Austerity - what is it then ?

zagmund

I'm not making light of job losses or reduced income, but when everyone (journalists, politicians, Joe Public, barman, yer ma, etc . . .) talks of "austerity", what are they actually referring to ?

I remember back in the 80s when everyone was leaving the country, we had wide scale long-term unemployment, and we were being hammered by high taxes and low service levels. In those days we just called it a recession and didn't bother with all this theory talk you get on the radio where they tell us that last month Ireland was technically not in a recession but we continue to experience austerity. We just said there was a recession on. In those days we had no money, we knew we had no money, there weren't many jobs, we knew there weren't many jobs, etc . . . The idea of calling it "austerity" didn't come to mind as far as I remember.

This time around we're told that we are experiencing (or will experience) "austerity". Does anyone know what specifically is meant by this austerity concept that is different than the old days ?

And before the entire country ran out of money, did anyone other than very posh people who could no longer afford to go to Gstadd for the season due to a temporary change in circumstances ever actually use the word "austerity" ?

z

p.s. what's the big rush to "go back to the markets" instead of just keep on getting all this free money from Europe ?

squod

zagmund wrote: »

And before the entire country ran out of money,

Country didn't run out of money. Someone gave it away. Big difference.

Diego Maradona

zagmund wrote: »

p.s. what's the big rush to "go back to the markets" instead of just keep on getting all this free money from Europe ?

What?

Lapin

squod wrote: »

Country didn't run out of money. Someone gave it away. Big difference.

It wasn't really there in the first place to give away.

Thats the whole problem.

Money that didn't exist was lent out on the never never by b****
who shouldn't be let near a piggy bank, let alone run a real one. :mad:

zagmund

Diego Maradona wrote: »

What?

OK, ignore that bit then. I know it's not really free money. It just seems like no matter what we do, we're going to run a deficit for some years to come, but as long as the trokia/EU/EMF/the markets/George Soros/whoever makes funds available, what's the difference ?

z

Tesco Massacre

Austerity, as I understand it, is having to make do with normal Nescafe instead of Gold Blend.

TeddyTedson

It's not good that's what it is :P

Temptamperu

Austerity is what the government are trying to do to get us out of recession. It is not working.

Tesco Massacre

Tesco Massacre wrote: »

Austerity, as I understand it, is having to make do with normal Nescafe instead of Gold Blend.

It's when the only biscuit you can afford is Allied biscuit.

Where To

Austerity is what happens when peeps who has moneys keeps their moneys instead of spending their moneys so peeps who don't have moneys can get moneys.

Tesco Massacre

When I think of the word 'austere' I think of Eastern bloc countries during the Communist era. All grey and concretey, and all the women wearing those horrible shawls and moaning about the price of cabbages.

mikemac1

Austerity is having Irish taxpayers pay back the debts of British banks and bondholders and then the Brits laugh at you and claim it is them that are bailing out the Irish

CK75

Austerity is "tighten your belt" as said by the Squire Charles Haughey back in the mid 1980's

But it was easier back then to tighten our belts cos we were skinnier, those were the days we lived on spuds and cabbage - before the obesity epedemic hit Ireland....

So if we are to tighten the belts, we'd better get elasticated ones I suppose.... but Ive no money so I cant...

ah well.....:pac:

doolox

We will have to put up with austerity until it comes to the Germans and other rich countries mind that this retrenchment and not spending money is not working and is causing too much fear and lack of confidence and it begins to hurt their economies as much as it is hurting ours.

Our leaders will have to make the right noises until a consensus is reached at a Europe wide level to increase the money supply and start spending on development and increasing confidence and job security and getting hiring going again.

The US had to this in the 1930's to get out of the Great depression.
Again, the US had to bank roll post war recovery with Marshall Aid.
So far we have no sigh of a concerted effort being made by the financial haves to help the have nots.
Ireland is in no position to hurry this along, we as a nation lost all credibility with the financial disaster of Anglo Irish bank, Fianna Fail being hijacked by its corporate faction, an Irish love affair for property and hatred of renting, and a too loose supply of cheap foreign money.

