LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Yeah. A tonne of studies into the impact of austerity have determined it hampered growth substantially and the economy is worse off as a resultPross said:
Has it been proven? It might not have worked but there’s no way of knowing how successful any other policy would have been. He pretty much had to go down that route to keep lenders happy and maintain a good credit rating.rick_chasey said:
Austerity has been proven to be the wrong policy and Cameron did it harder than any other north European countrywallace_and_gromit said:
Indeed. No politician ever says "The previous government should take credit for that" so what goes around comes around!Jezyboy said:Yea, for what it's worth, it feels slightly unfair to lay the blame for the slow recovery at Cameron's door, otoh, that's what comes up with the territory of being PM.
The main problem was that having done the hard work then won a GE majority in which he could have started to develop policies in a stronger financial climate he panicked under pressure from UKIP and his own right-wingers resulting in a major case of shooting himself in the foot and the majority of the censored that has happened since is a consequence of that.0 -
I'm a bit surprised that no-one has challenged the "Austerity failed" narrative more strongly in the light of the carnage that Truss wrought by making the bond markets think she was not on top of things fiscally. It's easy to say that the Coalition should have borrowed more (the logical equivalent of saying that "Austerity" was the wrong policy) because they never had any problem borrowing at sensible rates. But it could be that the Coalition could borrow the (very large) proportions of GDP that it did only because the markets trusted the government to be fiscally conservative.Pross said:
Has it been proven? It might not have worked but there’s no way of knowing how successful any other policy would have been. He pretty much had to go down that route to keep lenders happy and maintain a good credit rating.rick_chasey said:
Austerity has been proven to be the wrong policy and Cameron did it harder than any other north European countrywallace_and_gromit said:
Indeed. No politician ever says "The previous government should take credit for that" so what goes around comes around!Jezyboy said:Yea, for what it's worth, it feels slightly unfair to lay the blame for the slow recovery at Cameron's door, otoh, that's what comes up with the territory of being PM.
And in any case, if one compares GDP growth post-GFC across Europe then it's not obvious that "Austerity" was bad from a growth viewpoint, as all the graphs that demonstrate the adverse impact of Brexit cover. The UK only started underperforming the EU economically once Brexit-related reduced investment really started to have an impact (2019 or thereabouts?)0 -
Do you have any links, please?rick_chasey said:
Yeah. A tonne of studies into the impact of austerity have determined it hampered growth substantially and the economy is worse off as a resultPross said:
Has it been proven? It might not have worked but there’s no way of knowing how successful any other policy would have been. He pretty much had to go down that route to keep lenders happy and maintain a good credit rating.rick_chasey said:
Austerity has been proven to be the wrong policy and Cameron did it harder than any other north European countrywallace_and_gromit said:
Indeed. No politician ever says "The previous government should take credit for that" so what goes around comes around!Jezyboy said:Yea, for what it's worth, it feels slightly unfair to lay the blame for the slow recovery at Cameron's door, otoh, that's what comes up with the territory of being PM.
The main problem was that having done the hard work then won a GE majority in which he could have started to develop policies in a stronger financial climate he panicked under pressure from UKIP and his own right-wingers resulting in a major case of shooting himself in the foot and the majority of the censored that has happened since is a consequence of that.
The reports I've seen focus on the decline in public services and the increase in inequality, or simply look at what would have happened had public spending continued on its pre-Coalition trajectory, with no consideration of the debt servicing cost implications.0 -
and you have to consider that the GFC hit the UK harder than most other econmies due to the strength of FS.wallace_and_gromit said:
I'm a bit surprised that no-one has challenged the "Austerity failed" narrative more strongly in the light of the carnage that Truss wrought by making the bond markets think she was not on top of things fiscally. It's easy to say that the Coalition should have borrowed more (the logical equivalent of saying that "Austerity" was the wrong policy) because they never had any problem borrowing at sensible rates. But it could be that the Coalition could borrow the (very large) proportions of GDP that it did only because the markets trusted the government to be fiscally conservative.Pross said:
Has it been proven? It might not have worked but there’s no way of knowing how successful any other policy would have been. He pretty much had to go down that route to keep lenders happy and maintain a good credit rating.rick_chasey said:
Austerity has been proven to be the wrong policy and Cameron did it harder than any other north European countrywallace_and_gromit said:
Indeed. No politician ever says "The previous government should take credit for that" so what goes around comes around!Jezyboy said:Yea, for what it's worth, it feels slightly unfair to lay the blame for the slow recovery at Cameron's door, otoh, that's what comes up with the territory of being PM.
