25 replies to this topic

[Render]

Quote

Britain’s economy shrank 0.3 per cent in the final quarter of last year, bringing it closer to a possible “triple-dip” recession and piling pressure on the coalition government.
Chancellor George Osborne, whose austerity programme has come under increasing criticism as the economy has faltered, said he would “confront” the UK’s problems and not “run away” in response to the data, which was worse than economists had predicted.

http://www.ft.com/in...144feab49a.html

This was to be expected after the previous quarter.

[Mr Right Wing]

Render, on 25 January 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

http://www.ft.com/in...144feab49a.html

This was to be expected after the previous quarter.

As a Tory I'm saddened to say that even I think Osborne doesnt have a clue what he's doing.

People dont like Hitler (genocide+war) but one thing that is often overlooked about him is that he was great at economics. Why? Because he applied macroeconomic synthesis how its supposed to be applied as determined by economic experts. To kick start growth the chancellor is supposed to -
1. Increase the money supply (This lowers interest rates and has been done correctly with quantitive easing).
2. Reduce Taxes (The Torys have only done this for the rich so this has only half been done. Labour have stated they would raise taxes on high earners indicating they would violate this aspect of macroeconomic synthesis too).
3. Increase Spending (Austerity is completey at odds with this measure. Austerity reduces demand, removes the mulitplier effect and shrinks the economy).

I personally think we should have had no austerity, tax cuts and balanced the books by increasing the birth rate (breed our way out of recession as it increases demand). Osborne is a joke (labour are too) and even the world bank is telling osborne he needs to increase demand which he's ignoring. This Tory supporter is voting UKIP at the next elections.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 25 January 2013 - 01:41 PM.

[questionmark]

Mr Right Wing, on 25 January 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

As a Tory I'm saddened to say that even I think Osborne doesnt have a clue what he's doing.

People dont like Hitler (genocide+war) but one thing that is often overlooked about him is that he was great at economics. Why? Because he applied macroeconomic synthesis how its supposed to be applied as determined by economic experts. To kick start growth the chancellor is supposed to -
1. Increase the money supply (This lowers interest rates and has been done correctly with quantitive easing).
2. Reduce Taxes (The Torys have only done this for the rich so this has only half been done. Labour have stated they would raise taxes on high earners indicating they would violate this aspect of macroeconomic synthesis too).
3. Increase Spending (Austerity is completey at odds with this measure. Austerity reduces demand, removes the mulitplier effect and shrinks the economy).

I personally think we should have had no austerity, tax cuts and balanced the books by increasing the birth rate (breed our way out of recession as it increases demand). Osborne is a joke (labour are too) and even the world bank is telling osborne he needs to increase demand which he's ignoring. This Tory supporter is voting UKIP at the next elections.

Boolcrappy, most Hitler did was to implement the recipes of the former Social-Democrat government and when that ran out of steam he started the war.

[Mr Right Wing]

questionmark, on 25 January 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

Boolcrappy, most Hitler did was to implement the recipes of the former Social-Democrat government and when that ran out of steam he started the war.

In the UK the hysteria towards Hitler clouds peoples judgements. An example was economics experts stating that the Government needed to look at what Hitler did to resolve Germanys economic problems 6 months back. The result was the media had a go at them for daring to mention that Hitler may have done good at something. Unfortunately the media dont run the economy and dont have a clue how too either. The vast majority of the worlds economic experts see Hilter as an economics genius including the grandfather of modern macroeconomics John Keynes. Heres a website - http://www.ihr.org/o...hitler2011.html

It took Hitler just 3 years to take Germany from the harsh economic problems of the Weimar Republic to being one of the worlds most richest nations. How did he do it? He applied John Keynes marcoeconomic synthesis as its supposed to be applied. Something the Conservatives and Labour are completey incapable of doing because the synthesis contains parts at odds with left-wing ideology and parts at odds with right-wing ideology.

Unfortunately most people dont go to uni to study something with economics in, they have no interest in learning about it and as such they are easily played by politicians who realise the public dont have a clue about how economies work.

Finally what Hitler did was he is expanded the public sector. His reasons may have been for the coming war but it works as it kick-starts demand. The tax cuts and quantitive easing were also applied correctly.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 25 January 2013 - 03:45 PM.

[Frank Merton]

Not knowing that much about Britain I can't say if this would work there, but I have a strong bias, when stimulus is needed, in favor of borrowing for public works.

This stimulates the economy.

It provides direct employment and various forms of indirect employment.

It makes the nation more efficient (shorter trips, fewer potholes, etc.)

Future generations pay for it but they also get the benefit of the works.

[questionmark]

Frank Merton, on 25 January 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Not knowing that much about Britain I can't say if this would work there, but I have a strong bias, when stimulus is needed, in favor of borrowing for public works.

This stimulates the economy.

