FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Economics

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

In the Current Economic climate and recession, should Government apply Keynesian Economics or 'Hayek's' free market economics, because the little bit of both just inst working out ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can you ask me one on sport ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"In the Current Economic climate and recession, should Government apply Keynesian Economics or 'Hayek's' free market economics, because the little bit of both just inst working out ? "
Agree completely, Keynesian is the way forward in my opinion

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"In the Current Economic climate and recession, should Government apply Keynesian Economics or 'Hayek's' free market economics, because the little bit of both just inst working out ? "
It has to be both. The multiplier effect will come about by targeted goverment spending. Incentives has to be given to start up businesses so they take on staff. The blind mantra being followed at the moment of cutting spending to a point where we are potentially entering a triple dip recession is not working.

Targets for spending cuts to balance the books;

Trident.

Early withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Complete review of universal benefits. I read this morning that Wills and Kate will be entitled to Child Benefit.

2% rise in income tax on those earning £100k or more per annum.

We have to look at both!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Waw people actually replied,,,,,,,I'm not feeling these welfare reforms, but agree that the rich should be taxed and 'trickle down theory' of leaving out on taxing the rich in the idea they spend more to serve the poor just does not happen.

Keynesian ! or as they now call it 'quantative easing' as the only way to get money moving is to spend spend spend- particularly on housing - what got us in this mess !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Erm, i'll have a p please bob!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *H.coupleCouple
over a year ago

Edinburgh

no idea what either of them are.

Which one gives me more money? i'll have that one

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes the rich should be taxed but ! I'm never comfortable with this concept that they should be hammered for everything. Many have worked hard to get where they are as opposed to coasting and demanding. Is their reward simply paying to those who can't be bothered ? Keep it proportionate and fair for all, not just those who are unhappy with their lot ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"no idea what either of them are.

Which one gives me more money? i'll have that one "

Keynesian would create more jobs, place the deficit higher but on return in taxes from the mass employment created offer the opportunity to pay it off- its been proven by the Hoover dam project "Keynesion"......so that would put more money our way - Aww this is one RISKY comment lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *H.coupleCouple
over a year ago

Edinburgh


"no idea what either of them are.

Which one gives me more money? i'll have that one

Keynesian would create more jobs, place the deficit higher but on return in taxes from the mass employment created offer the opportunity to pay it off- its been proven by the Hoover dam project "Keynesion"......so that would put more money our way - Aww this is one RISKY comment lol"

based on that id go kenyasion

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Yes the rich should be taxed but ! I'm never comfortable with this concept that they should be hammered for everything. Many have worked hard to get where they are as opposed to coasting and demanding. Is their reward simply paying to those who can't be bothered ? Keep it proportionate and fair for all, not just those who are unhappy with their lot ? "

Im all for Meritocracy and if we want to play it proportionate shoulnt the rich pay the same percentage of earnings as the working poor ? (Proportionate)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes the rich should be taxed but ! I'm never comfortable with this concept that they should be hammered for everything. Many have worked hard to get where they are as opposed to coasting and demanding. Is their reward simply paying to those who can't be bothered ? Keep it proportionate and fair for all, not just those who are unhappy with their lot ?

Im all for Meritocracy and if we want to play it proportionate shoulnt the rich pay the same percentage of earnings as the working poor ? (Proportionate)"

proportionate to their efforts not capital wealth. No I'm not rich either....just understand that we will all have different standards of life and pointing at others isn't always the answer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The way forward is to get shot of Gideon (the towel folding king!) Osborne. Then just have a bit common sense from someone who understands how business works, having actually run one themselves.

Oh, hang on..... none of 'this lot' ever have, have they.

Oh bollocks - another cunning plan ruined.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Whatever system that is able to most effectively convince people of the lies that money has any worth despite that we all know it's impossible for the debts to ever be repaid will win.

Basically the biggest bullshitter will save us all - and we'll be grateful when they do.. until the next reality check.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well I'm currently experiencing my very own double double big dipper recession. Have no clue about the things of which you speak of.

But I really hate being skint, anything that will ease my current situation sounds great.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Yes the rich should be taxed but ! I'm never comfortable with this concept that they should be hammered for everything. Many have worked hard to get where they are as opposed to coasting and demanding. Is their reward simply paying to those who can't be bothered ? Keep it proportionate and fair for all, not just those who are unhappy with their lot ?

