With austerity biting hard across Europe….

So should I start stockpiling baked beans and pot noodles in my loft now then ? 🙂

Can I ask again?

Are there any examples of the current style of austerity measures ever returning a country to a vibrant growing economy?

every town centre in the country would be in flames every weekend. Last years riots would look like a country fete.

It’s an absolute fact that setting fire to some stuff, smashing up other stuff and stealing the stuff that’s left is guaranteed to resolve every single social issue.

It’s always the first thing I think of doing when I’m cross about something anyway.

Surely we all still remember the sweeping social changes following last years riots?

It’s like a kind of paradise living in England now.

The trouble is jota that this mythical ‘vibrant growing economy’ was a mirage, wasn’t it? It was a house of cards built on property bubbles etc. All smoke and mirrors

I think we’re being lied to by a political class who know full well that our standards of living and what our realistic expectations can be, are in terminal decline. If you’re a realist then you must know that home-ownership, pensions, universal healthcare, etc are being stripped out as unaffordable

The politicians know this. They’re telling us all these ‘austerity’ measures are an attempt to return us to this mythical capitalist nirvana. When in reality they’re in the process of dismantling all this, to deliver us to a much harsher, permanent reality.

They’re making sure themselves and their friends are safely insulated from it though

Going back to the OP (and ignoring the subsequent ‘its all Fatcha’s fault’ predictable bickering). I think what’s being interestingly illustrated is the very different culture in southern Europe to here.

Can you imagine a 50%, and rising, youth unemployment rate in this country? Half this countries youth living on benefits? Can you seriously imagine it? What effect it would have on already stretched social cohesion?

Except youth unemployment isn’t really 50% in Spain – there’s a huge submerged economy, cash-in-hand work etc. But as you pointed out the cultural difference is a critical difference too, there’s no expectation that you’re going to leave home as soon as you turn 18, and there’s nothing particularly remarkable about people still living with their parents at 30…

The UK has had mass unemployemnt, and apart from some easily contained rioting, very little dissent or action against it. We just put up with it, more fools we…

So – will teamhurtmore ever admit that there is anything wrong with the economic theories that have been shown to have no resemblance to reality and that capitalism has failed?

The trouble is jota that this mythical ‘vibrant growing economy’ was a mirage, wasn’t it? It was a house of cards built on property bubbles etc. All smoke and mirrors

It is
I just wondered whether these type of measures have ever worked, in the sense that Joe Ordinary would think that the country had been pulled back from the edge

They’re making sure themselves and their friends are safely insulated from it though

I’m sure they were making plans for their continued “good fortune” and demise for the rest of us at Davos last week.

So – will teamhurtmore ever admit that there is anything wrong with the economic theories that have been shown to have no resemblance to reality and that capitalism has failed?

How dare you say that TJ. Democracy Capitalism defeated Communism, it can’t fail as there is no alternative. Apparently.

So – will teamhurtmore ever admit that there is anything wrong with the economic theories that have been shown to have no resemblance to reality and that capitalism has failed?

Hasn’t really failed though, has it? I’m sitting in a heated office, the lights are on, there’s no mass rioting on the streets, the supermarkets still have food available…

Whether there’s a better way or not is a different matter.

It hasn’t failed you. Yet.

If the purpose of capitalism is to increase the wealth of the country it has failed. if its to increase the wealth of the elite at the expense of the majority it has not.

As other models have shown that the wealth of the majority can be increased despite this being impossible by orthodox economics it also shows that the economic models used are bunkum.

However these are shibboleths that some people will find hard to relinquish

It hasn’t failed you. Yet.

exactly, how many pay packets are you away from it failing you?

Haven’t read the whole thread, but I see a few people asking this sort of thing:

Are there any examples of the current style of austerity measures ever returning a country to a vibrant growing economy?

Point is, it doesn’t matter.

WHat we should all be asking is:

What happens when the world starts to bump up against numerous limits to growth?

That is what is happening now, and is unprecedented.

Unfortunately many economists/politicians/business people completely fail to link the financial model of the world that they have been using for all of living memory to the actual world that we live in.

Frankly, I’d rather be unemployed and facing the global crash in Spain, where there is still a large rural economy that isn’t linked to the useless production of money, but to the useful production of food – I’m sure that relatively poor Spanish rural towns and villages are actually a lot more resilient and capable of sustaining communities than industrial cities in the UK.

And the weather is better.

And the weather is better.

