77
Curfews imposed in French cities as rebellion against austerity grows nationwide (breakthroughnews.org)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

"It's not austerity!" Goes on the describe what austerity is. It's literally the word they use when they defund essential services lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

    Well, like, cutting defense spending would also be austerity. Increasing corporate taxes would also be austerity.

    A "rebellion against austerity" only serves to paint the protesters as irrationally opposed to responsible money management, in general.

    It does make a difference to communication that they are protesting against a specific kind of budget cut. A skilled propagandist would want everyone to think the protesters are making irrational demands, rather than the reasonable and specific demand to not cut education funding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    Calling austerity "responsible money management" is insane. It kills people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

    As I mentioned, cutting defense spending or increasing corporate taxes are also austerity measures. Presumably you're not opposed to those.

    Some austerity measures kill people. Those are the ones you're opposed to. That does not mean you are opposed to austerity policies; it means you are opposed to those specific policies.

    And regardless of my personal opinion on what "austerity" means, the point stands that a skilled propagandist would want the general public to believe these protesters are irrationally opposed to responsible money management, and calling it a "rebellion against austerity" is an effective way to do that. This is because most people treat "austerity" and "fiscally responsible" as synonyms, whether we like it or not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    "Um, Akshually the textbook definition of Austerity is..." We both know that the word is used by liberals in government to justify cutting very SPECIFIC things. And regardless it means to reduce overall government spending right? In a nation that has income inequality of any kind this means that the ones who have the means will simply look out for themselves, and the ones who do not will suffer or die. No matter WHERE you remove money from the economy it will always reduce the overall money supply moving around, and this will always hit the poor before it hits anyone else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    We both know that the word is used by liberals in government to justify cutting very SPECIFIC things.

    That's true. Why do they do that? Why do they use a very general word, which could mean a variety of good or bad things, and then exclusively do bad things with it?

    ... is it because it's in their best interest to cover up their evil intentions with a term that might convince the general public that it's a good idea?

    And... if that were the case... should we be playing along with it by framing our opposition to a very specific budget cut, as an opposition to a very general thing that the general public might believe is a good thing?

    My position is that framing education budget cuts as "austerity measures" is giving them the benefit of the doubt, and allowing them to strip away even the crumbs allocated to the poor, while maintaining plausible deniability that it was all in the name of saving the budget. I reject that framing. I reject the headline.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    opposition to a very general thing that the general public might believe is a good thing?

    Does the general public seem to believe that? Because it seems to me they're rioting for the opposite reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    That's the French public. They're already doing this, without this article's influence.

    Ask a random English-speaking person (because this article is in English) about austerity measures, and half of the time, their first response will be to look up the definition. What will they find?

    After they look up the definition, ask if they would support austerity measures, without being specific. What will they say?

    If you instead ask them if they would support slashing the education budget, do you think they would say something different?

    We don't have to play this game where they slash the education budget and then dress it up with flowery language to make it more marketable, or to avoid accountability.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    That's fair but in economic theory austerity should be responsible budget constraint used to limit spending in an attempt to "save" money. For a government, over restrictions on spending have a crippling effect on the economy. Your point is valid if governments are claiming essential services were cut as austerity measures. My point is that if you support austerity you want it done responsibly in order to claim that it can work, which it can't. Crippling social services isn't austerity, it's neglect and mismanagement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    You are assuming the people who "support austerity" do so because they think it will improve the situaton, and not just because they do not fucking care if poor people die or not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Yes but I would like to think that economists who believe in austerity wouldn't support this or agree that it is an application of austerity, that the people in charge are just hiding behind the claim that this is austerity when the reality is like you say, it's just malicious

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Do you genuinely believe that western economists give a single shit about poor people?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago

    I do think that economists have an interest in dealing in factual information. I don't think they are concerned with poor people but a government collecting too little in taxes will act in its own interest. They will try to increase economic activity by lowering borrowing costs or by spending. Or they will cut spending. In order to decide what to do they rely on economic theory and recommendations from economists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent