Quote from: Brunic on November 13, 2012, 09:58:56 PM

Quote from: bitcoinbitcoin113 on November 13, 2012, 09:49:38 PM

Quote from: Brunic on November 13, 2012, 07:52:52 PM

This austerity plan is crap and is going to aggravate the problem. It's like using leeches to cure sickness, it only makes the problem worse.

When the economy is bad, that's when government have to inject money and subsidize their citizens so they can live through it. When the economy gets better and is growing, that is the moment where you pay your debts and you make savings. It's the whole point of a government, it's to serve, protect and help their citizens. If the economy is booming, government help can be superfluous, since people can make it by themselves with the tons of opportunities. But when the country is in crisis, the government has to back you up. Now, because they're cutting everywhere, they have judges who work 1h a day, tons of unemployed people and a population without any hope. It's the perfect formula for an armed revolution.

You cannot manage a country like you manage a business, but sadly, that's what they're trying to do. Sad

Has this plan ever been implemented? I mean it may work, but it seems impossible for governments to stop injecting money once they start.

Some economist said that it has been implemented by accident in the 1930-1940. I can't find the source right now, but the theory of why the USA went from the Great depression to the baby-boom after the WW2 is because the government started subsidizing its society with the war. It was not the alleged goal, but with the war, the government had to subsidize production (for ammos, guns, everything the war effort demanded). It gave people jobs, many projects were build from the war (the biggest is manhattan project, with the nuclear brought new jobs in all domains for example) because the government was continually injecting money in the society.

When the war ended, many people had jobs, money, projects and knowledge. The population was strong enough to continue by itself, and the rest is history.

That's why I tend to agree with right-wingers when a country economy is strong, because the population is strong enough to deal by itself. But when the country is going average or down, I think left-wingers have a better solution, since you can't allow your country to go too deep in a crisis. A country is hard to build and easy to fall.

1) Perhaps it was the war weakening the competition that lead to america"s rise
2) What happened afterward? Did they stop "injecting money"?

If the answer to #2 is yes, I would like to know how you measure this. If it is no, then that is not an example of what you said earlier.