BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.0 -
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Has the thread title already handed victory to Corbyn?
Why does the official Conservative party twitter feed keep posting videos of Corbyn saying how the number of GPs has gone down under the Tories? It's a weird strategy to promote his main attack for him.0 -
Not really, as compared to a moderate Labour leader he is an electoral liability and will likely deny Labour victory - again. That's the whole point of the thread...kingstongraham said:Has the thread title already handed victory to Corbyn?
Why does the official Conservative party twitter feed keep posting videos of Corbyn saying how the number of GPs has gone down under the Tories? It's a weird strategy to promote his main attack for him."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
In the meantime, David Blunkett add to the list of those publically denouncing their own party.
https://independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-blunkett-labour-corbyn-antisemitism-party-column-a9196091.html"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And yet government spending has averaged about 40% of GDP while tax receipts average 35% of GDP for at least the last 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You've just explained how we have got to where we are in terms of debt.rjsterry said:
And yet government spending has averaged about 40% of GDP while tax receipts average 35% of GDP for at least the last 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.
See Greece for an example of a country that went too far. And watch Italy for a country that is headed that way."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There are only 3 possible solutions to this.rjsterry said:
And yet government spending has averaged about 40% of GDP while tax receipts average 35% of GDP for at least the last 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.
1. Decrease spending.
2. Increase taxation.
3. A combination of 1 and 2.
It has been explained that increasing taxation does not increase tax income so the only possible solution is a continuation of austerity. Or massive debts. Woohoo!The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I've found some more figures: make that 75 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me. Greece's receipts are similar to ours (as % of GDP) but their spending is 10-12% of GDP higher than ours. If Javid or McDonnell announced spending of an extra £700bn per year then we might be close to a Greek situation.Stevo_666 said:
You've just explained how we have got to where we are in terms of debt.rjsterry said:
And yet government spending has averaged about 40% of GDP while tax receipts average 35% of GDP for at least the last 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.
See Greece for an example of a country that went too far. And watch Italy for a country that is headed that way.
But they're not.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think you're being a bit optimistic. Our GDP is around £2 trillion so 10% of that is £200 billion. Which is less than the cost of the Labour nationalisation promise for starters. Latest estimates of Labour's total spending plans are up to £1.2 trillion extra over 5 years.rjsterry said:
I've found some more figures: make that 75 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me. Greece's receipts are similar to ours (as % of GDP) but their spending is 10-12% of GDP higher than ours. If Javid or McDonnell announced spending of an extra £700bn per year then we might be close to a Greek situation.Stevo_666 said:
You've just explained how we have got to where we are in terms of debt.rjsterry said:
And yet government spending has averaged about 40% of GDP while tax receipts average 35% of GDP for at least the last 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.
See Greece for an example of a country that went too far. And watch Italy for a country that is headed that way.
But they're not.
And then there's the assumption that borrowing rates will stay the same - whereas they are likely to rise if Labour gets in. And that our income will stay the same which its unlikely to with Labour's business unfriendly policies.
It is not a viable long term strategy.
Being Greece without the sunshine is not a good prospect - but if you really want it, vote Labour.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yep, not sure about that calculation. Perils of trying to multitask with squabbling kids. It depends which figures you are looking at as some lump in capital investment and others not, but as far as I can tell neither are anywhere near a 10-12% of GDP pa increase. And I'm not saying either offer is great. Just that it's possible to increase public spending without lurching to the extremes of Greece. There's a massive gap in Labour's figures on health, which is bound to just keep increasing until we fundamentally alter the nation's demographics.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
That's the other oneStevo_666 said:
Not really, as compared to a moderate Labour leader he is an electoral liability and will likely deny Labour victory - again. That's the whole point of the thread...kingstongraham said:Has the thread title already handed victory to Corbyn?
Why does the official Conservative party twitter feed keep posting videos of Corbyn saying how the number of GPs has gone down under the Tories? It's a weird strategy to promote his main attack for him.0 -
Given I'm the OP, it's my thread so that definitely is the pointkingstongraham said:
That's the other oneStevo_666 said:
Not really, as compared to a moderate Labour leader he is an electoral liability and will likely deny Labour victory - again. That's the whole point of the thread...kingstongraham said:Has the thread title already handed victory to Corbyn?
Why does the official Conservative party twitter feed keep posting videos of Corbyn saying how the number of GPs has gone down under the Tories? It's a weird strategy to promote his main attack for him.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Are you goo too?Stevo_666 said:
Given I'm the OP, it's my thread so that definitely is the pointkingstongraham said:
That's the other oneStevo_666 said:
Not really, as compared to a moderate Labour leader he is an electoral liability and will likely deny Labour victory - again. That's the whole point of the thread...kingstongraham said:Has the thread title already handed victory to Corbyn?
