Talk:Austerity

Lowering living standards

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have just done a general re-write, which is a hybrid of the two previous versions with the addition of the language we discussed. Let me know what you think. --HK 22:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Here is a small selection ([1][2][3][4][5][6]) 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)

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)

What about Google Books? Paroxysm 20:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And how do those books relate to the topic of this article, austerity? -Willmcw 22:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think Willmcw has a valid point. Austerity policies are most generally characterised by a reduction of public spending in general, and not necessarily in the "physical economy". Whether or not "physical economy" is a "LaRouchism" is irrelevant; the term should not be in the article, except maybe in one sentence closer to the end. Mat334 02:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Disambiguation

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

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)

"Unreferenced" tags

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)

Why can't this term Austerity be approved and finalized?

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)

What should qualify as an example of Austerity?

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)

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)

attribution

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)

"Typical effects", "Controversy" sections overlap

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)

Inaccuracies in the "theoretical considerations" section

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)

Hard facts needed, not opinions

This part below posted has no citing to it! where did you get this information???? because your giving reasons for taking austerity measures, or else its just your opinion which needs to be put under a series titled: opinion. It invalidates the topic because it needs to be HARD facts not based of articles with a whole bunch of opinions!

Reasons for taking austerity measures

"Austerity measures are typically taken if there is a threat that a government cannot honor its debt liabilities. Such a situation may arise if a government has borrowed in foreign currencies that they have no right to issue or they have been legally forbidden from issuing their own currency. In such a situation, banks may lose trust in a government's ability and/or willingness to pay and either refuse to roll over existing debts or demand extremely high interest rates. In such situations, inter-governmental institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) may demand austerity measures in exchange for functioning as a lender of last resort. When the IMF requires such a policy, the terms are known as 'IMF conditionalities'." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.219.245 (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Where does the word come from?

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)

ChesterTheWorm, Probably from the word austere. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/austere 75.246.213.33 (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

Critics argue

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)

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)

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)

Failure to be NPOV

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)

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)

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)

This isn't a Wikipedia page, it's an academic persuasive argument paper complete with thesis. The thesis being that the topic of the page is a flawed idea or does not serve it's intended purpose. Everything that follows is an attempt to persuade the reader of this and prove the thesis. Look at the defense of the page written above. "i believe there is a consensus among economists....that austerity is "good" in periods of....." and " "I do not agree with your claim....". Like the page, these are arguments of theoretical points to prove or disprove the theory of the topic, but does little to nothing to explain the actual topic. Under Theoretical considerations there are four sections with detailed information arguing against the page topic. And then in the last entry titled "other views" there are two paragraphs again supporting the thesis and a short paragraph noting a neutral point of view on the topic suggesting that it doesn't matter either way. As a persuasive argument paper it gets an A. However, someone else could also get an A taking the the opposing viewpoint using readily available information. So unfortunately, that means as an information paper, it gets an F. A simple google search for "austerity economics" has a very informative and neutral article about the topic which gives the ready much more information about the actual topic than this page does in far less words. Its only the fourth result down on the search page. Yet it isn't even referenced here. Wikipedia should be the readers one stop shopping for good, accurate, relevant, and complete information on the topic and an easy to find compilation of sources that give us exactly that. The reader is here to find out what it is, not why the author thinks it is a bad idea. Just like other topics, you can add a section "controversy" where you give opposing theories. In this page however, the only reason any theories advocating the topic are mentioned is in attempt to discredit them. The fact of the matter is that there are famous an very respected experts on economics who are very critical of the practice of this topic as is mentioned and celebrated in this page numerous times. But there are also famous, well respected experts on economics who are Nobel Laureates in economics who actually advocate for the topic if the policies of the planned economy have gone into effect, yet they go unmentioned and their school of thought gets a very small blurb that uses selective information to imply that they had no opinion on the topic. Bottom line is this. Tell us what the topic is. Do not tell us what to think about it or how to feel about it. -Gabe 50.156.188.216 (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, here is a link to the source noted above. A very simple, neutral, informative explanation of the topic and a model for neutrality on the page. http://internationalinvest.about.com/od/gettingstarted/a/What-Is-Austerity.htm 50.156.188.216 (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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. . 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)

