Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "Fact checking for thee, but not for me" (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: "Fact checking for thee, but not for me"
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, again, no meaningful cuts to baseline social services, only a slight imputation to benefits given to people that were already well over the poverty line.

And any suggestion that this actually had any measurable benefit is purely assertion, no suggestion at all of how reducing money available to the private sector somehow magically translated into growth, as opposed to the spending/stimulus measures, which effectively put more money in people's pockets (or prevented it from being taken away, which is equivalent).

Also, the cuts are distributed, so the net drag that they'd cause is spread out and mostly backloaded, while the most important stimulus measures were immediately in effect, causing active feedback into growth.

Iceland's use of "austerity" was trivial at best in comparison to it's stimulative efforts, and it's only notable effects will be to reduce their overall growth potential, while it's current recovery is a direct result of stimulative efforts and refraining from punitive austerity measures.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
So, again, no meaningful cuts to baseline social services, only a slight imputation to benefits given to people that were already well over the poverty line.
...
And any suggestion that this actually had any measurable benefit is purely assertion...

Also, the cuts are distributed, so ...
...
Iceland's use of "austerity" was trivial...

Why don't you just admit you were wrong instead of now attempting to move the goal posts?

[ September 12, 2012, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
washingtonpost.com

quote:
As Buzzfeed reports this morning, top Romney advisers say their most effective ads are the ones attacking Obama over welfare, and that they will not allow their widespread denunciation by fact checkers as false slow down their campaign one little bit:

“Our most effective ad is our welfare ad,” a top television advertising strategist for Romney, Ashley O’Connor, said at a forum Tuesday hosted by ABCNews and Yahoo! News. “It’s new information.”...

The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” awarded Romney’s ad “four Pinocchios,” a measure Romney pollster Neil Newhouse dismissed.

“Fact checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs, and we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,” he said.

That’s a very interesting admission. But it gets better. Reading this brought to mind Romney’s own remarks about fact-checking and political advertising not long ago. Needless to say, he has a different standard for the Obama campaign:

“You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad,” Romney said on the radio. “They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead. You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they’re wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them.”

Wait, what?
Sounds like Neil Newhouse has a different opinion than his boss. Not sure that's a stop-the-presses moment.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Why don't you just admit you were wrong instead of now attempting to move the goal posts?

Because the point still stands- Iceland recovered without using austerity measures. Those cuts, and the drag they are causing on Iceland's overall recovery, didn't start until after Iceland had already turned itself around.

They were moralistic nonsense that were enacted under the cover of the crisis, but delayed until after the stimulative measures had time to take effect and stop Iceland's decline, and while they do meet the strict denotative sense of austerity, as a small timing to perks to high income households and not any actual reduction of payments to ones that need the extra income they don't meet its connotative sense, never mind how it's actually being applied in practice.

The only thing that those cuts did was to impute their GDP by reducing government spending a little and reducing consumers spending and private savings by the same amount well after Iceland was already solidly in recovery.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Why don't you just admit you were wrong instead of now attempting to move the goal posts?

Because the point still stands- Iceland recovered without using austerity measures. Those cuts, and the drag they are causing on Iceland's overall recovery, didn't start until after Iceland had already turned itself around.

No, the facts don't support that in anyway. The austerity measures I linked to kicked in starting in 2009.

Iceland's economic growth bottomed out in the first quarter of 2010 and then the recovery kicked in. Iceland GDP

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[quote]They were enacted in 2009, to be phased in over the next 5 years. They didn't kick in right away. On the other hand, the citizen bailout and all of the other social spending that actually generated the recovery were right up front. Those are what allowed and encouraged the recovery, not cuts whose only possible mathematical effect would be to lower GDP. There is no way mathematically or practically that such measures can do anything but slow growth. Iceland is just fortunate that they we small and backloaded enough to let them get out of the hole before they started adding drag.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whoa, hold on, you are telling me that Iceland did the things that needed to be done in the short-term in the short-term, and the things that needed to be done in the long-term in the long-term? What madness is this?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
They were enacted in 2009, to be phased in over the next 5 years. They didn't kick in right away.

