find it intriguing how many people who call themselves Keynesians oppose austerity even though it is a necessary part of Keynesian thinking. I'm also intrigued what this "objective reality" you speak of is given that centre left thinking is what has created messes in places like Italy, France, and Greece.
    Keynsian economics would argue that you should only have austerity, in it's real sense, when the economy is growing, to prevent over inflation. It does not suggest austerity in times of economic downturn.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I think I made a thread about this a while back.

    They're completely nuts- the government is literally morally responsible for every possible thing. If a car hits a pothole the council forgot to fix that is social murder. They think morality is a social construct and the state is God.
    Well these back to work schemes were declaring people fit for work who died within a year or so. Not to mention imposing appalling sanctions on those on benefits.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Figures released yesterday showed the first current surplus since 2001 with a £3.8bn surplus in calendar year 2017. While it is still the case when including capital expenditure that there is an overall budget deficit, day to day spending is lower than tax revenues.

    This furthers the blow to Keynsian thinking with analysts putting this down to the decision by the 2010-15 coalition government to cut spending rather than increase taxes, with the two countries that took this approach (Uk and ROI) showing much stronger results than Europe as a whole.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...osborne-right/

    But we are still borrowing £40bn, and debt interest at £41bn. So we are not at all prepared if another financial crash came.

    Just wait if Labour get in again and **** everything up again.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamal tyrone)
    most of these industries, like healthcare, would be much better off in the hands of individuals and the free market.
    Not for the people who died it wouldn't.

    You right wing triggered snowflake you. *pats head*

    It;s not so much virtue signalling. It's bascially getting enjoyment out of calling people like you c*nts.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Austerity must die
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HateOCR)
    Austerity must die
    I'll get the stake.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Not for the people who died it wouldn't.

    You right wing triggered snowflake you. *pats head*

    It;s not so much virtue signalling. It's bascially getting enjoyment out of calling people like you c*nts.
    The same "argument" could be used against whatever socialists or communist ideology you follow, Sure taxing the rich helps the poor for a small amount of time, tell that to the people in China who were killed in the purges of landowners,same for those who died in the soviet union due to the wonderful collectivisation of farms and the government causing a genocide of millions of ukrainians, or how about the far less extreme "socialist" scandinavian countries? the ones where more right wing economic policies are being implimented because the "socialist" ones are failing.

    Venezuela or plenty of other South American countries where plenty of people died due to "socialism" or whatever you want to call it.

    Are you going to cry "NOT REAL COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM" or just brush it off? Your arguments throughout this thread are laughable and other people have already deconstructed them so I will not bother.

    If someone beats you in an argument you just shout "SNOWFLAKE" because you cannot argue, it is so Ironic because your behaviour is like a typical snowflake, unable to argue and filled with so many left wing lies that you physically cannot understand any other ideology
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    The same "argument" could be used against whatever socialists or communist ideology you follow, Sure taxing the rich helps the poor for a small amount of time, tell that to the people in China who were killed in the purges of landowners,same for those who died in the soviet union due to the wonderful collectivisation of farms and the government causing a genocide of millions of ukrainians, or how about the far less extreme "socialist" scandinavian countries? the ones where more right wing economic policies are being implimented because the "socialist" ones are failing.

    Venezuela or plenty of other South American countries where plenty of people died due to "socialism" or whatever you want to call it.

    Are you going to cry "NOT REAL COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM" or just brush it off? Your arguments throughout this thread are laughable and other people have already deconstructed them so I will not bother.

    If someone beats you in an argument you just shout "SNOWFLAKE" because you cannot argue, it is so Ironic because your behaviour is like a typical snowflake, unable to argue and filled with so many left wing lies that you physically cannot understand any other ideology
    Comparing anyone arguing for more state spending to Mao or Stalin is as stupid as comparing people who complain about immigration to Hitler.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    But we are still borrowing £40bn, and debt interest at £41bn. So we are not at all prepared if another financial crash came.

    Just wait if Labour get in again and **** everything up again.
    LOL, people still peddling the 'Labour wrecked the economy' myth.

    No, there was a global financial crash due to de regulation of the banking sector. Not spending money on schools and hospitals.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Comparing anyone arguing for more state spending to Mao or Stalin is as stupid as comparing people who complain about immigration to Hitler.
    If you actually read it I am saying that the argument of "capitalism sure isnt good for those it hurts" can be used with socialism or communism in place of capitalism.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I think I made a thread about this a while back.

    They're completely nuts- the government is literally morally responsible for every possible thing. If a car hits a pothole the council forgot to fix that is social murder. They think morality is a social construct and the state is God.

    But of course when there's actual direct murder by the state like in Venezuela, Comrade Corbyn jumps to the defence of socialists.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    But of course when there's actual direct murder by the state like in Venezuela, Comrade Corbyn jumps to the defence of socialists.
    Is the Venezuelan state directly murdering people? That's quite the accusation.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Well these back to work schemes were declaring people fit for work who died within a year or so. Not to mention imposing appalling sanctions on those on benefits.
    Putting aside the question of the overall effectiveness of the policy, the creators of the policy and those employed to enforce it were not malevolent in their intentions.

    Some policies might be bad- that doesn’t make the people who enforce them evil. IDS isn’t cackling in delight when some poor soul gets sanctioned and dies- just as presumably Venezuela’s President doesn’t when some kid dies of starvation.

    It’s the inevitable cost of governance that decisions will be made whatever your political beliefs that people will be hurt and damaged.

    (Yes that includes Anarcho Syndicalism which is probably the worst doctrine as it fails at its most basic level of keeping its population safe from others. If you blame IDS for deaths of the bedroom tax you should blame the anarchists for all the dead Catalans massacred by Franco.)

    They bare a degree if responsibility sure but it’s not the same as deliberate cold blooded murder.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    LOL, people still peddling the 'Labour wrecked the economy' myth.

    No, there was a global financial crash due to de regulation of the banking sector. Not spending money on schools and hospitals.

    Where did I say Labour created the global financial crash? Nowhere.


    But they made things very difficult for us, you struggle to follow arguments but try this without just retorting Momentum simple slogans.


    - They ran a deficit at a time where we had uninterrupted growth for ages; we should have used that time to have a responsible budget with a surplus.


    - When we borrow money, investors buy government bonds. Until we can buy them back we have to pay interest every year (effectively wasted taxation), and when investors lose confidence in us paying back like with Greece we can't borrow anything for schools or hospitals (or invading Iraq) at the time it's needed most.


    - If New Labour had paid off more of the debt we would have more to spend on helping grow the economy again and investing in public services.



    - Since you mention hospitals, the spending on PFI contracts adds tens of billions to our national debt unnessecarily. Tony Blair opened our borders unconditionally to 8 former communist countries putting far more pressure on public services


    - They signed us up to EU integration so our financial services was regulated not in Westminster but by the EU/IMF. The main problem with banking was not deregulation, but changing from experienced banking where good decisions were made to box-ticking.
 
 
 

2,166

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.