Pro-Austerity Camp Debunked By Phd Graduate

arius

Thomas Herndon, the Phd graduate responsible for exposing flaws in a 2010 paper used by various economists to support Austerity was recently interviewed on the Colbert report.

Economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, wrongly claimed that when a country's debt surpasses 90% of GDP, growth slows precipitously.

They deliberately omitted Australia, Canada and New Zealand from their data analysis and also didn't account for a simple spreadsheet error.

You can watch Colbert mock the pro-austerity camp like a boss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oa-Bfdkg3w

Interview with Thomas who discovered flaws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgMV4KV6Qw0

Herndon showed that even countries with debt surpassing 90% of GDP, their economy grew by 2.2% ...contradicting every argument of those in favour of austerity.

spank_inferno

Irelands economy is growing year on year ...... (a little over 2% this year)

unfortunately government debt is also rising year on year.

It is expected to hit 123% of GDP by the end of 2013.

In 2013 the government will spend 8 billion on just debt interest alone.


So despite that massive debt burden, out economy still manages to grow.
Is that growth stiffled?
Who knows.


..... most important is that we need the Colbert Repor' back on our screens in Ireland!!


(however OP, if your point is to say that the governments policies are failing.... then you are wrong).

arius

spank_inferno wrote: »

(however OP, if your point is to say that the governments policies are failing.... then you are wrong).

This would imply the government have austerity measures in place.
They don't.

They do in the UK however and it's failing miserably.

squod

spank_inferno wrote: »

Irelands economy is growing year on year ...... (a little over 2% this year)

Same rate as inflation

spank_inferno wrote: »

So despite that massive debt burden, out economy still manages to grow.
Is that growth stiffled?
Who knows.

No real signs of growth. At ground level, on the ground.

spank_inferno wrote: »

(however OP, if your point is to say that the governments policies are failing.... then you are wrong).

Ah Shure, they're a massive success. At this rate of growth, inflation and emigration we should be out of this mess just before the entire country has re-located to Australia.

SEPT 23 1989

The domestic economy is dying rapidly

Jawgap

The Beeb have an article on the discovery - I'm not sure if the omission was deliberate or accidental

spank_inferno

arius wrote: »

They do in the UK however and it's failing miserably.

Not so sure about that.

Ireland has cut social welfare spending and public service pay.

Yesterday, welfare recipients in the UK received a 1% increase.
UK public sector workers are furious that they will also be receiving a 'below-inflation-rate' pay increase.
but they are being increased none the less.

The Irish governments public expenditure has contracted much more than the UKs has.

arius

Here is a UK finance minister embarrassing himself on BBC arguing austerity works when the economy is in major trouble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y03Ue9SQL2E

The pro-austerity camp think a government budget is the same as a household budget ...

anncoates

I love the way the designation PHd Graduate is used as some kind of sacred validation that guarantees omniscience or lack of agenda.

spank_inferno

arius wrote: »

This would imply the government have austerity measures in place.
They don't.

Your are very right about this though.

the government is running a 12 billion annual deficit.

That is not austerity.

arius

spank_inferno wrote: »

Not so sure about that.

Japan's debt to GDP level is 236%

arius

anncoates wrote: »

I love the way the designation PHd Graduate is used as some kind of sacred validation that guarantees omniscience or lack of agenda.

I love the way pro-austerity camp use flawed research from Harvard professors to support their arguments.

Jawgap

arius wrote: »

I love the way pro-austerity camp use flawed research from Harvard professors to support their arguments.

I'll see your Harvard professors and raise you a Nobel Laureate

"So the Reinhart-Rogoff fiasco needs to be seen in the broader context of austerity mania: the obviously intense desire of policy makers, politicians and pundits across the Western world to turn their backs on the unemployed and instead use the economic crisis as an excuse to slash social programs.

What the Reinhart-Rogoff affair shows is the extent to which austerity has been sold on false pretenses. For three years, the turn to austerity has been presented not as a choice but as a necessity. Economic research, austerity advocates insisted, showed that terrible things happen once debt exceeds 90 percent of G.D.P. But “economic research” showed no such thing; a couple of economists made that assertion, while many others disagreed. Policy makers abandoned the unemployed and turned to austerity because they wanted to, not because they had to." [my emphasis added]

arius

Here's professor Michael Hudson laughing at pro-austerity camp about US government debt and the idea that US borrows dollars from China . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnHIha5FhOw

Those in favour of austerity not only think a government budget is the same as a household budget ...they think the US government has to borrow US dollars from China . . .laughable really.

bhamsteve

Don't come here with your fancy arguments. It's a public service witch-hunt round these parts.