Why does the official Conservative party twitter feed keep posting videos of Corbyn saying how the number of GPs has gone down under the Tories? It's a weird strategy to promote his main attack for him.0 -
Japan is more comparable to the U.K. than Greece - at least for now - for any number of reasons.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're being a bit optimistic. Our GDP is around £2 trillion so 10% of that is £200 billion. Which is less than the cost of the Labour nationalisation promise for starters. Latest estimates of Labour's total spending plans are up to £1.2 trillion extra over 5 years.rjsterry said:
I've found some more figures: make that 75 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me. Greece's receipts are similar to ours (as % of GDP) but their spending is 10-12% of GDP higher than ours. If Javid or McDonnell announced spending of an extra £700bn per year then we might be close to a Greek situation.Stevo_666 said:
You've just explained how we have got to where we are in terms of debt.rjsterry said:
And yet government spending has averaged about 40% of GDP while tax receipts average 35% of GDP for at least the last 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.
See Greece for an example of a country that went too far. And watch Italy for a country that is headed that way.
But they're not.
And then there's the assumption that borrowing rates will stay the same - whereas they are likely to rise if Labour gets in. And that our income will stay the same which its unlikely to with Labour's business unfriendly policies.
It is not a viable long term strategy.
Being Greece without the sunshine is not a good prospect - but if you really want it, vote Labour.
That’s deep into double annual GDP in debt and they can’t get inflation however much they try.
In so many ways the Western world has followed Japan in how its economies have behaved - just a decade later.
Dillow understands this better than most having been chief economist of a Japanese bank for 10 years0 -
The promises sound like pie in the sky. Voters will either disappointed post election or pointing fingers saying we told you so. No party is talking about electoral reform, devolution or other reforms to bring government closer to the people/make votes count. All parties think the solution to our problems is for central government to go on a spending spree which will mean more centralised control.
It's quite depressing really.www.thecycleclinic.co.uk0 -
I'm referring to the Labour party thread.kingstongraham said:
Are you goo too?Stevo_666 said:
Given I'm the OP, it's my thread so that definitely is the pointkingstongraham said:
That's the other oneStevo_666 said:
Not really, as compared to a moderate Labour leader he is an electoral liability and will likely deny Labour victory - again. That's the whole point of the thread...kingstongraham said:Has the thread title already handed victory to Corbyn?
Why does the official Conservative party twitter feed keep posting videos of Corbyn saying how the number of GPs has gone down under the Tories? It's a weird strategy to promote his main attack for him."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-1
-
There are differences however which are important.rick_chasey said:
Japan is more comparable to the U.K. than Greece - at least for now - for any number of reasons.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're being a bit optimistic. Our GDP is around £2 trillion so 10% of that is £200 billion. Which is less than the cost of the Labour nationalisation promise for starters. Latest estimates of Labour's total spending plans are up to £1.2 trillion extra over 5 years.rjsterry said:
I've found some more figures: make that 75 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me. Greece's receipts are similar to ours (as % of GDP) but their spending is 10-12% of GDP higher than ours. If Javid or McDonnell announced spending of an extra £700bn per year then we might be close to a Greek situation.Stevo_666 said:
You've just explained how we have got to where we are in terms of debt.rjsterry said:
And yet government spending has averaged about 40% of GDP while tax receipts average 35% of GDP for at least the last 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.
See Greece for an example of a country that went too far. And watch Italy for a country that is headed that way.
But they're not.
And then there's the assumption that borrowing rates will stay the same - whereas they are likely to rise if Labour gets in. And that our income will stay the same which its unlikely to with Labour's business unfriendly policies.
It is not a viable long term strategy.
Being Greece without the sunshine is not a good prospect - but if you really want it, vote Labour.
That’s deep into double annual GDP in debt and they can’t get inflation however much they try.
In so many ways the Western world has followed Japan in how its economies have behaved - just a decade later.
Dillow understands this better than most having been chief economist of a Japanese bank for 10 years
- First off, the lack of growth and lack of inflation mean that returns on Japanese bonds are minimal or negative.
- Second, the large part of the national debt is held domestically - around 70% by the bank of Japan and a lot of the rest by Japanese banks and trust funds IIRC.
However it is not without risk in the long term."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Some more background
https://eastasiaforum.org/2018/08/06/is-japans-mountain-of-public-debt-a-threat-to-financial-stability/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
They think a spending spree is the solution to their (not our) problem.thecycleclinic said:The promises sound like pie in the sky. Voters will either disappointed post election or pointing fingers saying we told you so. No party is talking about electoral reform, devolution or other reforms to bring government closer to the people/make votes count. All parties think the solution to our problems is for central government to go on a spending spree which will mean more centralised control.
It's quite depressing really.
