The Gaming Den

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).

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

MGuy wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

MGuy wrote:I have said this before but I don't really know anything about economics

Neither do conservative economists, so there's that.

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.

MGuy wrote:Have austerity measures ever worked?

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.

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.

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.

Pretty much.

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.

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.

According to my history professor, the Eurozone (and especially its predecessor agreements) was primarily created to give Germany sufficient economic incentives to never go to war with its neighbors again. Success?

Only on a technicality. Sure, sure, we don't have to worry about German fascists - just all the others winning seats in governments across Europe.

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.

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.

hyzmarca wrote:

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.

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.

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.

That actually makes me feel better about it. Sure, it's still wrong, but compared to the 19th century version we've made some real progress in the realm of being slightly less dickish when pillaging foreign lands for undeserved plunder.

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.

Right, but probably less of them than if they started another Boer War. So, y'know, progress.

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.

hyzmarca wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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).

Sanders is going to run. Fuck yeah.

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.

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.

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.

Mittens was a self-deluded pathological liar and they still stuck with him to the bitter end (hell, there are still people that would vote for him today!); Jeb Bush would have to be caught doing something a lot worse to be ousted as a front-runner.

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.