Talk:Austerity

message: According to User:Herschelkrustofsky, the older version of the article is better. I disagree because the older version is very biased. For example:
* "reduce living standards, curtail development projects..." (these are not necessarily part of an austerity policy; the only requirement is a reduction of spending, although typically, this does result in lower living standards, etc)
* "cutting food or fuel subsidies, underfunding infrastructure (transport, education, health care, water and power management), or rationing" (this paints a very negative picture (very POV) of austerity policies; the newer text is neutral)
Therefore, I have reverted to the 'newer' version of the article. Mat334 19:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you may be attempting to put lipstick on a pig. You concede that austerity typically lowers living standards. Can you cite an example of an austerity program that did not involve some combination of "cutting food or fuel subsidies, underfunding infrastructure (transport, education, health care, water and power management), or rationing"? --HK 01:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can think of two. A key aspect of Austria's recent austerity policy was getting rid of early retirement. And, in the early 1980s, Libya pursued an austerity policy that involved decreasing the number of foreigners working in the country and not paying money owed to foreign contractors. I don't know for sure whether Austria or Libya also cut subsidies, underfunded infrastructure (by the way, underfunding according to who?), or implemented rationing. However, it is in any case quite conceivable that a government could go ahead with an austerity policy that focuses solely on getting rid of early retirement or not paying money to foreigners. Such actions may well lower living standards, but they don't necessarily. Perhaps if people work longer, society will become richer. And using national (as oppposed to foreign) contractors probably increases employment, and therefore can often lift people out of poverty. Austerity = restrictions on government spending. Restrictions can have good, as well as bad, consequences. (And I say this despite being a libertarian.) Mat334 03:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: All right, how about re-writing the article to say that austerity policies typically have the aforementioned unpleasant effects, but noting that there are two exceptions? I think it is also fair to say that austerity policies are often associated with the IMF, whose critics are legion -- they are sort of like a giant collection agency. --HK 12:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, I agree with your wording, except I would note that there are exceptions (not necessarily just two!) and list those two exceptions. Unless you or someone else writes it, I'll get to it on Wednesday. However, I'm not familiar enough with criticism of the IMF to write an outline of it. And in any case, I'm not sure how much of this criticism belongs to this article. Mat334 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have reverted your re-write because it appears based on LaRouche concepts and terms, including "physical economy", and because it had no sources. -Willmcw 23:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a small selection () from the over 20 million references to "physical economy" on Google where there is no connection whatsoever to LaRouche. Willmcw, despite the extraordinary and inexplicable leniency shown to you by the ArbCom in your recent case, I ask that you desist from your highly unproductive harassment. --HK 14:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least several of those sources use "physical economy" as an alternative to the internet ecomony. That is clearly not the meaning that you were using. Speaking of Google, what are the first entries that you get for "physical economy"? Yep, all LaRouche. -Willmcw 19:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And how do those books relate to the topic of this article, austerity? -Willmcw 22:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None of them appear to be connected to "LaRouche," so I assume they're not all using "LaRouchisms." // paroxysm (n) 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is the bearing of "physical economy" on this article? Does anyone suggest that those seeking austerity programs wish governments to move investment to the "Internet Ecomomy" from the "Physical "Economy"? -Willmcw 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Mat334, I suggest that you re-write the article as you see fit -- use whatever you find in my version that you think is useful. Willmcw's presence in this discussion serves one purpose only -- he is grasping at straws, looking for a pretext to ban me. I don't intend to give him one. --HK 02:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: There is a link to Development on this page that is linking to a disambiguation page. I'm not sure which (if any) of the more specific pages on types of development would be a better link in this context. Could someone please review the choices available and either re-direct the link or delete it? Thanks.—Chidom talk  08:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: :Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg 

message: These tags are unhelpful. There are plenty of internal wikilinks to reputable articles. The article doesn't need external sources, online or typographic, does it? Vernon White . . . Talk  23:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unreferenced" tags 

message: I think it's really lame how complex it is for Wikiepedia to get right a simple term such as austerity. Really sick and tired of Wikipedia's editors making definition of words brain surgery.  Too much time on their hands perhaps?  Simplify things and be done with it.  Stop making everything so difficult to define as if we need a huge explanation for everything.  Stop with the continual anal requirements, it makes the world too complex and ugly.  A word is what a word is what a word is. It doesn't need endless critique from snobby minds who don't produce, grow food or really contribute anything other then problems to our culture. Instead of making things so difficult, go grow some food for people to consume.  Go produce something of value to society.  Stop wasting our time with your ridiculous standards to define terms!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainchannels (talk • contribs) 15:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't this term Austerity be approved and finalized? 