And in any case, if one compares GDP growth post-GFC across Europe then it's not obvious that "Austerity" was bad from a growth viewpoint, as all the graphs that demonstrate the adverse impact of Brexit cover. The UK only started underperforming the EU economically once Brexit-related reduced investment really started to have an impact (2019 or thereabouts?)
I am convinced that much of the "under performance" is due to the tighter regulation. I am not saying this regulation was wrong but does explain sme of the slowdown in UK econmic growth in that period1 -
Anecdotally, it was much easier for retail banks to go for resi mortgage lending than SME lending. Underwriting the former is a "2-finger exercise" whereas the latter requires some serious leg work.surrey_commuter said:I am convinced that much of the "under performance" is due to the tighter regulation. I am not saying this regulation was wrong but does explain sme of the slowdown in UK econmic growth in that period
And more than anecdotally, one of our business lines is SME lending. At the first sign of trouble (any sort) the retail banks retreat from the market as they are so risk averse. Or perhaps more accurately, "uncertainty averse". Good for us, if not necessarily the wider economy.
0 -
I'd like to see the proof.Pross said:
Has it been proven? It might not have worked but there’s no way of knowing how successful any other policy would have been. He pretty much had to go down that route to keep lenders happy and maintain a good credit rating.rick_chasey said:
Austerity has been proven to be the wrong policy and Cameron did it harder than any other north European countrywallace_and_gromit said:
Indeed. No politician ever says "The previous government should take credit for that" so what goes around comes around!Jezyboy said:Yea, for what it's worth, it feels slightly unfair to lay the blame for the slow recovery at Cameron's door, otoh, that's what comes up with the territory of being PM.
The main problem was that having done the hard work then won a GE majority in which he could have started to develop policies in a stronger financial climate he panicked under pressure from UKIP and his own right-wingers resulting in a major case of shooting himself in the foot and the majority of the censored that has happened since is a consequence of that."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htmwallace_and_gromit said:
Do you have any links, please?rick_chasey said:
Yeah. A tonne of studies into the impact of austerity have determined it hampered growth substantially and the economy is worse off as a resultPross said:
Has it been proven? It might not have worked but there’s no way of knowing how successful any other policy would have been. He pretty much had to go down that route to keep lenders happy and maintain a good credit rating.rick_chasey said:
Austerity has been proven to be the wrong policy and Cameron did it harder than any other north European countrywallace_and_gromit said:
Indeed. No politician ever says "The previous government should take credit for that" so what goes around comes around!Jezyboy said:Yea, for what it's worth, it feels slightly unfair to lay the blame for the slow recovery at Cameron's door, otoh, that's what comes up with the territory of being PM.
The main problem was that having done the hard work then won a GE majority in which he could have started to develop policies in a stronger financial climate he panicked under pressure from UKIP and his own right-wingers resulting in a major case of shooting himself in the foot and the majority of the censored that has happened since is a consequence of that.
The reports I've seen focus on the decline in public services and the increase in inequality, or simply look at what would have happened had public spending continued on its pre-Coalition trajectory, with no consideration of the debt servicing cost implications.
https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/27/suppl_4/18/4430523
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4952125/
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.33.2.141
https://www.rcpjournals.org/content/clinmedicine/12/4/346
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/roe-2021-0012/html
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc77f4b
https://www.epsu.org/sites/default/files/article/files/2012-10-Crisis-mults-2.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/235268350 -
rick_chasey said:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htmwallace_and_gromit said:
Do you have any links, please?rick_chasey said:
Yeah. A tonne of studies into the impact of austerity have determined it hampered growth substantially and the economy is worse off as a resultPross said:
Has it been proven? It might not have worked but there’s no way of knowing how successful any other policy would have been. He pretty much had to go down that route to keep lenders happy and maintain a good credit rating.rick_chasey said:
Austerity has been proven to be the wrong policy and Cameron did it harder than any other north European countrywallace_and_gromit said:
Indeed. No politician ever says "The previous government should take credit for that" so what goes around comes around!Jezyboy said:Yea, for what it's worth, it feels slightly unfair to lay the blame for the slow recovery at Cameron's door, otoh, that's what comes up with the territory of being PM.