The entire article shouldn't be a debate (and one sided at that), it should just factually say what austerity is. I came here looking for some understanding of the word "austerity" and what I got was a lecture in keynesian and marxist economics. As of today (July 6th 2015) this article is extremely relevant and important due to the greek vote "no" against austerity and a lot of people (including myself) are seeking to learn more about the situation. I think a second article should be created called "Criticism of austerity in economics", or something along those lines. This article should have one segment dedicated to criticism not the entire article. I suggest that all criticism of austerity measures be taken out and condensed into one shorter segment of this article and another article be written that addresses the bulk of the criticism. We should only get an overview or summary of austerity pros and cons thus making this article rather short. As an example of the biased views, here are the titles of several of the external links which make up 61% of the external links. (Also after clicking on the other external links with neutral titles you will find one sided views against austerity). None of the links imply pro-austerity measure, but as you can see, several are blunt in their anti-austerity stance.

• Socialist Studies Special Edition on Austerity
• Panic-driven austerity in the Eurozone and its implications
• How the Case for Austerity Has Crumbled
• How Austerity Kills
• The Austerity Delusion; Why a Bad Idea Won Over the West
• Austerity’s Greek Death Toll: Study Connects Strict Measures to Rise in Suicides
• Hundreds of mental health experts issue rallying call against austerity
• Juice Rap News (a satire/parody of austerity)

71.104.67.169 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I, too., question the neutrality of this article. The article keeps up the one-sided condemnation of austerity from start to finish. At the very end under "No credit risk", the article declares that countries can always take credits from their own central bank and can furthermore print money. Not a single word is spend on possible drawbacks of such policies. Simply put, if there were no problems with either, it would be more popular. thestor (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Use of "Contemporary mainstream"

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)

Multiplier

I've been trying to follow the multiplier news which is developing quickly this month. [7] 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)

Proposed renaming

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)

Renaming makes sense to meFarcaster (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

It seems to me that creating Wartime austerity might be the better plan, per [8]. Paum89 (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Definition of austerity

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)137.224.252.10

The first part of this article starts by defining Austerity as deficit reduction during a recession. However, this is not how the most important and influential scholars on Austerity define it. They include any and all budget cuts/tax increase, that are motivated by deficit reduction. It is the motivation which defines whether it is austerity, or an 'adjustment' as could happen for an overheating economy. It is most controversial in times of economic recession (and often linked to it through the whole 'expansionary' austerity hypothesis) but it is not only limited to that. (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

Employment growth by top tax rate image

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

There is an additional discussion of the deleted graph at [9] and the subsequent section. EllenCT (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

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)

IMF tries to figure out what it's been doing

"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)

Recent lead change

I don't see how the citation doesn't back up the definition of austerity, and even if weak, how the information is false and needs removed. To quote:

"austerity is an economic policy: deficit-cutting, slashed spending and the mysterious evaporation of benefits."

I get that the cite isn't great, but it hardly makes the point that austerity isn't an economics term. In regards to the second edit, what has been referred to as austerity is austerity. In regards to the third, the cite didn't pop up for me, but the very objective of austerity is to change the long term perceptions of a gov't; in that in the future the gov't can balance it's budget and establish long term confidence to peers and creditors. That is backed up strongly in other citations.

