5 ms·

You have to love how austerity has been redefined. What austerity? The UK total budget expenditures have gone up every year. They might be lower versus GDP but

You have to love how austerity has been redefined. What austerity? The UK total budget expenditures have gone up every year. They might be lower versus GDP but that is the result of a recovering economy. You do not have an austerity problem if your budget is increasing. You have a spending problem. The UK's mental health woes are simply an issue that their government managed health care didn't deliver on promises and overspends in other areas. So sorry, there is no problem cause by austerity here. Always scoff when you see such claims as your more than likely to find government expenditures have increased.

nbevans 11y ago
+1 The UK is one of the few shining beacons in Europe at the moment. Why do the left think we've so many "asylum" migrants illegally trying to cross using heavy goods vehicles and the Channel Tunnel? Many "asylum" seekers reach Greece, Hungary, France, even Germany (!) and declare "this isn't good enough, we want asylum in the UK!".
- richmarr 11y ago
  > Many "asylum" seekers reach Greece, Hungary, France, even Germany (!) and declare "this isn't good enough, we want asylum in the UK!". Illegal immigrants drive down unskilled labour costs, which is beneficial to the economy... they don't get welfare, or have access to non-emergency healthcare, and they typically live in cramped shared accomodation so put much less strain per head on housing than all the Russian oligarchs who buy Chelsea investment properties to leave vacant. So I'm not really sure what your objection is... unless it's the obvious one. Oh wait, maybe it's ZOMGTHETERRRRRRRIZM! Not sure that's a huge bother to be honest, all our recent terrorism has been home-grown.
  - nbevans 11y ago
    Please quote where my objection was :) Observation, reasoning != objection. But yes, for the record, I do object and the current UK government objects to it. Which is why we haven't opened up the flood gates like Germany, stupidly, did.
    - morsch 11y ago
      When you add scare quotes to the word asylum it's pretty obvious what your political leanings and corresponding objections are.
      - nbevans 11y ago
        No it isn't? And "scare quotes", good lord. I put it in quotes because these people aren't interested in following the standard asylum seeking procedures. They want to go around them. Which means they aren't actually an asylum seeker. It makes them an illegal immigrant. Not many governments in the world will tolerate illegal immigration.
        richmarr 11y ago
        > I put it in quotes because these people aren't interested in following the standard asylum seeking procedures So it's illegal immigrants you're talking about, rather than asylum seekers? > Not many governments in the world will tolerate illegal immigration. On the surface that's a reasonable position. After all, surely if they tolerated it then they'd be legal immigrants. But tolerate is a simple word for a complex situation. There's a difference between how much a government talks about immigration and how much they're willing to spend to stop it (and willing to spend to fix any negative knock-on effects either from reduced migration or blunt-instrument policies).
  - vixen99 11y ago
    Oh goody - let's drive down the wages for unskilled natives by importing illegal immigrants and call it a benefit. Can we do a check to see that your home is being efficiently used? No spare rooms I trust!
    - richmarr 11y ago
      Happy to debate it rationally if you want to make a serious point
      - hiram112 11y ago
        It is a serious point. The same claim - that immigrants are a benefit to the economy - has been stated without refute for 20 years now in the US, for both low level Latin American workers (construction, agriculture, minimum wage service) and higher level services (H1Bs in technology and nursing). The participant rate of employment in the US, which can't be gamed as easily as other unemployment measurements, is still lower than it was in 2008. Now the taxpayers get to subsidize both the unemployed American worker and the immigrant (via health care, schooling, lost taxes, etc.) How this is a benefit for anyone other than capital owners is something I'd love to hear.