Im all for Meritocracy and if we want to play it proportionate shoulnt the rich pay the same percentage of earnings as the working poor ? (Proportionate)

proportionate to their efforts not capital wealth. No I'm not rich either....just understand that we will all have different standards of life and pointing at others isn't always the answer. "

If the working poor have to pay a proportionate rate of capital for their 'Efforts; why shouldn't us rich ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Correction- THE rich lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 26/03/13 20:09:35]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

both out dated. we tend to rely on classics but they are not always the answer. A theory is just that. this is global and we need to start thinking along those lines. cutting universal benefits at the same time as cutting the average wage is a recipe for disaster when inflation is rising. it needs to be re-thought and an alternative found.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"both out dated. we tend to rely on classics but they are not always the answer. A theory is just that. this is global and we need to start thinking along those lines. cutting universal benefits at the same time as cutting the average wage is a recipe for disaster when inflation is rising. it needs to be re-thought and an alternative found. "

True except its not just an economic rethink that's needed but a social one too. The more affluent and more pleasant societies have different work ethics and social practices...Canada....very succesful and pleasant follows the work hard or don't benefitethic ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Correction- THE rich lol"

Freudian slip my friend

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

errrrrrrrrrrrrr after a full and long thought out muse over this I have decided ...........................

can I pass please?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"both out dated. we tend to rely on classics but they are not always the answer. A theory is just that. this is global and we need to start thinking along those lines. cutting universal benefits at the same time as cutting the average wage is a recipe for disaster when inflation is rising. it needs to be re-thought and an alternative found. "
I said a overhaul of universal benefits. All benefits should be assigned on need. I rather doubt the Duke of Edinburgh needs a winter fuel allowance or a bus pass.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"both out dated. we tend to rely on classics but they are not always the answer. A theory is just that. this is global and we need to start thinking along those lines. cutting universal benefits at the same time as cutting the average wage is a recipe for disaster when inflation is rising. it needs to be re-thought and an alternative found.

True except its not just an economic rethink that's needed but a social one too. The more affluent and more pleasant societies have different work ethics and social practices...Canada....very succesful and pleasant follows the work hard or don't benefitethic ? "
Good point well made! Denmark is closer to home and their model works very well. That said there is only 6m of them......like Manchester only a country!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he Happy ManMan
over a year ago

Merseyside

It doesn't matter economics are tried. the world economy is is on it's knees. It's is not a case of if it collapses but when it collapses.

Cyprus is showing you the cracks.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"both out dated. we tend to rely on classics but they are not always the answer. A theory is just that. this is global and we need to start thinking along those lines. cutting universal benefits at the same time as cutting the average wage is a recipe for disaster when inflation is rising. it needs to be re-thought and an alternative found.

True except its not just an economic rethink that's needed but a social one too. The more affluent and more pleasant societies have different work ethics and social practices...Canada....very succesful and pleasant follows the work hard or don't benefitethic ? Good point well made! Denmark is closer to home and their model works very well. That said there is only 6m of them......like Manchester only a country!"

Denmark like Manchester mmmm lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"both out dated. we tend to rely on classics but they are not always the answer. A theory is just that. this is global and we need to start thinking along those lines. cutting universal benefits at the same time as cutting the average wage is a recipe for disaster when inflation is rising. it needs to be re-thought and an alternative found.

True except its not just an economic rethink that's needed but a social one too. The more affluent and more pleasant societies have different work ethics and social practices...Canada....very succesful and pleasant follows the work hard or don't benefitethic ? Good point well made! Denmark is closer to home and their model works very well. That said there is only 6m of them......like Manchester only a country!

Denmark like Manchester mmmm lol "

Interesting you state Denmark as a model and talk of it as if it applies means tested benefits- NOT THE CASE- Denamark has a less residualised welfare system that applies a more universal wlefare system- a country in which welfare is not seen as a shameful claim, or stigmatised- you pay in to private health care and all the rest like stamp duty so people get in uneployment at a rate they payed in- for the rest of the unfortunate unemployed Denmark pays better welfare than the U.K so yes,,,,there is a case for arguing Denmark as model- in this context.

By applying means tested benefits across the board we create ghettos for the poor where social housing is ALL but communities of the destitute, crime rates rocket and black market economies flourish, the truth is economic problems lead to social problems- with poverty comes ill health and reduced life chances etc, So movement to a more Corporatist model- shoulnt be a good idea.

There simply are not enough Jobs for all to work, hence the argument for Keynesian....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"both out dated. we tend to rely on classics but they are not always the answer. A theory is just that. this is global and we need to start thinking along those lines. cutting universal benefits at the same time as cutting the average wage is a recipe for disaster when inflation is rising. it needs to be re-thought and an alternative found.