message: 65.29.251.55 added Wisconsin as an example of Austerity on 20 Feb 2011.  I am concerned that this may be more of a political statement than an actual example of a government invoking a policy of austerity.  Every government at one time or another has implemented a budget-cutting or reduction of service measure; while this may meet a technical definition of austerity, there should be some sort of significance to what a government - in this case, Wisconsin - invokes in order for it to be distinguished as an example.  That being said, whether Wisconsin's policies rise to such a level is questionable at best, and therefore, I believe Wisconsin should be excluded as an example; however, I have only added a CN tag in case someone is able to provide a reference or objective rationale for its inclusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.12.62 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that every incident of cutting spending should be considered austerity. and the US' example should be included. "United States, 2011-, austerity measures for approval of social security disability benefits." For 1, not being a true example of austerity (austerity is almost always far more broad than just a single issue) and 2, no citation like all of the other examples. 72.190.126.82 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should qualify as an example of Austerity? 

message: Anonymous editor, WP:WEASEL requires that statements be attributed (and WP:INTEXT details how).  If you have some other justification for your reversions than "irrationality", discuss it here.  Rostz (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  attribution 

message: I suggest that the material regarding Greece and the UN claim need to be moved to the Controversy section, and the overlapping material (e.g., on 29 June 2011) needs to be removed. Allens (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Typical effects", "Controversy" sections overlap 

message: The first paragraph of the "theoretical considerations" section is a sophomoric misrepresentation of the state of economic thinking on these issues. It should be deleted. More specifically,
1. "Contemporary mainstream economists consider macroeconomic policy in a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) framework" --- in fact, there are many non-DSGE models in this area
2. "fiscal policy is discussed within an optimal taxation framework" --- this is absolutely not true. In fact, most of the aforementioned DSGEs are too complicated to entertain questions about optimal fiscal policy
3. "The reasoning behind such models is that the effect of any government deficit is mitigated by compensatory changes in the representative agent's spending decisions. This occurs because the agent will be responsible for paying off that deficit in the future." --- the speaker seems to be referencing Ricardian equivalence, but remember that Ricardian equivalence refers to irrelevance of the timing of taxes TAKING THE PATH OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING AS GIVEN and is thus not appropriate for a discussion of austerity, which necessarily involves a deliberate reduction in government spending
4. "Thus, from a modern mainstream macroeconomist's point of view, reducing government deficit allows the private sector to consume more and support the economy" --- some "modern mainstream" macroeconomists may feel this way (and may have produced models supporting this view), but it's disingenuous to present this view as an object of consensus in the profession
5. "This viewpoint stems from their belief in the existence of a general economic equilibrium, which predicts that economic fluctuations revert back toward a "normal" state of affairs automatically" --- this is not a prediction of general equilibrium theory. See, for example, the huge literature on multiple equilibria in macro models
6. "For this reason econometric models that are used in economic forecasting are calibrated to show convergence to full resource utilization and employment despite government's fiscal tightening" --- it is certainly not the case that all macro models are somehow hard-wired to converge to full employment
Frankly, as a PhD candidate in economics, I find it frustrating that someone so obviously underqualified to speak on the topic nonetheless opted to put this up and potentially leave scores of readers totally misinformed on this important issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.108.223 (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies in the "theoretical considerations" section 

message: Where did it originate and when and by whom, or did it develop from a word or words?
I would really like a section on this. ChesterTheWorm (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ChesterTheWorm, Probably from the word austere. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/austere 75.246.213.33 (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no expert on Wikipedia rules, but it seems to me that a section on the origin of an economic, global, periodic policy should be understood as an ongoing reoccurrence in history, and as an idea should be understood by its inception in the article itself for those like myself and (possibly) Chester who wonder about not particularly the inception of the word but instead how that inception is noteworthy to the use and opinion of the policy since. I think there is a strong, sound argument to be made that this article would greatly benefit, and closer resemble most similar such Wikipedia articles, by educating the audience on why the policy, or group of sub-policies, came into existence and needed a name. Is educating the reader not the main goal of Wikipedia? Therefore, I think it would be proper for this community to create a section on the origin of the policy, which incidentally talks about the origin of the word itself along the way, although I think you correctly point out that Wiktionary is the better place for an outright word definition. UnderCloud (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does the word come from? 

message: Having said that austerity is countercyclical only in periods of high inflation, I believe the phrase "Critics argue" ..that in periods of high unemployment austerity policies are counter-productive, could change to "it is a fact".--85.74.183.25 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, the topic of austerity has become quite politicized in recent years.  The expansionary fiscal contraction theory states the exact opposite of what you suggest, and so to state your opinion as fact I think is a little presumptuous.  I think the opening paragraph needs a little work.  Opinions on austerity relating to the eurozone belong in "controversy".  The opening paragraph should be as unbiased as possible.  My thoughts are that it should open with a dictionary-like definition, followed by a brief paragraph with the EFC, and a second opposing paragraph with the "critics" opinion.  Naapple (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see in the very informative article about Expansionary fiscal contraction, the EFC is an hypothesis not supported by empirical facts. It has been shown that Irish and Danish growth during tha 80's was actually lower than would have been expected without the fiscal contraction. In any case, it is left to the reader to decide the obvious (that austerity always equals contraction), so its ok with me.--85.74.183.25 (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics argue 

message: This article is extraordinarily biased against austerity.  The Eurozone is in a position of potential collapse, and there is ample rational support that austerity is the last best hope to save the Euro.  Socialism is collapsing Europe.  It is common knowledge now that the bulk of wikipedia is authored by left wing white males, ages 18-30, with a bent against capitalism and generally favor large government.  If Wikipedia has any hope, it will develop a more balanced approach to its topics.  This article heavily chastises austerity, and anyone with even ninth grade reading skills can see it.  This article is NOT NPOV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific? I believe there is a consensus among economists, both monetarists and keynesians, that austerity is "good" in periods of high inflation and "bad" in periods of high unemployment. In other words, when there is high unemployment a little bit of expansion is needed and when there is high inflation a little bit of austerity is needed. Unless of course there is a high debt problem, in which case expansion may not be an option. I do not agree with your claim regarding europe, since in my view the problem is that there is no mechanism like the FED to allow for a little bit of inflation policy. As far as I know the ECB operates in the lines of statutes quite strict about price stability. But europe is not the subject matter of this article!--83.235.22.226 (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at how many times this article cites Krugman.  Also, the word "austerity" by itself carries negative connotations.  It is a misnomer considering that most countries pursuing so-called austerity policies are still running deficits.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.108.242 (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

text: What it needs is some more empirical evidence on the effect of austerity in the past. Just like there are papers and economists against austerity, papers have shown that expansionary fiscal consolidation exists and it has a positive effect on business spending. The nature of the austerity package (extra taxes vs budget cuts) matters as well but in general because austerity, in almost all historical cases, has implied budget cuts it has been found to have positive effects on corporate investment. http://www.nber.org/papers/w7207. I would definitely suggest that the introduction be cleaned up and modeled after the source that you mentioned. Profani (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure to be NPOV 

message: Can you please include citations for this?  The paragraph is very technical; difficult for the layperson to interpret. Perhaps some more mainstream journalist has tried to summarize or cover these ideas? Until the citation is included, I would suggest the article de-emphasize the presumption that this paragraph is the mainstream view, as the mainstream view in the media is generally Keynesian.21:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Contemporary mainstream" 

