The economic framework for austerity is getting even weaker

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,358
136
I think the right answer for Latvia was to leave the Euro; this would have enabled them to implement a much needed currency revaluation. Instead, Latvia experienced one of the most catastrophic economic meltdowns in our lifetime.

From my (limited) understanding of Latvian politics the primary reason they didn't do this was out of fear of being dominated once again by Russia. That's more of a geopolitical question than an economic one though.

PS: I also think Greeec should leave the Euro.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I think the right answer for Latvia was to leave the Euro; this would have enabled them to implement a much needed currency revaluation. Instead, Latvia experienced one of the most catastrophic economic meltdowns in our lifetime.

From my (limited) understanding of Latvian politics the primary reason they didn't do this was out of fear of being dominated once again by Russia. That's more of a geopolitical question than an economic one though.

PS: I also think Greeec should leave the Euro.
I've been reading a little bit about the possible consequences of Greece leaving the Euro. Looks like it would be a very risky move with potentially very dire results for Greece and would likely trigger another recession for Europe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...s/2011/nov/03/greece-bankruptcy-eurozone-exit
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,358
136
I've been reading a little bit about the possible consequences of Greece leaving the Euro. Looks like it would be a very risky move with potentially very dire results for Greece and would likely trigger another recession for Europe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...s/2011/nov/03/greece-bankruptcy-eurozone-exit

It could be, but what's happening right now is already catastrophic. With an orderly exit Europe would have the ability to protect their banks, which is important. I just don't see how Greece is better off either short term or long term by keeping this grinding austerity going.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
It could be, but what's happening right now is already catastrophic. With an orderly exit Europe would have the ability to protect their banks, which is important. I just don't see how Greece is better off either short term or long term by keeping this grinding austerity going.
Question: Why do you think Latvia's austerity plan worked better than Greece's?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I don't feel like I know the details well enough to say. I would have to read more about it.
Here's an interesting read on this subject. I appears that Greece was using their loan money to expand government employment (stimulus spending) and only half-heartily pursued austerity.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-07/why-austerity-works-and-fiscal-stimulus-doesn-t.html

Edit: Another one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/w...y-and-its-pain-eases.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Last edited:
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Another.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ver_taxes_a_country_s_reaction_to_higher.html

Even within Europe, after all, perceptions of economic policy can vary a great deal, as a quick comparison of Latvia and Greece reveals. Recently, the former has received some well-earned attention for its successful pursuit of economic austerity. In the wake of the 2008 crash, the Latvian government slashed public spending, fired a third of its civil servants, and reduced salaries of those remaining while refusing to inflate the currency. GDP declined dramatically, falling 24 percent in two years. And then the recovery began. The Latvian GDP is now growing at more than 5 percent, and the budget deficit has been dramatically reduced.


And the Latvians? As their economy plunged in 2010 and 2011, there were no strikes, no protests, no fury. Not only did the nation accept austerity, it re-elected the prime minister who imposed it. In Greece, by contrast, smaller budget cuts (relatively) have led to a smaller GDP decline (18 percent since the crisis began) but also to strikes and riots. The Greeks have voted their politicians out of office more than once, formed a new fascist party, and thrown petrol bombs at banks. Meanwhile, their economy has not recovered.


There are some good technical explanations for the differences. Anders Aslund of the Peterson Institute notes rightly that austerity in Greece and Latvia was applied differently. The Latvians hit bureaucrats hard, but pensioners less so. They also made the biggest cuts right away. Aslund argues that drawing out a crisis creates more pain over time: The Greeks have protected their state sector, made cuts slowly, and never convinced either their public or their creditors of their commitment. Uncertainty therefore persists; people and capital continue to flee the country.


But the differences between Latvia and Greece also lie in history, in culture, and, again, in emotion and national psychology. Latvia is small, homogenous, accustomed to hardship—it endured half a century of Soviet occupation—and is fiercely dedicated to its independence. It's also in the North. As one Riga trade unionist explained, "What can you achieve in the street? It is cold and snowing." Greece is bigger, less cohesive, and politically divided. It has also been bailed out by the rest of Europe, politically and economically, multiple times in the past half-century. And, of course, it's in the South. You might be cold if you can't pay your heating bill in Athens, but you won't freeze to death. Maybe this diminishes the sense of urgency.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
This pretty much sums up the effectiveness of each strategy. Time will tell.

Latvia

latvia-gdp-growth-annual.png

Greece

greece-gdp-growth.png

Latvia

quickviewChart


Greece

quickviewChart
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
This pretty much sums up the effectiveness of each strategy. Time will tell.

With all due respect, if you came to that conclusion you learned nothing from this thread and can't read graphs very well. It sums up nothing other than showing that Latvia is nowhere near its former GDP, and by definition that's a massive fail considering that was 5 years ago already. In terms of Greece, they are a total boondoogle and are nowhere near a good test case or example for either austerity or stimulus. They defaulted on their debt, totally different economic ballgame.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
The problem with austerity is that it never gets implemented during boom cycles which essentially exasperates problems with public debt growth. The eventual end result is not pretty.