The main problem was that having done the hard work then won a GE majority in which he could have started to develop policies in a stronger financial climate he panicked under pressure from UKIP and his own right-wingers resulting in a major case of shooting himself in the foot and the majority of the censored that has happened since is a consequence of that.
The reports I've seen focus on the decline in public services and the increase in inequality, or simply look at what would have happened had public spending continued on its pre-Coalition trajectory, with no consideration of the debt servicing cost implications.
https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/27/suppl_4/18/4430523
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4952125/
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.33.2.141
https://www.rcpjournals.org/content/clinmedicine/12/4/346
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/roe-2021-0012/html
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc77f4b
https://www.epsu.org/sites/default/files/article/files/2012-10-Crisis-mults-2.pdf
Yebbut...
That's the sort of thing I think might or might not have been 'wrong', but it's normal kind of politics, and vaguely honestly done, whether or not I agree with it in hindsight.
I stand by my assessment that Brexit is in an entirely different league. At least there was some balance and different opinions at the time from non-loon economists and politicians, but Brexit required loons, dishonesty, and a refusal to listen to any sensible economists to make it happen.0 -
I could have posted a tonne of “political impact of austerity” and drawn the obvious link between austerity and the Brexit vote.
All this “they live in a sh!thole, they voted for change” analysis is just another comment on austerity.0 -
Thanks. I read the first link - the IMF publication - which manifestly draws no conclusions about the Coalition's fiscal policies. It was actually a very balanced article, with no firm conclusions as to what was right or wrong, about neoliberalism in general.rick_chasey said:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htmwallace_and_gromit said:
Do you have any links, please?rick_chasey said:
Yeah. A tonne of studies into the impact of austerity have determined it hampered growth substantially and the economy is worse off as a resultPross said:
Has it been proven? It might not have worked but there’s no way of knowing how successful any other policy would have been. He pretty much had to go down that route to keep lenders happy and maintain a good credit rating.rick_chasey said:
Austerity has been proven to be the wrong policy and Cameron did it harder than any other north European countrywallace_and_gromit said:
Indeed. No politician ever says "The previous government should take credit for that" so what goes around comes around!Jezyboy said:Yea, for what it's worth, it feels slightly unfair to lay the blame for the slow recovery at Cameron's door, otoh, that's what comes up with the territory of being PM.
The main problem was that having done the hard work then won a GE majority in which he could have started to develop policies in a stronger financial climate he panicked under pressure from UKIP and his own right-wingers resulting in a major case of shooting himself in the foot and the majority of the censored that has happened since is a consequence of that.
The reports I've seen focus on the decline in public services and the increase in inequality, or simply look at what would have happened had public spending continued on its pre-Coalition trajectory, with no consideration of the debt servicing cost implications.
https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/27/suppl_4/18/4430523
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4952125/
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.33.2.141
https://www.rcpjournals.org/content/clinmedicine/12/4/346
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/roe-2021-0012/html
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc77f4b
https://www.epsu.org/sites/default/files/article/files/2012-10-Crisis-mults-2.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23526835
I've not read any of the others on the assumption that they similarly don't support your claim, though I'm happy to retract this if you can provide specific extracts that support your claim.1 -
I think you're on firmer ground here! There were apparently many people who voted to leave to give Cameron a kick in the nadgers, failing to appreciate that by so doing, they would inflict an even worse economic outcome on themselves whilst Cameron retired to eek out his retirement supported by nothing but an already vast family wealth.rick_chasey said:I could have posted a tonne of “political impact of austerity” and drawn the obvious link between austerity and the Brexit vote.
All this “they live in a sh!thole, they voted for change” analysis is just another comment on austerity.
However, I stand by my original assertion that the fallout from the GFC is the biggest driver of economic underperformance vs prior trends, with the impact of "austerity" being social and political.0 -
Well yeah I’m not gonna post partisan stuff that 100% backs me. Might as well write it myself.
Read what they say and put it in the context of the UK and it’s quite clearly a criticism.
Eg from the first article:
However, there are aspects of the neoliberal agenda that have not delivered as expected. Our assessment of the agenda is confined to the effects of two policies: removing restrictions on the movement of capital across a country’s borders (so-called capital account liberalization); and fiscal consolidation, sometimes called “austerity,” which is shorthand for policies to reduce fiscal deficits and debt levels. An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions:
•The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries.