Once again your comment seems to have only a glancing contact with reality. I've already posted this on two different occasions, but for a third time:

quote:
Treasury expenditure 2009
Actual Treasury expenditure was ISK 579bn, compared to ISK 688bn in 2008.
...
The Treasury’s financing cost was ISK 84bn in 2009 or some 14.5% of its total expenditure, which is a substantial increase over the previous year...

So in 2008 expenditures were 688bn, in 2009 expenditures were 579bn. In addition, financing cost went way up.

688-579/688 = 15.8% cut in one frakkin year. There is no other reasonable interpretation of that as anything other than an austerity budget.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
Whoa, hold on, you are telling me that Iceland did the things that needed to be done in the short-term in the short-term, and the things that needed to be done in the long-term in the long-term? What madness is this?

They did things that needed to be done in the short term and used the crisis as political cover for things that didn't need to be done in the long term.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
688-579/688 = 15.8% cut in one frakkin year. There is no other reasonable interpretation of that as anything other than an austerity budget.

You're overlooking the bailout they did for their citizens. Most of that swing can probably be accounted for by not having to do another massive onetime bailout two years in a row.

But looking at the data suggests that there were no cuts to speak of:
http://www.economywatch.com/economic-statistics/Iceland/General_Government_Total_Expenditure_National_Currency/

2007: 553.094
2008: 661.54
2009: 748.233
2010: 754.268
2011: 714.399

So the real change is:
748.233 - 661.54 / 661.54 *100 = 13% _increase_ in spending from '08 to '09

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
2007: 553.094
2008: 661.54
2009: 748.233
2010: 754.268
2011: 714.399

Are you frakkin' kidding me. [DOH] From your very own source above, there was a huge drop in government expenditures from 2010 to 2011. Any way you try to spin it Iceland practiced austerity.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He was specifically addressing your claim that, from 2008 to 2009, Iceland saw spending cuts.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
2011 is 8% higher than 2008.
2011 is 30% higher than 2007, the last full year before the crises.

Compare this to Greece.
2007 105.559
2008 116.617
2009 124.94
2010 114.645
2011 113.235

2011 is a 3% decrease from 2008.
2011 is a 7% increase from 2007. A 7% increase is lower than inflation for the Eurozone (7.5% total from 2007-2011).

In Ireland
2007 67.756
2008 74.992
2009 77.548
2010 104.141 (Bank bailout)
2011 72.94

2011 is 2.7% below 2008.
2011 is 7.6% above 2007, just matching inflation.

When considering the increased demand for social safety net programs from 2007 to 2011, just matching inflation means you are cutting benefits or other parts of your government.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
2007: 553.094
2008: 661.54
2009: 748.233
2010: 754.268
2011: 714.399

Are you frakkin' kidding me. [DOH] From your very own source above, there was a huge drop in government expenditures from 2010 to 2011. Any way you try to spin it Iceland practiced austerity.
Stopping exceptional, ont-time stimulus spending (primarily the short term infusion from bailouts) is not austerity. Similarly not spending as much on contingent programs like unemployment because fewer need to draw on them (as opposed to the
"success" of welfare reform here, which is based on kicking people out who still need them and pretending that that counts as a positive) The 2011 number is still higher than the 2008 pre-bailout number and it came long after the recovery was underway.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
He was specifically addressing your claim that, from 2008 to 2009, Iceland saw spending cuts.

My claim was that Iceland practiced austerity. As evidence I linked to an Icelandic source that clearly shows the budget in 2009 was less than that of 2008.
However, since both sets of data prove my point, that Icelandic government successfully recovered from austerity I'm not going to waste my time running down the differences.

[ September 17, 2012, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, since both sets of data prove my point, that Icelandic government successfully recovered from austerity I'm not going to waste my time running down the differences.
At least that claim would be a little closer to being true, rather than saying that austerity helped them recover, but even then the second does not support even that claim. The second source only shows that short term spending fell back to something roughly close to the original trend once the stimulus was done and the4y were already well into recover, and even more importantly, that a massive increase in spending was what led the recovery.

There is no way to recover through austerity, because the very nature of austerity is as antithetical to economic recovery as fasting is to recovering from starvation.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1