that's why we shouldn't just be handing out cash to companies without demanding a slice of their shares in return

The printing money is not just printing money for no reason. Its to invest in industries and create the environment for the economy to thrive. not to give it out and throw it around

geez you guise are fucking morons

Eccles you need to stop trying so hard

that's not what labour et all had been suggesting, ff

muhhgreenrevolution!

it's bullshit

cope

Yeah Labour wanted to invest in new industries to create new jobs. It might be hard to hear this but those are the facts buddy but because you hate *leftists* so much its no wonder you think this way

when the IMF study concludes austerity was bad you guise think you're smarter than them

the people who fund the world in a way know less than you guise in a discord server

actually this guy is stating specifically " increase government spending both to create jobs directly and to put money in consumers’ pockets" ... not banks

yes which is what we need, we need to develop more industries and create more jobs

not fund the same corporations and bail out the same industries over and over again

the private sector is better at that than the gov

specially in the long term

lol

RE: Greece

like what, ff?

I wonder if this guy has changed his mind now...

he agrees you cant be in deficit forever... and he couldnt have predicted this pandemic...

However, there are aspects of the neoliberal agenda that have not delivered as expected. Our assessment of the agenda is confined to the effects of two policies: removing restrictions on the movement of capital across a country’s borders (so-called capital account liberalization); and fiscal consolidation, sometimes called “austerity,” which is shorthand for policies to reduce fiscal deficits and debt levels. An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions:

•The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries.­

•The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.­

•Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.­

even if he thinks he was right at the time... perhaps his argument now would be that we "accidentally made the right decision"

also this guy seems like a bit of a fascist

talks about "the people" as "plebs" and economists as "elites"

The evidence of the economic damage from inequality suggests that policymakers should be more open to redistribution than they are. Of course, apart from redistribution, policies could be designed to mitigate some of the impacts in advance—for instance, through increased spending on education and training, which expands equality of opportunity (so-called predistribution policies). And fiscal consolidation strategies—when they are needed—could be designed to minimize the adverse impact on low-income groups. But in some cases, the untoward distributional consequences will have to be remedied after they occur by using taxes and government spending to redistribute income. Fortunately, the fear that such policies will themselves necessarily hurt growth is unfounded (Ostry, 2014).

something something something - demand socialism

funny you always seem to rely on it when you need bailouts

bailouts were more like buyouts

you can say it however you want it doesn't change the fact that the government had to rescue them

it didnt have to, it chose to

not saying it was right or wrong to... but it was a decision that was taken, and we paid the price for it, for a decade

you could argue the real problem was back in 2005/6 when brown unregulated everything

and for whatever reason our banks decided to get in the US mortgage area

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

27 October 1986

That was what allowed them to partner with US banks

i certainly don't have a problem with governments buying stakes in companies because of this apocalypse

i do have a problem with government just randomly bailing out failing businesses who are failing because they're shit and failing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Regulation_Commission

Yes exactly @Eccles