- The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.
-
•Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.
So what did austerity do to inequality? Made it worse obviously
https://www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/04/05/imf-austerity-is-alive-and-impacting-poverty-and-inequality/0 -
I think Cameron era austerity was essentially a marketing exercise. They did enough to show some genuine savings, largely got away without totally wrecking public services and largely reflected the public mood, which was that we needed to eat shit after the good years.
However, the lack of positive vision did give us Brexit, and didn't actually ever result in a Budget surplus.0 -
You've confused me. Are you saying "austerity" hampered economic growth? (This was your claim originally.) Note that your IMF link says that the "benefits of increased growth [from "austerity"] are fairly difficult to establish" which is a long way from proving that austerity was detrimental to economic growth relative to what was achievable given the fallout from the GFC.rick_chasey said:Well yeah I’m not gonna post partisan stuff that 100% backs me. Might as well write it myself.
Read what they say and put it in the context of the UK and it’s quite clearly a criticism.
Eg from the first article:
However, there are aspects of the neoliberal agenda that have not delivered as expected. Our assessment of the agenda is confined to the effects of two policies: removing restrictions on the movement of capital across a country’s borders (so-called capital account liberalization); and fiscal consolidation, sometimes called “austerity,” which is shorthand for policies to reduce fiscal deficits and debt levels. An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions:
•The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries.
- The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.
-
•Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.
So what did austerity do to inequality? Made it worse obviously
https://www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/04/05/imf-austerity-is-alive-and-impacting-poverty-and-inequality/
"Austerity" certainly failed to achieve the grandiose claims for it made in advance, but that doesn't mean it was automatically detrimental.
Or are you just claiming that "austerity" was bad in terms of increasing inequality? I agree with this, per a comment above.1 -
Debt as % of GDP did fall in the two financial year 2017/18 and 2018/19 though, which is non-trivially good as an outcome. I think the deficit went down to 2% of GDP in the last of these two years. Ironically, these two years are the only complete financial years between the referendum and actually leaving the EU.Jezyboy said:I think Cameron era austerity was essentially a marketing exercise. They did enough to show some genuine savings, largely got away without totally wrecking public services and largely reflected the public mood, which was that we needed to eat censored after the good years.
However, the lack of positive vision did give us Brexit, and didn't actually ever result in a Budget surplus.0 -
So that specific article, from an organisation that encourages austerity (context always helpful) says “we can’t establish a “beneficial” link between austerity and *growth* but we do find an correlation between inequality and austerity and an inverse link between growth and inequality.wallace_and_gromit said:
You've confused me. Are you saying "austerity" hampered economic growth? (This was your claim originally.) Note that your IMF link says that the "benefits of increased growth [from "austerity"] are fairly difficult to establish" which is a long way from proving that austerity was detrimental to economic growth relative to what was achievable given the fallout from the GFC.rick_chasey said:Well yeah I’m not gonna post partisan stuff that 100% backs me. Might as well write it myself.
Read what they say and put it in the context of the UK and it’s quite clearly a criticism.
Eg from the first article:
However, there are aspects of the neoliberal agenda that have not delivered as expected. Our assessment of the agenda is confined to the effects of two policies: removing restrictions on the movement of capital across a country’s borders (so-called capital account liberalization); and fiscal consolidation, sometimes called “austerity,” which is shorthand for policies to reduce fiscal deficits and debt levels. An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions:
•The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries.
- The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.
-
•Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.
So what did austerity do to inequality? Made it worse obviously
https://www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/04/05/imf-austerity-is-alive-and-impacting-poverty-and-inequality/
"Austerity" certainly failed to achieve the grandiose claims for it made in advance, but that doesn't mean it was automatically detrimental.
Or are you just claiming that "austerity" was bad in terms of increasing inequality? I agree with this, per a comment above.
Ergo, you can do the deduction.
You can’t have them spoon feed it to you. If you want that I can link you to some Oxfam articles but I figured they’d be less credible to you.0 -
But for your claim that austerity was the cause of low growth in the UK to be substantiated (or even able to be substantiated) you need to also have a growth prediction based on the "parallel universe" of the UK in 2010 onwards without austerity but with the ongoing impacts of the GFC against which to compare.rick_chasey said:So that specific article, from an organisation that encourages austerity (context always helpful) says “we can’t establish a “beneficial” link between austerity and *growth* but we do find an correlation between inequality and austerity and an inverse link between growth and inequality.