IFSRA was not doing its job at the height of the boom. Just as there is regulation of drugs, firearms etc. there needs to be strict control of the supply of cheap credit and easy money. Ordinary people just cannot handle it or work with it without some level of specialist and professional control. While we Irish have learnt to control Firearms and explosives to a very successful and effective degree due to our bitter experience during our history of the evils of their abuse, we were new to the dangers of cheap, easily available credit and easy money. So were the US and other big economies like Italy and Spain. Unlike these big nations we are small enough to "punish" and dictate terms to.

Now we need to wait for the "big players" to hurt enough so that some Europe-wide solution will be sought and come about. In the meantime our new leaders need to show "discipline" and "control" so that the markets do not panic.

In the long term, governments throughout Europe need to lessen their dependence on Money Markets, rating agencies and other financial institutions which are not elected or accountable to the people. In the good times these Money Markets and rating agencies allowed a flood of cheap money into inexpert hands causing massive price inflation aon whatever took each nations fancy, Stocks and Shares in the US and UK, and houses in Ireland. The governments should have stopped this. Now rating agencies are dictating rates to countries and acting as ministers of finance, without being elected or accountabel to the people. The governments should not have allowed this power to slip from their hands.

Pottler

Austerity is a new and wonderful wheeze whereby Bankers(private) take it in turns to fcuk over the Public finances of various countries for their own enrichment. What you do is lend out as much dosh as you can imagine(you don't actually need to have it to lend, just pretend you do) to everyone and anyone. This is called "Leveraging". Then, when "everyone" realises they can't pay it back, you "pursuade" the various soverign states to pay it back out of the public purse, by threatening to stop supplying money(??good one??).
This is best done on a rolling basis to avoid causing a big scene-do it to a single nation at a time so they can "borrow" against their future revenues to hand over the lump sums. If done correctly, this reaps billions both now and in the future and is a great scheme altogether. If pushed a bit too hard, it may bring down the whole sh1thouse, but that too would enrich the same people as they can make a buck helping to issue a new currency/advise on same/get another big wedge to "compensate" them for the distress etc. If you are a Banker, this is serious sh1ts and giggles and is perhaps the best wheeze ever dreamt up. Why they never thought of it before is a total mystery to them and they frequently have to pinch themselves to be sure they are not having a dream, a big, giggly, wet one.:)

ilovesleep

Austerity means without luxuries.

It will be different for everybody depending on what way you lived during the good years, whether you have any large loans/debts and depending on your circumstances whether you are employed or unemployed or even self employed.

There is a sickening perception here on boards that we all lost the run of ourselves with cheap credit buying houses, cars, holidays abroad. Some did, some didn't. For those people who hold such a view they see austerity as going without a holiday or going a few years without upgrading your car yearly. But austerity is very real for many people where they worry about money for bills and necessities. A small luxury like a cinema trip or a meal out will be out of the question.

Feathers

Dictionary wrote:

Austerity (noun): Difficult economy conditions created by government measures to reduce a budget deficit, esp. by reducing public expenditure

It's the usual stuff — the media think that everyone has ADD so have to think up of a new phrase the whole time for stuff to keep us listening. Or else they're just bored themselves.

bbam

It was funny in a sad way there to watch reeling in the years, 1986. 30,000 people left the country. Now we're back on the same predicament with little to show except ghost estates and a pile of debt.
Austerity will mean that those who screwed the country and squirrelled away millions will continue to live like kings (mick Wallace and seanie Fitzpatrick style) while ordinary families are squeezed tighter and tighter with no respite in sight.
Austerity will mean services will be pearled back slowly behind the scenes, less hospital funding, longer waiting lists, no infrastructure investments resulting in roads deteriorating without repair.
Austerity is why small companies go to the wall causing further job losses throughout the country. While jobs will be created in the major urban centres, rural areas will become an increasing wasteland of unemployment and underinvestment.