message: I've been trying to follow the multiplier news which is developing quickly this month.  suggests 1.6, on the high end of the IMF's new range of 0.9-1.7. Paum89 (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiplier 

message: I propose renaming this article to Austerity (economics). This is only one sense of the word austerity. It doesn't include, for example, wartime austerity in Britain during World War 2 which was about directing resources and means of production to the war effort instead of to producing consumer goods. It wasn't about the economic deficit-cutting by lowering spending, it was austerity in the sense of Freedom from adornment; plainness; severe simplicity. ShipFan (Talk) 00:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Renaming makes sense to meFarcaster (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Weakly in favor, but it does include wartime austerity, as in Keynes's quote  “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury” and his own participation in Britain's wartime austerity planning. It is our definition which is not exactly right; it is about spending cuts, usually but not necessarily decreasing deficit spending.John Z (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that creating Wartime austerity might be the better plan, per . Paum89 (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed renaming 

message: This article defines austerity with reference to a blog post on the New Statesman's website. Surely one can do better than an article which does not purport to provide a comprehensive definition, written in a florid, satirical and party-political tone, published by a source described by Wikipedia as a "left-wing political" magazine. In particular, there is no reason why tax increases should not be included in the definition of austerity, given that taxes have tended to rise in times of austerity. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, at this point the term has been in high profile use for several years and there are enough actual events to be very clear about it. Take it you meant, 'expansionary'/'austerity' dichotomy, there's no hypothesis, except for the implicit one of the necessity of austerity to establish or restore an economic good, e.g growth. Lycurgus (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of austerity 

message: I've started a centralised discussion  regarding :File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg, which is used in this article. Gabbe (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Employment growth by top tax rate image 

message: Someone mentioned earlier that this article pushed a POV that is anti-austerity, but they failed to give any indication as to how they reached this assumption. I would like to give a quick shot at it. Moving below the Justification section, which does take a NPOV standpoint, you have an article that contains at least a 3/1 ratio of critical remarks about austerity as a whole, and the rare phrases that do support it do so only under the Keynesian model.
*Look at the Typical effects section, for instance. This section should not be about protests, we have a section for that below labeled  controversy .
*The article produces theories based upon Keynesian, Old Keynesian, and greatly oversimplifies MMT, misrepresenting the view of one economist as the consensus of 120 years of studies. However, there are virtually no opinions presented to offset the Keynesian opinions.
*Likewise, the article makes assumptions and reaches conclusions beyond the scope of the subject.
::In the Austerity Sequence section, which is highly undersourced, we see that "several economists have argued" that austerity must not be administered during a failing economy. However, this cannot be taken as fact, regardless of whether the author of this section feels it is true. This entire section does nothing more than expand the Keynesian model mentioned above. 
:In short, the article needs to be more than a discussion of Keynesian and Old Keynesian takes on austerity. Regardless of whether you have the stomach for it, you need to find alternative viewpoints and avoid pushing ideas as facts regardless of how popular they are.206.113.15.122 (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the article is very heavily weighted towards Keynesianism, as is the empirical support. There is minimal empirical support for austerity in a downturn; even The Economist and IMF have come back from the Dark Side and confessed their sins. Let's keep the Voodoo to a minimum, but probably should at least explain the voodoo better.Farcaster (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: "Blanchard and Leigh deduced that IMF forecasters have been using a uniform multiplier of 0.5, when in fact the circumstances of the European economy made the multiplier as much as 1.5, meaning that a $1 government spending cut would cost $1.50 in lost output." -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/03/an-amazing-mea-culpa-from-the-imfs-chief-economist-on-austerity/ 70.59.14.20 (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMF tries to figure out what it's been doing 

message: Can the sequester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Sequestration) be considered an example of austerity measures?
128.123.207.77 (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe?  I lean towards no.  While the sequestration debate has been about budget cuts and tax, we're talking about amounts less than 2% of the overall budget.  Austerity is typically a major policy change in the way gov't operates as far as taxes and spending go. Naapple (Talk) 06:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequester 