If there's some point to be made or citation to be fixed I'd be happy to discuss it. I just don't see how these recent edits help the article at all in defining austerity as an encyclopedic term. Naapple (Talk) 08:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the introduction, with references to the Financial Times's definition of "austerity" and some of the links, which mentioned spending cuts and tax increases as contributors to austerity. I dislike the New Statesman (see my talk section above), but recent edits left the beginning of the introduction looking bare, and did not resolve structural problems with the remainder. Please feel free to contribute and improve on this. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The new lead is great! Naapple (Talk) 20:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

IMF caution

I reverted the recent lead change back to the version as written by AtSwimTwoBirds. I'm not sure if the IP was around before, but the old lead was a mess. It read like 2 opposing sides arguing rather than a neutral, encyclopedic entry. The new version pretty much left out opinions and left austerity's effectiveness as unknown/disputed which is true. I reverted the change by the IP to avoid the "volleys in a tennis match" that this will undoubtedly lead to. It should also be noted that inclusion of the IP's material directly contradicts the opening sentence in the same paragraph. Naapple (Talk) 06:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You are referring to this deletion of the sentence, "Since 2011, the International Monetary Fund has issued cautionary guidance against austerity measures imposed without regard to underlying economic fundamentals[3 refs] and many commentators have suggested that austerity measures have indeed been misguided and harmful to the economies where they have been imposed.[3 more refs]"

Firstly, this sentence reinforces the fact that the effectiveness of austerity is unknown, but it says much more than that. It says that the IMF has identified specific problems with the imposition of general austerity which they believe have been causing it to fail. That is not a volley in a "good/bad, point/counterpoint" argument, it is an important nuance which has been a big deal in the news recently. The WP:LEAD guideline says that the introduction should summarize the article, and leaving this part out does a major disservice to anyone who only reads the introduction. As it stands, those people will never know that the underlying problems have been identified by the IMF but are being ignored by just those countries for whom austerity measures are failing. Also, WP:LEAD#Length suggests that two short paragraphs may be to short for a 50K article, so we should be talking about what to add to the intro (e.g., the countries' empirical experiences, for example? One sentence each?) instead of what to remove. 70.59.24.64 (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If we include countries or opinions in which it is failing, then we should also include countries in which it was successful. The opinion from the IMF is just one example, as it stands now there are no examples, only summary. Including this starts the first volley of good/bad, when the lead should state what exactly austerity does (or is meant to do). I agree the lead could be longer, I just think specific examples belong to the body since historical examples could be interpreted as good or bad examles of austerity. Balanced != neutral. Naapple (Talk) 00:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The IMF doesn't say austerity is failing, just that misguided implementations have caused it to fail. This is a very important central point. Before 2011, the IMF was one of the main proponents of austerity, and now they're the ones trying to put the brakes on the commitments to austerity that haven't been implemented well, which is what the references in the deleted passage explains. The history of austerity is a "volley" of good/bad. Deleting IMF opinions and reactions to it from the intro does a tremendous disservice to the reader. 67.41.206.89 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

They are. "Since 2011, the International Monetary Fund has issued cautionary guidance against austerity measures". It's then followed by this line: many commentators have suggested that austerity measures have indeed been misguided and harmful to the economies where they have been imposed.

It's clearly a strike against, and it doesn't belong in the neutral lead. To add: it doesn't help define austerity, it goes into the opinions of it, which should be left as ambiguous as possible. Naapple (Talk) 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"Neutral" doesn't mean excluding the points of view with which you disagree. WP:NPOV says that all significant viewpoints need to be included, and WP:LEAD says that controversies are included in the lead, not excluded from it as you seem to think. The idea that you value ambiguity over comprehensive summary of the article is astounding. This is an encyclopedia, not a press release with your favorite abbreviated talking points. 70.58.15.107 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not excluding viewpoints in which I don't agree, I'm excluding all of them. Did you see the lead before? Sure controversies belong in the lead, when that controversy is particularly notable. Austerity isn't just the Eurozone. If we include that, we need to include others too through out the world, and not just recently either.

What it comes down to is that the term in recent years is controversial. This is noted in the lead. It's effectiveness is obviously debatable (again, as has been stated in the lead), and trying to score points for one side or the other in the lead opens up a can of WP:WORMS. Again, there isn't an attempt to cover up controversy, as it's mentioned in the lead, I'm merely trying to keep the debate out of it. Please review the old lead to see what I'm talking about.

