SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (145322)8/26/2014 9:47:24 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149319
 
“it is now established, known, understood and agreed that austerity policies have prolonged the economic crisis and the pointless suffering of the European population

Some people are slow learners.



To: tejek who wrote (145322)8/26/2014 11:21:26 AM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 149319
 
Austerity in Europe and France? 100% Bullshit told by the Left leaning Socialists. Here are the facts:

------------

No government austerity, no gain
Predictably, the Keynesian model has failed to produce a healthy economy

washingtontimes.com


By Richard W. Rahn - - Monday, August 25, 2014
Do you think government has grown or contracted during the past seven years? If you listen to the political class and many of their lackeys in the news media, you would think there have been massive cuts in government spending. The truth is the opposite both in the United States and Europe. As can be seen in the data in the accompanying chart, total government spending in the six years since the beginning of the “Great Recession of 2009” is larger in both real terms and as a percentage of the economy in the United States, Europe, Japan — and even China — than it was before the recession began. The eurozone countries, plus the U.S., Japan and China, account for more than two-thirds of world’s gross domestic product.

Keynesian and socialist-leaning economists tend to favor bigger government and more government spending, while classical and Austrian school economists tend to favor smaller government. Once again, a global experiment was tried in the early stages of the Great Recession, when massive increases in government spending occurred in the United States and most other major countries. According to Keynesian orthodoxy, this spending binge was supposed to result in a rapid recovery, high growth (the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration had predicted several years of approximately 4 percent growth in the U.S.), and big increases in employment. It didn’t happen.

The major eurozone countries have stopped growing, including Italy, France and even Germany (which had a better record), and Europe is again teetering on recession. If you listen to the voices of the left in Europe, they claim there was too much austerity (meaning too little government spending). The left wing of the Democratic Party makes similar claims, and one of their gurus, New York Times economist Paul Krugman, blames the poor result on the “stimulus” being too small. One little problem for the Krugman crowd is that they cannot identify any country in the world where government, as a share of GDP, is big enough to produce high growth, high employment and high wages. At times, the socialist and communist economies approached 100 percent government spending, and the only things they produced were shrinking economies and an increase in human misery.

This year, about half of the GDP of the eurozone countries will be accounted for by the government sector. Almost all of many studies of the optimum size of government spending as a percentage of GDP show it is less than 30 percent, and many of these studies, including my own, show it is less than approximately 25 percent. That is, as the size of government increases beyond the optimal level, economic, income and employment growth decline and eventually become negative. This should come as no surprise, given that it is widely recognized that government is most often less efficient and misallocates resources more than the private sector. The increased taxes, regulations and debt necessary to support the bigger government are also disincentives to productive activity.
[iframe style="box-sizing: border-box; width: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; border-width: 0px; border-top-left-radius: 0px; border-top-right-radius: 0px; border-bottom-right-radius: 0px; border-bottom-left-radius: 0px; height: 0px;"][/iframe]

Many on the American left, including some in the Obama administration, advocate much greater spending, much higher tax rates and more regulation, including labor regulation that mandates more vacations, shorter workweeks and higher minimum wages, like France. The French now have a government that spends about 55 percent of GDP (paradise for the Keynesians), but growth has stopped, real per-capita incomes are falling, the debt burden is soaring, and the unemployment rate is 10.2 percent.

The Japanese economy is a growing disaster. The economy dropped almost 7 percent in the past quarter (after a major tax increase — surprise, surprise). Government spending as a percentage of GDP is now more than 25 percent higher than in was just seven years ago, and its government debt is the highest in the world. China is the big bright spot with an economy that is still showing 7.5 percent growth, but government spending is also growing rapidly as a percentage of GDP. If the growth in China’s government spending does not slow, in a few years it, too, will be well above the optimum, which will result in a big slowdown in growth.

The word “austerity” should be dropped from the lips of government policymakers, because they both misdefine it and claim they have cut spending when they haven’t. Those who have looked at the data understand the problems are too much government spending that is both wasted and lavished on the politically well connected, regulations that don’t meet a cost-benefit test, and tax levels and rates far above the growth- and revenue-maximizing rates.

Given the lack of political will to do what is needed, most of the people in the rich countries are going to experience what personal bankruptcy feels like. Assets will be seized or inflated away, and real incomes will fall.

Read more: washingtontimes.com
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



To: tejek who wrote (145322)8/26/2014 11:22:30 AM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 149319
 
Hollande saw that Socialism doesn't work. That's the reality...

----------
Seeing Socialism Doesn't Work, Hollande Shifts
Economics: Francois Hollande was supposed to be France's socialist savior. After all, he ran on a platform of soaking the rich with higher taxes to close the budget deficit, cut unemployment and boost social spending.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the socialist paradise: reality intruded. Hollande wanted to levy a 75% tax on those earning $1 million or more and on many businesses with high-paid executives, and to give the money to the poor.

"My real adversary in this campaign is the world of finance," he declared in 2012, unveiling his economic manifesto. Share the wealth! Liberte, egalite, fraternite!

Now socialism and 75% tax rates aren't working so well in France, as Hollande of all people is acknowledging.

The jobless rate in Paris and outlying regions is 10%. Some say that a realistic count might double that number.

As the Associated Press recently described conditions on the other side of the Atlantic: "France's economy has only worsened, and the sense of impending crisis weighs heavily." The natives are getting restless.

Hollande has apparently been mugged by a cruel Econ 101 reality that higher government spending and soak-the-rich economics may be a winner in faculty lounges across the country but is a depressant in practice.

The budget deficit hasn't fallen; it has risen. Businesses have moved out of France. Rich people are taking their money elsewhere, too. You can't tax wealth if it flees, after all.

So now Hollande says that it is time for a 180-degree — well, maybe 90-degree — change in direction. Make France "business friendly" is his latest crusade.

Hollande promises to cut taxes, relieve regulations that it make it hard for businesses to start up and expand, and lower the budget by 50 billion euros. No one will mistake France's president for Ronald Reagan or Milton Friedman, but this is a dramatic repudiation of the socialist agenda.

So no surprise that Hollande's fellow socialists are in rebellion, with angry resignations from his own Cabinet.

Not everyone is as enamored of the radical idea of giving some free-market, supply-side and pro-business policies a try. The malcontents are calling the agenda of cutting government spending "austerity."

Who knows how this story is going to end? The 21st century French seem more socialistic in their DNA than the rugged individualists in America or even the Brits they openly compete with.

But when avowed socialists say that we should scrap the redistribution agenda and give capitalism a try, it says a lot about the failure of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor as a wealth-producing model.

The original Hollande agenda is right out of French economist Thomas Piketty's Marxist tome "Capital in the 21st Century." The author endorses 70% tax rates and wealth taxes in industrialized countries in the name of fairness and justice.

That book became a best-seller in the U.S. because the left lionized it as a panacea for our economic ills.

There are lessons to learn in Washington from Hollande's failure and France's economic free fall.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: news.investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook