Macroeconomics, the economy, inflation etc. *likely to be very dull*

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

Right. And the other links and statements? I feel like the level of assertion you need is for you to be taken step-by-step by a trained economist through the numbers, which is a level I cannot attain.

What is it about the economists above that you find unconvincing?

How many of them predicted the financial crisis, Brexit, Covid, Ukraine/Russia?

rick_chasey

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

Right. And the other links and statements? I feel like the level of assertion you need is for you to be taken step-by-step by a trained economist through the numbers, which is a level I cannot attain.

What is it about the economists above that you find unconvincing?

How many of them predicted the financial crisis, Brexit, Covid, Ukraine/Russia?

We're talking about evaluating the past, (where we have evidence) not staring into a crystal ball.

Dorset_Boy

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

And SC, here's the important bit.

adequately timed and appropriately designed fiscal consolidations have a high probability of durably reducing debt ratios.

Gotta time it. I.e. countercyclically.

How the hell do you time it though, was the financial crisis predicted, Brexit, covid?

Yes; no; yes.

And Russia invaded Ukraine 9 years ago. 3 out of 4 were people ignoring what they could see with their own eyes.

Come on though, hindsight again. No experts were calling those events, to say so is fanciful. Also the 0.001% that did (the Micheal Burry's) it's either genius or some censored is going to guess right.

Some of us were discussing Russia in Ukraine during November 2021 (IIRC).

A whole 2-3 months before Putin actually took the plunge. Even a week before the invasion it was not clear whether or not Putin would invade.

And did you discuss the inflationary impact of the invasion?

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

And SC, here's the important bit.

adequately timed and appropriately designed fiscal consolidations have a high probability of durably reducing debt ratios.

Gotta time it. I.e. countercyclically.

How the hell do you time it though, was the financial crisis predicted, Brexit, covid?

Yes; no; yes.

And Russia invaded Ukraine 9 years ago. 3 out of 4 were people ignoring what they could see with their own eyes.

Come on though, hindsight again. No experts were calling those events, to say so is fanciful. Also the 0.001% that did (the Micheal Burry's) it's either genius or some censored is going to guess right.

Some of us were discussing Russia in Ukraine during November 2021 (IIRC).

A whole 2-3 months before Putin actually took the plunge. Even a week before the invasion it was not clear whether or not Putin would invade.

And did you discuss the inflationary impact of the invasion?

Dorset, the shocks that the UK went through ,the rest of the developed world also went through.

So we can sort of cast those aside as causes for the UK's specific woes, right?

Brexit aside, obvs.

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

And SC, here's the important bit.

adequately timed and appropriately designed fiscal consolidations have a high probability of durably reducing debt ratios.

Gotta time it. I.e. countercyclically.

How the hell do you time it though, was the financial crisis predicted, Brexit, covid?

Yes; no; yes.

And Russia invaded Ukraine 9 years ago. 3 out of 4 were people ignoring what they could see with their own eyes.

Come on though, hindsight again. No experts were calling those events, to say so is fanciful. Also the 0.001% that did (the Micheal Burry's) it's either genius or some censored is going to guess right.

Some of us were discussing Russia in Ukraine during November 2021 (IIRC).

A whole 2-3 months before Putin actually took the plunge. Even a week before the invasion it was not clear whether or not Putin would invade.

And did you discuss the inflationary impact of the invasion?

Dorset, the shocks that the UK went through ,the rest of the developed world also went through.

So we can sort of cast those aside as causes for the UK's specific woes, right?

Brexit aside, obvs.

I and others are referring to people's wonderful 20/20 hindsight vision.

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

Right. And the other links and statements? I feel like the level of assertion you need is for you to be taken step-by-step by a trained economist through the numbers, which is a level I cannot attain.

What is it about the economists above that you find unconvincing?

How many of them predicted the financial crisis, Brexit, Covid, Ukraine/Russia?

We're talking about evaluating the past, (where we have evidence) not staring into a crystal ball.

The point is we don't have a time machine and yes you're right we don't have a crystal ball. They get paid for hindsight, good job. Nice and safe that.

kingstongraham

Dorset_Boy said:

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

And SC, here's the important bit.

adequately timed and appropriately designed fiscal consolidations have a high probability of durably reducing debt ratios.

Gotta time it. I.e. countercyclically.

How the hell do you time it though, was the financial crisis predicted, Brexit, covid?

Yes; no; yes.

And Russia invaded Ukraine 9 years ago. 3 out of 4 were people ignoring what they could see with their own eyes.

Come on though, hindsight again. No experts were calling those events, to say so is fanciful. Also the 0.001% that did (the Micheal Burry's) it's either genius or some censored is going to guess right.

Some of us were discussing Russia in Ukraine during November 2021 (IIRC).

A whole 2-3 months before Putin actually took the plunge. Even a week before the invasion it was not clear whether or not Putin would invade.

And did you discuss the inflationary impact of the invasion?

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

And SC, here's the important bit.

adequately timed and appropriately designed fiscal consolidations have a high probability of durably reducing debt ratios.

Gotta time it. I.e. countercyclically.

How the hell do you time it though, was the financial crisis predicted, Brexit, covid?

Yes; no; yes.

And Russia invaded Ukraine 9 years ago. 3 out of 4 were people ignoring what they could see with their own eyes.

Come on though, hindsight again. No experts were calling those events, to say so is fanciful. Also the 0.001% that did (the Micheal Burry's) it's either genius or some censored is going to guess right.

Some of us were discussing Russia in Ukraine during November 2021 (IIRC).

A whole 2-3 months before Putin actually took the plunge. Even a week before the invasion it was not clear whether or not Putin would invade.

And did you discuss the inflationary impact of the invasion?

Dorset, the shocks that the UK went through ,the rest of the developed world also went through.

So we can sort of cast those aside as causes for the UK's specific woes, right?

Brexit aside, obvs.

I and others are referring to people's wonderful 20/20 hindsight vision.

Yeah sure. I am less interested in whether bad things happen. I am more interested in the position an economy is in going into the bad stuff and how they react going out.

FWIW I think the former is too often ignored (i.e. what was the status going into the drama).

focuszing723

It's chaos Rick. The face of looking like it's controllable.

It is fascinating though.

pblakeney

focuszing723 said:

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

And SC, here's the important bit.

adequately timed and appropriately designed fiscal consolidations have a high probability of durably reducing debt ratios.

Gotta time it. I.e. countercyclically.

How the hell do you time it though, was the financial crisis predicted, Brexit, covid?

Yes; no; yes.

And Russia invaded Ukraine 9 years ago. 3 out of 4 were people ignoring what they could see with their own eyes.

Come on though, hindsight again. No experts were calling those events, to say so is fanciful. Also the 0.001% that did (the Micheal Burry's) it's either genius or some censored is going to guess right.

Some of us were discussing Russia in Ukraine during November 2021 (IIRC).

I was, but, and it's a big one. Was it just posturing, the timings, it was all hearsay you wouldn't have put any money on.

I mean, it would have been bloody handy if we could have predicted Covid. It would have saved 500,000,000,000 quid.

That's a lot of growth!

Who knew that a once every 100 years pandemic would happen 100 years after the last one? Certainly not our government who scrapped provisions at circa 95 years. All to save money. 🤣🤬

focuszing723

LONDON, April 11 (Reuters) - The Bank of England will soon add Megan Greene, global chief economist of risk management firm Kroll, to its panel of interest rate-setters, replacing Silvana Tenreyro whose term ends in July, Britain's finance ministry said on Tuesday.

The hiring of Greene, who spoke recently about the need for higher BoE rates, could shift the debate on the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) in a more hawkish direction, with the outgoing Tenreyro talking about rate cuts.

"While we don't know too much about Ms Greene's stance on monetary policy, we can say one thing: it will be hard for anyone to be more dovish than Ms Tenreyro," said HSBC economist Elizabeth Martins.

