Talk:Fiscal responsibility

	This economics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Ignore

This article seems to ignore the crushing effects austerity has on the poor and working class. That is the reason why "detractors of fiscal responsibility" oppose it so much, because the fallout almost invariably falls on the poor, and not on the wealthy. Vee (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Fringe theories

Some fringe economic schools, like Post-Keynesian economics, and in particular Modern Monetary Theory, argue forcefully against notion of fiscal responsibility that is used to motivate austerity programmes, arguing that sovereign governments are not analogous to households, and the economically "right" level of government deficit or surplus entirely depends on the state of the economy at the time (e.g. the level of unemployment). These points have been widely rejected by basically every mainstream economists nonetheless.

This doesn't explain how the Post-Keynesians are wrong. It's an argument from authority. Surely the wiki can do better than that. Vee (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"It has been argued"

Let them fight.

Gee added weasel words and removed cited content. For context, here's the cited content Gee removed without explanation:

Unemployment, job loss, foreclosure, and unpayable debt have all been found to negatively impact health. And when politicians directly slash social support infrastructure, they run the risk of turning recessions into epidemics. The malarial outbreak in Greece has been directly linked to a reduction in funding for Greece's mosquito-spraying program, which ended up causing an epidemic "much more costly to control than than the short-term money saved by reducing the budget."

The only explanation Gee offered for the removal of this content is "this is not appropriate criticism." That's not an explanation, that's an assertion. What this indicates to me is that you didn't like the content, and so you removed it. And where you didn't remove the content, you added weasel words like "it has been argued that..." Such as here:

It has has been argued, for instance, that a rise in austerity policies have been directly correlated with an increased rate of suicides and general depressionWikipedia in both Europe and the United States.[21] It's also been argued that austerity measures have also been found to have a negative impact on general health too. In Greece, after health programs were cut, HIV rates went up by 200%, and the country saw its first malaria outbreak since the 1970s.[21]

These are weasel words that muddle content. Also, the Democracy Now article (which is an outlet rated as "highly factual" by Media Bias Fact Check) is an interview with a physician and economist about the negative effects of austerity on public health. If this interview was to have been conducted by CNN would Gee be removing this content and adding these weasel words?

There is also a New York Times article written by these two which covers much of the same material: [1]

Here is the head paragraph of that New York Times article which corroborates the removed content that Gee didn't like:

“Because the Italian government’s austerity budget had raised the retirement age, Mr. Dionisi, a former construction worker, became one of Italy’s esodati (exiled ones)—older workers plunged into poverty without a safety net. On April 5, he and his wife left a note on a neighbor’s car asking for forgiveness, then hanged themselves in a storage closet at home. When Ms. Sopranzi’s brother, Giuseppe [Sopranzi, who was] 73, heard the news, he drowned himself in the Adriatic.”

Austerity absolutely kills. To remove content, and to add weasel words to muddle demonstrable reality, is tantamount to social denialism. Carthage (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It has been argued is not a weasel word. Just search for it here on the Wiki and you'll see it's been used many many times. And yes, it's not appropriate criticism. "Unemployment, job loss, foreclosure, and unpayable debt" are often result of fiscal irresponsibility, so it doesn't make sense to blame fiscal responsibility on it. You can also see that your Democracy Now article is still on the page. The part of CNN is idiotic and what makes people on Wikipedia get banned (WP:ASPERSIONS so I won't answer it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I did add a source (much better than the Democracy Now article since it is a meta-analysis) arguing that austerity has deleterious effects on health care. But saying that "austerity kill" is just loaded language, just like saying that "fiscal responsibility kills". GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Austerity directly played a role in the death of Mr. Dionisi. Just because something is loaded language doesn't mean it's untrue. I also didn't say that "austerity kills" in my edits. That's the title of the book of that economist/physician duo, who evidently find that to be an accurate statement.