I love the way the designation PHd Graduate is used as some kind of sacred validation that guarantees omniscience or lack of agenda.

What relevance are his political beliefs, he has scientifically debunked a major theory used to justify austerity, in the most obvious, concrete way.

arius

bhamsteve wrote: »

Don't come here with your fancy arguments. It's a public service witch-hunt round these parts.

What relevance are his political beliefs, he has scientifically debunked a major theory used to justify austerity, in the most obvious, concrete way.

There's no relevance at all.

The pro-austerity camp have always cited this flawed piece of research by Rogoff and Reinhart to support their own agenda and now that it's been exposed, they're a bit upset.

Rightfully so..they've been sold a pack of lies.

noodler

Pro-austerity is a bit of a myth.

Ireland can't balance its books so it has to act. If you want to call that austerity then go ahead.


There are some other countries who have other options regarding their deficits during the crisis but we were not one of them.

Nobody ever thought austerity = growth - anyone who claims this is either a liar or ignorant.

The argument was simply that a country will be better able to lend from the private markets if it manages to get its books in order. I have never heard a Government official in any country argue that austerity wouldn't result in short-term pain.

noodler

arius wrote: »

Japan's debt to GDP level is 236%

Jesus Christ.

Do you understand the fundamental difference between Japan's situation and Ireland's?

Japan has a very accommodating central bank for one.

More importantly it can borrow at remarkably low rates from its citizens - we borrow 75% of our debt from abroad.

bhamsteve

Part of me thinks that people are not concerned with economic recovery at all, they just want other people to suffer to increase their own relative wealth. There is no logic to it at this stage, just "us v them".

It's the same on every thread here, "renters v mortgage holders", "private sector v pub sector v unemployed" etc. Whatever else comes of this recession, the legacy will be the social divisions and selfishness it has created.

arius

noodler wrote: »

Jesus Christ.

Do you understand the fundamental difference between Japan's situation and Ireland's?

Japan has a very accommodating central bank for one.

More importantly it can borrow at remarkably low rates from its citizens - we borrow 75% of our debt from abroad.

This part makes absolutely no sense at all.

The Japanese government doesn't need to borrow anything, it creates the money.

You clearly don't understand how money works just like the entire pro-austerity camp.

Here's Michael Hudson explaining how money is created.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTYqGUGSLDM

Government budgets are nothing like a personal budget.

Chips Lovell

Whatever you're opinion on debt to GDP ratios, in the Irish case at least, austerity has been mainly driven by the fact that if we didn't reduce our deficit, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of borrowing at anything other than exorbitant rates.

noodler

arius wrote: »

This part makes absolutely no sense at all.

The Japanese government doesn't need to borrow anything, it creates the money.

You clearly don't understand how money works just like the entire pro-austerity camp.

Here's Michael Hudson explaining how money is created.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTYqGUGSLDM

Government budgets are nothing like a personal budget.

Excuse me, I think you must live on Cloud Cuckoo land.


Japan has been living with significant deficits for years and issue bonds to close the gap in the same way any country does - by issuing bonds. It just so happens there is a huge level of savings in the Japanese economy and therefore Japan has more domestic customers (at lower rates) for their debt.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-05/japan-s-unsustainable-deficit-financing-model.html

Have a read and get back to me.

Robbo

arius wrote: »

There's no relevance at all.

The pro-austerity camp have always cited this flawed piece of research by Rogoff and Reinhart to support their own agenda and now that it's been exposed, they're a bit upset.

Rightfully so..they've been sold a pack of lies.

Think of when the current wave of austerity started in Europe. Then think of the date of publication for the now discredited study.

Then think of the stupidity in pointing out others basic mistakes in arithmetic.

Solair

arius wrote: »

This part makes absolutely no sense at all.

The Japanese government doesn't need to borrow anything, it creates the money.

You clearly don't understand how money works just like the entire pro-austerity camp.