        richmarr 11y ago
        > It is a serious point. We'll have to agree to disagree there. It satires a position I don't hold. You both seem to assume that I believe immigration to be a 100% clear and unambiguous benefit, which isn't the case. I'll go further; anyone who presents immigration arguments as simple is selling something. In reality I'm making counter-points to someone I feel is trying to punch more than the evidence seems to allow. Now to the points you've raised... > The same claim - that immigrants are a benefit to the economy - has been stated without refute for 20 years now in the US This thread is about the UK, and I learned all I know about the US from watching the movie Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps... but sure... if you like let's talk about the US. Why do you think nobody, apparently ever, refutes the benefits of US immigration? > The participant rate of employment in the US... Yep. Clearly a first-order effect of high immigration (legal or otherwise) is going to be competition for some types of jobs. I haven't heard any argument with that. There will be second-order and third-order effects on employment though. It's also important to try to quantify the approximate size of each effect and the timescale over which it occurs. You're welcome to translate that "participant rate of employment" reference for an international audience. They didn't cover that in Nutty Professor 2. > Now the taxpayers get to subsidize both the unemployed American worker and the immigrant (via health care, schooling, lost taxes, etc.) I'm surprised that illegal immigrants have much access to healthcare & education access in the US. I'd be curious to know exactly what the cost of that is. The third type of subsidy you raise there 'lost taxes' could really just be a short-hand for 'all government services', so isn't additive with the others. What's in the "etc."? Don't misunderstand, having one group subsidising another is certainly a social justice issue, but it doesn't seem like it's in the top 5 biggest social justice issues in America. The Klumps were very informative on that point. > How this is a benefit for anyone other than capital owners is something I'd love to hear. From your references to H1B visas and to subsidising immigrants not paying taxes I assume you're objecting to both legal and illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants are much much easier to defend: 60% of the top US companies were founded by 1st or 2nd gen immigrants (Google, Apple, eBay, Tesla), and 15% of US presidents are 2nd gen. Immigrants are also twice as likely as naturals to start a business, creating both jobs and market efficiency. Both of those things generate tax revenue and prolong the US position as the #1 economy in the world. Even if you don't believe in trickle-down economics you'd sound like a crackpot to argue against that. With illegal immigrants there's much less data and the arguments I've heard are are much less convncing... but I still don't believe anyone who presents it as a simple argument.
- iaskwhy 11y ago
  Can you cite "many" examples? Some people might think that, others might be trying to reach a country speaking a language they can understand, trying to reach their family, etc, etc. Data would help when claiming something like that.
- corin_ 11y ago
  FYI the biggest reason is because if you speak a little English and nothing else but your mother tongue, you probably aren't going to be too keen on either going through an asylum process or living and working in a country where that speaks Greek, Hungarian, French or even German(!)
  - nbevans 11y ago
    Could be yep. Hence "shining beacon".
agd 11y ago
Real government spending per capita has been falling. Real government spending is falling. There have been real cuts of 20%+ in many government departments over the last 5 years. The welfare budget has just been slashed (hitting the working poor). Hence austerity.
SEMW 11y ago