True except its not just an economic rethink that's needed but a social one too. The more affluent and more pleasant societies have different work ethics and social practices...Canada....very succesful and pleasant follows the work hard or don't benefitethic ? Good point well made! Denmark is closer to home and their model works very well. That said there is only 6m of them......like Manchester only a country!"

Both outdated ???? - would you like to share the more modern thinkers ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackboaWoman
over a year ago

greenock

......can i phone a friend?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well no 'thinkers' modern or old appear to have a solution. And people can talk bollocks about justifying making up 'money' to 'stimulate' 'confidence' for as long as they like, but bollocks it will remain.

If somebody could think about a system that rewards genuine contribution to society rather than rewarding greed - or as has happened recently, rewarding parasites who promise wealth to others, that would be a start.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Well no 'thinkers' modern or old appear to have a solution. And people can talk bollocks about justifying making up 'money' to 'stimulate' 'confidence' for as long as they like, but bollocks it will remain.

If somebody could think about a system that rewards genuine contribution to society rather than rewarding greed - or as has happened recently, rewarding parasites who promise wealth to others, that would be a start."

So its all bollox and you having nothing much more to say- I do agree with you on heard mentality though (Marx said it) ;p

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Well no 'thinkers' modern or old appear to have a solution. And people can talk bollocks about justifying making up 'money' to 'stimulate' 'confidence' for as long as they like, but bollocks it will remain.

If somebody could think about a system that rewards genuine contribution to society rather than rewarding greed - or as has happened recently, rewarding parasites who promise wealth to others, that would be a start."

Actually the Keynesian model does have the answers in my own humble opinion, but no Government has the bollocks to risk its testing, they just dip in their toes with little Keynesian tacktics when the shit hits the fan and they have no clue how to fix things- Like bailing out Banks, which as much as we all despise- saved a Global Meltdown far worse than we are in now and saved millions their savings too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Well no 'thinkers' modern or old appear to have a solution. And people can talk bollocks about justifying making up 'money' to 'stimulate' 'confidence' for as long as they like, but bollocks it will remain.

If somebody could think about a system that rewards genuine contribution to society rather than rewarding greed - or as has happened recently, rewarding parasites who promise wealth to others, that would be a start.

So its all bollox and you having nothing much more to say- I do agree with you on heard mentality though (Marx said it) ;p"

Who said I have nothing more to say? Go and have a think about what I suggested, and stray from the herd you don't seem to realise you're in with the ludicrous suggestion that inventing money is a long term solution to repaying debts based on a system of credit that cannot ever be repaid.. and then I'm sure I'll have plenty to say

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Well no 'thinkers' modern or old appear to have a solution. And people can talk bollocks about justifying making up 'money' to 'stimulate' 'confidence' for as long as they like, but bollocks it will remain.

If somebody could think about a system that rewards genuine contribution to society rather than rewarding greed - or as has happened recently, rewarding parasites who promise wealth to others, that would be a start.

So its all bollox and you having nothing much more to say- I do agree with you on heard mentality though (Marx said it) ;p

Who said I have nothing more to say? Go and have a think about what I suggested, and stray from the herd you don't seem to realise you're in with the ludicrous suggestion that inventing money is a long term solution to repaying debts based on a system of credit that cannot ever be repaid.. and then I'm sure I'll have plenty to say "

"Inventing Money" you clearly misunderstand the concepts of Keynesian Economics, inventing and printing money willy nilly is far from it - that happened during inflation in Germany and I am not part of the heard- get informed before making comments if your unsure what this thread speaks of (Playfully said)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Out of necessity comes new ideas and collective will. There is far too much emphasis on globalisation and theories. Let's start with communities and the new entrepreneurs. Let's incentivise those who are willing to take a risk and set up a business that meets a local demand and provides local jobs. Encourage the people who start these new businesses with grants and subsidies and tax breaks. Let these new businesses grow and prosper. Install a progressive tax scheme that incentivises people to employ others but also to treat them well and fairly and create an environment where people want to and can work rather than rely on a divisive and outdated welfare system. See the tax on the profits generated by these local companies be demonstrably used to improve the local environment and create a sense of collective pride and satisfaction and these new businesses will prosper and grow.