Bell Butter

zagmund wrote: »

I'm not making light of job losses or reduced income, but when everyone (journalists, politicians, Joe Public, barman, yer ma, etc . . .) talks of "austerity", what are they actually referring to ?


This time around we're told that we are experiencing (or will experience) "austerity". Does anyone know what specifically is meant by this austerity concept that is different than the old days ?

Austerity in Ireland, the short answer is squeezing as much money as possible out of the population to pay for mistakes of the very wealthy. They don't want to loose their money, so the government has said to them "you'll get your money back, you'll get it from the public.

So in order for this to happen, they need to raise taxes and "invent" new ways to take away your disposable income.

gerryo777

Austerity in Ireland means pay rises and no (forced) job losses if you work in the PS/CS and job losses and pay cuts if you don't.

Bell Butter

gerryo777 wrote: »

Austerity in Ireland means pay rises and no (forced) job losses if you work in the PS/CS and job losses and pay cuts if you don't.

You should shoot them gerryo.......

gerryo777

Bell Butter wrote: »

You should shoot them gerryo.......

Won't be long before you take a little holiday from boards.
Post reported.

Bell Butter

gerryo777 wrote: »

Won't be long before you take a little holiday from boards.
Post reported.

I was just palying gerryo, Jeez I didn't mean to cause offence, you told everyone here you had a gun ffs...

Feathers

Bell Butter wrote: »

So in order for this to happen, they need to raise taxes and "invent" new ways to take away your disposable income.

Speaking of which, here's a novel idea: Why don't they say "Bank accounts are now limited to 5 digits: You can only have €99,999 euro in total across all your accounts. If you're balance goes above this, it rolls back around to €0.00". :pac:

€100k is more than enough savings for anyone & you've just gotten any rich guys sitting on more money that this to stimulate the economy. Sure aren't they always telling us capitalism is great because the rich provide jobs?

This would just them doing their part for 'the current climate' without actually taxing them any higher. (OK, you might need some 'moving/spending money out of the country tax' to get around the smart guys, but apart from that).

Jester252

Economic magic

Helix

Feathers wrote: »

€100k is more than enough savings for anyone

no its not

Feathers

Helix wrote: »

no its not

Really!? I would've thought it was. If you've 3 times the average wage just sitting in your bank account that you don't need to touch, on top of your net spending each month? Does that not put you in the upper class bracket?

Helix

Feathers wrote: »

Really!? I would've thought it was. If you've 3 times the average wage just sitting in your bank account that you don't need to touch, on top of your net spending each month? Does that not put you in the upper class bracket?

no

if you have a couple working decent jobs, who've been saving all their lives and weren't stupid enough to cripple themselves financially by buying, then you'd be hitting that figure quite easily in your mid 30s

The Waltzing Consumer

Bell Butter wrote: »

Austerity in Ireland, the short answer is squeezing as much money as possible out of the population to pay for mistakes of the very wealthy. They don't want to loose their money, so the government has said to them "you'll get your money back, you'll get it from the public.

So in order for this to happen, they need to raise taxes and "invent" new ways to take away your disposable income.

Unfortunately not, austerity in Ireland is trying to bring spending in line with income.

It is not to pay for the mistakes of the very wealthy, you might be thinking of the banks, but that is a separate issue, it is about what we take in taxes compared to what we spend.

Unfortunately, there is a large imagination in the public where they imagine the rich paid nothing and the lower and working classes pay for everything. For the last decade or two, this has simply not been the case. FF promised the majority little or no taxes and spent spent spent. The vast majority of our taxes came from.........the high-middle to high earners, whilst you had something like 40% of the working population in the lower brackets paying literally 0% income tax. Now that is fine if spending was in line with that tax take, but it was not, and we ran up debts and the morons kept voting in FF.

