So don't give money to the banks. Give it to the people. Then you wouldn't have to worry about corporations and banks sitting on the money. The money will eventually get to them somehow but the important pat is you'll have the money being spent.Blade wrote:Of course, pumping money into the economy is easier said that done. Many banks and corporations will be very happy to get government money and just sit on it. And even when it's invested in real and useful applications, there's always a risk that the investment will turn out to be not so good (for example you build a new road/railway/tunnel to boost trade and you get something that nobody uses with a very high maintenance cost).
Election 2016
Moderator: Moderators
-
- King
- Posts: 5271
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am
Europe does have greater leverage, though, than Greece - they control the single currency. (Which, despite my otherwise support for European federalism, is now obviously a broken and monsterous piece of shit that needs to be eliminated.)
Then, once you have absorbed the lesson, that your so-called "friends" are nothing but meat sacks flopping around in the fashion of an outgassing corpse, pile all of your dice and pencils and graph-paper in the corner and SET THEM ON FIRE. Weep meaningless tears.
-DrPraetor
-DrPraetor
Have austerity measures ever worked? I have said this before but I don't really know anything about economics but the general thing I've heard about austerity here and a few other places (at least once from a guest on the Daily Show) is that it doesn't work and won't work to fix any of this crisis business. I assume it must have worked at some point, otherwise why would there be this myth that it will work if you have more of it.DSMatticus wrote:I will note that you had a very easy time saying that, but Europe is bending Greece over and pounding their ass with a porcupine for asking to try it (instead of moar austerity!!1!). So technically, I think I have to say Blade's "easier said than done" stands.
Austerity comes from assuming macroeconomics are the same as microeconomics. It's an understandable initial mistake. After all, if you spend less money than you take in in your daily life, or find unnecessary things to cut, you'll be financially stable.MGuy wrote:Have austerity measures ever worked? I have said this before but I don't really know anything about economics but the general thing I've heard about austerity here and a few other places (at least once from a guest on the Daily Show) is that it doesn't work and won't work to fix any of this crisis business. I assume it must have worked at some point, otherwise why would there be this myth that it will work if you have more of it.DSMatticus wrote:I will note that you had a very easy time saying that, but Europe is bending Greece over and pounding their ass with a porcupine for asking to try it (instead of moar austerity!!1!). So technically, I think I have to say Blade's "easier said than done" stands.
That's only true with microeconomics, though.
Macroeconomics...circulation is everything. As long as lots of money is being spent, the economy is great. Business is going up, so companies hire more people, order more things. People spend more money, tip more freely, everyone's happy. It's financially unwise for you to spend all your money every paycheck, but if a fuckton of people are doing it at once, it's great for everyone.
The inverse is also true. Large-scale uses of thrift are bad news. Cautious and conservative (in the sense of being unwilling to make a change) business practices mean less hiring, more pay and job cuts, less money spent on new things for the business. Governments spend less money on welfare and social programs and cut staff, forgetting that each people out of work is a person out of work, regardless if their old job was public or private sector. That's austerity--trying to treat a country's finances like it's your house's. It doesn't work. In fact, a government spending less money in bad times, cutting jobs, etc, is one of the worse things to do. Less people working means less people buying stuff from private sector and less taxes being taken in by the government, which makes economic problems worse, which austerity pushers take as a sign they need to tighten the belt further. Which makes things even worse when the effects hit.
It's the Thrift Paradox, and it'll kill people and ruin countries.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
-
- King
- Posts: 5271
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am
Neither do conservative economists, so there's that.MGuy wrote:I have said this before but I don't really know anything about economics
It's not an intellectual position. No matter what ails you, conservatives always prescribe the exact same medicine - shrink the government and shift the relative tax burden downward. That's not because they think it works, it's because they're being paid to convince you to take that medicine and they don't give a fuck what it actually does to you. The goal isn't to fix the economy, it's to redistribute wealth upwards - always and forever.
Isn't it more that Greece has sinned and must atone before the invisible hand of the market? So their market share must be reduced to prevent their sin of unearned consumption from spreading to the faithful. Punishment for the wicked.
I know that sounds kinda religious, but, you know, economists. Obviously they are punishing Greece, my suggestion is that they mean to do so.