Is it likely to happen? Considering the govt is totally blinkered and on a single track to God knows where and the opposition is responsible for having caused the mess and appears to have no credible alternative to the govt policy, I suspect not.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Out of necessity comes new ideas and collective will. There is far too much emphasis on globalisation and theories. Let's start with communities and the new entrepreneurs. Let's incentivise those who are willing to take a risk and set up a business that meets a local demand and provides local jobs. Encourage the people who start these new businesses with grants and subsidies and tax breaks. Let these new businesses grow and prosper. Install a progressive tax scheme that incentivises people to employ others but also to treat them well and fairly and create an environment where people want to and can work rather than rely on a divisive and outdated welfare system. See the tax on the profits generated by these local companies be demonstrably used to improve the local environment and create a sense of collective pride and satisfaction and these new businesses will prosper and grow.

Is it likely to happen? Considering the govt is totally blinkered and on a single track to God knows where and the opposition is responsible for having caused the mess and appears to have no credible alternative to the govt policy, I suspect not.

"
Interestingly the first sentence block of this thread is KEYNESIAN ! lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


".........and the opposition is responsible for having caused the mess and appears to have no credible alternative to the govt policy, I suspect not.

"

That's to swallow wholesale the myth put about by the Tories.

Had the Labour government not acted, and been able to act, as they did, the UK would have been in the same mess as Cyprus is now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Out of necessity comes new ideas and collective will. There is far too much emphasis on globalisation and theories. Let's start with communities and the new entrepreneurs. Let's incentivise those who are willing to take a risk and set up a business that meets a local demand and provides local jobs. Encourage the people who start these new businesses with grants and subsidies and tax breaks. Let these new businesses grow and prosper. Install a progressive tax scheme that incentivises people to employ others but also to treat them well and fairly and create an environment where people want to and can work rather than rely on a divisive and outdated welfare system. See the tax on the profits generated by these local companies be demonstrably used to improve the local environment and create a sense of collective pride and satisfaction and these new businesses will prosper and grow.

Is it likely to happen? Considering the govt is totally blinkered and on a single track to God knows where and the opposition is responsible for having caused the mess and appears to have no credible alternative to the govt policy, I suspect not.

Interestingly the first sentence block of this thread is KEYNESIAN ! lol"

True to a certain extent, what I would advocate is a soft touch from policy makers to incentivise the private sector. But more importantly for me is to try and bring capital and labour together. The disparity that exists in far too many companies today between say the CEO and the lowest paid worker in that company can only create an environment where that company is not achieving it's full potential. Get everyone alligned, provide tax breaks for share ownership etc and I am sure you will see a dramatic improvement in both our economy and society.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


".........and the opposition is responsible for having caused the mess and appears to have no credible alternative to the govt policy, I suspect not.

That's to swallow wholesale the myth put about by the Tories.

Had the Labour government not acted, and been able to act, as they did, the UK would have been in the same mess as Cyprus is now."

The labour govt did respond well to the financial crisis, history will view Alastair Darling in a positive light I am sure. But the growth of the state under labour was enormous thus helping to create a structural deficit in the economy which required significant state borrowing and will take decades to unwind.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *wingsnroundaboutsCouple
over a year ago

Manchester

I (Mr) am a higher rate taxpayer. I think income tax should be set at 45% (earnings over 50k) rising to 49% (over 150k) on some kind of sliding scale for amounts in between.

The idea that wealthy people will spend more on stuff if they pay less income tax is bollocks. Weather I paid 40% or 50%, I'd still buy exactly the same stuff regardless. This 45% rate that is coming into effect won't make me spend any more or any less on anything, weather it be my choice of car, or my choice of chocolate bar.

Economics provides a very useful form of employment for economists - that's about it!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago

Paisley

Wont't matter, if Scotland votes YES in the referendum we will be subjected to Salmondism economics where everything is rosy and we will miraculously be able to pay for everything.

Unfortunately like everything else it won't be thought through properly and figures will be fudged. A bit like the difference between inches and centimetres when it comes to measuring cocks or cock ups as it will be in his case.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Well no 'thinkers' modern or old appear to have a solution. And people can talk bollocks about justifying making up 'money' to 'stimulate' 'confidence' for as long as they like, but bollocks it will remain.

If somebody could think about a system that rewards genuine contribution to society rather than rewarding greed - or as has happened recently, rewarding parasites who promise wealth to others, that would be a start.

So its all bollox and you having nothing much more to say- I do agree with you on heard mentality though (Marx said it) ;p

Who said I have nothing more to say? Go and have a think about what I suggested, and stray from the herd you don't seem to realise you're in with the ludicrous suggestion that inventing money is a long term solution to repaying debts based on a system of credit that cannot ever be repaid.. and then I'm sure I'll have plenty to say

"Inventing Money" you clearly misunderstand the concepts of Keynesian Economics, inventing and printing money willy nilly is far from it - that happened during inflation in Germany and I am not part of the heard- get informed before making comments if your unsure what this thread speaks of (Playfully said) "

I think I understand it pretty well, and my previous comments expressed my thoughts on it, but you seem to have ignored those.

