European 'austerity' is a liberal myth

[Bonestorm]

And, just because I'm tired of this nonsense, here's an explanation of why you're wrong from a source you might possibly accept:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/05/euro-crisis-0

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And, just because I'm tired of this nonsense, here's an explanation of why you're wrong from a source you might possibly accept:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/05/euro-crisis-0

LMAO... once again you cling to the spending as a percent of GDP. If GDP growth is faster than spending growth, it is going to cause spending to GDP to go down.

It is not an accurate measure. If you wish to take the total dollars spent (which have again gone up across the board since the crisis began) and divide it on a per capita basis, by all means do so. But this nonsense with GDP has to stop. GDP increasing doesn't mean government spending has to increase at the same pace. That is pure nonsense.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It is also funny how you once again cling to the source as if that should provide for some kind of support for your position. It is not where it comes from, it is what it says that matters. A point you can't seem to grasp. You constantly bash sites you don't like and dismiss data on those sites, then you find a site you think I will like and pretend that means I will automatically accept their data. The stupidity of that line of thought could only come from a parrot.

 

[Bonestorm]

It is also funny how you once again cling to the source as if that should provide for some kind of support for your position. It is not where it comes from, it is what it says that matters. A point you can't seem to grasp. You constantly bash sites you don't like and dismiss data on those sites, then you find a site you think I will like and pretend that means I will automatically accept their data. The stupidity of that line of thought could only come from a parrot.

Wait, aren't you the guy that coined Moveon.moron? Hilarious.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO... once again you cling to the spending as a percent of GDP. If GDP growth is faster than spending growth, it is going to cause spending to GDP to go down.

Well, GDP growth has been anemic across Europe so your hypothetical does not comport with reality. Also,

It is not an accurate measure. If you wish to take the total dollars spent (which have again gone up across the board since the crisis began) and divide it on a per capita basis, by all means do so. But this nonsense with GDP has to stop. GDP increasing doesn't mean government spending has to increase at the same pace. That is pure nonsense.

It is a more accurate measure than you are using, particularly because you don't account for population growth or inflation and you don't take into account cyclical factors. That's why looking at the structural deficit as a percentage of GDP is more accurate.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well, GDP growth has been anemic across Europe so your hypothetical does not comport with reality. Also,

so has spending growth. also... for the record... Europe's population was estimated at 730 million in 2005, 711 million in 2010.

It is a more accurate measure than you are using, particularly because you don't account for population growth or inflation and you don't take into account cyclical factors. That's why looking at the structural deficit as a percentage of GDP is more accurate.

No, it is not more accurate. If population is declining and spending is increasing, I am fairly confident that per capita spending is not falling. What cyclical factors does the spending not account for?

You crack me up.

 

[Bonestorm]

so has spending growth. also... for the record... Europe's population was estimated at 730 million in 2005, 711 million in 2010.

Well, if GDp growth is anemic and spending growth is anemic, what's your problem with spending as a percentage of GDP? Also, too, you'll need to show your source for the population claim, because I don't think it's correct. Well, at least not according to Eurostat:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tg...tion=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=1

No, it is not more accurate. If population is declining and spending is increasing, I am fairly confident that per capita spending is not falling. What cyclical factors does the spending not account for?

You crack me up.

Population is not declining and spending is barely increasing if at all. You also fail to account for inflation and cyclical factors, specifically automatic stabilizers that accompany high unemployment and which require cuts elsewhere. In times of deep recession and high unemployment, if spending on non-cyclical items remains flat, you would see big increases in spending on these cyclical items. Instead, we're seeing flat nominal spending notwithstanding lots more spending on cyclical things, higher population and (modest) inflation.

Long story short, yes, Virginia, there is European austerity.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well, if GDp growth is anemic and spending growth is anemic, what's your problem with spending as a percentage of GDP? Also, too, you'll need to show your source for the population claim, because I don't think it's correct. Well, at least not according to Eurostat:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tg...tion=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=1

We can use yours... based on the eurostat data, the population has increased 1% in total since 2008.

