Saturday, June 16, 2012

Baltics 1 Socialist Europeans 0

Estonia is one of the few European countries that actually DID austerity. And apparently it DID work (as much as we can determine casualty in matters such as this). a) Their growth rate is currently 7.6%. b) They also have a budget surplus. c) Their debt to GDP ratio is a scant 6%. d) They currently have an A+ credit rating from Fitch. e) They're currently ranked 24th (2 slots ahead of Switzerland) in the "Ease of Doing Business" rankings of the World Bank. Now, is everything perfect in Estonia? Of course not. But when you compare it to the mess in England, France, Italy, Spain, and Greece, it looks like they're doing pretty damn good to me. 

21 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

Looks like they're doing better than the US as well. Hm, I wonder how long it takes to learn the language.

What's their rating with respect to liberty and individual freedoms?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

They're kind of the Singapore of Europe, I guess.

BB-Idaho said...

Hopefully, they've learned a bit from the Irish miracle ...

w-dervish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
w-dervish said...

The Guardian: ...unemployment in Latvia rocketed to 30% in 2010, taking into account people forced into part-time work and those who had given up looking. It has since fallen back, but is still high at 15%.

What's more, the recoveries should be seen in the context of their previous collapse. Both economies are growing fast but neither has got back up to pre-crisis levels. What recoveries they have enjoyed, many economists put down to geography. [they trade with richer countries located nearby].

In other words this wouldn't work if you are a richer country (like the US). And who thinks 15 percent unemployment is a good idea?

Austerity doesn't work.

dmarks said...

Austerity always works. It makes no sense for governments to control and waste so much money.

w-dervish said...

Sure it does... it works to deepen recessions while enriching the plutocrats.

Governor Wanker of WI cut taxes for the wealthy and had to make up the difference by stealing from middle class public sector workers... and dmarks cheered because he believes it's "wasting money" when workers are paid fairly.

It makes sense to support austerity if you hate workers and idolize the wealthy like dmarks.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The U.S. is a rich country, wd. Austerity (true austerity) worked for Harding in 1921. It also worked in Canada in the '90s and in the Scandinavian countries during that same decade (the Norwegians cut their public sector economy from 70-something % to 50-something %.......And as U.S. News and World Report has adroitly pointed out, they haven't even done any austerity (save for some tax increases) in Europe. England and France haven't cut spending AT ALL and the spending levels even in Greece are still above their 2008 levels.......Estonia has acted responsibly and they currently have a 7.6% growth rate to show for it. Sorry, but it can work.......The Guardian LOL

w-dervish said...

LOL your LOL on the Guardian. Of course a Conservative such as yourself would poo-poo this esteemed publication.

Also, LOL your absurd claim that austerity worked for Harding. The policies of Harding and Colidge caused the Great Depression.

And why are you telling me that the US is a rich country? That is why what "worked" in Estonia wouldn't work in the US. That was my POINT.

dmarks said...

"Governor Wanker of WI cut taxes for the wealthy and had to make up the difference by stealing from middle class public sector workers... and dmarks cheered because he believes it's "wasting money" when workers are paid fairly."

Actually, he did no "stealing". All he did was stop giving handouts.


"and dmarks cheered because he believes it's "wasting money" when workers are paid fairly."

I believe in paying workers fairly. Using the only valid determination: the objective value of the work.

I am glad Walker stood up for the real workers. He gave the teachers, for example, a raise of more than $1000.

If you want to look at the real enemies of the workers in Wisconsin, look at the unions. For years they forced workers to join. But when Walker gave workers a choice. more than half of the workers left the unions. The unions were opposed to this reform. The workers clearly had other ideas.

"It makes sense to support austerity if you hate workers and idolize the wealthy like dmarks."

I am very much for workers rights, which is why I support Walker. I don't idolize the wealthy at all.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: I don't idolize the wealthy at all.

Said the wealthy idolizer.

And what "handouts"? Negotiated for benefits aren't "handouts". And you do not believe in paying workers fairly, which is why you're constantly referring to fair pay as "handouts". The unions defend workers. That is the reason they exist.

dmarks said...

"And what "handouts"? Negotiated for benefits aren't "handouts".

They are if they are not earned. Or if the negotiations never occur. And often they do not (considering how legislatures have rubber-stamped union demands without any debate or negotiation). And as has been proven in Wisconsin, the "negotiations" aren't legit anyway. In the case of the NEA, the union was supposedly negotiating on behalf of a group of which the majority objected to belonging, or being involved at all.

"And you do not believe in paying workers fairly, which is why you're constantly referring to fair pay as "handouts"

I have never done this.

"The unions defend workers. That is the reason they exist."

With most of the NEA teachers fleeing the union in Wisconsin as a typical example of sentiment, it's clear that the unions do not defend workers, and in fact go against their interests, and that they exist mostly because of regulations to force people to belong to them.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: They are if they are not earned.

They are earned. If not they would be rejected during negotiations.

dmarks: Or if the negotiations never occur. And often they do not (considering how legislatures have rubber-stamped union demands without any debate or negotiation).

They approved them because they were reasonable. That would be my guess. And I doubt you have any proof that something improper or illegal occurred.

dmarks: ...the union was supposedly negotiating on behalf of a group of which the majority objected to belonging, or being involved at all.

Baloney. They chose, of their own free will, to join. If they didn't want to join they could have turned down the job... or never applied for it.

dmarks: ...and in fact go against their interests...

