The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Catastrophic consequences of austerity in UK

Ok, doing your homework:

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics....x-oecd-live-02

Which gives something like that:

Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, and the UK in 2011. While the others keep on spending more. What an austerity plague!

What this graph suppose to mean? Time vs Spending? If so, any line that changed angle is indicative of austerity of some sorts.

Also what is your point? Are you trying to deny that austerity in EU is happening?!

Really, you don't have to look hard for info, this is on first page searching for austerity UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme

No, look at it again. I think the point Arkh is making, is that just because some people call a turd a rose, its still a turd. Just because some people call Spain program austerity... well, the numbers on total govt expenditure say its still a turd, and not austerity.

Maybe Spain was allocating funds improperly, not actually cutting overall, and using "austerity" as a smokescreen?

Just using Spain as an example, it was the first "Austerity" nation that I looked at.. and low and behold. OECD figures state that Spain has not, in fact, cut spending. So the proponents of "Austerity" moniker must, therefore, be using the label to justify *shifts* in funds, as opposed to cuts in funds.

Leftists are seemingly arguing against *cuts* in funds, so we have a pretty large impudence mismatch in the conversation.

That's government spending per year, you can plot it yourself using the data from the link I got. They offer an export to excel option which make the process easy.

And what I say is what the data shows: what some people call austerity is laughable bullshit. A majority of the EU is spending more now than before and those who have a negative angle have not radicaly cut their spending, just got back to around 2008 levels.
If some vital programs have been cut this mean they have choosen to keep on paying for stupid things. Shitty allocation of means.

Continue twisting the meaning of austerity, maybe in a couple of decades you will be right. Like how you fucked up the meaning of liberal.

You and Arkh can engage in alternative reality thinking all you want, but in this thread titled "Catastrophic consequences of austerity in UK" when we talk about austerity in UK, with supporting evidence, you are not entitled to your own facts.

At page 5, the topic had shifted to austerity. Also, everything said applies to UK as well FYI - I just checked the UK numbers.

So, you are going to have to try again. The facts are plain, and it is a fact that in terms of actual spending the UK was not under any "austerity" program as is commonly understood.

Funds may have been drastically shifted, but overall govt expenditure was NOT drastically cut.

You seriously should have taken the 5 seconds to check the facts, before trying to pull a "but the OP topic was".

Do you even read the articles you post or do you just look for pretty graphs that look like they say what you want them to? Plotting spending as a percentage of GDP doesn't tell you anything about actual spending increases or decreases. It only tells you what spending does as a function of GDP. That's your intro to high school algebra lesson for the day.

As you can clearly see from the actual numbers, spending has increased every single year, and more than doubled since 2000.

The only years since 1963 that saw an actual decrease in spending are which are long before this attempt to redefine cuts as a decrease in the rate of spending increase. Absofuckinglutely ridiculous.

Looking at absolute numbers of spending from the last decade, noting that in absolute numbers it increased and concluding austerity does not exist is about as moronic as I expect from a fever swamper crew.

Have you considered that if you were to put 1$ in the bank in 2000, today you'd have more than $1? I'm not going to even attempt to explain you what future value of money, how to adjust it for inflation and growth and so on, but I will point out that 341.5bn in 2000-01 purchased a lot more than 341.5bn today.

As to actual austerity:
2010-11 690bn
2011-12 690bn
2012-13 670bn

Is 3 years of harsh austerity.

So, your contention is that inflation for the past decade has been 200%?

We can talk about future worth and do cost analysis of projects all day long if you're willing to provide real, inflation adjusted numbers. But you didn't want to do that, you wanted to post a graph that seemed to make your point (as long as no one bothered to look at real numbers) and then get your panties in a bunch when someone actually looked at the data you posted.

Stop crying and use reasonable numbers if you want to have a real discussion. If all you're trying to do is provide an opportunity to call everyone but you and idiot, well, then you just show everyone how poorly you understand the dynamics of money (and fundamental concepts of mathematics).