Likewise, the relationship between inequality and growth needs to be quantified.
0 -
Well to be fair, a paper or two that specifically investigates the impact of growth during the austerity era in the UK relative to alternative approaches would actually be helpful.rick_chasey said:You can’t have them spoon feed it to you.
In the absence of that, I appreciate that you don't want to have to "spoon feed" me, but without wanting to sound immodest, I'm a pretty bright person and can draw my own conclusions without your help, and in respect of the IMF paper, my conclusions were that there's nothing there to specially support your claim. If you want to supply the missing numerical analysis to support your claim, inspired by or based on any of your papers then please do so.
1 -
On the inequality and growth front, it would feel like America has generally better growth but worse inequality than the UK.0
-
I did post plenty of others tbf.wallace_and_gromit said:
Well to be fair, a paper or two that specifically investigates the impact of growth during the austerity era in the UK relative to alternative approaches would actually be helpful.rick_chasey said:You can’t have them spoon feed it to you.
In the absence of that, I appreciate that you don't want to have to "spoon feed" me, but without wanting to sound immodest, I'm a pretty bright person and can draw my own conclusions without your help, and in respect of the IMF paper, my conclusions were that there's nothing there to specially support your claim. If you want to supply the missing numerical analysis to support your claim, inspired by or based on any of your papers then please do so.0 -
The War On Small Boats is going well then, highest number of crossings on a single day so far this year.0
-
You did, but after the crashing disappointment of finding nothing specific to support your case in the first on your list, I decided I'd leave it to you to provide specific extracts and analysis to support your claim.rick_chasey said:
I did post plenty of others tbf.wallace_and_gromit said:
Well to be fair, a paper or two that specifically investigates the impact of growth during the austerity era in the UK relative to alternative approaches would actually be helpful.rick_chasey said:You can’t have them spoon feed it to you.
In the absence of that, I appreciate that you don't want to have to "spoon feed" me, but without wanting to sound immodest, I'm a pretty bright person and can draw my own conclusions without your help, and in respect of the IMF paper, my conclusions were that there's nothing there to specially support your claim. If you want to supply the missing numerical analysis to support your claim, inspired by or based on any of your papers then please do so.1 -
World beating.Pross said:The War On Small Boats is going well then, highest number of crossings on a single day so far this year.
0 -
Should we consider changing the lyrics to Rule Britannia?
Or simply consign it to history?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 -
Ok since you need spoon feeding:wallace_and_gromit said:
You did, but after the crashing disappointment of finding nothing specific to support your case in the first on your list, I decided I'd leave it to you to provide specific extracts and analysis to support your claim.rick_chasey said:
I did post plenty of others tbf.wallace_and_gromit said:
Well to be fair, a paper or two that specifically investigates the impact of growth during the austerity era in the UK relative to alternative approaches would actually be helpful.rick_chasey said:You can’t have them spoon feed it to you.
In the absence of that, I appreciate that you don't want to have to "spoon feed" me, but without wanting to sound immodest, I'm a pretty bright person and can draw my own conclusions without your help, and in respect of the IMF paper, my conclusions were that there's nothing there to specially support your claim. If you want to supply the missing numerical analysis to support your claim, inspired by or based on any of your papers then please do so.
https://progressiveeconomyforum.com/publications/the-macroeconomics-of-austerity/
https://neweconomics.org/2019/02/austerity-hitting-uk-economy-by-almost-100bn-this-year-more-than-3-600-per-household
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/its-official-austerity-economics-doesnt-work
Anyway, I think it makes more sense to look at the studies on austerity en masse as they the. Ignore anachronisms of specific countries.
Which was the one major western economy that didn’t do austerity?
Yes the US.0 -
50 ways to grow the economy.
In the list: joining CPTPP (of course); filling potholes (no really)
Not in the list: building houses.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The great thing is the ones that are good for the environment are more than balanced out by the ones that are terrible for it.rjsterry said:50 ways to grow the economy.
In the list: joining CPTPP (of course); filling potholes (no really)
Not in the list: building houses.0 -
I see also 'cutting taxes for companies that want to invest in the UK' 🤣1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
"Duty on a pint frozen."0
-
The amount of stories of people dying waiting 5+ hrs for ambulances after they call them saying they’ve having a heart attack are really boiling my p!ss now.
0
