|
Non Serviam posted:The alternative was Guillier, who was backed by the far left parties (the "Venezuela and Cuba are great and we should follow their steps" crowd). Yet the far left voters did not even show up in the second round. So much for backing. Also you got conned by the austerity shills.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
Symbolic Butt posted:I don't want to get too much into macroeconomics because I'm not even the most qualified/eloquent person to talk about it at length but I'll just hammer this point: No country ever in history got into a debt crisis because they spent too much on welfare, that's a ridiculous notion. I mean...it's not, really? A country gets into a debt crisis by accumulating obligations that grow too large for it to make payments on. The bond market gets scared and investors stop lending the country money and you have a debt crisis. The problem is unsustainable deficit spending and not welfare spending specifically but welfare spending does contribute. =P The US gets away with big structural deficits by having the world's reserve currency and a giant internal market to sell bonds to. A country like Chile has neither of those things. edit: Austerity sucks because government spending is still spending and that money is also income, so it boosts the economy. But the money to do the spending and distribute the income has to be paid back eventually out of what the country's economy produces. And when that debt gets so large that the country can't even make its interest payments there is a gigantic fiscal drag from 1) not being able to borrow money to do the spending and 2) Still having to pay interest on the existing debt because money for free is not a thing. Then everyone cries about how austerity is horrible when what they really mean is "wouldn't it be great if you all had just given us billions of dollars and if you'd continue to do that, thanks". It's better for everyone to spend less now (especially on things that don't have a good return on investment), take a small economic hit now, and not end up in that situation down the road. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
The point is that money spent on welfare tends to immediately be injected back into local economy, and generates more wealth in the country. It doesn't accumulate or find its way offshore as quickly as, say tax breaks. That's beside the savings in health and security spending that a welfare safety net provides. It wasn't by chance that Australia was one of the developed economies least affected by the global financial crisis. They gave out extra cash to everyone on welfare, no strings attached as a part of a stimulus package. Compared to austerity, which causes a death spiral of low-negative growth leaving the country less able to pay debts and with a worse rating, making future debt more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
hoiyes posted:The point is that money spent on welfare tends to immediately be injected back into local economy, and generates more wealth in the country. It doesn't accumulate or find its way offshore as quickly as, say tax breaks. That's beside the savings in health and security spending that a welfare safety net provides. It wasn't by chance that Australia was one of the developed economies least affected by the global financial crisis. They gave out extra cash to everyone on welfare, no strings attached as a part of a stimulus package. Compared to austerity, which causes a death spiral of low-negative growth leaving the country less able to pay debts and with a worse rating, making future debt more expensive. That's a fair point. Look at the edit I made above (that I was doing while you were posting, apparantly). Austerity is generally something that happens once the country has already poo poo the bed and there are no good outcomes. Spending a little less to get the budget in balance so it doesn't end up in that situation does not have the same growth implications. edit: I'm not saying all welfare spending is bad. I don't believe that. Just that however the money is spent, it has to be within the means of the economy spending it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Didn't Venezuela get in the poo poo mostly because of rampant corruption from an extremely criminal and authoritarian government?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Negrostrike posted:Didn't Venezuela get in the poo poo mostly because of rampant corruption from an extremely criminal and authoritarian government? Por que no los dos?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That's a fair point. Look at the edit I made above (that I was doing while you were posting, apparantly). Austerity is generally something that happens once the country has already poo poo the bed and there are no good outcomes. Spending a little less to get the budget in balance so it doesn't end up in that situation does not have the same growth implications. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQGCoiakycQ This is from 2013 ,its not even a new racket. If someone is selling you austerity they dont understand poo poo about economics. some of the people selling austerity dont even understand how excel works If someone is selling you balanced budgets they are lying to you. Edit:poo poo like velocity of money as been around for ages and is one of the few actual factual provable things in the field of bullshit make believe that is economics and austerity even discards that.austerity is great for people who really really like disaster capitalism Antifa Poltergeist fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Spending a little less to get the budget in balance so it doesn't end up in that situation does not have the same growth implications. Despite painting themselves as the great financial operators, right wing ideology refuses to acknowledge welfare as an investment, let alone one that can achieve a great return in dollar terms alone, without even considering the human impact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
There seems to be a pretty significant misunderstanding here, since Piñera wasn't elected on an austerity platform. I don't think that the people bringing that up are even trying to make a strawman argument, but instead that they sincerely don't know jackshit about the election, so they're just guessing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
