Venezuelan inflation rate nearing 100%.

[OverVolt]

Is Venezuela the place where they stand around in line because there is a shortage of goods because of price controls?

http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...la-economy-black-market-milk-and-toilet-paper

Yup.

People have to remember these lessons for whomever suggests the government just change the price on something with price controls. Black market and all. The price of coffee becomes $3 and stand in line for 18 hours, or $20 on the street from whoever stole it or already stood in line.

You can theoretically make a living standing in line under such a system.

Then people wonder why the country goes broke when everyone is literally standing around.

 

[nickqt]

None of Venezuela's problems stem from the decline in the price of oil, or the rampant fraud and corruption.

 

[werepossum]

Your stubborn refusal to learn basic economics is impressive if for no other reason than the tenacity with which you cling to dumb ideas.

Presumably you're trying to complain about stimulus in the U.S. and other similar countries. You would think that its success and the corresponding failure of austerity over literally a half decade period would make you reconsider your position. I guess that implies a level of rationality you are unable to muster though.

Yeah, I am struggling to understand how what Europe does can possibly be called austerity. Particularly as practiced by PIGS. Borrow and spend until people literally refuse to loan you more money until you get your financial house in order, then blame your woes on austerity. Pretty much the same with Venezuela - seize everything, then complain when it doesn't work. "Austerity" indeed.

Mostly though I'm just pushing your buttons. Perhaps you can fly down, explain the problem with austerity, and tell them the proper level of stimulus that will fix the Venezuelan economy. I'm predicting a LOT of zeros.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, I am struggling to understand how what Europe does can possibly be called austerity. Particularly as practiced by PIGS. Borrow and spend until people literally refuse to loan you more money until you get your financial house in order, then blame your woes on austerity. Pretty much the same with Venezuela - seize everything, then complain when it doesn't work. "Austerity" indeed.

Mostly though I'm just pushing your buttons. Perhaps you can fly down, explain the problem with austerity, and tell them the proper level of stimulus that will fix the Venezuelan economy. I'm predicting a LOT of zeros.

Good thing you're just yanking his chain and not trying to seriously engage him in economics. Keynesians are people who would look at hurricane flooding and say there wasn't a glut of water, only insufficient demand for it and thus needing a "stimulus" program that injects several trillion of borrowed funds into the economy in order to generate a "multplier effect" to reduce the "output gap."

And best of all, everything about it is unfalsifiable. If Japan is still in recession after 3 decades of off-on Keynesian stimulus, it's only because the stimulus wasn't big enough. Expand this image to an entire "shovel ready" stimulus plan and that's how Keynesians think the economy will be fixed.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, I am struggling to understand how what Europe does can possibly be called austerity. Particularly as practiced by PIGS. Borrow and spend until people literally refuse to loan you more money until you get your financial house in order, then blame your woes on austerity. Pretty much the same with Venezuela - seize everything, then complain when it doesn't work. "Austerity" indeed.

I know you're struggling to understand it, but it's not from lack of others trying. I imagine it's mostly due to you being very uncomfortable with accepting that your understanding of economics is wrong. That's why when countries implement austerity and it fails you don't try to figure out why your understanding was wrong, instead you try to figure out why it wasn't really austerity after all.

Mostly though I'm just pushing your buttons. Perhaps you can fly down, explain the problem with austerity, and tell them the proper level of stimulus that will fix the Venezuelan economy. I'm predicting a LOT of zeros.

lol, and that's where you would be wrong. More government spending and larger debts wouldn't solve Venezuela's problems, which are mostly based around a lack of economic diversification, excessive regulation, and a kleptocratic government. They need less government intervention, not more.

You have to remember that not everyone looks at things in such a highly ideological way as you do. You're so desperate to find a way not to be wrong about US economics that you need to convince yourself that everyone telling you that you're wrong is just as big an ideologue as you are.

 

[fskimospy]

Good thing you're just yanking his chain and not trying to seriously engage him in economics. Keynesians are people who would look at hurricane flooding and say there wasn't a glut of water, only insufficient demand for it and thus needing a "stimulus" program that injects several trillion of borrowed funds into the economy in order to generate a "multplier effect" to reduce the "output gap."

And best of all, everything about it is unfalsifiable. If Japan is still in recession after 3 decades of off-on Keynesian stimulus, it's only because the stimulus wasn't big enough. Expand this image to an entire "shovel ready" stimulus plan and that's how Keynesians think the economy will be fixed.

Uhmm, it's totally falsifiable. Your primary problem is that it keeps being proven right, haha.