It provides direct employment and various forms of indirect employment.

It makes the nation more efficient (shorter trips, fewer potholes, etc.)

Future generations pay for it but they also get the benefit of the works.

Problem is: been done before, went nowhere.

[stevewinn]

well it looks likely we'll have a triple dip recession, and lose our triple A credit rating, if the two things are to happen its best to happen sooner rather than later. because the impact will be less when we join the likes of France etc... who have had their credit rating downgraded. we'd be lost in the crowd. - lets see what happens first.

[Frank Merton]

questionmark, on 25 January 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

Problem is: been done before, went nowhere.

Well, then it was badly executed or done half-heartedly.

[questionmark]

Frank Merton, on 26 January 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

Well, then it was badly executed or done half-heartedly.

It does not matter how much you invest in infrastructure if you have been systematically been neglecting, and sometimes even destroying, your production capacities. Then there is nothing to gain by having better roads, or water lines or whatever.

Britain's problem is that they went down the cul-de-sac of a services economy.

[Br Cornelius]

questionmark, on 26 January 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

It does not matter how much you invest in infrastructure if you have been systematically been neglecting, and sometimes even destroying, your production capacities. Then there is nothing to gain by having better roads, or water lines or whatever.

Britain's problem is that they went down the cul-de-sac of a services economy.

Not quite - they went down the path of been the tail that the city wags. A disaster for almost all of the rest of the country.
They are so badly tied to the interests of the banking sector that they systematically block any reforms which might help prevent future bubbles. They have become a cancer on the productive capacity of the world.

Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

[Frank Merton]

questionmark, on 26 January 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

It does not matter how much you invest in infrastructure if you have been systematically been neglecting, and sometimes even destroying, your production capacities. Then there is nothing to gain by having better roads, or water lines or whatever.

Well I can think of one thing you gain -- you have better roads and water lines.

Quote

Britain's problem is that they went down the cul-de-sac of a services economy.

As automation spreads everybody will have to do that.  And what is such a dead-end about it?

[TheLastLazyGun]

It looks like it's even more important that the Government continues with the austerity programme.  Painful it may be but necessary to get the economy back on track.

[questionmark]

Frank Merton, on 26 January 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Well I can think of one thing you gain -- you have better roads and water lines.

As automation spreads everybody will have to do that.  And what is such a dead-end about it?

That the services economy is to be compared to a hamburger stand employing a worker to clean its windows who in turn buys his food there. That economy ends as soon as the stand runs out of hamburgers.

Any healthy economy has to produce at least the equivalent in goods of what it consumes. That is the cul-de-sac.

And automation will ultimately lead to a society with a 2 hour work week, because not having people earn money to buy the products those automatons produce the process is self defeating.

[Mr Right Wing]

Frank Merton, on 25 January 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Not knowing that much about Britain I can't say if this would work there, but I have a strong bias, when stimulus is needed, in favor of borrowing for public works.

This stimulates the economy.

It provides direct employment and various forms of indirect employment.

It makes the nation more efficient (shorter trips, fewer potholes, etc.)

Future generations pay for it but they also get the benefit of the works.

I agree.

While to some doing the opposite of austerity and increasing public spending seems like madness you sound like someone else who knows it increases demand which is whats needed. A country is supposed to increase spending during recessions (it increases demand) and reduce it which is practising austerity during booms (it decreases demand).

We are being kept in recession/depression by a government doing the wrong thing and before people say lets vote Labour they have made it clear they will do the wrong thing too. Increasing taxes is just as bad as that also reduces demand.

As I was saying the problem in the UK is political parties being ideological when it comes to our economic problems not giving us what we need. The running of the economy should be taken off them and given over to the economic experts.

questionmark, on 25 January 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

Problem is: been done before, went nowhere.

It hasnt been done.

'Econmic stimulas' means quantitive easing not increasing public spending in real terms.

[questionmark]

Mr Right Wing, on 26 January 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

I agree.

While to some doing the opposite of austerity and increasing public spending seems like madness you sound like someone else who knows it increases demand which is whats needed. A country is supposed to increase spending during recessions (it increases demand) and reduce it which is practising austerity during booms (it decreases demand).

We are being kept in recession/depression by a government doing the wrong thing and before people say lets vote Labour they have made it clear they will do the wrong thing too. Increasing taxes is just as bad as that also reduces demand.

As I was saying the problem in the UK is political parties being ideological when it comes to our economic problems not giving us what we need. The running of the economy should be taken off them and given over to the economic experts.



It hasnt been done.

'Econmic stimulas' means quantitive easing not increasing public spending in real terms.

Has not?

http://news.yahoo.co...4--finance.html
http://www.thetimes....icle3430284.ece
http://www.newstates...-work-programme

The only thing that will get Britain ever out of the hole again is to rebuild its manufacturing... if they can find markets open to Britain.