> The UK total budget expenditures have gone up every year. Only if you only look at the raw £ figures, and take into account neither inflation nor population growth. Public expenditure between 2010 and 2016 (since the Tories came to power) has gone from £673bn to £759bn. In that time, the CPI's gone from 112 to 127.[0] Population growth is about 7.4% every 10 years.[1] Expenditure per capita is not increasing in real terms. (Also, there are good reasons that economists measure public expenditure as a % of GDP). [0] http://www.rateinflation.com/consumer-price-index/uk-historical-cpi http://www.rateinflation.com/consumer-price-index/uk-histori... [1] 2001 census: 58.78m; 2011 census: 63.18m
RobertoG 11y ago
It seems is even the official name.. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_aust... "The United Kingdom government austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending, intended to reduce the welfare state." "The programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. Its original stated goal was to, "achieve cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period." At the June 2010 budget, the end of the forecast period was 2015-16. However, in 2014 the Treasury extended the proposed austerity period until at least 2018."
richmarr 11y ago
> So sorry, there is no problem cause by austerity here The UK goverment are the ones who kept pushing the term 'austerity', which is why the article is using that word in relation to welfare cuts. If you want to argue terminology, fine, don't call it 'austerity', choose a narrower label like 'welfare cuts in a stagnant economy' or something. > Always scoff... Alternatively; never scoff.
- nbevans 11y ago
  I call it "cost savings" and "efficiency gains".
  - richmarr 11y ago
    "Cost" and "efficiency" make sense in terms of your personal budget but using them in relation to a government budget is both naive & misleading.
    - RobertoG 11y ago
      You are right, but the idea that government expenses in their our currency are a totally different thing of household expenses is not well know and understood. I would suggest that, for avoiding (some) downvotes in the future, you add a link and some clarification. For instance: https://petermartin2001.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/how-to-balance-the-government-budget/ https://petermartin2001.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/how-to-bala... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory
      - richmarr 11y ago
        Good point and good links. Thanks.
    - nbevans 11y ago
      Have a read of this: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/Conservativ...
fulafel 11y ago
The UK conservative government and labour opposition sure seem to agree they are doing it. Do you have a definition of austerity which disagrees? The WP definition and press also seem to agree. See eg http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/08/news/economy/uk-endless-austerity-cuts/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/08/news/economy/uk-endless-aust... The budget effects are just evidence that austerity by spending cuts is not a very good way of saving the government money in the current situation. Cutting government spending in a recession can shrink the whole economy and cause tax revenue to drop even more, and then the resulting budget deficit proves you need to make yet more spending cuts, etc. See http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-academic-consensus-on-impact-of.html http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-academic-consens... for a more detailed marcoeconomic explanation of what's happening. (edit: changed to a newer and more fitting post from the same blog)
paulojreis 11y ago
> What austerity? The UK total budget expenditures have gone up every year. Yeah, sure. As we all know, numbers don't lie. However, oversimplification, obliviousness, intellectual dishonesty and ignorance do. I won't try to infer in which "bucket" you fell, but looking at the raw value of GBP spent is no way to analyse government spending.
pjc50 11y ago
"Austerity" is the choice to close the gap at the expense of the people least able to afford it, rather than the most able. It is the choice to remove from disabled people living on their own the income they need to survive, partly through rules changes and partly through an increasingly hostile bureaucratic thicket.
- fulafel 11y ago
  Nitpick: increasing taxes to cover the deficit also fits the dictionary definition.