Don't take my word for it, there's a lot of actual research on the subject that shows the Keynesian analysis of the recent economic crisis has been broadly accurate. Maybe you should go read it. I would say you might learn something, but the most likely outcome is that reading how you're wrong will just enrage you further.

In case you want to get angry, I'll link you to a paper I've shown you before:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf

Keynesians, right yet again.

 

[norseamd]

Yeah, I am struggling to understand how what Europe does can possibly be called austerity. Particularly as practiced by PIGS. Borrow and spend until people literally refuse to loan you more money until you get your financial house in order, then blame your woes on austerity. Pretty much the same with Venezuela - seize everything, then complain when it doesn't work. "Austerity" indeed.

The problem is that those government spend without any oversights and never give a fuck about their job and then when everything comes crashing down they put all the penalties from the old government conduct on the populace. And you are wondering why everyone over there who never had any relations to government or economic misconduct get upset when they are the ones who get stuck with all the bills and penalties.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...man-exports-greece/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[realibrad]

I know you're struggling to understand it, but it's not from lack of others trying. I imagine it's mostly due to you being very uncomfortable with accepting that your understanding of economics is wrong. That's why when countries implement austerity and it fails you don't try to figure out why your understanding was wrong, instead you try to figure out why it wasn't really austerity after all.



lol, and that's where you would be wrong. More government spending and larger debts wouldn't solve Venezuela's problems, which are mostly based around a lack of economic diversification, excessive regulation, and a kleptocratic government. They need less government intervention, not more.

You have to remember that not everyone looks at things in such a highly ideological way as you do. You're so desperate to find a way not to be wrong about US economics that you need to convince yourself that everyone telling you that you're wrong is just as big an ideologue as you are.

Yay economics.

What country has actually done Austerity though? Every country that I have seen, even the ones in Europe have been spending lots of money. Are we saying that spending less money then keynesian economist say to is Austerity?

 

[fskimospy]

Yay economics.

What country has actually done Austerity though? Every country that I have seen, even the ones in Europe have been spending lots of money. Are we saying that spending less money then keynesian economist say to is Austerity?

Most, perhaps all European countries have engaged in austerity. Sure they still 'spend lots of money', but austerity is not about how much they spend in a given year. It is instead the change in spending/tax policy from year to year, on an inflation adjusted basis. (changes in population should be accounted for too)

People who try to defend austerity often claim it 'hasn't been tried' because spending in most cases continues to go up each year. They are often deliberately ignoring inflation and increases in population to make this point, which is absurd. When you look at the actual numbers, basically every western country has engaged in fiscal consolidation since the crisis. (EDIT: Also, they ignore tax increases, which is baffling)

This is partly what is so sad, people don't even seem to realize that the US has also engaged in austerity. The reason we are doing better than most of those countries is not because we engaged in some big stimulus program, we just made the same mistake they did to a lesser extent.

 

[realibrad]

Most, perhaps all European countries have engaged in austerity. Sure they still 'spend lots of money', but austerity is not about how much they spend in a given year. It is instead the change in spending/tax policy from year to year, on an inflation adjusted basis. (changes in population should be accounted for too)

People who try to defend austerity often claim it 'hasn't been tried' because spending in most cases continues to go up each year. They are often deliberately ignoring inflation and increases in population to make this point, which is absurd. When you look at the actual numbers, basically every western country has engaged in fiscal consolidation since the crisis. (EDIT: Also, they ignore tax increases, which is baffling)

This is partly what is so sad, people don't even seem to realize that the US has also engaged in austerity. The reason we are doing better than most of those countries is not because we engaged in some big stimulus program, we just made the same mistake they did to a lesser extent.

All the data I am seeing, shows that spending has been on the same trend post 2008 as it was pre 2008. Maybe money is spent differently, but it seems like the money is still being spent.

 

[michal1980]

All the data I am seeing, shows that spending has been on the same trend post 2008 as it was pre 2008. Maybe money is spent differently, but it seems like the money is still being spent.

What you are missing is that in Eski's mind. Europe should have spent 100++++% more money year over over, but because the increase was only a few percentage points 'austerity' happened.

 

[fskimospy]

All the data I am seeing, shows that spending has been on the same trend post 2008 as it was pre 2008. Maybe money is spent differently, but it seems like the money is still being spent.

1. Spending more money doesn't mean austerity isn't happening, as taxes matter too. For austerity purposes $1 of spending cuts and $1 of tax increases are the same thing.

2. What specific countries are you looking at? There may be some in Europe that have not engaged in austerity, but most have.

 

[fskimospy]

What you are missing is that in Eski's mind. Europe should have spent 100++++% more money year over over, but because the increase was only a few percentage points 'austerity' happened.

If you actually believe that you're even stupider than everyone here thinks you are, which is saying a lot.

