• workerONE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    That’s fair but in economic theory austerity should be responsible budget constraint used to limit spending in an attempt to “save” money. For a government, over restrictions on spending have a crippling effect on the economy. Your point is valid if governments are claiming essential services were cut as austerity measures. My point is that if you support austerity you want it done responsibly in order to claim that it can work, which it can’t. Crippling social services isn’t austerity, it’s neglect and mismanagement.

    • XiJinpingStanAccount@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 hours ago

      You are assuming the people who “support austerity” do so because they think it will improve the situaton, and not just because they do not fucking care if poor people die or not.

      • workerONE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yes but I would like to think that economists who believe in austerity wouldn’t support this or agree that it is an application of austerity, that the people in charge are just hiding behind the claim that this is austerity when the reality is like you say, it’s just malicious

          • workerONE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            I do think that economists have an interest in dealing in factual information. I don’t think they are concerned with poor people but a government collecting too little in taxes will act in its own interest. They will try to increase economic activity by lowering borrowing costs or by spending. Or they will cut spending. In order to decide what to do they rely on economic theory and recommendations from economists.