They are responding to the allegation that welfare spending has ever collapsed a government's economy, even though there is basically no historical evidence for that occuring and it certainly wasnt a contributor to Venezuelas, since doing the same other stuff without it would have lead to the same end, possibly quicker. Its a non factor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:They are responding to the allegation that welfare spending has ever collapsed a government's economy, even though there is basically no historical evidence for that occuring and it certainly wasnt a contributor to Venezuelas, since doing the same other stuff without it would have lead to the same end, possibly quicker. There are distinctions that need to be made though. The plans proposed by the left in Chile would have absolutely bankrupted the country, not because they were "welfare plans," but because they were bad plans. The notion that every welfare program is good is ridiculous since, just like any other financial plan, it can be done well or poorly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Corporate welfare is the most common form of unaffordable welfare and its effect on economies is insidious. (said no right winger ever)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:There are distinctions that need to be made though. The plans proposed by the left in Chile would have absolutely bankrupted the country, not because they were "welfare plans," but because they were bad plans. The notion that every welfare program is good is ridiculous since, just like any other financial plan, it can be done well or poorly. Do you think they'll follow through on repealing same sex marriage?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Do you think they'll follow through on repealing same sex marriage? Considering that's not what they proposed, and that same sex marriage also doesn't exist in Chile to begin with (same sex unions are legally binding though), I'm not sure what's the point you're making. EDIT: So as to clarify this point, since I see what you're trying to accomplish here: I think same sex marriage (or unions, or whatever) should be legal. Gay people have the same right to be miserable as anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:There are distinctions that need to be made though. The plans proposed by the left in Chile would have absolutely bankrupted the country, not because they were "welfare plans," but because they were bad plans. The notion that every welfare program is good is ridiculous since, just like any other financial plan, it can be done well or poorly. why were they bad?besides being left wing plans?it would run up the debt?hyperinflation?loss of foreign reserves?cripled the monetary flow in the economy? Reduce goverment revenue? Increased delays in payment to private vendors?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Considering that's not what they proposed, and that same sex marriage also doesn't exist in Chile to begin with (same sex unions are legally binding though), I'm not sure what's the point you're making. No. I just misremembered the NY Times article I read about the Chilean elections: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/17/world/americas/chile-presidential-election.html quote:Mr. Piñera promised to halt the same-sex marriage bill Ms. Bachelet introduced in August and said he would improve the conditions of military officers serving sentences for crimes against humanity. If this is not correct, I'd like to know more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:and said he would improve the conditions of military officers serving sentences for crimes against humanity.  I feel like now I know everything I need about the chilean elections
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Was anyone running actually praising Venezuela, really?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:No. I just misremembered the NY Times article I read about the Chilean elections: 1. On gay rights (Spanish links, sorry): http://www.latercera.com/noticia/pinera-rechaza-matrimonio-igualitario-no-descarta-respaldo-adopcion-homoparental/ He, apparently, does not back the idea of same sex marriage in the sense of "calling it" marriage. He states that they should have the same rights though. 2. On military: The current discussion deals with the people in their late 80s convicted for crimes committed during the Military Government. Since many of them are very old and infirm, there have been requests to let them finish their sentences at home, instead of in prison, but the Bachelet government opposed it (despite some members of the left coalition advocating for it, like Francisco Vidal). This benefit is granted to convicts for other crimes, just not the military ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:Was anyone running actually praising Venezuela, really? Indirectly. Guillier kind of stayed out of it, but members of the Frente Amplio (the far left coalition) have openly praised both Maduro (and Chavez) as well as Cuba. During the first round of election there were two proper far left politician runnings, which made the debate truly amazing in how insane it was (one of them calling for death penalty for drug dealings, and quoting Lenin)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Indirectly. Guillier kind of stayed out of it, but members of the Frente Amplio (the far left coalition) have openly praised both Maduro (and Chavez) as well as Cuba. The Frente Amplio is not the Nueva Mayoría, and they just barely said they supported Guillier in the second round after much crying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
hoiyes posted:The thing is, you don't have to spend less, you can spend more, provided you get a return on your investment greater than the cost of financing the debt. Yeah, this is true. But the bolded is something that can't be taken for granted. In fact, investing is pretty hard and a lot of potential public projects are not going to make the cut (especially if the people doling out the money do not care about this, which is the case for Chile right now). hoiyes posted:And there's plenty of academic studies that show targeted welfare spending can generate double digit returns. This is the basis of business, use other people's money to leverage your growth. I think you're misunderstanding the literature you've read. Targeted welfare can generate stimulus to the economy greater than the money input, but if you're talking about that money generating enough cash to the government to repay the bond then no, that is not a thing. Financial perpetual motion does not exist any more than any other sort of perpetual motion. For example, take $100 of welfare and assume everything not taxed is spent and that the effective tax rate is 20%. That $100 welfare will generate about $600 of spending, which is a nice stimulus. But it will only generate (asymptoticly) $100 of tax to the government in this simplified example. The government eats the cost of financing. The real world is much more complicated, but mostly in ways that make that reduce the recovery through tax. You can stimulate your economy through borrowing and spending but you can't finance the stimulus with itself. Non Serviam posted:There are distinctions that need to be made though. The plans proposed by the left in Chile would have absolutely bankrupted the country, not because they were "welfare plans," but because they were bad plans. Also 1000 times this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:The Frente Amplio is not the Nueva Mayoría, and they just barely said they supported Guillier in the second round after much crying. Whether they