message: an editor has removed a quote by the current Latvian President, referring her country being "bankrupt in five years", as weasel and irrelevant. i feel this quote adds texture to the article as Latvia was specifically singled out by austerity's most vocal critic, who was wrong about bankruptcy and the very country he predicted would be doomed by austerity is now leading the EU in growth. since the same section already has a piece written by the critic himself, it seems odd to exclude a quote by Krugman from a far more relevant source about Latvia, the leader herself.  Darkstar1st (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should leave the PM interview in the article, but not focus on the Krugman-related Q&A with the interviewer. Perhaps something to the effect that: "The Latvian PM stated in an interview in March 2013 that austerity was the proper strategy for returning his country to growth."  No point in bringing in Krugman, as he did title a blog piece comparing Latvia to Argentina back in 2008, but I didn't see where he said it would go bankrupt. The PM may be misquoting or mis-interpreting. My edit (reverted) tried to balance those elements but if the Krugman point is contentious, we can avoid that and just focus on the other questions the PM answered.Farcaster (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not put the sentence about the PM at the end of the paragraph directly above, with the Krugman opinion to which PM appears to be responding.  The balance of the 2 lines again referencing Krugman is gratuitous and the final ssentence is WP:SYNTH in the context of the 2 line paragraph.  We would, however, need a Krugman statement that predicted Latvia going bankrupt.  Otherwise how can we cite PM as ascribing that to Krugman?  "Argentina" is not an English synonym for "bankrupt."  Does that sound OK?  SPECIFICO  talk  21:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: we cant speculate why the PM of Latvia said what she did, only incorporate what the RS reported. i think the glaring contrast twix Latvia and Argentina demand some mention, right? perhaps i could submit a new section on Estonia in the meantime without objection? much of the same story is replayed there, and several RS to support. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Farcaster here. This could go a lot more smoothly if the suggested edits be carried out rather than a revert and talk suggestion.  The editing in this article has generally gone pretty smoothly for such a polarizing topic  and I'm hoping it stays that way.  Naapple (Talk) 05:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krugman on Latvia 

message: , this time stating, ...Cited article and Krugman column don't say "bankrupt" The last sentence is WP:SYNTH" . from the cited article line 4, Latvia is the new Argentina, it will inevitably go bankrupt . Darkstar1st (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should leave the PM interview in the article, but not focus on the Krugman-related Q&A with the interviewer. Perhaps something to the effect that: "The Latvian PM stated in an interview in March 2013 that austerity was the proper strategy for returning his country to growth."  No point in bringing in Krugman, as he did title a blog piece comparing Latvia to Argentina back in 2008, but I didn't see where he said it would go bankrupt. The PM may be misquoting or mis-interpreting. My edit (reverted) tried to balance those elements but if the Krugman point is contentious, we can avoid that and just focus on the other questions the PM answered.Farcaster (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not put the sentence about the PM at the end of the paragraph directly above, with the Krugman opinion to which PM appears to be responding.  The balance of the 2 lines again referencing Krugman is gratuitous and the final ssentence is WP:SYNTH in the context of the 2 line paragraph.  We would, however, need a Krugman statement that predicted Latvia going bankrupt.  Otherwise how can we cite PM as ascribing that to Krugman?  "Argentina" is not an English synonym for "bankrupt."  Does that sound OK?  SPECIFICO  talk  21:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: we cant speculate why the PM of Latvia said what she did, only incorporate what the RS reported. i think the glaring contrast twix Latvia and Argentina demand some mention, right? perhaps i could submit a new section on Estonia in the meantime without objection? much of the same story is replayed there, and several RS to support. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Farcaster here. This could go a lot more smoothly if the suggested edits be carried out rather than a revert and talk suggestion.  The editing in this article has generally gone pretty smoothly for such a polarizing topic  and I'm hoping it stays that way.  Naapple (Talk) 05:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd revert by Specifico

message: Sourcehttp://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/researchers-finally-replicated-reinhart-rogoff-and-there-are-serious-problems  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLAmidei (talk • contribs) 05:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinhart/Rogoff austerity paper failed through replication 

