Which austerity would that be? <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-public-spending-1963" rel="nofollow">http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-publ...</a><p>That slight dip in 2009? Gosh, cut to the bone there.<p>And all those other countries that didn't try this super-austere austerity, they all had hunky-dory 2009-present economic performance, right?<p>Honestly, I think those desperate to disprove "austerity" do protest too much. "Austerity" is not going up to 47.7% of the GDP in spending from 41%.
A slight cut in the growth of government spending is a pretty absurd definition of Austerity. The UK public debt continues to balloon as before.<p>If any recovery is in housing prices and speculation as opposed to business and invetstment, that is even worse for the long run. A nation cannot house-build its way to prosperity. Dwellings are primarily a consumable item, and mich harder to export than tractors or cars.
Austerity is where you coerce a huge amount of money from the population, ostensibly in order to pay for services, but then because you ran up a huge debt, you instead use that tax revenue to cover the interest payments on that debt, instead of using the revenue to pay for the services you originally promised.<p>Of course then the people suffer as all their food and education are cut, and the New Yorker writes articles saying "Austerity Doesn't Work."<p>But in fact what they should be saying is, "Coercing Money From People Is Wrong." That money never should have been coerced in the first place. Then the people would have been able to spend it however they wanted, instead of having to get all upset that a bunch of politicians and bankers blew the money (surprise, surprise.)<p>The people should also be ashamed of themselves to whatever degree they voted for coercion in the first place. They were bribed into doing so by promises of services -- services they didn't get -- the promise of which was enough for them to justify in their minds the robbing of their fellow man.<p>Well when everybody is robbing everybody, only poverty can result. The moral of the story isn't that austerity failed -- it's that we shouldn't be violating people's property rights in the first place, and we certainly shouldn't be bribing others to vote for it.
Simple question for those of us not up to speed on the specifics: did spending get cut to less than revenue? or not? If not, does the debt continue with a concrete plan to pay it off toward greater revenue? If no to both, it's not "austerity".
Conservatives all over the globe have been using Greece and Portugal as reasons to slash public services. The public figures are well aware that public spending makes up a large percent of GDP expenditure, despite being a fraction of private wealth. So it's no wonder why austerity doesn't work.<p>Greece and Portugal simply have irresponsible taxation systems that were pushed too far, so their debt accumulated. Greece has people driving million dollar cars paying the same tax as common people.
TLDR: rightists predicted austerity would improve the economy. The right got elected, pushed austerity, and the economy improved, but it wasn't really the austerity at all because of x,y,z.<p>(I'm NOT trying to take sides here, just trying to summarize the thesis of a long article)