did it half-assedly or not, they still did grant their support to him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:The Frente Amplio is not the Nueva Mayoría, and they just barely said they supported Guillier in the second round after much crying. Guillier would have pretty much been reliant on them to govern, though, and he presents as too weak to put a check on the crazy elements. A Guillier administration would have been even more of a shitshow than the Bachelet administration is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Whether they did it half-assedly or not, they still did grant their support to him. Which did not translate into votes. wateroverfire posted:Guillier would have pretty much been reliant on them to govern, though, and he presents as too weak to put a check on the crazy elements. A Guillier administration would have been even more of a shitshow than the Bachelet administration is. Mere conjecture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Spending until you can't borrow anymore then defaulting on the debt hasn't worked super well for any country on the continent as far as I'm aware. =( Accumulating unsustainable debt until default has always been the one policy the Latin American Left and Right can agree on Squalid fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:Mere conjecture. I can't get to the alternate universe in which he won so yeah, that's all I've got. But it seemed likely enough for me to vote the other way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:Which did not translate into votes. He got more votes than on the first round, so it's pretty clear some did
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I can't get to the alternate universe in which he won so yeah, that's all I've got. But it seemed likely enough for me to vote the other way. And would have still better than another Piñera administration, this time courting the Kast voters. Non Serviam posted:He got more votes than on the first round, so it's pretty clear some did Bet most of these were from Goic voters?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:And would have still better than another Piñera administration, this time courting the Kast voters. Piñera seems more likely to a) make sure public institutions pay on time and b) not throw the country over a fiscal and social cliff so yeah I'm ok with what we got.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:And would have still better than another Piñera administration, this time courting the Kast voters. "that is mere conjecture"
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Piñera ... b) not throw the country over a ... social cliff I would laugh if this were any other country. Non Serviam posted:"that is mere conjecture"
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:Are you being dumb on purpose now? What do you mean? You are obviously making the conjecture that a) Piñera's government would have been terrible, and, b) that Goic's voters supported Guillier. I think that you can make arguments supporting both ideas, the problem is that you are requiring a level of proof for our side that is much higher than yours (Seeing that your mere conjectures and guesses are to be taken as definitive proof)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:What do you mean? You are obviously making the conjecture that a) Piñera's government would have been terrible, and, b) that Goic's voters supported Guillier. a) Piñera was already president. b) Goic and Guillier are much closer politically than Guillier and anyone in the Frente Amplio
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:a) Piñera was already president. a) Piñera was, indeed, president already. That's precisely why he got elected again: During his government Chile had less criminality and a better economy. b) Doubtful, seeing that Goic supporters were not comfortable with the Nueva Mayoría flirting with the far left, I can't see how they'd now support a Frente Amplio-endorsed candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Yeah, this is true. But the bolded is something that can't be taken for granted. In fact, investing is pretty hard and a lot of potential public projects are not going to make the cut (especially if the people doling out the money do not care about this, which is the case for Chile right now). Of course no stimulus can pay for itself, and the best performing welfare investments, such as early childhood education interventions, take decades to reach a break even point. But the same point stands for large construction projects, which imo are even riskier prospects, but create an asset ripe for privatisation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:a) Piñera was, indeed, president already. That's precisely why he got elected again: During his government Chile had less criminality and a better economy. a) An economy inherited from Bachelet. b) Goic supporters are even less comfortable with anyone in the right wing. qnqnx fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
So what were the proposals on both sides in relation to the pension crisis? What are the fixes being proposed? Asking because we copied this same private pensions system in Mexico (called AFORES) and the projections are dismal for people of my generation (mid 30s). As in, under the current model, the pension system will pay out 10-25% of your last salary, and that's only if a financial crisis doesn't wipe them out first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
hoiyes posted:Of course no stimulus can pay for itself, and the best performing welfare investments, such as early childhood education interventions, take decades to reach a break even point. But the same point stands for large construction projects, which imo are even riskier prospects, but create an asset ripe for privatisation. Every project has to stand on its own merits. "Don't borrow money to give away or invest in risky long-term projects whose returns you are not even concerned with" would be a good starting point for a fiscal policy, I would say. A lot of big construction projects here are franchised. They get built with mostly private capital in exchange for a lease, so the public outlay is low.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Every project has to stand on its own merits. "Don't borrow money to give away or invest in risky long-term projects whose returns you are not even concerned with" would be a good starting point for a fiscal policy, I would say. This isnt even about economics,its just bad governance,and bad goverment. wateroverfire posted:A lot of big construction projects here are franchised. They get built with mostly private capital in exchange for a lease, so the public outlay is low. So PPPs.that thing that is a grift from private entities for public money..although im being unfair,not all are grifts,just the ones connected to transportation infrastructure,healthcare,education,utilities,charity and public services.so a few.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 19:39
|
|