Here's Michael Hudson explaining how money is created.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTYqGUGSLDM

Government budgets are nothing like a personal budget.

They become like a household budget when you're effectively using the rebranded DM and have handed over all fiscal controls to Frankfurt though!

We probably could have printed more IEP and had a more even inflation across the whole economy which would have been significantly less painful, especially since fuel is taxed so heavily that we could counteract price hikes to some degree by softening tax on it.

My concern though is that all these abstract theories will be totally pointless if there's a major political crisis in Spain for example.

The public just won't put up with much more of this and it's likely to end very messily if something much more radical isn't done to solve the problem.

There's the usual Euroscloroisis setting in where the whole decision making process becomes locked.

--Kaiser--

Economics makes my brain sore

KyussBishop

bhamsteve wrote: »

Part of me thinks that people are not concerned with economic recovery at all, they just want other people to suffer to increase their own relative wealth. There is no logic to it at this stage, just "us v them".

It's the same on every thread here, "renters v mortgage holders", "private sector v pub sector v unemployed" etc. Whatever else comes of this recession, the legacy will be the social divisions and selfishness it has created.

I used to not take things this cynically, avoiding assuming the worst in people like that, such as the possibility that they may have agendas revolving around personal motives/gain and don't care about honest argument.

However, the more I engage in discussion on this topic though, and the more I learn about the posters most vociferous in these views, the more cynical I get; in most cases, I am unsurprised to find out posters have an unstated conflict of interest (particularly, coming from industry profiting from this crisis).

I used to be of the opinion "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", but as time goes on, I can see full well that many people are not stupid enough to believe what they are saying on this topic, and I see that they are fully aware of the disingenousness and dishonesty of their arguments, and they don't give a shít.
It's pretty repulsive, when you look at the logical conclusion of what they promote and what they try to justify, and gradually come to the realization that they are fully aware of it, and that the motives look a lot like greed.

Chips Lovell

KyussBishop wrote: »

However, the more I engage in discussion on this topic though, and the more I learn about the posters most vociferous in these views, the more cynical I get; in most cases, I am unsurprised to find out posters have an unstated conflict of interest (particularly, coming from industry profiting from this crisis).

Care to cite some examples?

KyussBishop

Yes I was specifically calling out posters on conflicts of interest in this thread:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056932182

Jawgap

Fiscal conservatives argue for a balanced budget and low or minimal debt - intuitively it sounds like a good idea (and definitely not a bad principle to be guided by).

The Rogoff-Reinhart paper argued that "median growth rates for countries with public debt over 90 percent of GDP are roughly one percent lower than otherwise; average (mean) growth rates are several percent lower."

That figure of 90% became a shibboleth for these conservatives and the argument that causation might actually run the other way was neglected.

It now seems apparent that while high debt to GDP ratios retard growth, the effect is not nearly as pronounced as earlier suggested - effectively 90% is not a cliff or a tipping point.

The conclusion then is that reducing the debt to GDP ration below 90% is not a pre-requisite to growth, there can be growth while the ratio is brought down. The medicine can be taken by i.v. instead of a single injection!

From the Roosevelt Institute in the US....

Researchers Finally Replicated Reinhart-Rogoff, and There Are Serious Problems.

The Time Series of High Debt and Growth in Italy, Japan, and the United States

Chips Lovell

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes I was specifically calling out posters on conflicts of interest in this thread:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056932182

That's a twelve page thread. It shouldn't be too hard to point us to which posts where you uncovered these people with "unstated conflicts of interest"

KyussBishop

I don't really want to go naming names tbh, because I'm pretty sure it's against the charter to be directly talking about posters not present/posting in the current thread.

Chips Lovell

In that case, you should probably withdraw your assertion that those who disagree with you are shills.

bhamsteve

Robbo wrote: »

Think of when the current wave of austerity started in Europe. Then think of the date of publication for the now discredited study.

Then think of the stupidity in pointing out others basic mistakes in arithmetic.

Are you for real? A poster on a forum using the wrong word to put across his point (which is a reasonable point regardless of which side of the fence you sit on) is comparable to publishing an article with miscalculated results which goes on to influence the economic policy of several countries?

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

In that case, you should probably withdraw your assertion that those who disagree with you are shills.

