4 ms·

The argument in the article seems to be that reduced government spending has depressed the economy, which in turn has killed its income from taxes. So, yes, the

by wtracy 14y ago

The argument in the article seems to be that reduced government spending has depressed the economy, which in turn has killed its income from taxes. So, yes, they reduced spending, but they reduced their income at the same time, so there's no net benefit.

varjag 14y ago
Eventually there has to be a switch from spending imaginary money though, and I doubt there ever will be a point when such transition is painless.
- saraid216 14y ago
  Um. All money is imaginary. Money is money if we both agree that it is money. So I don't really know what you mean by switching away from imaginary money. That's not actually possible to do. I guess you could go with the resource-based economy guys, but that's not actually money anymore.
  - varjag 14y ago
    Erm no. Money is a token in value exchange transactions. If a government rides on throwing in tokens not backed up by value in the economy, that is not going to last.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      Ah. What you're saying is that the money will have less value. I got distracted by your weird usage of imaginariness. So this isn't about money; it's about value. Yes, austerity results in lowering the value in the economy, which in turn makes it difficult to back money with said lack of value.
      - varjag 14y ago
        No, what I am saying is that the borrowed money are not backed by value in the economy, and that returning them has to be painful. Now I know Krugman says the value should appear in a puff of smoke once money is thrown in thin air, but that's more a matter of personal belief. Did it help curing the Great Depression? Perhaps; however there are numerous examples of where societies bankrupted themselves with borrowing and spending.
- lutze 14y ago
  Yes sure, common sense right? But the deficit has actually increased. So not only are they targeting the most vulnerable, but their measures aren't even working. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/10539437 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/10539437
lutze 14y ago
Economically no. But scrounging poors are literally dying on their feet, so I'm guessing that's seen as a win. Hyperbolic? Maybe a little. But I currently live in a country where people are dropping dead after failing "medical" tests for incapacity benefit and being told to get a job. http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/04/32-die-a-week-after-failing-in.html http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/04/32-die-a-we... It's fucking disgraceful.

by wtracy 14y ago

varjag 14y ago

Eventually there has to be a switch from spending imaginary money though, and I doubt there ever will be a point when such transition is painless.

saraid216 14y ago
Um. All money is imaginary. Money is money if we both agree that it is money. So I don't really know what you mean by switching away from imaginary money. That's not actually possible to do. I guess you could go with the resource-based economy guys, but that's not actually money anymore.
- varjag 14y ago
  Erm no. Money is a token in value exchange transactions. If a government rides on throwing in tokens not backed up by value in the economy, that is not going to last.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    Ah. What you're saying is that the money will have less value. I got distracted by your weird usage of imaginariness. So this isn't about money; it's about value. Yes, austerity results in lowering the value in the economy, which in turn makes it difficult to back money with said lack of value.
    - varjag 14y ago
      No, what I am saying is that the borrowed money are not backed by value in the economy, and that returning them has to be painful. Now I know Krugman says the value should appear in a puff of smoke once money is thrown in thin air, but that's more a matter of personal belief. Did it help curing the Great Depression? Perhaps; however there are numerous examples of where societies bankrupted themselves with borrowing and spending.
lutze 14y ago
Yes sure, common sense right? But the deficit has actually increased. So not only are they targeting the most vulnerable, but their measures aren't even working. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/10539437 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/10539437

lutze 14y ago

Economically no. But scrounging poors are literally dying on their feet, so I'm guessing that's seen as a win. Hyperbolic? Maybe a little. But I currently live in a country where people are dropping dead after failing "medical" tests for incapacity benefit and being told to get a job. http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/04/32-die-a-week-after-failing-in.html http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/04/32-die-a-we... It's fucking disgraceful.