Not-so-funnily enough, that’s one of my main longterm concerns about Spain. Yes, it’s a lot sunnier than the UK. But that’s because it doesn’t rain much (away from the north coast). And climate change may well make that worse…

Hasn’t really failed though, has it? I’m sitting in a heated office, the lights are on, there’s no mass rioting on the streets, the supermarkets still have food available…

A river isn’t really polluted until the moment that the slurry/chemical spill/mine tailings run into it and kill all the fish. Right until then the fish are prospering under capitalism.

A river isn’t really polluted until the moment that the slurry/chemical spill/mine tailings run into it and kill all the fish. Right until then the fish are prospering under capitalism.

Not quite sure what you’re saying here, given that the fish aren’t benefitting in any way before the pollution kills them. Still, it does make for a very dramatic image.

Not quite sure what you’re saying here, given that the fish aren’t benefitting in any way before the pollution kills them.

So the way that you are benefitting from capitalism is that it allows you to sit in a office with the lights on all day, and to help yourself to the cornucopia of delights available at Asda without being attacked and robbed on the way home?

Wow, this capitalism thing sounds great.

I’m really confused now. Is the fish happy or not?

Is the fish happy or not?

Yep.

Right until the end.

So the way that you are benefitting from capitalism is that it allows you to sit in a office with the lights on all day, and to help yourself to the cornucopia of delights available at Asda without being attacked and robbed on the way home?

Wow, this capitalism thing sounds great.

Not to mention the hospitals, the police, my bike, the warm clothes I wear, etc.

BTW I’m not saying capitalism is perfect, and I really would not want to live in a completely free market, but (possibly due to a lack of imagination) I can’t conceive of a better system than a mixed-economy.

Not to mention the hospitals, the police, my bike, the warm clothes I wear, etc.

Hang on, you’ve gone round in a circle and completely missed the point.

You have these things now, but they are not guaranteed for the future.

We need to be spending a bit more time thinking about the hidden unpaid debts (in terms of pollution, depleted resources, etc.) that we are building up, and which eventually will become (are becoming) unsustainable.

Just because your office light is on today does not mean it will be on tomorrow.

Hospitals and police under attack from massive cuts.

For austerity to work,or not,then there has to be a period of austerity.
Can’t see much austerity around here.Plenty of expensive mountainbikes out on Saturday with upmarket cars in the car park.Pub down the road busy on a Sunday afternoon.
This is the North East where supposedly very little money is about.
Talking of Spain i lived there for 11 years.Most of the Spanish i knew who were unemployed didn’t mind it,in fact to get on the sick was a step up the ladder.Most worked for cash,and lived at home,so had quite a good standard of living.

We live in an amazing time…..literally hundreds of millions of people in India and China are being lifted out of absolute poverty in a process that has been going on for 20 years and continues to accelerate.

Both these countries used to be solidly socialist and in China’s case, absolutely Communist. If it isnt a move to free market economics that has caused incredible improvements in people’s live, tell me what it is? I am all ears.

Aha. Thats all well and good….But… BUT…. if we kept them all in absolute poverty and ruthlessly exploited them, then we’d all be able to have more ‘stuff’.

Errmmm- neither were either socialist or communist.

TandemJeremy – Member
Errmmm- neither were either socialist or communist.

Mr Flat Earth pronounces.

Lets look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#Pre-liberalisation_period_.281947.E2.80.931991.29

Pre-liberalisation period (1947–1991)Indian economic policy after independence was influenced by the colonial experience, which was seen by Indian leaders as exploitative, and by those leaders’ exposure to democratic socialism as well as the progress achieved by the economy of the Soviet Union.[38] Domestic policy tended towards protectionism, with a strong emphasis on import substitution industrialisation, economic interventionism, a large public sector, business regulation, and central planning,[42] while trade and foreign investment policies were relatively liberal.[43] Five-Year Plans of India resembled central planning in the Soviet Union. Steel, mining, machine tools, telecommunications, insurance, and power plants, among other industries, were effectively nationalised in the mid-1950s.

In response, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, along with his finance minister Manmohan Singh, initiated the economic liberalisation of 1991. The reforms did away with the Licence Raj, reduced tariffs and interest rates and ended many public monopolies, allowing automatic approval of foreign direct investment in many sectors.[54] Since then, the overall thrust of liberalisation has remained the same, although no government has tried to take on powerful lobbies such as trade unions and farmers, on contentious issues such as reforming labour laws and reducing agricultural subsidies.[55] By the turn of the 20th century, India had progressed towards a free-market economy, with a substantial reduction in state control of the economy and increased financial liberalisation.[56] This has been accompanied by increases in life expectancy, literacy rates and food security, although the beneficiaries have largely been urban residents.

