Pro-Austerity Camp Debunked By Phd Graduate

KyussBishop

No, I propose Europe either moves towards ending austerity (which there are murmers of now), and enacting recovery policies, or just explicitly states that there will never be any recovery policies, and moves on to discussing whether or not a Euro breakup is then inevitable, and then discuss whether or not there is any point in delaying it if it is inevitable.

I much prefer the idea of Europe staying together and resolving this, as that is the best of all worlds, but if that remains impossible due to Germany and such, then that needs to be acknowledged in Brussels, and debate moved on towards what to do with the Euro itself.

Three Seasons

KyussBishop wrote: »

No, I propose Europe either moves towards ending austerity (which there are murmers of now), and enacting recovery policies, or just explicitly states that there will never be any recovery policies, and moves on to discussing whether or not a Euro breakup is then inevitable, and then discuss whether or not there is any point in delaying it if it is inevitable.

I much prefer the idea of Europe staying together and resolving this, as that is the best of all worlds, but if that remains impossible due to Germany and such, then that needs to be acknowledged in Brussels, and debate moved on towards what to do with the Euro itself.

So do you agree that Ireland's fldeficits needs to be reduced? That is what is happening now.

KyussBishop

No, Europe needs to end austerity and engage in recovery policies; these recovery policies would necessarily need to include stimulus, which would arrest the deficit problem.

Three Seasons

KyussBishop wrote: »

No, Europe needs to end austerity and engage in recovery policies; these recovery policies would necessarily need to include stimulus, which would arrest the deficit problem.

Really, during the boom we had all the stimulus we could want with such low interest rates and we were in deficit by about 15 billion. Why didn't that stimulus eradicate our deficit?

KyussBishop

We were in surplus during the boom:
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/template/assets/img/Ireland-government-budget-plan-graph-1.gif

Stimulus both helps GDP/employment recover (thus closing the deficit), and also adds room to free up spending that would otherwise require debt.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

Currently wages are being decimated in economies,

In what sense? Taxes are going up, but as taxes are progressive almost everywhere it's the higher earners who are hit hardest.

KyussBishop wrote: »

along with labour power in general, and costs are being pushed up everywhere,

How are costs being pushed up? Is the austerity causing inflation or something? Inflation is low across the EU and US right now as far as I am aware.

KyussBishop wrote: »

leading to a redistribution of wealth/profits from workers to corporations and finance,

Where are these extra profits coming from?

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

Firstly I don't understand how you think that QE is increasing commodity values? The money from QE is largely sitting on bank balance sheets. If you look here you will see that there was a much BIGGER run up in commodity prices during the credit bubble.

Secondly, I don't see how you think that higher commodity prices 'profits finance'? Surely the greatest benefit is to those countries and people who produce these commodities? Good news for those Brazilian farmers growing oranges, good news for Argentine beef producers, but good news for evil bankster? Not so much.

KyussBishop wrote: »

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

I don't think you've demonstrated any benefit to the finance world from the policy of austerity.

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

There is certainly a degree of rent-seeking, but the principal role of those in finance is capital allocation and facilitating flows of capital to where (in theory...they get it wrong often enough) they are most useful (profitable).

There's also a huge amount of rent-seeking going on in the public services, in the legal system, in politics, amongst the general public.

In conclusion, I don't think you have demonstrated how austerity benefits those working in finance (and who have kept their jobs). I also requested that you would back up your claim that they do better under austerity than they do under normal or stimulus levels of government spending but you have opted not to do that.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

No, Europe needs to end austerity and engage in recovery policies; these recovery policies would necessarily need to include stimulus, which would arrest the deficit problem.

I don't think you understand the extent of our deficit. Stimulus across Europe would hopefully benefit us and deal with a certain amount of the deficit, but the idea that we will get back to bubble levels of tax income is a dream/nightmare. We will need to cut expenditure one way or another.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

We were in surplus during the boom:
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/template/assets/img/Ireland-government-budget-plan-graph-1.gif

Stimulus both helps GDP/employment recover (thus closing the deficit), and also adds room to free up spending that would otherwise require debt.

We had an artificial construction bubble that enabled people tens of thousands of people with little or no skills to earn 50-100k per year. We had full employment. We also had several billion euros of property transaction taxes which were essentially borrowed from our own banks. None of these things are likely to exist in 'recovery' Ireland.

arius

Noodler,

I have just 1 question for you and your banking buddies...it's obvious some of you work in the city of London and on the continent.

Name 1 government which issues it's own currency and paid it's debt.

Tell us.

Anynama141

arius wrote: »

Noodler,

I have just 1 question for you and your banking buddies...it's obvious some of you work in the city of London and on the continent.

Logical fallacy: you can't defeat an argument by attacking the motives of those making the argument. If Stalin said the sky was blue, he'd still be right even though he's Stalin.

arius wrote: »

Name 1 government which issues it's own currency and paid it's debt.

Tell us.

Which debt are you talking about? If you are going to have a technical argument, you really need to be a lot more specific in the terms you use.

And of course you are most certainly wrong anyway because you are a communist (see what I did there? ).

Jawgap

arius wrote: »

Noodler,

I have just 1 question for you and your banking buddies...it's obvious some of you work in the city of London and on the continent.

Name 1 government which issues it's own currency and paid it's debt.

Tell us.

Canada, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, Malaysia, Mauritius, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore and Switzerland - maybe Britain depending on your definition of government and debt default.

squod

Anynama141 wrote: »

........... it's the higher earners who are hit hardest.

