When is democracy not democratic?

[Batcher]

The bankers were all bailed out yet continued to pay bonuses whilst costs went up for the rest of us taxpayers. They keep bleating on about top talent would leave if they didn't get their bonus but we all know it's an old boy's network scratching each other's backs.

Anti-austerity in this case would be to stop cutting so quick and start investing in things that will grow the economy and get people out of poverty. Much better to get people working for decent salaries, paying taxes and also giving them some disposable income to spend. Stop spending Billions on WMD (Trident) which will never be used and is only kept to try and give Westminster a feeling of power in the world. Spend the money instead on infrastructure projects that will help get the economy moving.

[Batcher]

So anti austerity is simply adding more borrowing which is what got us into the mess in the first place. It is what is meant by that old left wing financial management technique of "there has to be a way which will let you sort things out in a less severe manner". It is exactly this attitude that has led to the country being bankrupted by the last two labour governments.

So, how does that square with the debt being more now (£1.7 Trillion) than when Cameron took over and put in place these austerity measures?

[DodgyAgent]

So, how does that square with the debt being more now (£1.7 Trillion) than when Cameron took over and put in place these austerity measures?

What do you expect then? less austerity? there idiots like you banging on about being "anti austerity" and then admitting there is not enough of it .

[Batcher]

What do you expect then? less austerity? there idiots like you banging on about being "anti austerity" and then admitting there is not enough of it .

That doesn't make sense but then, Agents rarely do.

My point was that austerity is not working. By attacking the poorer members of society whilst helping the rich get richer is not cutting the deficit.

[d000hg]

What do you expect then? less austerity? there idiots like you banging on about being "anti austerity" and then admitting there is not enough of it .

If there's more to tax, that can work - got to spend money to make money

[AtW]

The bankers were all bailed out yet continued to pay bonuses whilst costs went up for the rest of us taxpayers

Some of them were harshly punished - knighthoods removed left right and center, I don't know how they can continue to live with that!!!

[DodgyAgent]

That doesn't make sense but then, Agents rarely do.

My point was that austerity is not working. By attacking the poorer members of society whilst helping the rich get richer is not cutting the deficit.

Explain that sweeping assumption.

[Batcher]

Explain that sweeping assumption.

Agents =

Simples

[DodgyAgent]

Agents =

Simples

[Zero Liability]

The bankers were all bailed out yet continued to pay bonuses whilst costs went up for the rest of us taxpayers. They keep bleating on about top talent would leave if they didn't get their bonus but we all know it's an old boy's network scratching each other's backs.

Anti-austerity in this case would be to stop cutting so quick and start investing in things that will grow the economy and get people out of poverty. Much better to get people working for decent salaries, paying taxes and also giving them some disposable income to spend. Stop spending Billions on WMD (Trident) which will never be used and is only kept to try and give Westminster a feeling of power in the world. Spend the money instead on infrastructure projects that will help get the economy moving.

I think the anti-'austerity'* crowd is rather more keen on forsaking any debts its governments willingly accrued at the expense of the creditors, spend spend spend more as if that'll help, and ignoring any realistic commitment to reducing the level of borrowing in the economy. For instance, one idea floated about by an economist in Syriza is to convert the bonds into zero-interest coupons (read: giveaways) which are only to be repaid when debt levels reach something like 20% of GDP, i.e. in some 60 years. Meanwhile, Greece had no issue with the years of subsidised debt it enjoyed under the single currency. I mean what did they expect would be the eventual fallout from it? Nothing but rainbows and sunshine for all eternity? Unfortunately, over here it seems to be a case of wasting money both on infrastructure vanity projects like HS2 (look at the Canadian equivalent for an abject lesson in how these things turn out), and projects like Trident. Government spending, especially debt-fuelled, does not have the "multiplier effect" it is hailed to have, in fact there's even studies showing debt-fuelled spending yields a negative multiplier, to the extent that the concept is valid.

As for the bankers, do you honestly think governments like the British one want to print money directly? They are relied upon to subsidise sovereign debt and keep government tax revenues high by stoking up asset bubbles. They pay for the welfare system. Not that I support either of these, but that's the reality behind it, and that is why most governments have no appetite to let the banks go tumbling down. It's a lot messier when, like the Venezuelan or Argentinian governments, people point the finger directly at you for catapulting price levels...

*The term does seem rather subjective and only appears to point to token cuts in the growth of spending rather than actual reductions in the size of government, for the most part, and especially in the UK's case.