Most of the Spanish i knew who were unemployed didn’t mind it,in fact to get on the sick was a step up the ladder.Most worked for cash,and lived at home,so had quite a good standard of living.

Exactly.

One of the reasons that unemployment is such a disaster in the UK is because we have become far too reliant on the capitalist / consumerist model where we can only get by doing highly specialised jobs inside of large organisations, for money, which we than have to spend via a centralised food distribution system.

Once you drop out of that system you are, largely, screwed.

If you have a skill whereby you can actually make something, or take charge of a complete process then you at least have the chance to do something for yourself. Likewise if you can grow some food, or produce some of your own heat/power then at least you have some options.

But we have largely given up resilience in favour of efficiency, and in doing that we have also given up personal autonomy, and put all of the power in the hands of “the 1%”

TJ from your vast knowledge of economic history, please tell us what of the above is inaccurate?

My point made McBoo – the soviet union with its 5 year plans was a totalitarian state not socialist – as was china.

A totalitarian state is not socialist or communist. it is totalitarian no matter what it is called.

Hang on, you’ve gone round in a circle and completely missed the point.

You have these things now, but they are not guaranteed for the future.

We need to be spending a bit more time thinking about the hidden unpaid debts (in terms of pollution, depleted resources, etc.) that we are building up, and which eventually will become (are becoming) unsustainable.

Just because your office light is on today does not mean it will be on tomorrow.

Of course. But I’d be very surprised if the solution to those problems didn’t involve capitalism.

My point made McBoo – the soviet union with its 5 year plans was a totalitarian state not socialist – as was china.

A totalitarian state is not socialist or communist. it is totalitarian no matter what it is called.

India pre-1991 economic reforms was very definatly a socialist economy but a vibrant democracy. It kept the latter, binned the former and life for hundreds of millions of your fellow homsapiens got better…..much better.

Either that or something else happened, about which you can now illuminate us.

Oh Dear God!!! Head for the exits! Quick! Save yourselves! before you get locked into the cyclical vortex that’s about to take place. It’ll be more sucky than a Dyson!!!!

tell me what it is? I am all ears.

Knowing the line of business you’re in, I’d suspect not.

If it isnt a move to free market economics that has caused incredible improvements in people’s live

That would be some peoples lives. This is capitalism, it’s not all inclusive. The populations of both countries are huge and as a result will not all be lifted out of poverty. We in the “west” have much more experience of what “free market economics” is all about, we know what the very large pitfalls are.

Both these countries used to be solidly socialist and in China’s case, absolutely Communist.

They took our greed for their cheap labour and turned it upon ourselves. China, the one party state, have added their form of free market economics to state oppression. A proud moment for the West.

Global domination without having to invade countries. Well done you economic geniuses.

We live in an amazing time…..literally hundreds of millions of people in India and China are being lifted out of absolute poverty in a process that has been going on for 20 years and continues to accelerate.

It’s this “and continues to accelerate” bit that I take particular issue with.

If you think that all of these people are going to live like we do then you are completely deluded.

We can’t even carry on living the way we do now.

Have you heard about Detroit, or Baltimore, or New Oleans?

The richest country in the world, which is also the biggest proponent of capitalism can’t prevent huge areas of its major cities degenerating into slums.

They took our greed for their cheap labour and turned it upon ourselves. China, the one party state, have added their form of free market economics to state oppression. A proud moment for the West.

The Chinese are probably freer now than at any other point in their history – and I’d argue that the increased openess that comes from international contact and trade will only improve that situation. So, yeah, I’d include that one as at least a partial “win” for the West.

El-bent the sanctimony drips from every word of that post of yours.

“Some peoples lives” = Actually hundreds of millions of people lifted out of grinding poverty.

“We in the West” – We bedsit revolutionaries in Europe know better than everyone else.

and you finish with this peach

“China, the one party state, have added their form of free market economics to state oppression. A proud moment for the West.”

Are you blaming Western liberal democracy for Chinese totalitarianism? Do you want to try again?

I’d be very surprised if the solution to those problems didn’t involve capitalism.

Why?

Why would more of the same lead to a different outcome?

If socialism was so bad for prosperity, I’d expect it to feature heavily amongst the top [or is that bottom] 10 poorest countries in the World
Instead, they all seen to thrive[?] on the strong and wealthiest having everything.