I know that sounds kinda religious, but, you know, economists. Obviously they are punishing Greece, my suggestion is that they mean to do so.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to squeeze the most money you can from an overburdened country on the short term, austerity kinda works. That's one of the reason why it's easier said than done: there are many rich and powerful groups out there that think it's their best interest to push austerity.MGuy wrote:Have austerity measures ever worked?
Also, to be the devil's advocate, I'd say that austerity might work, in a way, if you've got otherwise good economic conditions that can generate growth despite austerity. That's why many people now say that Thatcherism was good for England: when you cut down spending and despite that get good economic results (some will argue that it was the austerity politics that led to the good economic results, but I disagree with that), you end up with more leeway. But you probably also have trouble with the health and education of your lower and middle classes (among other things)t, depending on how long you had austerity and how bad it was.
For Greece's case, it seems to me that part of the problem is corruption. But the fact that the German term for debt is the same as guilt, fault and blame doesn't help.
Pretty much.tussock wrote:Isn't it more that Greece has sinned and must atone before the invisible hand of the market? So their market share must be reduced to prevent their sin of unearned consumption from spreading to the faithful. Punishment for the wicked.
I know that sounds kinda religious, but, you know, economists. Obviously they are punishing Greece, my suggestion is that they mean to do so.
It seems to me that Eurozone members don't yet understand that they're on the same team.
Logically, when your teammate tears his ACL, you pick up the slack for him while he has his surgery and recovers. Because making a guy play without an ACL is not only dangerous for him, it hurts the entire team.
Unfortunately, the Eurozone members don't seem to see themselves are teammates, but as competitors. Ergo, Greece's economic problems are good for them. They makes it easier for them to win the game, whatever that game may be.
-
- King
- Posts: 5271
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am
Germany has a very healthy export industry. Ordinarily, the strength of the German economy would drive up the value of their currency and reduce the global competitiveness of their exports. Ordinarily, the weakness of the Greek economy would drive down the value of their currency and increase the global competitiveness of their exports (and also do a bunch of other shit to make recovering from the crisis easier). But Germany and Greece are on the same currency, so what's actually happening is that Germany pushes the value of their shared currency up while Greece pushes it down and it stabilizes somewhere in the middle, creating economic hardship in Greece (because the value of the currency is too high for them) and creating economic growth in Germany (because the value of the currency is too low for them).
The German economy is fueled in no small part by unemployment in Greece. The current incarnation of the euro is a giant subsidy program for Germany whose primary mechanism of function is the grinding of millions of lives down into poverty. I don't believe that's completely accidental; Germany and Greece aren't on the same team.
The German economy is fueled in no small part by unemployment in Greece. The current incarnation of the euro is a giant subsidy program for Germany whose primary mechanism of function is the grinding of millions of lives down into poverty. I don't believe that's completely accidental; Germany and Greece aren't on the same team.
Last edited by DSMatticus on Fri Apr 24, 2015 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- angelfromanotherpin
- Overlord
- Posts: 9745
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
-
- King
- Posts: 5271
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am
Which is precisely why they'll never defeat America. And why the EU isn't going to claim the USSR's vacant Superpower slot anytime soon.DSMatticus wrote:
The German economy is fueled in no small part by unemployment in Greece. The current incarnation of the euro is a giant subsidy program for Germany whose primary mechanism of function is the grinding of millions of lives down into poverty. I don't believe that's completely accidental; Germany and Greece aren't on the same team.
-
- King
- Posts: 5271
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am
I raise you the British Empire. Extracting your resources from lands afar with the blood of the natives is a totally legit way to become a world superpower. The weapons are different (banks instead of guns) and the resouces are different (relative advantage in the global economy instead of actual physical resources), but otherwise it's not all that different. Particularly the part where people elsewhere bleed unwillingly for your benefit. It's just a... modern reimagining of the practice.hyzmarca wrote:Which is precisely why they'll never defeat America. And why the EU isn't going to claim the USSR's vacant Superpower slot anytime soon.DSMatticus wrote:
The German economy is fueled in no small part by unemployment in Greece. The current incarnation of the euro is a giant subsidy program for Germany whose primary mechanism of function is the grinding of millions of lives down into poverty. I don't believe that's completely accidental; Germany and Greece aren't on the same team.
