1. Duh. Of course it will when government consumption is counted as part of GDP. Big fucking whoop. Austerity worked in Canada as recently as the turn of the century. Tell us how well uncontrolled spending worked out for Greece. You guys consistently ignore the fact that eventually, the piper has to be paid.

2. Argumentum ad populum.

3. Waaah.

1. It's almost like government spending adds to GDP, isn't it? Stupid point, not even worth debating that so I'll move on...

You guys consistently use rogue examples to emphasise your points, examples you use with little context and which have no relevance to the actual argument you're trying to make. Greece had a corrupt government that fudged the books for years and years, spending money which wasn't on infrastructure or projects that contribute to GDP growth. Then they went under austerity which contracted their economy long before the EU imposed further austerity. The 2nd round of austerity may have been feasible had they actually attained valuable growth beforehand by spending. Tell me about how Venezuela is a great example of socialism, I'll happily debunk that one for you too.

Now, saying that Keynesian's 'ignore the piper has to be paid' is a ridiculous straw man. The argument we make is not that debts shouldn't be paid, but that the most effective way to pay the debt back is when your economy is growing and tax revenues are high. You don't stifle investment by cutting every social program known to man. You keep the debt:gdp ratio at an acceptable level, which evidence shows us can even be as high as 150-200% of GDP. You spend investment wisely on long term infrastructure such as transport links, innovation and R+D (all things which Greece didn't do btw, maybe mention that next time?).

I don't know Canada's economy in great detail and won't pretend to either. But following on from my point above about GDP growth being the most 'effective' way, an example of austerity working would only be an indication that GDP growth would have worked out better. Look at the UK which has had a small taste (compared to Greece) of austerity in the past 6 years, and constantly had lower growth forecasts than countries that invested properly with measured deficit spending. All the long term infrastructure projects that have been scrapped or put on the back burner while Cameron cut disability benefits and slashed capital gains, business and inheritance taxes. Austerity is a political ideology that always conveniently landing onto the poorest to pay for...

2. I wasn't saying being against a minimum wage increase is bad because most people want an increase, I'm saying it is bad in my opinion because I don't think it's a good idea...and nor does the evidence. However, it's bad for Gary because it's anotherpresidential election he has failed to capitalise on, as it becomes increasingly clear that many of his views are simply not acceptable in the mainstream.

3. You don't really have an argument against this (obviously) so I guess my point stands with added credibility!

This post was edited by dro94 on Jul 19 2016 11:53am

Something that we have zero track record of doing. Cake. Eat it. Pick one.

The evidence doesn't say it's a good thing either, just that in aggregate, it's not "bad." Sorry, youth minorities would disagree, and so would the evidence.

Only that what you said isn't in any way actually "bad."

Who?

You know... someone better than Clinton or Trump, and a track record that proves it.

Pffft, Jill Stein > Gary Johnson.



I literally made this same joke in my head, then clicked the thread and saw your post.

lolloololol 10/10

I can't get behind Jill and the Green Party because they are against nuclear energy.

On what grounds? Her platform is a joke and her economics are caveman inspired.

feely feels

muh green party
muh emotions