Don't put words in my mouth thanks; I didn't say anyone was a shill, I stated that a lot of the people most vociferous in the pro-austerity camp, have a significant conflict of interest, and as time goes on I get a lot more cynical about their motives (particularly with the level of dishonest argument that is engaged in, which is consistent enough to seem like they are completely aware of the dishonesty).

Do you yourself, deny that a fair number of the people most pro-austerity, seem to work directly in industry that benefits from it? (particularly finance)

Chips Lovell

KyussBishop wrote: »

Don't put words in my mouth thanks; I didn't say anyone was a shill, I stated that a lot of the people most vociferous in the pro-austerity camp, have a significant conflict of interest, and as time goes on I get a lot more cynical about their motives (particularly with the level of dishonest argument that is engaged in, which is consistent enough to seem like they are completely aware of the dishonesty).

Forgive me, what you're describing there is completely different from shilling of course.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Do you yourself, deny that a fair number of the people most pro-austerity, seem to work directly in industry that benefits from it? (particularly finance)

Unlike yourself, I don't know where other posters work.

Claiming that the people you disagree with are shills is something of a falacious line of argument that attempts to steer the debate off course by assigning a conspiracy theory to the other side rather than treating counter arguments on their merits.

It shouldn't matter who's making an argument. If, for example, someone was working in finance, that fact doesn't automatically suck any logic or reason out of their posts.

arius

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

In that case, you should probably withdraw your assertion that those who disagree with you are shills.

I'd assert if you believe or promote the idea Japanese or the British or the American governments have to borrow Yen/Pound or Dollars from foreign investors, you don't have a clue how money is created or you're trying to mislead people.

How stupid can it get to believe the US government borrows US dollars from China? ....it's absurd.

Noodler thinks the Japanese government borrows from it's citizens...and that just illustrates the ignorance amongst the pro-austerity camp about the creation of money and government debt.

Here's another video of gatekeepers promoting the senseless ideas of pro-austerity camp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucWe9-DLCIE

Thom Hartmann explains why US government debt is irrelevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsMAAizVH7Y

Try to investigate the creation of money first from people that support MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) Then you'll slowly realise why all these people in favour of austerity have an agenda of their own....either that or they're just plain ignorant.

Chips Lovell

arius wrote: »

Try to investigate the creation of money first from people that support MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) Then you'll slowly realise why all these people in favour of austerity have an agenda of their own....either that or they're just plain ignorant.

Why am I not surprised MMT is being wheeled out.

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Forgive me, what you're describing there is completely different from shilling of course.



Unlike yourself, I don't know where other posters work.

Claiming that the people you disagree with are shills is something of a falacious line of argument that attempts to steer the debate off course by assigning a conspiracy theory to the other side rather than treating counter arguments on their merits.

It shouldn't matter who's making an argument. If, for example, someone was working in finance, that fact doesn't automatically suck any logic or reason out of their posts.

Ok, on closer look that would be shilling; I was thinking the definition was more paid hasbara type stuff.

If you accuse me of using a fallacy as a form of argument, point to a post where I have ever omitted an argument, and just accused someone of having a conflict of interest; I always deal with countering the arguments made.
Seeing as that is a false assertion, you will withdraw that, right?

If someone is working in field where they personally benefit from pro-austerity policies, and visibly engages in a level of argument that is so consistently fallacious, that the honesty of it is questionable, then bringing forward their personal conflict of interest is perfectly warranted.


Much of the same posters wouldn't bat an eyelid at accusing indebted homeowners of a conflict of interest, and of wanting to greedily have taxpayers take on their burden, when they discuss debt forgiveness and similar issues; same when you have crap like accusing dole recipients or public service workers of self-interest, when discussing reasons why public spending should not be cut.

The difference there, is there are good reasons to argue from those viewpoints, whereas a lot of the pro-austerity crowd, have a penchant for multiple layers of disingenous or just straight out dishonest argument.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

Do you yourself, deny that a fair number of the people most pro-austerity, seem to work directly in industry that benefits from it? (particularly finance)

How exactly do you think that people who make a living from the selling and creation of money benefit from a reduction in the money supply?

I'm not sure you have thought this conspiracy through properly.

KyussBishop

arius wrote: »

...
Try to investigate the creation of money first from people that support MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) Then you'll slowly realise why all these people in favour of austerity have an agenda of their own....either that or they're just plain ignorant.