 

[realibrad]

1. Spending more money doesn't mean austerity isn't happening, as taxes matter too. For austerity purposes $1 of spending cuts and $1 of tax increases are the same thing.

2. What specific countries are you looking at? There may be some in Europe that have not engaged in austerity, but most have.

Can you PM me if you find that data. Im googling now.

 

[Joepublic2]

Kind of a tangent, but I just wish right wing people would stop conflating deficits at the national level with debt at a personal, local or even state level. A superpower being in debt to foreign debtors (most of our debt is to ourselves anyway) isn't in any way comparable to you getting behind on your rent/mortgage or racking up CC bills.

To make a crude analogy when you go into debt debtors come and take your stuff; when a reserve currency issuing nation/power block goes into debt they print some more money to cover it and tell the debtors to accept it as payment or they'll shoot them in the face with the group of armed killers standing behind them. Venezuela would be doing far better if they had a huge standing military and a globally traded currency that would allow them to export their inflation across their sphere of influence like most first world economic actors do.

 

[realibrad]

Kind of a tangent, but I just wish right wing people would stop conflating deficits at the national level with debt at a personal, local or even state level. A superpower being in debt to foreign debtors (most of our debt is to ourselves anyway) isn't in any way comparable to you getting behind on your rent/mortgage or racking up CC bills.

To make a crude analogy when you go into debt debtors come and take your stuff; when a reserve currency issuing nation/power block goes into debt they print some more money to cover it and tell the debtors to accept it as payment or they'll shoot them in the face with the group of armed killers standing behind them. Venezuela would be doing far better if they had a huge standing military and a globally traded currency that would allow them to export their inflation across their sphere of influence like most first world economic actors do.

Holy crap you should not talk about this topic. I agree that national debt is different from personal debt, you are way off.

When a country goes into enough debt, lenders aka foreign countries stop lending money. They also stop investing. This means the US has to print money, or find money. If you simply print money, then you cause inflation which can tank an economy. You should do some research before trying to argue Krugman's points. You dont seem to understand enough.

 

[fskimospy]

Can you PM me if you find that data. Im googling now.

I would go look at the IMF's data on change in structural balance over time.

http://www.imf.org/external/data.htm

 

[glenn1]

The problem is that those government spend without any oversights and never give a fuck about their job and then when everything comes crashing down they put all the penalties from the old government conduct on the populace. And you are wondering why everyone over there who never had any relations to government or economic misconduct get upset when they are the ones who get stuck with all the bills and penalties.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...man-exports-greece/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Due to its stupid obsession with "deflation" the Keynesians purposely left the poor and middle class with their mortgage debts thus protecting the assets of the rich who were their creditors. Then compounded that by implementing "too big to fail" and overseeing consolidation of the financial sector into a handful of firms. Then finally went completely retard by pushing "stimulus" to further line the pockets of those same rich.

Then in ultimate irony, they act all surprised when shown how inequality has exploded even more under their stupid policies while growth remains flatlined. Maybe if folks like Eskimospy would actually stop being a damn zealot for a minute he'd learn something. This book would be a good start: http://www.amazon.com/House-Debt-Re...&qid=1431965902&sr=8-1&keywords=house+of+debt

 

[norseamd]

I would go look at the IMF's data on change in structural balance over time.

http://www.imf.org/external/data.htm

What would you say about what is said in the following video and article?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_r68xEH0io

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/capitalism-cronyism.html

 

[werepossum]

I know you're struggling to understand it, but it's not from lack of others trying. I imagine it's mostly due to you being very uncomfortable with accepting that your understanding of economics is wrong. That's why when countries implement austerity and it fails you don't try to figure out why your understanding was wrong, instead you try to figure out why it wasn't really austerity after all.

lol, and that's where you would be wrong. More government spending and larger debts wouldn't solve Venezuela's problems, which are mostly based around a lack of economic diversification, excessive regulation, and a kleptocratic government. They need less government intervention, not more.

You have to remember that not everyone looks at things in such a highly ideological way as you do. You're so desperate to find a way not to be wrong about US economics that you need to convince yourself that everyone telling you that you're wrong is just as big an ideologue as you are.

I don't know which is more mind-blowing, Eskimospy finding a situation (albeit in Venezuela) he doesn't feel needs more government intervention or being called a big ideologue by the guy who feels the left is correct on absolutely every issue and it's not a one party nation simply because half the voters are insane.