Population is not declining and spending is barely increasing if at all.

As I stated above, the population went up a grand total of 1% since 2008. Spending only has to have increased at 1% in total since 2008 to have kept up with the population.

You also fail to account for inflation and cyclical factors, specifically automatic stabilizers that accompany high unemployment and which require cuts elsewhere.

Please, elaborate on the automatic stabilizers that should be accounted for. What specifically are you referring to?

In times of deep recession and high unemployment, if spending on non-cyclical items remains flat, you would see big increases in spending on these cyclical items. Instead, we're seeing flat nominal spending notwithstanding lots more spending on cyclical things, higher population and (modest) inflation.
.

If total spending is increasing, it is quite comical that you continue to insist that austerity is in play. Yes, they may cut some areas to pay for others, but total spending is not declining. But again, do highlight what cyclical items you are referring to.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/econom...re-in-us-dollars-2012-3_govxp-table-2012-3-en

Side note dung: spending was up 7% in the Eurozone area from 2008 to 2010, compared to your population gain of 1%

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, if GDp growth is anemic and spending growth is anemic, what's your problem with spending as a percentage of GDP? Also, too, you'll need to show your source for the population claim, because I don't think it's correct. Well, at least not according to Eurostat:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tg...tion=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=1

We can use yours... based on the eurostat data, the population has increased 1% in total since 2008.

I love that. "We can use yours." Yes, I suppose we can since my population statistics are accurate and yours are not.

As I stated above, the population went up a grand total of 1% since 2008. Spending only has to have increased at 1% in total since 2008 to have kept up with the population.

Now factor in inflation.

Please, elaborate on the automatic stabilizers that should be accounted for. What specifically are you referring to?

Unemployment compensation and other welfare state programs that provide for the unemployed and poor.

If total spending is increasing, it is quite comical that you continue to insist that austerity is in play. Yes, they may cut some areas to pay for others, but total spending is not declining. But again, do highlight what cyclical items you are referring to.

Your claim is no more convincing than it was the first time you said it.

 

[Bonestorm]

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/econom...re-in-us-dollars-2012-3_govxp-table-2012-3-en

Side note dung: spending was up 7% in the Eurozone area from 2008 to 2010, compared to your population gain of 1%

You're only telling part of the story without 2011. I suggest that you stop using this incomplete data set if you want me to take you at all seriously.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I love that. "We can use yours." Yes, I suppose we can since my population statistics are accurate and yours are not.

No, because I can show my case using yours.

Now factor in inflation.

done...

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/st...,_EU-27=100).png&filetimestamp=20120328105151

Unemployment compensation and other welfare state programs that provide for the unemployed and poor.

so you want to take away the fact that they spent more on the poor? That is money that is being pumped into the economy. Supposedly a super awesome effective way to spend it (according to liberals here) and you want to pretend that spending doesn't count?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're only telling part of the story without 2011. I suggest that you stop using this incomplete data set if you want me to take you at all seriously.

Again ... I can't control when the countries release their data. If you have their total spending for 2011, by all means produce it. Otherwise, I am using the most current data available. What exactly are you using? Can't help but note you have not shown 2011 spending in dollars. Why is that Dung?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/st..._(1999-2010).PNG&filetimestamp=20111006132910

Hmmm... Eurostat also only showing to 2010... I wonder why? Oh yeah, because most countries haven't reported 2011 yet.

also... can't help but notice that spending relative to GDP went up for the area according to that chart too.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu...c4851752113667.e34MbxeSaxaSc40LbNiMbxeNahaMe0

Yep... still higher than 2008 when the crisis began. Funny... liberals want to focus on the high points of 2009 (when massive stimulus measures were passed) and pretend that coming back from those high levels to a level still higher than when the crisis began is austerity.