And the answer to this sort of problem is on the last phrase of the article. Did you really read the whole thing? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

What's your exact problem here? It's demonstrable that cuts to social infrastructure has led to deaths and suffering. Just look at Mr. Dionisi. Is your contention that the raise to the retirement age in Italy wasn't fiscally responsible? You add "it has been argued" to these demonstrable facts, but when you add your own shit you suddenly no longer put "it has been argued." It makes it seem like it's a matter of debate, when it absolutely isn't. Carthage (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"Demonstrable fact" because a 2013 book said so? It is also a "demonstrable fact" that fiscal irresponsibility kills the most vulnerable people? Yes, Austerity is a bitter remedy, but what is the alternative? Because a person claimed to have killed himself because of austerity we should kill many others? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The answer to your problems is already in the article. Yes, austerity can be bad. But does it have to be? Does it inherently kill people? Can you prove and demonstrate that every austerity measure will always kill? And that more people will die from it than when the government is fiscal irresponsible? You made an extraordinary claim and still haven't posted evidence. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Taxes are an alternative to austerity, as is wealth redistribution. Which won't kill people if done right, but it will piss people off. Personally I find angy people are better to have than corpses. Although I am not against austerity (cuts) because not everything in the world is a good idea to spend money on. Extravagance is a lot different than healthcare essentials. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@BumblingBuffoon Taxes are austerity, and the article covers it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That "2013 book" by an epidemiologist, a public health expert, that you dismissed, has found that cuts to healthcare infrastructure has resulted in a health crisis. There is nothing in dispute about this. If you cut access to healthcare services, people will die. There is no reason to add weasel words to this. Likewise, there is no reason to remove the fact that cuts to social infrastructure has incurred harm. You can argue that harm is a necessary trade-off, but there is no reason to act like that harm doesn't happen. It obviously does. It's also not true to claim that no alternatives to austerity have been proposed. Carthage (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the alternative to austerity then? Also, you didn't answer. Does every austerity kills? Or just when it's not well-executed? Because well, I think that fiscal irresponsibility always kills. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Saying that Austerity kills is a p→q proposition. So are you stating that it will always kill? And more importantly, what is the alternative? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is it that almost always whenever someone is proposing to cut regulations it's always the poor that are gonna hurt the hardest? I don't see any proposals to cut the US military budget by 25%. If I were to find a citation for this criticism, that there is a disparity in how austerity is applied, would you remove it? You can acknowledge that austerity has its uses while still acknowledging the harms that are incurred by it, which is something I have already stated, and you ignored. Now instead you're shifting the goalposts to "what is the alternative to austerity," as if you can't criticize something without acknowledging that it can have valid uses. Also, the fact that the criticisms proffered don't offer alternatives is irrelevant to the criticism. It's a red herring. Carthage (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

(EC) You know what is actually a weasel word? "Almost always". Also, I never claimed that austerity is not bitter, I've stated this not only here, but on the article. You're strawmanning me. Again. And yes, it is relevant to state that that the criticisms proffered don't offer alternatives. One will think that fiscal responsibility is better than austerity when it comes to health care. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, cutting the part that claims that the austerity caused an epidemic "much more costly to control than than the short-term money saved by reducing the budget" was a mistake. This was good criticism. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Spending slumps growth?

According to this paper, "all three components of public social spending, including social security benefits, education expenditure, and health expenditure, have a significant and positive impact on subsequent economic growth." This would seem contradictory to the blanket statement in this article that spending slumps growth without caveat. Carthage (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Spending doesn't slow growth, at least in the short term, it's pretty much otherwise, that is the point of fiscal policy. Very few good economists, such as Robert Barro, think that the multiplier is lower than one. The problem is the crowd out effect and the efficiency of the spending. A higher deficit with more speding usually slumps growth, especially in the long term. This is what the I wrote. I'm not going to read your study right now, so I don't know if they are talking about the long term or the short term, or how they answer to these two problems I mentioned. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 10:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You wrote: "There is, however, evidence that it in fact slumps growth.[11] In other words, a government that spends too much won’t cause growth, but actually slumps it, and this is even worse if the country spends too much and has a big deficit. As a result, the population pays twice: by higher taxes and slower economic growth." This should be revised, because otherwise there is cause to be made that this statement is misleading. You don't include caveats in this paragraph. It makes it seem like spending slumps growth period. That spending has no positive effect on growth when that is in fact not true. You, or someone else, could even write that "while there is evidence that spending in specific sectors can have a positive impact on growth, spending combined with a high deficit will generally slump growth." That would make this statement less misleading. Carthage (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)