Unions go against the interests of employers who would prefer to pay as little as possible and object to the idea that fair pay should be negotiated. This is why dmarks hates unions... he agrees that low pay = fair pay (when it comes to workers).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I understood your point, wd. I just didn't happen to agree with it. Austerity apparently DID work for Mr. Harding (or at least it was followed by good results - remember, we cannot ascertain causality with certainty on these things). He inherited a 12% unemployment rate from Wilson and he drastically get spending and taxes and within 2 years the unemployment rate was a shade over 2%. Compare that to the recovery of Mr. Obama.............And your underconsumption theory pertaining to the depression is simply that, a theory, and a discredited one at that. a) Corporate profits and wages basically stayed the same throughout the '20s and b) the economy was actually recovering in 1930 and it wasn't until the progressive, Hoover, started mucking around that the economy started really tanking.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

dmarks, I had a chance to join the NEA back in 1991. I told 'em no. Still don't regret it.

dmarks said...

Will: I have a friend who was a teacher who refused to join the NEA. He got all kids of threats and harassment. This kind of thing is normal; I have other examples.

I hope the situation is better in Wisconsin now. The teachers now have a choice, and they quickly exercised it and most said NO to the NEA. I'm sure that the bullies and thugs in the NEA still harass teachers, but now they don't have the might of the State behind them.

dmarks said...

WD said: "They are earned. If not they would be rejected during negotiations."

The "negotiations" have nothing to do with earning.

"They approved them because they were reasonable."

That's pretty awful. Ignorant people meddling with pay rates out of gut feelings without any regards to economics or the real value of the work.

"Baloney. They chose, of their own free will, to join."

That is total bull****. In closed shop states, like Wisconsin was BEFORE Walker, they had no choice. MOST of Wisconsin's teachers were forced to join. Once they got the choice, the left the union in droves.

"If they didn't want to join they could have turned down the job... or never applied for it."

In your anti-worker mentality, you find that it is OK to fire people for refusing to join political organizations that have nothing to do with the ability to do the work.

"Unions go against the interests of employers ..."

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. But the main subject here is how unions go against the interest of the workers.

The union bosses in Indiana also expect more than half of union members to quit the union now they have a choice in that state also. Rock hard proof that workers were forced to join, and how unions represent only some of the members.

"This is why dmarks hates unions... he agrees that low pay = fair pay (when it comes to workers)."

Not at all. Fair pay is pay based on the real value of the work, as determined by the employer and the worker (the only two individuals who have any idea what is fair in that situation). It can be low, it can be high.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: The "negotiations" have nothing to do with earning.

Of course they do. That is when what is earned is determined.

dmarks: That's pretty awful. Ignorant people meddling with pay rates out of gut feelings without any regards to economics or the real value of the work.

Huh? Who said anything about gut feelings? I don't know what you're talking about. It most likely WAS done with regards to economics, in that the rate of inflation was used to determine how much the increase should be.

dmarks: In closed shop states, like WI was BEFORE Walker, they had no choice. MOST of WI's teachers were forced to join. Once they got the choice, they left the union in droves.

Nobody was forced to apply for union teacher jobs. This is a flat out lie. And they left the union because Walker took away the union's power. Why pay dues for nothing?

dmarks: In your anti-worker mentality, you find that it is OK to fire people for refusing to join political organizations that have nothing to do with the ability to do the work.

I support unions because I am pro-worker. Unions are worker rights organizations. Both Democrats and Republicans are union members. And I never said anything about firing anyone.

dmarks: But the main subject here is how unions go against the interest of the workers.

This is a minor subject really. Because it usually doesn't happen, and if it does then the members vote for new representation.

dmarks: Fair pay is pay based on the real value of the work, as determined by the employer and the worker...

Employers desire to pay as little as possible. What's "fair" isn't a consideration.

You keep insisting that paying as little as possible is "fair" because this tactic is the one that most benefits the wealthy elites that you idolize.

dmarks said...

WD said: "Nobody was forced to apply for union teacher jobs. This is a flat out lie. And they left the union because Walker took away the union's power. Why pay dues for nothing?"

I was referring to how teachers were forced to pay money to a political organization that had nothing to do with their job.

"I support unions because I am pro-worker. Unions are worker rights organizations."

Most workers disagree with you. Perfect example of your arrogance again.

"Both Democrats and Republicans are union members. And I never said anything about firing anyone."

Under closed shop, workers who refuse to hand over money to political campaigns are fired.

dmarks said...

Finally, "Employers desire to pay as little as possible. What's "fair" isn't a consideration."

And employees want to be paid as much as possible. The meeting point between the two is the fair deal that both decide on. It's fair for them, even if it isn't for you. But that doesn't matter a hill of beans, as you know nothing about it.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: I was referring to how teachers were forced to pay money to a political organization that had nothing to do with their job.

Why refer to something that's never happened? That makes no sense.

dmarks: Most workers disagree with you. Perfect example of your arrogance again.

Actually this is an example of your arrogance. You've decided "most workers disagree" based on nothing but your personal feelings about unions.

dmarks: Under closed shop, workers who refuse to hand over money to political campaigns are fired.

What about people who own stock in a company that makes political contributions they don't agree with? I pointed this out to you previously and you approved of it. Clearly the "forcing" is OK with you... so long as it's forcing to contribute to Republicans.

dmarks: And employees want to be paid as much as possible. The meeting point between the two is the fair deal that both decide on.

Baloney. Pay for most jobs isn't negotiated. Employers usually say take it or leave it. If you apply for the job you're agreeing to the pay being offered (which is as little as the company can get away with offering).