I'm glad now that you're at least admitting to trying to stick in controversial material under the supposed authority of WP:NPOV, so that we're at least debating the same thing. Naapple (Talk) 21:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Should the Austerity article's introduction include this sentence about the IMF's cautionary guidance and reactions to it since 2011? ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Austerity and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

First let me say that this is only my opinion, and the purpose of 3O is to add an additional opinion in an attempt to form a consensus on the matter. If it is the opinion that for some reason that consensus has not been created by the addition of a third opinion, additional dispute resolution steps maybe conducted, such as (but not limited to) gaining additional opinions through a request for comment. It is the opinion of this editor that the lead for this subject should only contain a neutrally worded and verified to reliable source definition which defines the subject (and thus the article's scope), and a very brief neutrally worded history of the subject. Any opinions of the subject, or past predictions are best left in the body of the article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sequester

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)

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)

Krugman on Latvia

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. [10] Darkstar1st (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

2nd revert by Specifico

[11], 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 [12]. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Michael Morrison jobs correlogram

The graph in question: Relationship between fiscal tightening in Eurozone countries with their unemployment rate, 2008-2012(ref)Michael Morrison (May 9, 2012) "Austerity: The Jobs Killer" Decisions Based on Evidence</ref>

I am able to see Michael Morrison's CV linked from his "About" page, which says in part that he was Dean of Arts and Sciences after being the Social Sciences Department Chair at North Dakota State College. Therefore I believe he passes WP:SPS as an independent expert. Ah, now I see that the source cited in the graph is down, so I am replacing the graph with the archive link instead. There is no doubt that the graph is extremely informative about the overall outcome of austerity policies during an economic downturn. 71.212.228.188 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There's so much wrong with this graph. First, the guy isn't a credible source. He's a sociology professor at a community college with a long discontinued, outdated personal blog. The graph itself is completely self serving. The correlation is a joke; that data is all over the place. The ability to click the "show trendline" check box in excel doesn't make one a statistician. The horizontal axis is labeled "Austerity" with made up units. How exactly do you measure that?

A years-old blog and a resume from a dropbox link doesn't come close to WP:SPS, and even if it did, the table is garbage. Naapple (Talk) 21:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Morrison is not a "sociology professor at a community college" -- he's a retired community college president and the former dean of arts and sciences and vice president for instruction at North Dakota State. WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." There are over a dozen publications on economic development in Morrison's CV (linked from his "About" page by the way) and dozens more in related fields such as legislative advocacy, demographics, and inequality and education. There is no doubt that he clearly passes both the letter and spirit of WP:SPS with flying colors. The self-published source he cites clearly states the proportion of the variation explained by the correlation, but I agree it should be in the graph's caption, too. 70.58.15.107 (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Irregardless of his supposed credentials uploaded in the form of a resume in a dropbox link, you can't pull cites from someone's personal blog. Does he have something published in a journal somewhere? Something peer reviewed? Does he write for a newspaper? Is he actually an economist, or a sociologist with a political interest? If no then it doesn't belong here. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Naapple (Talk) 21:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, did you click through the links on his CV? It shouldn't bother you that it's on Dropbox since it's linked from his site. By the way, the austerity units are not made up. They are the same fiscal tightening as percentage of GDP in the Financial Times graph that Morrison based his correlogram on and of which you apparently approve. Anyway, I asked about this at WP:RSN#Austerity effect on jobs graph. 67.41.205.108 (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Reinhart/Rogoff austerity paper failed through replication

Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLAmidei (talk • contribs) 05:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Discussion of including European unemployment statistics in lead

Austerity impacts in Europe, such as record and rising unemployment and rising debt to GDP ratios, are relevant for the lead. So is CBO on what austerity would do to the U.S. These are facts. If saying record unemployment and rising debt to GDP ratios are not a "negative" effect, what are they? Should we call them "mixed"? Further, expansionary austerity is a controversial theory, discredited by several other economic studies. So calling it controversial is a nice way to put it, if we give it coverage in the lead at all. Farcaster (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"Austerity" encompasses more than just recent history or the Eurozone. That said, many of these countries that enacted some form of austerity were already on their way out. If you toss water on someone burning to death, and they still die, do you say that all water is ineffective? Of course not. Plus there's recent examples of austerity in this very article in which the countries have improved.