nbevans 11y ago

+1 The UK is one of the few shining beacons in Europe at the moment. Why do the left think we've so many "asylum" migrants illegally trying to cross using heavy goods vehicles and the Channel Tunnel? Many "asylum" seekers reach Greece, Hungary, France, even Germany (!) and declare "this isn't good enough, we want asylum in the UK!".

richmarr 11y ago
> Many "asylum" seekers reach Greece, Hungary, France, even Germany (!) and declare "this isn't good enough, we want asylum in the UK!". Illegal immigrants drive down unskilled labour costs, which is beneficial to the economy... they don't get welfare, or have access to non-emergency healthcare, and they typically live in cramped shared accomodation so put much less strain per head on housing than all the Russian oligarchs who buy Chelsea investment properties to leave vacant. So I'm not really sure what your objection is... unless it's the obvious one. Oh wait, maybe it's ZOMGTHETERRRRRRRIZM! Not sure that's a huge bother to be honest, all our recent terrorism has been home-grown.
- nbevans 11y ago
  Please quote where my objection was :) Observation, reasoning != objection. But yes, for the record, I do object and the current UK government objects to it. Which is why we haven't opened up the flood gates like Germany, stupidly, did.
  - morsch 11y ago
    When you add scare quotes to the word asylum it's pretty obvious what your political leanings and corresponding objections are.
    - nbevans 11y ago
      No it isn't? And "scare quotes", good lord. I put it in quotes because these people aren't interested in following the standard asylum seeking procedures. They want to go around them. Which means they aren't actually an asylum seeker. It makes them an illegal immigrant. Not many governments in the world will tolerate illegal immigration.
      - richmarr 11y ago
        > I put it in quotes because these people aren't interested in following the standard asylum seeking procedures So it's illegal immigrants you're talking about, rather than asylum seekers? > Not many governments in the world will tolerate illegal immigration. On the surface that's a reasonable position. After all, surely if they tolerated it then they'd be legal immigrants. But tolerate is a simple word for a complex situation. There's a difference between how much a government talks about immigration and how much they're willing to spend to stop it (and willing to spend to fix any negative knock-on effects either from reduced migration or blunt-instrument policies).
- vixen99 11y ago
  Oh goody - let's drive down the wages for unskilled natives by importing illegal immigrants and call it a benefit. Can we do a check to see that your home is being efficiently used? No spare rooms I trust!
  - richmarr 11y ago
    Happy to debate it rationally if you want to make a serious point
    - hiram112 11y ago
      It is a serious point. The same claim - that immigrants are a benefit to the economy - has been stated without refute for 20 years now in the US, for both low level Latin American workers (construction, agriculture, minimum wage service) and higher level services (H1Bs in technology and nursing). The participant rate of employment in the US, which can't be gamed as easily as other unemployment measurements, is still lower than it was in 2008. Now the taxpayers get to subsidize both the unemployed American worker and the immigrant (via health care, schooling, lost taxes, etc.) How this is a benefit for anyone other than capital owners is something I'd love to hear.
      - richmarr 11y ago
        > It is a serious point. We'll have to agree to disagree there. It satires a position I don't hold. You both seem to assume that I believe immigration to be a 100% clear and unambiguous benefit, which isn't the case. I'll go further; anyone who presents immigration arguments as simple is selling something. In reality I'm making counter-points to someone I feel is trying to punch more than the evidence seems to allow. Now to the points you've raised... > The same claim - that immigrants are a benefit to the economy - has been stated without refute for 20 years now in the US This thread is about the UK, and I learned all I know about the US from watching the movie Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps... but sure... if you like let's talk about the US. Why do you think nobody, apparently ever, refutes the benefits of US immigration? > The participant rate of employment in the US... Yep. Clearly a first-order effect of high immigration (legal or otherwise) is going to be competition for some types of jobs. I haven't heard any argument with that. There will be second-order and third-order effects on employment though. It's also important to try to quantify the approximate size of each effect and the timescale over which it occurs. You're welcome to translate that "participant rate of employment" reference for an international audience. They didn't cover that in Nutty Professor 2. > Now the taxpayers get to subsidize both the unemployed American worker and the immigrant (via health care, schooling, lost taxes, etc.) I'm surprised that illegal immigrants have much access to healthcare & education access in the US. I'd be curious to know exactly what the cost of that is. The third type of subsidy you raise there 'lost taxes' could really just be a short-hand for 'all government services', so isn't additive with the others. What's in the "etc."? Don't misunderstand, having one group subsidising another is certainly a social justice issue, but it doesn't seem like it's in the top 5 biggest social justice issues in America. The Klumps were very informative on that point. > How this is a benefit for anyone other than capital owners is something I'd love to hear. From your references to H1B visas and to subsidising immigrants not paying taxes I assume you're objecting to both legal and illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants are much much easier to defend: 60% of the top US companies were founded by 1st or 2nd gen immigrants (Google, Apple, eBay, Tesla), and 15% of US presidents are 2nd gen. Immigrants are also twice as likely as naturals to start a business, creating both jobs and market efficiency. Both of those things generate tax revenue and prolong the US position as the #1 economy in the world. Even if you don't believe in trickle-down economics you'd sound like a crackpot to argue against that. With illegal immigrants there's much less data and the arguments I've heard are are much less convncing... but I still don't believe anyone who presents it as a simple argument.
iaskwhy 11y ago
Can you cite "many" examples? Some people might think that, others might be trying to reach a country speaking a language they can understand, trying to reach their family, etc, etc. Data would help when claiming something like that.
corin_ 11y ago
FYI the biggest reason is because if you speak a little English and nothing else but your mother tongue, you probably aren't going to be too keen on either going through an asylum process or living and working in a country where that speaks Greek, Hungarian, French or even German(!)
- nbevans 11y ago
  Could be yep. Hence "shining beacon".

agd 11y ago

Real government spending per capita has been falling. Real government spending is falling. There have been real cuts of 20%+ in many government departments over the last 5 years. The welfare budget has just been slashed (hitting the working poor). Hence austerity.