message: I'm just a visitor, and not an editor, but I feel that I should flag up the fact that the UK austerity program section contains data which is now out of date. It claims, for instance, that the UK had a double dip recession, when revised figures have now determined that this was not the case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.163.129 (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Out of date data'' 

message: I would like to draw some attention to the following sentences, which don't seem to amount to a logical statement: "In macroeconomics, reducing government deficits generally increases unemployment in the short run. This increases safety net spending and reduces tax revenues, to some extent."
Firstly it seems that "in macroeconomics" is either superfluous or irrelevant, and I suggest it be removed. More importantly, it strikes me that an increase in unemployment doesn't in and of itself produce an increase in safety next spending, which is instead a common policy response. 
I would emphasise this point when the very opposite of this statement is expressed soon after, as follows:
"Development projects, welfare, and other social spending are common programs that are targeted for cuts."
Thoughts? Squab chowder (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious notion in intro 

message: I am working on a section at the moment but any help would be appreciated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it be needed? ...and is there any notable Marxist perspective on Austerity? If not, then it has no place here.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxian perspective needed 

message: In the section on empirical considerations, the US federal budget cuts during the end of the 90's are cited as an example. The problematic issue here is that austerity is defined in the intro as "reducing budget deficits during adverse economic conditions", whereas the late 90's were mostly a time of high growth (not adverse conditions) for the US with the tech bubble in full swing. It is therefore a significantly different situation than what the EU is experiencing now (implementing austerity measures while already in near-recession conditions). This distinction ought to be mentioned.
I feel this is important for the article's consistency as well as for the economic analysis, since mainstream economics does make a case for reducing deficits during times of prosperity, *not* in the middle of a recession as the EU is doing.82.247.85.103 (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some text I hope addresses your point.Farcaster (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA in the 90's = austerity? 

message: 1. Age of Austerity is the main title of a 1963 book that the U.S. Library of Congress Catalogue attributes to co-editors Michael Sassoon and Philip French.
: --that is, to the film critic of The Observer from 1978 to May 2013, writing for that newspaper from April 2013 ; debuted as a Bristol Evening Post journalist in 1957 (we say).
:  is LCCat record for the 1976 first U.S. edition; linked from the film critic Philip French  (see "Found in"; also "Browse ... LC Online Catalog"). 
: (I doubt the identity for it seems to me a project for editors who had lived through the titular Age.) -P64
Elsewhere on the web I find the slightly longer title of a 1964 Penguin edition, Age of Austerity 1945–51.
2. At Postwar Britain#Austerity, 1945–1950 we say, "It was called the Age of Austerity." 
--01:46; P64 (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, obviously the word and concept are not new. However the specific meaning that has been taken on in the last 7 years is what this article is (already) about and there needs to be greater clarity on that, perhaps not possible earlier. Lycurgus (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of Austerity 

message: First, sovereign solvency/surpluses and moves to create same in high growth periods essentially have nothing to do with austerity, so that section needs to come out. So far as I know there has not ever been a policy of austerity at the Federal level ever, and it would require a stretch to characterize state budget problems as what is considered austerity on an international scale. Second, the article level update tag mainly wants a section on Greece, how an anti-austerity government was elected there in January, how it called a referendum which rejected austerity, and how that resulted in even much greater imposed austerity, or at least an attempt to do so by the EU whose success is in suspense at the moment.  So will delete the US section and replace it with a Greece one of about the same size with this content unless someone else does. On the matter of defining austerity, that's obviated by the nominal Empiricism of the containing section and the clarity that has been provided by events in the Greece-EU process. Frugality, living within your means, building surpluses have nothing but the vaguest of conceptual relations to austerity so that the US section has sat there like that for 2 years is ... . Generally it's the lack of those things that result in the need for austerity. Lycurgus (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Iceland also deserves a subsection because they dealt with the matter some ya, although not on the scale of the the Greek situation. Lycurgus (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems here. 