No party who wins power will instigate electoral reform
0 -
I thought Japan’s central problem was demographicrick_chasey said:
Japan is more comparable to the U.K. than Greece - at least for now - for any number of reasons.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're being a bit optimistic. Our GDP is around £2 trillion so 10% of that is £200 billion. Which is less than the cost of the Labour nationalisation promise for starters. Latest estimates of Labour's total spending plans are up to £1.2 trillion extra over 5 years.rjsterry said:
I've found some more figures: make that 75 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me. Greece's receipts are similar to ours (as % of GDP) but their spending is 10-12% of GDP higher than ours. If Javid or McDonnell announced spending of an extra £700bn per year then we might be close to a Greek situation.Stevo_666 said:
You've just explained how we have got to where we are in terms of debt.rjsterry said:
And yet government spending has averaged about 40% of GDP while tax receipts average 35% of GDP for at least the last 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.
See Greece for an example of a country that went too far. And watch Italy for a country that is headed that way.
But they're not.
And then there's the assumption that borrowing rates will stay the same - whereas they are likely to rise if Labour gets in. And that our income will stay the same which its unlikely to with Labour's business unfriendly policies.
It is not a viable long term strategy.
Being Greece without the sunshine is not a good prospect - but if you really want it, vote Labour.
That’s deep into double annual GDP in debt and they can’t get inflation however much they try.
In so many ways the Western world has followed Japan in how its economies have behaved - just a decade later.
Dillow understands this better than most having been chief economist of a Japanese bank for 10 years
0 -
Have I missed the debate about Boris seemingly p1ssed at some business do in NI?0
-
Yes. Don't know why. Very confusing when I wasn't.Stevo_666 said:
I'm referring to the Labour party thread.kingstongraham said:
Are you goo too?Stevo_666 said:
Given I'm the OP, it's my thread so that definitely is the pointkingstongraham said:
That's the other oneStevo_666 said:
Not really, as compared to a moderate Labour leader he is an electoral liability and will likely deny Labour victory - again. That's the whole point of the thread...kingstongraham said:Has the thread title already handed victory to Corbyn?
Why does the official Conservative party twitter feed keep posting videos of Corbyn saying how the number of GPs has gone down under the Tories? It's a weird strategy to promote his main attack for him.
This thread title now says that labour are going to bankrupt the UK. Only one way that's happening!0 -
Being contrary to an other in the cabinet?surrey_commuter said:Have I missed the debate about Boris seemingly p1ssed at some business do in NI?
I followed it in the news last night.
Silly 20p for the swearbox erseanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
True which is why we are going to get fucked again.surrey_commuter said:
They think a spending spree is the solution to their (not our) problem.thecycleclinic said:The promises sound like pie in the sky. Voters will either disappointed post election or pointing fingers saying we told you so. No party is talking about electoral reform, devolution or other reforms to bring government closer to the people/make votes count. All parties think the solution to our problems is for central government to go on a spending spree which will mean more centralised control.
It's quite depressing really.
No party who wins power will instigate electoral reformwww.thecycleclinic.co.uk0 -
That is certainly a big issue for them as it will exacerbate their debt problem.surrey_commuter said:
I thought Japan’s central problem was demographicrick_chasey said:
Japan is more comparable to the U.K. than Greece - at least for now - for any number of reasons.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're being a bit optimistic. Our GDP is around £2 trillion so 10% of that is £200 billion. Which is less than the cost of the Labour nationalisation promise for starters. Latest estimates of Labour's total spending plans are up to £1.2 trillion extra over 5 years.rjsterry said:
I've found some more figures: make that 75 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me. Greece's receipts are similar to ours (as % of GDP) but their spending is 10-12% of GDP higher than ours. If Javid or McDonnell announced spending of an extra £700bn per year then we might be close to a Greek situation.Stevo_666 said:
You've just explained how we have got to where we are in terms of debt.rjsterry said:
And yet government spending has averaged about 40% of GDP while tax receipts average 35% of GDP for at least the last 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.
See Greece for an example of a country that went too far. And watch Italy for a country that is headed that way.
But they're not.
And then there's the assumption that borrowing rates will stay the same - whereas they are likely to rise if Labour gets in. And that our income will stay the same which its unlikely to with Labour's business unfriendly policies.
It is not a viable long term strategy.
Being Greece without the sunshine is not a good prospect - but if you really want it, vote Labour.
That’s deep into double annual GDP in debt and they can’t get inflation however much they try.
In so many ways the Western world has followed Japan in how its economies have behaved - just a decade later.
Dillow understands this better than most having been chief economist of a Japanese bank for 10 years"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Japan has a multitude of problems. We also have a demographic time bomb in the works.www.thecycleclinic.co.uk0
-
I disagree. After Brexit, the poor and the old will die off quickly.thecycleclinic said:Japan has a multitude of problems. We also have a demographic time bomb in the works.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Not much to debate is there?It's already normal for the Prime Minister to casually, obviously and transparently lie to people's faces, which is a new low. You can certainly see why his team don't want to let him out in public. By the looks on the audience's faces if they hadn't already realised the current government couldn't GAF about them, this made it crystal clear.surrey_commuter said:Have I missed the debate about Boris seemingly p1ssed at some business do in NI?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
