Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (43423)	5/24/2010 7:08:17 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "Once again, please respond directly to this specific point" Do you want to ask me about something that I AM SUPPOSED to have said? (If so... where did I say it, PLS....) (Or do you want me to comment about one of YOUR statements?) NOTE: I never claimed that the reduction in revenue to Ireland was "larger then all of their austerity measures". Nor did the article I posted. Nor did the chart contained within that article.... (And... FYI, you have already posted your agreement that I DID NOT make any such statement... saying instead that you thought it was "implied" in my post. Though how the heck you could see any such specific statistics get "implied" in my original post escapes me. Do you see birds of precisely eleven inches in length when someone mentions a "crow" to you? <GGG>)

To: TimF who wrote (43423)	5/24/2010 7:47:58 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Oh! I see that the quote you were asking me about was from YOU. Your words: "Which words? The words in quote marks in that post where mine. I'm the original source of them." So, you want me to COMMENT about this: "if the higher deficits are BECAUSE OF the spending cuts, than the spending cuts would have had to reduce revenue more than they decreased spending, because otherwise the deficits would not be higher." Well then, my comment is that it does not make any sense. Both it's premise and it's conclusion are wrong. I had originally said that the increased Irish deficits were attributed to the sum total of all of the "austerity measures" they had introduced. "Austerity measures" they introduced were a COMBINATION of REDUCED SPENDING and HIGHER TAXES AND FEES. (I did not ever say that it was just spending cuts. I clearly stated "austerity measures. You seem to have missed that....) So part of your premise is inaccurate. These large austerity measures withdrew a great deal of liquidity from their economy... so it is perfectly reasonable to (in the short-run anyway... as I said...) see LARGE REDUCTIONS in the revenues that their government takes in. This has happened. Most of their expenses (connected to the Recession such as unemployment compensation, debt repayment, etc.) are fairly FIXED. In fact, as the downturn STEEPENS many of those expenses RISE (again: in the short-run). Now... as to this further part of your sentence (that you asked me to comment upon): "...than the spending cuts would have had to reduce revenue more than they decreased spending" is falls (is not logical nor true) because of two reasons. One, the claimed premise is inaccurate. (Was 'Austerity measures' not 100% 'spending cuts'.) and, Two, economies (and thus tax collection) are DYNAMIC SYSTEMS. Feedback loops appertain. If you start policies which increase unemployment (again: in the 'short-run') which will (predictably) reduce revenues whilst many costs remain fixed or even INCREASING (unemployment costs for instance)... then the down-turns (both macro economic and in gvt. revenues) may well be expected to feed on each other. For a while anyway.... So... there's my comment.