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/uk-government-names-megan-greene-join-bank-england-rate-committee-2023-04-11/

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

And SC, here's the important bit.

adequately timed and appropriately designed fiscal consolidations have a high probability of durably reducing debt ratios.

Gotta time it. I.e. countercyclically.

How the hell do you time it though, was the financial crisis predicted, Brexit, covid?

It says it in the article. When growth is good, it's a good time to fix the gdp/debt ratio. i.e. countercyclical fiscal policy.

We're not reinventing the wheel here.

The temptation is always to be cyclical, but that just makes it worse.



I see it like this: a decade of falsely focussing on the debt and not growth has now created the conditions that debt is a problem. So the debt people can say "i told you so" but it is a mess of their own creation.

You can’t just u-turn and not expect me to notice, especially when stealing my clothes.

I am pay down when possible so you can borrow when necessary.

You are in favour of borrowing slightly less than growth in good times and spending like a drunken sailor in bad times.

I would be happy to compromise if we agreed on a range on debt-to-GDP ratio a government needs to comply with, if that ratio is arrived at through empirical evidence that over x ratio countries will probably have problems. I'd ideally prefer to focus on % of spending on gov't debt, but that's obviously too far for you as you don't belive that will ever be reign in.

I still maintain our difference of opinion is you just feel any debt is bad, whereas I think it's necessary and that the it is an ingredient to growth, and like all ingredients, too little or too much is bad.

Do you really not get what my opinion is

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

And SC, here's the important bit.

adequately timed and appropriately designed fiscal consolidations have a high probability of durably reducing debt ratios.

Gotta time it. I.e. countercyclically.

How the hell do you time it though, was the financial crisis predicted, Brexit, covid?

It says it in the article. When growth is good, it's a good time to fix the gdp/debt ratio. i.e. countercyclical fiscal policy.

We're not reinventing the wheel here.

The temptation is always to be cyclical, but that just makes it worse.



I see it like this: a decade of falsely focussing on the debt and not growth has now created the conditions that debt is a problem. So the debt people can say "i told you so" but it is a mess of their own creation.

You can’t just u-turn and not expect me to notice, especially when stealing my clothes.

I am pay down when possible so you can borrow when necessary.

You are in favour of borrowing slightly less than growth in good times and spending like a drunken sailor in bad times.

I would be happy to compromise if we agreed on a range on debt-to-GDP ratio a government needs to comply with, if that ratio is arrived at through empirical evidence that over x ratio countries will probably have problems. I'd ideally prefer to focus on % of spending on gov't debt, but that's obviously too far for you as you don't belive that will ever be reign in.

I still maintain our difference of opinion is you just feel any debt is bad, whereas I think it's necessary and that the it is an ingredient to growth, and like all ingredients, too little or too much is bad.

Do you really not get what my opinion is

That politicians can't be trusted? Despite contrary evidence?

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

And SC, here's the important bit.

adequately timed and appropriately designed fiscal consolidations have a high probability of durably reducing debt ratios.

Gotta time it. I.e. countercyclically.

How the hell do you time it though, was the financial crisis predicted, Brexit, covid?

It says it in the article. When growth is good, it's a good time to fix the gdp/debt ratio. i.e. countercyclical fiscal policy.

We're not reinventing the wheel here.

The temptation is always to be cyclical, but that just makes it worse.



I see it like this: a decade of falsely focussing on the debt and not growth has now created the conditions that debt is a problem. So the debt people can say "i told you so" but it is a mess of their own creation.

You can’t just u-turn and not expect me to notice, especially when stealing my clothes.

I am pay down when possible so you can borrow when necessary.

You are in favour of borrowing slightly less than growth in good times and spending like a drunken sailor in bad times.

I would be happy to compromise if we agreed on a range on debt-to-GDP ratio a government needs to comply with, if that ratio is arrived at through empirical evidence that over x ratio countries will probably have problems. I'd ideally prefer to focus on % of spending on gov't debt, but that's obviously too far for you as you don't belive that will ever be reign in.

