Why do people think austerity measures will work?

But our economy is in the toilet, so you can't take money out of that either. Or else Ireland may not be able to sustain itsself in the long run. I don't understand how people who are supposed to be competent don't get this, of course on this forum it's a lot to do with bias towards a particular ideology than giving two ****s about the best solution.

Again I think in most cases the call for austerity is intellectually void and based on a reactionary position. It'd make sense if our economy was doing well, yet our government was still managing poorly. But our overall economy is doing even worse than our government. Personal debt is at a very high level and the private sector has seen much better days.

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

We have to reduce the deficit because we can't keep borrowing indefinitely.

However cutting spending in a recession further cripples the domestic economy, leads to falling tax receipts etc. So we are damned if we do and damned if we don't

What has really crippled us is the cost of the bank bailout and nama.

Good point.

As much as people moan about welfare, the Anglo-Irish bailout costs about as much as our welfare bill. I realise that the economic right on this forum aren't fond of that either, but they don't complain about it a fraction as much.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's not the point.

Again, it's the same shoddy logic that says we don't need healthcare, people are responsible for their own health.

But people still die, and people still commit crime. The blame, the "He started it!!!" is not the problem here. If more crimes happen with less money, it's something to look at and consider.

The impracticality of the conservative model of "Personal Responsibility" is evident here.

If you want to reduce the cost of transport involved in job searching, then perhaps you should ask your beloved state to eliminate VRT, excise and VAT on petrol, carbon tax, road tax, and the many other factors that keep the cost of motoring in this country crippling high. Get rid of the state monopolies over transportation services while you're at it, and prices will fall.

Or we could, you know, not become a Libertarian state.

Not borrowing money at sky-high interest rates to pay sky-high social welfare rates is not "taking money out of the economy." It's allowing the economy to return to its natural post-boom level—and freeing our children and grandchildren from inheriting an absolutely enormous national debt.

Or, they could have used that money for welfare and not anglo-irish. I'm sure you're not happy with that either, but it doesn't seem to bother you as much since it doesn't give you an opportunity to be a dick to poor people.

Rent would be quite a bit lower if the state weren't funding half of all private tenancies.

Rent would also be lower if landlords and estate agents weren't largely cowboy businessmen.

Dell "****ed off" because Ireland has become uncompetitive due to state meddling with wages, energy costs, and many of the other costs of doing business. Pumping borrowing billions into a moribund economy is not the answer; we have to becoming competitive again, and attract inward investment.

Or; we could have put money into developing our own industry so it wouldn't be as much of an issue when they do. Sweden has no trouble being a welfare state largely because it has it's own successful multinationals.

No, sorry -- my analysis is based on rational economic argument. No matter how much of a song and dance you make about fairness and equality, you have no answer to the basic economic fact that we have no choice about whether to cut the deficit. Austerity is not one among many other options. It is the only option.

And can you prove this here and now? I doubt it.

Even if it is, the only reason we got in that situation is due to factors other than welfare - such as the bailing out of AI.

And how do you explain that claim? I want the state to stop borrowing now so that private individuals do not face a struggling economy and high taxes for generations to come.

If you cut welfare severely, private individuals who are still suffering debt will not be able to manage. If everyone starts selling their **** to pay for debt - who's going to buy it? Likely it will end up in the hands of those who can actually afford to pay - thus consolidating future wealth and resources in the hands of people who are already well off.

It's a pawn shop scenario.

Of course I'm entitled to legal protection for my wealth and property. That's a basic cornerstone of a liberal society. It's why I personally choose not to live in a socialist cesspit. If Ireland becomes a socialist cesspit, I'll be on the first plane out, believe me.

I'm sorry, but your immature phrasing and weak reasoning is only proving my point.

"Of course" you're entitled to protection for "your own" wealth.

But, by the same extent, many who share the same view as you would say that people aren't entitled to healthcare and various benefits.

There are no obvious facts here, no "common sense". Everything has to be defended from the ground up. Your refusal to realise this is exactly why I say your argument is, mostly, devoid of intellectual thought. Because it's not based on what's actually best for everyone, it's based on avoiding a "socialist cesspit", despite countries that are more true social democracies fairing better than Ireland at the moment.

It is only obvious to you that your property should be protected, but not the welfare of the poor.