message: "debt ... under 60% of GDP ... above 90% of GDP" makes no sense, because debt is an absolute amount of money whereas GDP is a rate of money flow per unit time. If you divide money by money/time you don't get an absolute number (or percentage), you instead get an amount of time.  If GDP as used here really means one year of GDP, then 60% of GDP should read 60% of a year of GDP i.e. 7.2 months of GDP, while 90% of GDP should read 90% of a year of GDP i.e. 10.8 months of GDP.
198.144.192.45 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong jargon: debt-to-GDP ratio, debt=% of GDP 

message: I was thinking that we should probably best mention the subsidizing of stadiums, which ultimately falls back on the taxpayer, which gets little in return (nothing, if he doesn't like being a sports spectator, or if he is a sports spectator of a sport which can't be performed in those stadiums subsidized by the government).
There seem to have been calls to nationalize leagues, ... (see http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2009/may/14/nationalise-premier-league-steven-wells ). However, I think that a much simpler and more just way would be to just nationalize the stadiums instead, or eliminate subsidizing of stadiums (in the event the stadiums won't be nationalized/made property of the state). In the event stadiums are nationalized, revenue obtained from spectators would flow back to the state. Leagues can then be payed directly by the state as compensation for setting up the performance, and can keep the leftover obtained from the tickets sale.
Xovady (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalizing of stadiums or eliminating government funding 

message: Please compare https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3nPy to the graph at right. Why the disparity in fixed investment/GDP levels? 75.166.63.119 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krugman's graph under theoretical considerations? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Austerity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101226163632/http://www2.timesdispatch.com:80/news/2010/dec/20/audacity-austerity-2010-word-year-ar-727040/ to http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/dec/20/audacity-austerity-2010-word-year-ar-727040/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The intro of this article seems very biased.
Instead of defining what "austerity" is it jumps right into judging (condemning really) its worth as an economic tool.
It is perfectly fine to mention that it is very controversial right in the intro, but the details do not belong there, they do belong in their own paragraph later in the article.
Pushing those details right to the top of the article gives the impression of a cheap propaganda piece.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4359:2BA0:3CC5:9FAC:C879:F643 (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Intro 

message: Dr. Creel has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Creel has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Christophe Blot & Marion Cochard & Bruno Ducoudre & Danielle Schweisguth & Xavier Timbeau & Jerome Creel, 2014. "Fiscal consolidation, public debt and output dynamics in the euro area : lessons from a simple model with time-varying fiscal multipliers," Sciences Po publications 2014-14, Sciences Po.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Creel's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Austerity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/26/government-spending-taxes-opinions-columnists-brian-wesbury-robert-stein.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130204131129/http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/dec/20/audacity-austerity-2010-word-year-ar-727040/ to http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/dec/20/audacity-austerity-2010-word-year-ar-727040/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Economists Alberto Alesina, Carlo A. Favero and Francesco Giavazzi, writing in Finance & Development in 2018, argued that deficit reduction policies based on spending cuts typically have almost no effect on output, and hence form a better route to achieving a reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio than raising taxes. The authors commented that the UK government austerity programme had resulted in growth that was higher than the European average and that the UK's economic performance had been much stronger than the International Monetary Fund had predicted.[74] They are echoed most strongly by Mark Blyth, whose 2014 book on austerity notes that Austerity not only fails to stimulate growth, but effectively passes that debt down to the working classes."
The last sentence contradicts the preceding ones, arguing against austerity whereas the others argued in favour. "Echoes" doesn't seem like the right word to use here. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom Paragraph 

message: How come Ecuador is neither mentioned nor listed when it's austerity problems on Wikipedia's home has a link to this page?
Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Ecuador ? 

message: This is incredibly biased towards an anti-austerity position. Pogchampange (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: that's because when you look at the actual facts austerity is bs 80.192.126.99 (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really biased don't you think? 

message: I removed the history section. It literally says that there is no documented history. Then it launches into a paragraph sourced from an article that isn't about austerity, but about fascist governments. This is synth to use wiki voice to present ww2 as the origin of balancing budgets by reducing spending /changing taxes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C3:57F:3F80:44F2:9CB2:124B:EA5F (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as all the articles cited in that section have "Austerity" in the title, it's difficult to call it SYNTH. I re-added the section Mach61 (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section