Feathers

Helix wrote: »

no

if you have a couple working decent jobs, who've been saving all their lives and weren't stupid enough to cripple themselves financially by buying, then you'd be hitting that figure quite easily in your mid 30s

Wow, I must be doing something wrong with my monthly budget so. Or else I'm not getting paid enough!

I don't know if you blame the people who bought 100%, when you've a situation where rent is higher than mortgage payments. Thankfully I was too young to be looking, but if I was in my mid-30s at the time, I don't know how long I would've gone before buying.

Helix

Feathers wrote: »

Wow, I must be doing something wrong with my monthly budget so. Or else I'm not getting paid enough!

I don't know if you blame the people who bought 100%, when you've a situation where rent is higher than mortgage payments. Thankfully I was too young to be looking, but if I was in my mid-30s at the time, I don't know how long I would've gone before buying.

if you saved €100 a week between the ages of 25 and 35 you'd have €52,000 in savings. if your partner had done the same you'd have a joint account with €104,000 in it

not exactly beyond most people

Bell Butter

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Unfortunately not, austerity in Ireland is trying to bring spending in line with income.

It is not to pay for the mistakes of the very wealthy, you might be thinking of the banks, but that is a separate issue, it is about what we take in taxes compared to what we spend.

Unfortunately, there is a large imagination in the public where they imagine the rich paid nothing and the lower and working classes pay for everything. For the last decade or two, this has simply not been the case. FF promised the majority little or no taxes and spent spent spent. The vast majority of our taxes came from.........the high-middle to high earners, whilst you had something like 40% of the working population in the lower brackets paying literally 0% income tax. Now that is fine if spending was in line with that tax take, but it was not, and we ran up debts and the morons kept voting in FF.

Yes I see what you're saying but... sovereign debt and bank debt should be separated, the fact of the matter is that the public are paying for banking debt, I pay a lot of taxes believe me, but the whole population paying for the fat cats annoys me something rotten.

lifelongnoob

this recession worse than the 80's ... first of all... we did not get free money... we have to repay with interest... also during the 80's recession we didnt have to surrender sovereignty to EU.

Potatoeman

Austerity is cutting your spending so you are not borrowing money you don’t have. The banking bailout is a small issue compared to government spending based on temporary income. Opposition politicians don’t admit this but the problem is spending and the fact we get very bad value for money. If they were being honest they would say what we really need higher taxes and less government spending.

Bell Butter

lifelongnoob wrote: »

this recession worse than the 80's ... first of all... we did not get free money... we have to repay with interest... also during the 80's recession we didnt have to surrender sovereignty to EU.

Because we had the ability to de-value our currency, we no longer have that. The UK did it last year to save their economy. While it's still not great, it's better than here.

ejmaztec

Aus-terity is having to move to Australia to avoid death by starvation.

Feathers

Helix wrote: »

if you saved €100 a week between the ages of 25 and 35 you'd have €52,000 in savings. if your partner had done the same you'd have a joint account with €104,000 in it

not exactly beyond most people

If you never had to draw on your savings, it's not. Even without buying a house, a lot of couples in their mid-30s would have had kids & a wedding, modest holiday, change of car, etc, etc.

Phill Ewinn

Helix wrote: »

if you saved €100 a week between the ages of 25 and 35 you'd have €52,000 in savings. if your partner had done the same you'd have a joint account with €104,000 in it

not exactly beyond most people

If I had've traded my cow for those magic beans I'd be living it up now.....