That's the first time I've seen another MMT'er on the forum (or at least, first other openly stated anyway); good to see others with a better knowledge of it and economic issues surrounding it, also promoting it (still gradually learning parts of it myself).

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Why am I not surprised MMT is being wheeled out.

Yes and you'll do your best to avoid engaging with it, in any way other than condescension, right? (which is the typical way it is addressed, despite every such line of argument being inherently facetious and fallacious)

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

How exactly do you think that people who make a living from the selling and creation of money benefit from a reduction in the money supply?

I'm not sure you have thought this conspiracy through properly.

There hasn't been a reduction in the money supply; there is no 'conspiracy' about finance basically living off rents from the rest of society, and being able to benefit directly off of increased debt, increasing privatization, quantitative easing, increased asset costs (due to asset speculation), increased service costs (many of which are ultimately owned/run by finance), decimation of labour power and wages, among much much else.

It's incredibly obvious at only a cursory look, that austerity massively benefits finance and rich investors in general, causing a general upward redistribution of wealth; you need to be totally facetious/disingenous (or just trying to discourage discussion of the issue) to label that a 'conspiracy theory'.

sock puppet

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Why am I not surprised MMT is being wheeled out.

Or that the debate has shifted to the medium of youtube videos.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

There hasn't been a reduction in the money supply; there is no 'conspiracy' about finance basically living off rents from the rest of society, and being able to benefit directly off of increased debt, increasing privatization, quantitative easing, increased asset costs (due to asset speculation), increased service costs (many of which are ultimately owned/run by finance), decimation of labour power and wages, among much much else.

So...quantitative easing, which is the opposite of austerity, is helping these guys to profit from the austerity which is definitely happening even though there's quantitative easing going on?

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's incredibly obvious at only a cursory look, that austerity massively benefits finance and rich investors in general, causing a general upward redistribution of wealth; you need to be totally facetious/disingenous (or just trying to discourage discussion of the issue) to label that a 'conspiracy theory'.

Ok, just pretend I'm stupid: it's not obvious to me. Explain how it works - it should be very easy as it is so obvious to you. Then please explain how it is different without austerity, just to make sure your claim adds up.

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

So...quantitative easing, which is the opposite of austerity, is helping these guys to profit from the austerity which is definitely happening even though there's quantitative easing going on?

Another penchant in these discussions, is a semantic redefinition of 'austerity', and endless nitpicking over that.

Austerity is cutting spending to public services (cutting public services, and increasing welfare expenditure, still counts under this, since loads of services have been cut), and increasing taxes; not the no-true-scotsman-like definition pro-austerity advocates try to insist upon, where public spending has to be completely destroyed like in Latvia, before it can be called 'real' austerity; that's simply endless nitpicking.

Anynama141 wrote: »

Ok, just pretend I'm stupid: it's not obvious to me. Explain how it works - it should be very easy as it is so obvious to you. Then please explain how it is different without austerity, just to make sure your claim adds up.

You're not stupid, just disingenous and barely pretending to engage in honest discourse; you know that I did just explain it, right in the previous part you quoted.

noodler

arius wrote: »

I'd assert if you believe or promote the idea Japanese or the British or the American governments have to borrow Yen/Pound or Dollars from foreign investors, you don't have a clue how money is created or you're trying to mislead people.

Exactly, the Japanese borrow domestically.

93% of their debt is domestically held.

arius wrote: »

Noodler thinks the Japanese government borrows from it's citizens...and that just illustrates the ignorance amongst the pro-austerity camp about the creation of money and government debt.

Noodler actually knows that 93% of the Japanese bonds are held by domestic institutions.

Largely due to an excess of savings. Noodler knows this first hand (as to a great, great many people - its isn't exactly privileged information).


No more videos.

Outline exactly what you think is happening when Japan has sold debt over the last 15-20 years.

Here is an abstract from an IMF paper on the issue in 2011 which explains the situation in a nutshell

Abstract

Despite the rise in public debt, Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yields have remainedl ow and stable, supported by steady inflows fr om the household and corporate sectors, high domestic ownership of JGBs, and safe-haven flows from heightened sovereign risksi n Europe. Over time, however, the market’s capacity to absorb new debt will likely shrink as population ages and risk appetite recovers. I

In the short term, a decline in fund supply from the corporate sector, where financial surpluses are abnormally high, and spillovers from global financial distress could push up JGB yields. Fiscal reforms to reduce public debt more quickly and lengthen the maturity of government bonds will help limit these risks.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp11292.pdf

Anynama141

Edit: I've no idea how that red angry head got at the top of my post...I never clicked that stupid button...