While I'm sure you think that austerity is ineffective and detrimental, that simply isn't a fact. The lead is meant to stay neutral, and that's what it is. The wording was carefully chosen and decided on before, and going down this path of point/counterpoint has already been done. That's why the lead is neutral without citing examples. Also, where has EFC suddenly been debunked? More opinion and conjecture, I think. Naapple (Talk) 21:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll re-include the Europe statistics and CBO data, simply stating the facts are as predicted by macroeconomics. Nobody cared about austerity before the present crisis; most of this article has been built out by me and that content is now summarized in the lead (which you keep removing). The Krugman article points to several studies that have dismissed expansionary austerity; the Alessina-Ardagna paper has been widely debunked now; links are in the Krugman article. I'm using the term "controversial" as opposed to "debunked." One paper doesn't deserve lead treatment at the level of macroeconomics and all the research behind it, but I left it there as a compromise.Farcaster (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The version claiming that "The economic effects of austerity are unclear...." is not neutral, not supported by sources, and inferior to Farcaster's version here. I would also like to see the sentences about recent IMF guidance reversals discussed above restored, too. The IMF reversal on austerity is one of the more significant macroeconomics stories of the past several decades. EllenCT (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Out of date data

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)

Dubious notion in intro

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)

Marxian perspective needed

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)

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)

From those, according to need; to those, according to accumulated capital. EllenCT (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

USA in the 90's = austerity?

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)

I added some text I hope addresses your point.Farcaster (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Age of Austerity

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 [13]; debuted as a Bristol Evening Post journalist in 1957 (we say).

LCCN 75-45350 is LCCat record for the 1976 first U.S. edition; linked from the film critic Philip French [14] (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)

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)

Problems here.

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)

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)

Wrong jargon: debt-to-GDP ratio, debt=% of GDP

"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) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

Nationalizing of stadiums or eliminating government funding

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)

Krugman's graph under theoretical considerations?

Red: corporate profits after tax and inventory valuation adjustment. Blue: nonresidential fixed investment, both as fractions of U.S. GDP, 1989–2012.

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)

Biased Intro

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)

Dr. Creel's comment on this article

Dr. Creel has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The paragraph "When an economy is operating at near capacity, higher short-term deficit spending (stimulus) can cause interest rates to rise, resulting in a reduction in private investments, which in turn reduces economic growth. In the case of excess capacity, however, the stimulus may result in an increase in employment and output" in the introduction should be removed: it deals with stimulus, not austerity.

The "theoretical considerations' about austerity are biased against austerity as there is no mention to the theoretical justififications to austerity. These are usually connected to rational (forward-looking) expectations and debt thresholds. When debt has reached a high level and private agents expect that debt will continue to grow, they save more to compensate dissaving from governements (which continue to spend and to increase debt). This is the Ricardian equivalence argument associated with the idea that there is a debt threshold. If above this threshold, the government credibly commits to austerity, the argument goes that private agents, partially relieved from the necessity to save to pay for future interest payments and repayment of the principal of public debt, will dissave, then consume. Fiscal austerity, working as the signal of fiscal discipline by a past profligate government, produces a surge of private consumption and investment. This is the argument underlying the "expansionary fiscal contraction" tale by Giavazzi and Pagano (NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 1990). Fiscal austerity would boost economic (GDP) growth in the end.

This argument has proven wrong in reality, but I think that it is important to tell the readers that "fiscal austerity" does not come from nowhere or that it has just been developed to please financial markets or rating agencies.

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)

United Kingdom Paragraph

"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)

Where's Ecuador ?

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)

Really biased don't you think?

This is incredibly biased towards an anti-austerity position. Pogchampange (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

that's because when you look at the actual facts austerity is bs 80.192.126.99 (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

History section

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)

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)