SEMW 11y ago

> The UK total budget expenditures have gone up every year. Only if you only look at the raw £ figures, and take into account neither inflation nor population growth. Public expenditure between 2010 and 2016 (since the Tories came to power) has gone from £673bn to £759bn. In that time, the CPI's gone from 112 to 127.[0] Population growth is about 7.4% every 10 years.[1] Expenditure per capita is not increasing in real terms. (Also, there are good reasons that economists measure public expenditure as a % of GDP). [0] http://www.rateinflation.com/consumer-price-index/uk-historical-cpi http://www.rateinflation.com/consumer-price-index/uk-histori... [1] 2001 census: 58.78m; 2011 census: 63.18m

RobertoG 11y ago

It seems is even the official name.. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_aust... "The United Kingdom government austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending, intended to reduce the welfare state." "The programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. Its original stated goal was to, "achieve cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period." At the June 2010 budget, the end of the forecast period was 2015-16. However, in 2014 the Treasury extended the proposed austerity period until at least 2018."

richmarr 11y ago

> So sorry, there is no problem cause by austerity here The UK goverment are the ones who kept pushing the term 'austerity', which is why the article is using that word in relation to welfare cuts. If you want to argue terminology, fine, don't call it 'austerity', choose a narrower label like 'welfare cuts in a stagnant economy' or something. > Always scoff... Alternatively; never scoff.

nbevans 11y ago
I call it "cost savings" and "efficiency gains".
- richmarr 11y ago
  "Cost" and "efficiency" make sense in terms of your personal budget but using them in relation to a government budget is both naive & misleading.
  - RobertoG 11y ago
    You are right, but the idea that government expenses in their our currency are a totally different thing of household expenses is not well know and understood. I would suggest that, for avoiding (some) downvotes in the future, you add a link and some clarification. For instance: https://petermartin2001.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/how-to-balance-the-government-budget/ https://petermartin2001.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/how-to-bala... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory
    - richmarr 11y ago
      Good point and good links. Thanks.
  - nbevans 11y ago
    Have a read of this: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/Conservativ...

fulafel 11y ago

The UK conservative government and labour opposition sure seem to agree they are doing it. Do you have a definition of austerity which disagrees? The WP definition and press also seem to agree. See eg http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/08/news/economy/uk-endless-austerity-cuts/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/08/news/economy/uk-endless-aust... The budget effects are just evidence that austerity by spending cuts is not a very good way of saving the government money in the current situation. Cutting government spending in a recession can shrink the whole economy and cause tax revenue to drop even more, and then the resulting budget deficit proves you need to make yet more spending cuts, etc. See http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-academic-consensus-on-impact-of.html http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-academic-consens... for a more detailed marcoeconomic explanation of what's happening. (edit: changed to a newer and more fitting post from the same blog)

paulojreis 11y ago

> What austerity? The UK total budget expenditures have gone up every year. Yeah, sure. As we all know, numbers don't lie. However, oversimplification, obliviousness, intellectual dishonesty and ignorance do. I won't try to infer in which "bucket" you fell, but looking at the raw value of GBP spent is no way to analyse government spending.

pjc50 11y ago

"Austerity" is the choice to close the gap at the expense of the people least able to afford it, rather than the most able. It is the choice to remove from disabled people living on their own the income they need to survive, partly through rules changes and partly through an increasingly hostile bureaucratic thicket.

fulafel 11y ago
Nitpick: increasing taxes to cover the deficit also fits the dictionary definition.