I knew this post would never get addressed and that is at the heart of economic policy issues in most, if not all, economies. It's not even austerity but basic Keynesian economics that never gets fully implemented. Keynes always said that, during boom cycles, the government should be hoarding taxes to prepare for times of recessions. But most governments never do that. Instead, they keep cutting taxes (instead of raising them) in the hope that the boom will last forever. Well, there's always going to be a price correction (recession) and those taxes are meant to smoothen the recession AND the expansion.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I knew this post would never get addressed and that is at the heart of economic policy issues in most, if not all, economies. It's not even austerity but basic Keynesian economics that never gets fully implemented. Keynes always said that, during boom cycles, the government should be hoarding taxes to prepare for times of recessions. But most governments never do that. Instead, they keep cutting taxes (instead of raising them) in the hope that the boom will last forever. Well, there's always going to be a price correction (recession) and those taxes are meant to smoothen the recession AND the expansion.

Actually the really interesting thing that was point out earlier is that each time the US government has run a surplus (with the exception of 2000) a depression has followed.

This would seem to suggest that hoarding tax to prepare for recessions would instead induce depressions.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Actually the really interesting thing that was point out earlier is that each time the US government has run a surplus (with the exception of 2000) a depression has followed.

This would seem to suggest that hoarding tax to prepare for recessions would instead induce depressions.

Provide the quote/link please so I can check it out. Also, I'd like your definition of "depression", please.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
With all due respect, if you came to that conclusion you learned nothing from this thread and can't read graphs very well. It sums up nothing other than showing that Latvia is nowhere near its former GDP, and by definition that's a massive fail considering that was 5 years ago already. In terms of Greece, they are a total boondoogle and are nowhere near a good test case or example for either austerity or stimulus. They defaulted on their debt, totally different economic ballgame.
I understand your point...however, I'm more concerned with trends and long-term effectiveness. I view Latvia as a success in this context.

If you have examples of other small countries that successfully turned around their economies in 5 years without using austerity measures...now would be a good time to mention them. Otherwise, you really have nothing valid to support criticism of Latvia's path in my opinion.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,358
136
I knew this post would never get addressed and that is at the heart of economic policy issues in most, if not all, economies. It's not even austerity but basic Keynesian economics that never gets fully implemented. Keynes always said that, during boom cycles, the government should be hoarding taxes to prepare for times of recessions. But most governments never do that. Instead, they keep cutting taxes (instead of raising them) in the hope that the boom will last forever. Well, there's always going to be a price correction (recession) and those taxes are meant to smoothen the recession AND the expansion.

If you look at the history of US debt/GDP ratios that isn't really true. There are only two examples of that happening: Reagan and GWB. For example go look at the long, steady decrease in debt/GDP ratio from the 1950's to the 1980's, and another reduction in the 1990s.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,358
136
I understand your point...however, I'm more concerned with trends and long-term effectiveness. I view Latvia as a success in this context.

If you have examples of other small countries that successfully turned around their economies in 5 years without using austerity measures...now would be a good time to mention them. Otherwise, you really have nothing valid to support criticism of Latvia's path in my opinion.

I think it's pretty tenuous to establish a trend or long term effectiveness from a couple years of growth following a catastrophic economic contraction, particularly when that growth already appears to be slowing.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I think it's pretty tenuous to establish a trend or long term effectiveness from a couple years of growth following a catastrophic economic contraction, particularly when that growth already appears to be slowing.
Agree...however there is really no reason to believe that their consistent growth over the past couple of years is some kind of fluke. I understand that their manufacturing base is steadily growing as well. I think we'll have a much better picture in a few more years.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,358
136
Agree...however there is really no reason to believe that their consistent growth over the past couple of years is some kind of fluke. I understand that their manufacturing base is steadily growing as well. I think we'll have a much better picture in a few more years.

Well depending on what you mean by 'fluke', what I can say is that their growth has significantly benefited from a stronger export sector, the competitiveness of which will be threatened by the return to net capital inflows that has happened.

I think any standard we would agree upon would be probably a decade or more out. I for one wouldn't consider this to be much of a success until they have surpassed their pre-crisis GDP significantly and that appears unlikely to happen soon.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
I understand your point...however, I'm more concerned with trends and long-term effectiveness. I view Latvia as a success in this context.

First and most importantly, they are nowhere near to recovering their former level of GDP after 5 years, so by what definition is that a success so far? Please explain. Second, why do you consider Latvia a success when your own definition of "success" would be long-term, and so assuming you don't believe 5 years to be "long-term", why are you prematurely calling them a success?

If you have examples of other small countries that successfully turned around their economies in 5 years without using austerity measures...now would be a good time to mention them. Otherwise, you really have nothing valid to support criticism of Latvia's path in my opinion.