Most, perhaps all European countries have engaged in austerity. Sure they still 'spend lots of money', but austerity is not about how much they spend in a given year. It is instead the change in spending/tax policy from year to year, on an inflation adjusted basis. (changes in population should be accounted for too)

People who try to defend austerity often claim it 'hasn't been tried' because spending in most cases continues to go up each year. They are often deliberately ignoring inflation and increases in population to make this point, which is absurd. When you look at the actual numbers, basically every western country has engaged in fiscal consolidation since the crisis. (EDIT: Also, they ignore tax increases, which is baffling)

This is partly what is so sad, people don't even seem to realize that the US has also engaged in austerity. The reason we are doing better than most of those countries is not because we engaged in some big stimulus program, we just made the same mistake they did to a lesser extent.

Goes back to Glenn's point about not being falsifiable. If the only way to not have austerity is to spend ever more money, and then even more money because of population increases, and then even more money because of inflation, then one can always claim austerity happened. If the results were not as expected, simply add some more terms (i.e. reasons why this year's big budget increase was actually austerity.) No nation can long continue spending that way - creditors are always going to get nervous and demand you get your house in order before you borrow any more money. Then like the guy who downs a bottle of tequila and then complains that the peanuts made him sick, you blame austerity. Sure, any sovereign nation can always print more money, but when a nation becomes a net importer, printing more money simply means imported goods tend to cost more, so you're chasing your tail trying to have a free lunch.

All the data I am seeing, shows that spending has been on the same trend post 2008 as it was pre 2008. Maybe money is spent differently, but it seems like the money is still being spent.

That's his point though - unless you're spending an extra special amount of money, it's austerity, and austerity is bad, m'kay? Spend a ton more money and things improve, it's yet another win for Keynesian economics. Spend a ton more money and things don't improve, it's yet another win for Keynesian economics because obviously two tons more money was required. It's turtles all the way down.

 

[fskimospy]

Due to its stupid obsession with "deflation" the Keynesians purposely left the poor and middle class with their mortgage debts thus protecting the assets of the rich who were their creditors. Then compounded that by implementing "too big to fail" and overseeing consolidation of the financial sector into a handful of firms. Then finally went completely retard by pushing "stimulus" to further line the pockets of those same rich.

Then in ultimate irony, they act all surprised when shown how inequality has exploded even more under their stupid policies while growth remains flatlined. Maybe if folks like Eskimospy would actually stop being a damn zealot for a minute he'd learn something. This book would be a good start: http://www.amazon.com/House-Debt-Re...&qid=1431965902&sr=8-1&keywords=house+of+debt

It's awesome how unaware you are. That book is arguing that we face a deficit in aggregate demand, which is exactly the Keynesian economics that you claim is crap.

lol.

 

[BoberFett]

Austerity: Spending Infinity Dollars Minus One.

 

[werepossum]

Austerity: Spending Infinity Dollars Minus One.

+1

Austerity next year: Spending Double Infinity Dollars Minus One.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know which is more mind-blowing, Eskimospy finding a situation (albeit in Venezuela) he doesn't feel needs more government intervention or being called a big ideologue by the guy who feels the left is correct on absolutely every issue and it's not a one party nation simply because half the voters are insane.

Ahh the standard werepossum MO. When confronted with contrary information just pretend it didn't happen and invent your own delusional reality! It takes a special kind of nuttiness to respond to a post where I'm saying the left in Venezuela is wrong by accusing me of thinking the left is correct on absolutely every issue.

I certainly don't think half the voters are insane, but this post is a good indication that you might be.

Goes back to Glenn's point about not being falsifiable. If the only way to not have austerity is to spend ever more money, and then even more money because of population increases, and then even more money because of inflation, then one can always claim austerity happened. If the results were not as expected, simply add some more terms (i.e. reasons why this year's big budget increase was actually austerity.) No nation can long continue spending that way - creditors are always going to get nervous and demand you get your house in order before you borrow any more money. Then like the guy who downs a bottle of tequila and then complains that the peanuts made him sick, you blame austerity. Sure, any sovereign nation can always print more money, but when a nation becomes a net importer, printing more money simply means imported goods tend to cost more, so you're chasing your tail trying to have a free lunch.

This is michal1980 levels of babbling nonsense. It is both funny and sad that even after all this time you lack even a basic understanding of the economic debate that's happening. You are doing exactly what I said: this description has nothing to do with what the terms actually mean, but you need to convince yourself of this caricature to avoid uncomfortable thoughts.

Sad.

That's his point though - unless you're spending an extra special amount of money, it's austerity, and austerity is bad, m'kay? Spend a ton more money and things improve, it's yet another win for Keynesian economics. Spend a ton more money and things don't improve, it's yet another win for Keynesian economics because obviously two tons more money was required. It's turtles all the way down.

See above. This is /facepalm worthy.

 

[norseamd]

Eskimospy did you see my question from earlier?