I haven't read the thread. On this one point I can safely say the higher earners are way more likely to get involved in tax avoidance schemes than lower income earners.

I could draw a chart, if that would help.

Anynama141

squod wrote: »

I haven't read the thread. On this one point I can safely say the higher earners are way more likely to get involved in tax avoidance schemes than lower income earners.

It depends on what you mean by 'higher earners' - I'm thinking of PAYE workers who don't even get the chance to avoid any tax. If you are talking about wealthy self-employed people, that's a different matter.

squod wrote: »

I could draw a chart, if that would help.

That would be great, thanks.

arius

Anynama141 wrote: »

Logical fallacy: you can't defeat an argument by attacking the motives of those making the argument. If Stalin said the sky was blue, he'd still be right even though he's Stalin.

Which debt are you talking about? If you are going to have a technical argument, you really need to be a lot more specific in the terms you use.

And of course you are most certainly wrong anyway because you are a communist (see what I did there? ).

So you can't answer my question.

That's what I knew already.

Thanks for proving my point.

Anynama141

arius wrote: »

So you can't answer my question.

That's what I already knew.

Thanks for proving my point.

Your question made no sense - if I ask you a nonsense question that you can't answer, will that prove my point? No, it won't. Your question just demonstrated that you have a very shallow knowledge of the subject area.

So please try to ask a coherent question and I will try to answer it. Are you referring to government bonds or something?

arius

Anynama141 wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by 'higher earners' - I'm thinking of PAYE workers who don't even get the chance to avoid any tax. If you are talking about wealthy self-employed people, that's a different matter.

That would be great, thanks.

Nama...who are you kidding here? We all know you work in finance and absorbed a skewed ideology to attain your Phd.

You are not working for people, you're working for banks, a private enterprise.
It's understandable you (like your city of London dupes) assert Ireland needs to embrace austerity.

You have an agenda...I get it.
It may not be your personal agenda, but it's your paymasters agenda.

Please don't think you're fooling everyone here, you aren't and never will however you may try.

arius

Anynama141 wrote: »

Your question made no sense - if I ask you a nonsense question that you can't answer, will that prove my point? No, it won't. Your question just demonstrated that you have a very shallow knowledge of the subject area.

So please try to ask a coherent question and I will try to answer it. Are you referring to government bonds or something?

It's very simple straight forward question and you can't answer it because the only answer you have would contradict everything you've been preaching.

arius

squod wrote: »

I haven't read the thread. On this one point I can safely say the higher earners are way more likely to get involved in tax avoidance schemes than lower income earners.

I could draw a chart, if that would help.

Very good point.

Warren Buffett joked about how he paid less tax than his secretary.

The 400 of us pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.

Yes, we need to close down hospitals and cut back on education in order to have an economic recovery....at least that's what the City of London boys think.

noodler

arius wrote: »

Noodler,

I have just 1 question for you and your banking buddies...it's obvious some of you work in the city of London and on the continent.

...

arius wrote: »

Name 1 government which issues it's own currency and paid it's debt.

Tell us.

Every country pays their debt?

http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/maturity-profile/

When Bond A matures, the State will likely attempt to refinance it but issuing Bond B.

What is your point?

The nominal value of a country's debt rarely seems to change but its always paid and then refinanced.

Anynama141

arius wrote: »

Nama...who are you kidding here? We all know you work in finance and absorbed a skewed ideology to attain your Phd.

Well, I actually don't work in finance...but I'm no ideologist anyway. I'm a pragmatist - I suppose you could argue that is an ideology too, but I disagree.

arius wrote: »

You are not working for people, you're working for banks, a private enterprise.
It's understandable you (like your city of London dupes) assert Ireland needs to embrace austerity.

I don't work in finance.

arius wrote: »

You have an agenda...I get it.
It may not be your personal agenda, but it's your paymasters agenda.

I don't work in finance.

arius wrote: »

Please don't think you're fooling everyone here, you aren't and never will however you may try.

I don't work in finance.

What was your question?

Anynama141

arius wrote: »

It's very simple straight forward question and you can't answer it because the only answer you have would contradict everything you've been preaching.

What country that has its own currency pays its debts? If you are referring to government bonds, then the answer is every country, except those who default. Defaulters are few.

I'm afraid I had to guess your question though as it was very vague - if it's not what you were referring to, please clarify.

Phoebas

arius wrote: »

Very good point.

Warren Buffett joked about how he paid less tax than his secretary.

No he didn't. He paid a lower percentage, not a lower amount.

Anynama141

Phoebas wrote: »

No he didn't. He paid a lower percentage, not a lower amount.

And he wasn't joking, he was complaining - and he was right to complain.

Phoebas

squod wrote: »

I haven't read the thread. On this one point I can safely say the higher earners are way more likely to get involved in tax avoidance schemes than lower income earners.

Of course they are; their tax liabilities are higher so it follows that they will try to avoid paying more than someone with a lower liability. Who wouldn't?

Paying money into a pension or buying a tax saver bus ticket is tax avoidance.

squod

Phoebas wrote: »

Of course they are; their tax liabilities are higher so it follows that they will try to avoid paying more than someone with a lower liability. Who wouldn't?

Paying money into a pension or buying a tax saver bus ticket is tax avoidance.

It's interesting. Traditionally the Irish government has welcomed tax evaders/tax avoiders. It's seriously gone beyond a joke. I know a few people who are bankrupt and have a lovely lifestyle.


Cash is king in this country and Revenue do very, very little to put tax cheats off.