I still maintain our difference of opinion is you just feel any debt is bad, whereas I think it's necessary and that the it is an ingredient to growth, and like all ingredients, too little or too much is bad.

Do you really not get what my opinion is

That politicians can't be trusted? Despite contrary evidence?

You could exchange politicians for people/humanity there.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

And SC, here's the important bit.

adequately timed and appropriately designed fiscal consolidations have a high probability of durably reducing debt ratios.

Gotta time it. I.e. countercyclically.

How the hell do you time it though, was the financial crisis predicted, Brexit, covid?

It says it in the article. When growth is good, it's a good time to fix the gdp/debt ratio. i.e. countercyclical fiscal policy.

We're not reinventing the wheel here.

The temptation is always to be cyclical, but that just makes it worse.



I see it like this: a decade of falsely focussing on the debt and not growth has now created the conditions that debt is a problem. So the debt people can say "i told you so" but it is a mess of their own creation.

You can’t just u-turn and not expect me to notice, especially when stealing my clothes.

I am pay down when possible so you can borrow when necessary.

You are in favour of borrowing slightly less than growth in good times and spending like a drunken sailor in bad times.

I would be happy to compromise if we agreed on a range on debt-to-GDP ratio a government needs to comply with, if that ratio is arrived at through empirical evidence that over x ratio countries will probably have problems. I'd ideally prefer to focus on % of spending on gov't debt, but that's obviously too far for you as you don't belive that will ever be reign in.

I still maintain our difference of opinion is you just feel any debt is bad, whereas I think it's necessary and that the it is an ingredient to growth, and like all ingredients, too little or too much is bad.

Do you really not get what my opinion is

That politicians can't be trusted? Despite contrary evidence?

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

And SC, here's the important bit.

adequately timed and appropriately designed fiscal consolidations have a high probability of durably reducing debt ratios.

Gotta time it. I.e. countercyclically.

How the hell do you time it though, was the financial crisis predicted, Brexit, covid?

It says it in the article. When growth is good, it's a good time to fix the gdp/debt ratio. i.e. countercyclical fiscal policy.

We're not reinventing the wheel here.

The temptation is always to be cyclical, but that just makes it worse.



I see it like this: a decade of falsely focussing on the debt and not growth has now created the conditions that debt is a problem. So the debt people can say "i told you so" but it is a mess of their own creation.

You can’t just u-turn and not expect me to notice, especially when stealing my clothes.

I am pay down when possible so you can borrow when necessary.

You are in favour of borrowing slightly less than growth in good times and spending like a drunken sailor in bad times.

I would be happy to compromise if we agreed on a range on debt-to-GDP ratio a government needs to comply with, if that ratio is arrived at through empirical evidence that over x ratio countries will probably have problems. I'd ideally prefer to focus on % of spending on gov't debt, but that's obviously too far for you as you don't belive that will ever be reign in.

I still maintain our difference of opinion is you just feel any debt is bad, whereas I think it's necessary and that the it is an ingredient to growth, and like all ingredients, too little or too much is bad.

Do you really not get what my opinion is

That politicians can't be trusted? Despite contrary evidence?

Dig out your populist hobby horse. No politician will borrow less than the maximum they can get away with

rjsterry

focuszing723 said:

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

And SC, here's the important bit.

adequately timed and appropriately designed fiscal consolidations have a high probability of durably reducing debt ratios.

Gotta time it. I.e. countercyclically.

How the hell do you time it though, was the financial crisis predicted, Brexit, covid?

Yes; no; yes.

And Russia invaded Ukraine 9 years ago. 3 out of 4 were people ignoring what they could see with their own eyes.

Come on though, hindsight again. No experts were calling those events, to say so is fanciful. Also the 0.001% that did (the Micheal Burry's) it's either genius or some censored is going to guess right.