Helix

Feathers wrote: »

If you never had to draw on your savings, it's not. Even without buying a house, a lot of couples in their mid-30s would have had kids & a wedding, modest holiday, change of car, etc, etc.

i used €100 as an example. if you're ritually writing off a ton from your wages every week, then you'll learn to live within your means. if you need to save for other stuff, then you keep temporary savings in your current account

i certainly dont have any intention of dipping into my actual savings until im in my 50s tbh

Helix

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

If I had've traded my cow for those magic beans I'd be living it up now.....

if only someone had taught you the value of money when you were younger eh, you'd actually have some money put aside

The Waltzing Consumer

Bell Butter wrote: »

Yes I see what you're saying but... sovereign debt and bank debt should be separated, the fact of the matter is that the public are paying for banking debt, I pay a lot of taxes believe me, but the whole population paying for the fat cats annoys me something rotten.

I see what you mean and I would agree in sentiment, but the "fat cats" don't exist in the real numbers we want them to and the majority are just normal people. There are a lot of Mick Wallaces (buddies with Wexford and ULA), Priory Hall (Developer buddies with SF), the Anglo ass***** (buddies with FF), the landlord ass***** (Buddies with Occcupy Dame Street).

The main point of above with all those examples is that it really is Ireland as a whole who got us in this mess, there are of course plenty of people who did nothing reckless and are now lumped with higher taxes and charges, but by in large, the politicians we elect and the majority of the country have set abysmal standards and it is all our mess now.

You are probably dead right to be annoyed, but it is way too common to hear absolute gob****** trying to blame the whole mess when they played a part themselves. :pac:

Son Of A Vidic

zagmund wrote: »

Austerity - what is it then ?

It is essentially the means to which you unjustly extract the life force and potential growth from an economy. In order to cover the losses incurred by others. Namely the endemic reckless lending and financial mismanagement of larger banks (German& French), to the smaller incompetent banks (Irish banks). It's a win-win for the **** bankers, they gamble, they lose, we pay.

kincsem

Temptamperu wrote: »

Austerity is what the government are trying to do to get us out of recession. It is not working.

It hasn't started yet.

Pedant

Austerity is an excuse for Sinners and other Lefties to start moaning and shouting about everything and trying to make themselves look all important, but not actually coming up with any solutions.

Pedant

ejmaztec wrote: »

Aus-terity is having to move to Australia to avoid death by starvation.

The shooting of the heir to the Aus-tro-Hungarian throne started WW1.

A lunatic from Aus-tria started WW2.

Aus-terity during the eurozone crisis caused (or will cause) WW3.

It's all about the "Aus" people.

K-9

zagmund wrote: »

I'm not making light of job losses or reduced income, but when everyone (journalists, politicians, Joe Public, barman, yer ma, etc . . .) talks of "austerity", what are they actually referring to ?

Politicians and economists? Balancing the books.

Joe Public? Less money in the pocket due to tax increases, cuts to child benefit and welfare.

I remember back in the 80s when everyone was leaving the country, we had wide scale long-term unemployment, and we were being hammered by high taxes and low service levels. In those days we just called it a recession and didn't bother with all this theory talk you get on the radio where they tell us that last month Ireland was technically not in a recession but we continue to experience austerity. We just said there was a recession on. In those days we had no money, we knew we had no money, there weren't many jobs, we knew there weren't many jobs, etc . . . The idea of calling it "austerity" didn't come to mind as far as I remember.

This time around we're told that we are experiencing (or will experience) "austerity". Does anyone know what specifically is meant by this austerity concept that is different than the old days ?

And before the entire country ran out of money, did anyone other than very posh people who could no longer afford to go to Gstadd for the season due to a temporary change in circumstances ever actually use the word "austerity" ?

z

p.s. what's the big rush to "go back to the markets" instead of just keep on getting all this free money from Europe ?

In the late 80's we'd a large black economy, severe, choking tax rates and endemic corruption but we were poor, got paid low wages, had a decent education system and the advent of globalism, which we embraced.

Now we've high wages so austerity often means pay cuts, in return for productivity for the working man. Now we hate globalism. Tax Rises because we cut taxes too much, an education system and infrastructure that rested on its laurels and multinationals don't create the amount of jobs we need, especially the secondary industries.