-
- King
- Posts: 5271
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am
Don't feel too good about it. Greek unemployment is sticking in the high 20%'s and hospitals are turning away the sick and dying due to an inability to treat them. I know there are parts of the world, particularly former British colonies, where "there aren't enough doctors or medical supplies so you die" is just a thing that happens all the time, but Greece wasn't one of those places until this decade and however shitty it is that places like that exist it is shittier to be making more of them instead of less. Germany is killing the people of Greece in observable, measurable ways.
- angelfromanotherpin
- Overlord
- Posts: 9745
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Stuff like this gets me excited. I have no idea how practical it might be to implement, but even hearing it spoken about is encouraging.
I sometimes wonder if people from outside the EU understand it isn't a country, it's just a bunch of countries that decided that they should stop muderizing each other every couple decades and set up a bunch of economical deals since they were at it. And we can't even agree very well on that last part, let alone other things.hyzmarca wrote:Which is precisely why they'll never defeat America. And why the EU isn't going to claim the USSR's vacant Superpower slot anytime soon.DSMatticus wrote:
The German economy is fueled in no small part by unemployment in Greece. The current incarnation of the euro is a giant subsidy program for Germany whose primary mechanism of function is the grinding of millions of lives down into poverty. I don't believe that's completely accidental; Germany and Greece aren't on the same team.
Also vacant slot left by the USSR? What vacant slot? Russia gives Asylum to dissidents from America, still has one of the most (if not the most) advanced human-in-space program right now (NASA itself was buying rocket engines from Russia until very recently, true story), and when Russia sends their military into another country to "liberate" them, even America just stands watching, same as EU (in return, Russia also just watches when America goes to "liberate" another country with bombs and whatnot, although Russia takes care their own ambassadors aren't burned alive by their supposed allies).
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1060
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:51 pm
Sanders is going to run. Fuck yeah.
sandmann wrote:Zak S wrote:I'm not a dick, I'm really nice.Zak S wrote:(...) once you have decided that you will spend any part of your life trolling on the internet, you forfeit all rights as a human.If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.
If you wanted to participate in a conversation, you've lost that right. You are a non-human now. You are over and cancelled. No concern of yours can ever matter to any member of the human race ever again.
Fuck yeah. I mean we'll get Hillary anyway, so I can safely vote my conscience and not my party for once and still manage some sort of borderline acceptable result.
Then, once you have absorbed the lesson, that your so-called "friends" are nothing but meat sacks flopping around in the fashion of an outgassing corpse, pile all of your dice and pencils and graph-paper in the corner and SET THEM ON FIRE. Weep meaningless tears.
-DrPraetor
-DrPraetor
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
Well, Hillary is legitimately sticking her neck out speaking against police brutality and mass incarceration. That's the first thing she's done that made me rethink my position on her. I mean, she didn't have to do it and I wouldn't blame her or any other Democratic candidate for not doing it but I appreciate it nonetheless.
Maybe I was too hard on her.
Maybe I was too hard on her.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
- angelfromanotherpin
- Overlord
- Posts: 9745
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Jeb Bush says that he takes his brother's advice. On middle east foreign policy.
HAHAHAOHWOW, etc., but wtf? First Jeb declares himself to 'be his own man,' never mind that his inner circle is almost entirely made up of people that were on his father's and brother's, and now he's... tying himself to the anchor that is his brother's foreign policy legacy as hard as possible.
At this point, I think even the party establishment might realize he's less electable than Rmoney and try to ditch him.
HAHAHAOHWOW, etc., but wtf? First Jeb declares himself to 'be his own man,' never mind that his inner circle is almost entirely made up of people that were on his father's and brother's, and now he's... tying himself to the anchor that is his brother's foreign policy legacy as hard as possible.
At this point, I think even the party establishment might realize he's less electable than Rmoney and try to ditch him.
- Ancient History
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 12708
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm
- angelfromanotherpin
- Overlord
- Posts: 9745
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Identity politics being what they are, once a candidate secures the Republican nomination, they get a free pass on basically everything from the party. But Jeb hasn't done that yet. Right now he's just the guy reminding everyone of W., who the right has done their best to memory hole for eight years. It's not the mendacity, whoever the eventual candidate is will obviously be a font of that. It's that reminding people of W. is both a dreadful political strategy and also disturbs the right's cognitive dissonance around 9/11 and the Great Recession.