KyussBishop wrote: »

Another penchant in these discussions, is a semantic redefinition of 'austerity', and endless nitpicking over that.

Austerity is cutting spending to public services (cutting public services, and increasing welfare expenditure, still counts under this, since loads of services have been cut), and increasing taxes; not the no-true-scotsman-like definition pro-austerity advocates try to insist upon, where public spending has to be completely destroyed like in Latvia, before it can be called 'real' austerity; that's simply endless nitpicking.

Ok, so you are defining austerity as:

Austerity is cutting spending to public services (cutting public services, and increasing welfare expenditure, still counts under this, since loads of services have been cut), and increasing taxes;

Fair enough, we are on the same page.

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're not stupid, just disingenous and barely pretending to engage in honest discourse; you know that I did just explain it, right in the previous part you quoted.

But you didn't - you did it in an 'underpants gnome' sort of a way where you made the claim and then said it was self-evident, but you left out the mechanism.

I'd like to know how you understand the mechanics of how austerity works to benefit those who work in the financial industry, and how it benefits them more than 'normal' or indeed stimulus levels of public spending.

Anynama141

arius wrote: »

Noodler thinks the Japanese government borrows from it's citizens...and that just illustrates the ignorance amongst the pro-austerity camp about the creation of money and government debt.

Um...in that case, Noodler wins this particular round. There's been mountains of literature written in the last 20 years about the Japanese post office, the Japanese pension funds etc. etc. which are funding Japan's public debt. I thought anyone with a passing interest in this stuff would know that.

noodler

Anynama141 wrote: »

Um...in that case, Noodler wins this particular round. There's been mountains of literature written in the last 20 years about the Japanese post office, the Japanese pension funds etc. etc. which are funding Japan's public debt. I thought anyone with a passing interest in this stuff would know that.

Precisely.

You'd swear I was proposing some radical theory.

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

Edit: I've no idea how that red angry head got at the top of my post...I never clicked that stupid button...


Ok, so you are defining austerity as:

Fair enough, we are on the same page.

But you didn't - you did it in an 'underpants gnome' sort of a way where you made the claim and then said it was self-evident, but you left out the mechanism.

I'd like to know how you understand the mechanics of how austerity works to benefit those who work in the financial industry, and how it benefits them more than 'normal' or indeed stimulus levels of public spending.

Currently wages are being decimated in economies, along with labour power in general, and costs are being pushed up everywhere, leading to a redistribution of wealth/profits from workers to corporations and finance, and a general upward redistribution of wealth; this not even considering stuff like quantitative easing, where the glut of money is being used to pump asset bubbles in new places, leading to the rise in prices on food and oil, which again profits finance.

A general squeezing of workers and society at large, with all of the benefits going to business and finance; that is what austerity causes:
http://www.businessinsider.com/profits-at-high-wages-at-low-2013-4

The denial of and insistence on ever more details of the massive rent-seeking finance engages in, leeching off the rest of society, seems more aimed at trying to create opportunities for further nitpicking.

Chuck Stone

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It shouldn't matter who's making an argument.

In a world of innocence with an abundance of love and romance and ponies? Yes.

'Innocence theories' can be just as mental as conspiracy theories.

Three Seasons

KyussBishop wrote: »

Currently wages are being decimated in economies, along with labour power in general, and costs are being pushed up everywhere, leading to a redistribution of wealth/profits from workers to corporations and finance, and a general upward redistribution of wealth; this not even considering stuff like quantitative easing, where the glut of money is being used to pump asset bubbles in new places, leading to the rise in prices on food and oil, which again profits finance.

A general squeezing of workers and society at large, with all of the benefits going to business and finance; that is what austerity causes:
http://www.businessinsider.com/profits-at-high-wages-at-low-2013-4

The denial of and insistence on ever more details of the massive rent-seeking finance engages in, leeching off the rest of society, seems more aimed at trying to create opportunities for further nitpicking.

Do you propose we continue running a 20 billion deficit indefinitely?