I know you believe this, your evidence is just nonexistent I'm afraid and you continue to fail to answer basic questions being presented to you; like why I should have to use a small country. I already gave you numerous examples; U.S., Germany and Canada among them. My guess is you didn't want to accept these example because you would have had to draw the same conclusion myself and many others did; that austerity in a recession doesn't generally work, so now you'd me to go digging for a small country. Like I said, I have no time or inclination to do research for someone who isn't open to changing his position.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
If you look at the history of US debt/GDP ratios that isn't really true. There are only two examples of that happening: Reagan and GWB. For example go look at the long, steady decrease in debt/GDP ratio from the 1950's to the 1980's, and another reduction in the 1990s.

Really, then show me, during times of economic expansion, when the government raised taxes. I'll be waiting.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
First and most importantly, they are nowhere near to recovering their former level of GDP after 5 years, so by what definition is that a success so far? Please explain. Second, why do you consider Latvia a success when your own definition of "success" would be long-term, and so assuming you don't believe 5 years to be "long-term", why are you prematurely calling them a success?

I know you believe this, your evidence is just nonexistent I'm afraid and you continue to fail to answer basic questions being presented to you; like why I should have to use a small country. I already gave you numerous examples; U.S., Germany and Canada among them. My guess is you didn't want to accept these example because you would have had to draw the same conclusion myself and many others did; that austerity in a recession doesn't generally work, so now you'd me to go digging for a small country. Like I said, I have no time or inclination to do research for someone who isn't open to changing his position.

The head of the IMF called Latvia a success. I also share your frustration about people who aren't open to changing their position.

“We are here today to celebrate your achievements, but also to make sure that you can build on this success as you look to the future.” - Christine Lagarde (IMF managing director)

IMF’s Lagarde praises ‘remarkable’ recovery in Latvia
http://www.neurope.eu/article/lagarde-praises-latvian-recovery
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,358
136
Really, then show me, during times of economic expansion, when the government raised taxes. I'll be waiting.

While I'm quite sure I can (1993 omnibus reconciliation act), you're missing the point. The important part is to decrease debt/GDP ratios, no matter how you do it.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
While I'm quite sure I can (1993 omnibus reconciliation act), you're missing the point. The important part is to decrease debt/GDP ratios, no matter how you do it.

That act was not a direct result of government taking advantage of economic expansion to lower the deficit. In fact, the economy was barely recovering in 1993. However, I'll give you this since my dare was so generic. Fact is, politicians are always following Keynes when the economy turns to shit but ignore him the the economy is booming.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,358
136
The head of the IMF called Latvia a success. I also share your frustration about people who aren't open to changing their position.

IMF’s Lagarde praises ‘remarkable’ recovery in Latvia
http://www.centralbanking.com/centr...-s-lagarde-praises-remarkable-recovery-latvia

If we're taking the statements of the IMF as valuable, later that same year after Lagarde praised Latvia the IMF came out with a paper admitting it had disastrously underestimated the negative effects of austerity on economies. Money quote:

In line with these assumptions, earlier analysis by the IMF staff suggests that, on average, fiscal multipliers were near 0.5 in advanced economies during the three decades leading up to 2009. If the multipliers underlying the growth forecasts were about 0.5, as this informal evidence suggests, our results indicate that multipliers have actually been in the 0.9 to 1.7 range since the Great Recession. This finding is consistent with research suggesting that in today’s environment of substantial economic slack, monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies, multipliers may be well above 1.

If the multiplier is 1.5, that means the country gets $1.50 in economic activity for every dollar spent by the government. Inversely, for every $1 less the government spends your economy contracts by $1.50. ie: the economy shrinks faster than government spending does, making austerity self defeating.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,358
136
That act was not a direct result of government taking advantage of economic expansion to lower the deficit. In fact, the economy was barely recovering in 1993. However, I'll give you this since my dare was so generic. Fact is, politicians are always following Keynes when the economy turns to shit but ignore him the the economy is booming.

Actually it passed in mid 1993, a year in which the US economy grew at about a 4% rate. Regardless, go look at a historical US debt/GDP chart and look at the massive decline in debt/GDP ratio after 1950.

As I said earlier in the thread there have only really been two notable cases of particularly irresponsible fiscal behavior in recent years. Reagan was the first and GWB was the second. Clinton and GHWB were both responsible stewards and Obama is doing exactly what should be done after a major economic shock. (although he should be doing more)
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
The head of the IMF called Latvia a success. I also share your frustration about people who aren't open to changing their position.


IMF’s Lagarde praises ‘remarkable’ recovery in Latvia
http://www.neurope.eu/article/lagarde-praises-latvian-recovery

Nowhere do I see Lagarge claim austerity>stimulus and, even if such a position was taken, what matters is evidence and not necessarily the person saying it. Because if you're going to try and support your argument with other qualified person's claims of economic success/failure, that's a losing battle for you since academia and business is on the side of stimulus, something I hope you already realize.
 
Last edited: