5 ms·

That wikipedia article is outrageous, just look at its sources list -- it's almost entirely a rewriting of guardian articles. I have never seen something so re

That wikipedia article is outrageous, just look at its sources list -- it's almost entirely a rewriting of guardian articles. I have never seen something so revisionary on wikipedia. This is just left-wing propaganda. There is zero analysis of the macroeconomic context, zero analysis of austery as an economic policy. Just an endless series of newspapers attacking the government in power for the economic consequences of a economic crisis. One of the most egregious misrepresentations of an issue i've ever seen. Its just writing up what newspapers said; i can't believe it. Reading that article can you answer: (1) what the economic policies called 'austerity' were? (2) what the economic aims of these polices were? (3) whether these aims were successful? (4) why were these the aims? (5) what were alternative policies?

gadders 3y ago
I think the time has long past when you could rely on wikipedia for a disinterested viewpoint on anything political or subjects that are part of the "culture wars".
iamflimflam1 3y ago
There are 184 references.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  An encyclopedia is a place where secondary research on a topic by disinterested professionals is summarised. You could not submit to an academic journal with most of your controversial claims referenced to newspapers. An enclopedia operates at a higher standard of research than academic journal articles -- it should summarise books/etc. about those articles. This article is essentially poor-quality primary research which quotes MPs and newspapers to argue a case about austerity. That's fine for a BA sociology degree -- it's bad for a MSc, it's disqualifying at PhD level, and has zero plac e in an encylcopedia
midasuni 3y ago
FT is hardly a left wing rag https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feab... https://archive.is/t1wU0 https://archive.is/t1wU0 Hindsight is wonderful, in 2010 the choice was austerity, austerity or austerity, there was no alternate voice, but that doesn’t mean it was the right move
- mjburgess 3y ago
  Newspapers are not the place to find research on the effects of policy; yes, even the FT
CraigJPerry 3y ago
>> (3) whether these aims were successful? With the exception of Germany post-WW2, has there ever been an instance where austerity was judged to be somewhat successful? There are hundreds of examples of austerity, which could be added to the wiki page as a success?
- mjburgess 3y ago
  I can't think of a case where austerity wasnt successful. In the UK's case it was overwhelmingly successful. That it didnt meet the goals given to it by opposition parties and newspapers is irrelevant.
  - CraigJPerry 3y ago
    The original goal was simple: Reduce the deficit sufficiently to promote confidence in the market for UK debt in order to deliver growth in the economy. You claim this was overwhelmingly successful? How? Where would we see evidence of success? Would it show up in a change in bond yield trajectories post GFC? (It doesn’t). Would we see a change in the growth rate of the economy post GFC? (We didn’t). So how is it possible it was not just successful but overwhelmingly so when we can’t detect the proposed benefits in the observed data?
    - mjburgess 3y ago
      Austerity had nothing to do with growth. It was to reduce the increasing deficit from +12.5% GDP YoY to flat, in the middle of essentially a "deficit crisis" caused by the need to bail out the financial industry to prevent a whole-economy crisis. Arguments can be made about how far and how fast the deficit needed to decrease; but the policy was overwhelmingly successful. The government was able to maintain non-trivial deficits for a decade after the policy -- precisely because of it. Only people with zero understanding of the issue maintain that there was any non-austerity alternative. Labour's policy was "less" not different. There was no non-austerity option for the UK, with such dramatic deficit increases -- ie., 25% of GDP in <2yr. Few other countries experienced this. The US did not. The financial crisis should've caused a depression in the UK, and a total wipeout of our economy in a whole economy crisis. The bailouts prevented this, then austerity prevented the ensuing deficit crisis. Both policies were not about "growth" they were about preventing total economic metldown in the UK. We were the worst country in the world affected, these conditions were unique and severe.

gadders 3y ago

I think the time has long past when you could rely on wikipedia for a disinterested viewpoint on anything political or subjects that are part of the "culture wars".

iamflimflam1 3y ago

There are 184 references.

mjburgess 3y ago
An encyclopedia is a place where secondary research on a topic by disinterested professionals is summarised. You could not submit to an academic journal with most of your controversial claims referenced to newspapers. An enclopedia operates at a higher standard of research than academic journal articles -- it should summarise books/etc. about those articles. This article is essentially poor-quality primary research which quotes MPs and newspapers to argue a case about austerity. That's fine for a BA sociology degree -- it's bad for a MSc, it's disqualifying at PhD level, and has zero plac e in an encylcopedia

midasuni 3y ago

FT is hardly a left wing rag https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feab... https://archive.is/t1wU0 https://archive.is/t1wU0 Hindsight is wonderful, in 2010 the choice was austerity, austerity or austerity, there was no alternate voice, but that doesn’t mean it was the right move

mjburgess 3y ago
Newspapers are not the place to find research on the effects of policy; yes, even the FT

CraigJPerry 3y ago

>> (3) whether these aims were successful? With the exception of Germany post-WW2, has there ever been an instance where austerity was judged to be somewhat successful? There are hundreds of examples of austerity, which could be added to the wiki page as a success?

mjburgess 3y ago
I can't think of a case where austerity wasnt successful. In the UK's case it was overwhelmingly successful. That it didnt meet the goals given to it by opposition parties and newspapers is irrelevant.
- CraigJPerry 3y ago
  The original goal was simple: Reduce the deficit sufficiently to promote confidence in the market for UK debt in order to deliver growth in the economy. You claim this was overwhelmingly successful? How? Where would we see evidence of success? Would it show up in a change in bond yield trajectories post GFC? (It doesn’t). Would we see a change in the growth rate of the economy post GFC? (We didn’t). So how is it possible it was not just successful but overwhelmingly so when we can’t detect the proposed benefits in the observed data?
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    Austerity had nothing to do with growth. It was to reduce the increasing deficit from +12.5% GDP YoY to flat, in the middle of essentially a "deficit crisis" caused by the need to bail out the financial industry to prevent a whole-economy crisis. Arguments can be made about how far and how fast the deficit needed to decrease; but the policy was overwhelmingly successful. The government was able to maintain non-trivial deficits for a decade after the policy -- precisely because of it. Only people with zero understanding of the issue maintain that there was any non-austerity alternative. Labour's policy was "less" not different. There was no non-austerity option for the UK, with such dramatic deficit increases -- ie., 25% of GDP in <2yr. Few other countries experienced this. The US did not. The financial crisis should've caused a depression in the UK, and a total wipeout of our economy in a whole economy crisis. The bailouts prevented this, then austerity prevented the ensuing deficit crisis. Both policies were not about "growth" they were about preventing total economic metldown in the UK. We were the worst country in the world affected, these conditions were unique and severe.