Some of us were discussing Russia in Ukraine during November 2021 (IIRC).

I was, but, and it's a big one. Was it just posturing, the timings, it was all hearsay you wouldn't have put any money on.

I mean, it would have been bloody handy if we could have predicted Covid. It would have saved 500,000,000,000 quid.

That's a lot of growth!

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
Knowing that pandemics will come along fairly regularly doesn't make them have zero impact. We could have planned better so that we didn't just throw money at anyone who said they could source some PPE from a mate, but it is always going to be an expensive thing to deal with.

For someone that keeps banging the drum about long term trends you seem to have a lot of difficulty grasping that there will probably be another major conflict or potential pandemic every decade or so.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

Dig out your populist hobby horse. No politician will borrow less than the maximum they can get away with

We're literally discussing whether the Tories cut spending *too much* post GFC.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Dig out your populist hobby horse. No politician will borrow less than the maximum they can get away with

We're literally discussing whether the Tories cut spending *too much* post GFC.

And they did not do a proper job (see Ireland) because they wanted to get re-elected...so they borrowed the maximum they could get away with

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Dig out your populist hobby horse. No politician will borrow less than the maximum they can get away with

We're literally discussing whether the Tories cut spending *too much* post GFC.

The global financial crisis (GFC) refers to the period of extreme stress in global financial markets and banking systems between mid 2007 and early 2009.

Ummm, hang on, your mate Clegg served as Deputy PM from 2010-2015.

Thoughts?

focuszing723

You know, Nick Clegg the Liberal.

focuszing723

Liberal Democrat, pro potheads and all that.

focuszing723

Why don't you have a crack at the Liberals for austerity too?

focuszing723

The United Kingdom government austerity programme is a fiscal policy that was adopted for a period in the early 21st century following the Great Recession. The term was used by the Coalition and Conservative governments in office from 2010 to 2019, and again during the 2021-present cost of living crisis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme#:~:text=The United Kingdom government austerity,present cost of living crisis.

focuszing723

Nick Clegg has persuaded his party to stick to the path of austerity after promising he would argue for higher taxes on the rich and reject Conservative plans for spending cuts going into the next election.

The deputy prime minister won a controversial motion saying the Liberal Democrats were right to sign up to reduce the deficit through cuts to public spending.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/16/nick-clegg-lib-dems-austerity

focuszing723

So, at the time I guess you were all for austerity. It's just you've changed your mind now with hindsight.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

Right. And the other links and statements? I feel like the level of assertion you need is for you to be taken step-by-step by a trained economist through the numbers, which is a level I cannot attain.

What is it about the economists above that you find unconvincing?

I guess it's not the economists that are always unconvincing. It's that the economists' reports generally don't address the specific point you claim.

e.g. the Krugman link disses austerity on the grounds that it wasn't necessary to avoid the fate of Greece i.e. running out of money, as the UK could simply print what it needed.

And of the links you provided before Easter - I will try and find it - justifies it's claim that austerity trashed the UK economy via a link to an article that investigated a totally different topic.

But sometimes they are simply unconvincing e.g. the IMF study from 2012 that relates growth to fiscal policy, ignoring the differential impact of the banking crisis, which in the years 2008-2012 was a huge factor in economic performance.

focuszing723

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9Ty-tbv4YQ

rick_chasey

Tbh I was posting on here then so you can look for yourself.

I like to think I’ve been consistent,

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

Tbh I was posting on here then so you can look for yourself.

I like to think I’ve been consistent,

You supported Clegg though? and by proxy austerity.

Did you ever denounce that stance by Clegg and Liberal Democrats?

You only seem to attribute austerity with the Tories. It also proves that the decision wasn't easy and given the context at the time austerity was deemed necessary by the experts.

I do think that sometimes, history is great, but it's difficult to bring context to the situation at the time. I keep coming back to "easy with hindsight".

I don't know, interesting.

focuszing723

Hmmm, yeah. I think I've outstayed my welcome for a couple of days.