Running the race in a different coloured shirt is still running the race.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Must......resist.......the........urge.......to.......post........

Don't.........want.......another.......block........

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Economics provides a very useful form of employment for economists - that's about it! "

Nailed it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oxoxoWoman
over a year ago

london

...what they said.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Well no 'thinkers' modern or old appear to have a solution. And people can talk bollocks about justifying making up 'money' to 'stimulate' 'confidence' for as long as they like, but bollocks it will remain.

If somebody could think about a system that rewards genuine contribution to society rather than rewarding greed - or as has happened recently, rewarding parasites who promise wealth to others, that would be a start.

So its all bollox and you having nothing much more to say- I do agree with you on heard mentality though (Marx said it) ;p

Who said I have nothing more to say? Go and have a think about what I suggested, and stray from the herd you don't seem to realise you're in with the ludicrous suggestion that inventing money is a long term solution to repaying debts based on a system of credit that cannot ever be repaid.. and then I'm sure I'll have plenty to say

"Inventing Money" you clearly misunderstand the concepts of Keynesian Economics, inventing and printing money willy nilly is far from it - that happened during inflation in Germany and I am not part of the heard- get informed before making comments if your unsure what this thread speaks of (Playfully said)

I think I understand it pretty well, and my previous comments expressed my thoughts on it, but you seem to have ignored those.

Running the race in a different coloured shirt is still running the race."

But you think Keynesian Economics is about inventing money "Your words?"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Well no 'thinkers' modern or old appear to have a solution. And people can talk bollocks about justifying making up 'money' to 'stimulate' 'confidence' for as long as they like, but bollocks it will remain.

If somebody could think about a system that rewards genuine contribution to society rather than rewarding greed - or as has happened recently, rewarding parasites who promise wealth to others, that would be a start."

And I am really not against you and really agree with your second sentence above- so we are to each other- preaching to the converted- Capitalism stinks- filled with "Fatal flaws" and as predicted by Marx, can only lead to Global Economic meltdown, though we are not quite there yet - Keynesian, the only possible life line- is my own humble opinion as a student of economics

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

From this thread I have learned that talking money and politics seems to get folk, Frustrated and all hot and bothered and for all the wrong reasons?!

We are merely plebs to the politicians and bureaucrats that run our nation.

You can bicker amongst yourselves forever, sadly it will change nothing?!

As they say the best things in life are free, and as yet they can't make us pay for that. So for that reason alone I think we should all have sex and think of the money we are saving whilst doing it?! Lol.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Well no 'thinkers' modern or old appear to have a solution. And people can talk bollocks about justifying making up 'money' to 'stimulate' 'confidence' for as long as they like, but bollocks it will remain.

If somebody could think about a system that rewards genuine contribution to society rather than rewarding greed - or as has happened recently, rewarding parasites who promise wealth to others, that would be a start.

And I am really not against you and really agree with your second sentence above- so we are to each other- preaching to the converted- Capitalism stinks- filled with "Fatal flaws" and as predicted by Marx, can only lead to Global Economic meltdown, though we are not quite there yet - Keynesian, the only possible life line- is my own humble opinion as a student of economics"

To all but politicians, bankers and economists, QE is inventing money. Disguised, fancifully named, but bottom line - made up, manufactured money - or as described on Wikipedia 'with QE, the central bank is creating money to stimulate the economy'.

It needs something radically different, but it won't come from this country or any of the wealthiest. There are too many invested interests - and much as I don't agree with the system, I recognise we're screwed without it... which was my first point - it's all about whoever dishes out the best bullshit, because we all want to believe it in the end.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Quantitative easing isn't about inventing money, that happened about 3000 years ago, first we didn't have money, then someone invented it.

What you mean is that QE is creating money, and it used to be called devaluation......

Keynes economic system works by manipulating demand and so you can employ 10 people to dig big holes all day and then employ another 10 to fill in the holes the first lot dug yesterday. It creates employment which means those 20 people go and spend that money and also demand for spades and shovels. It works well I'm a recession by limiting the depth of the recession. It does create debt on the govt part but the 2nd part of the plan is that when the economy is booming you raise taxes to pay bwack the borrowing. That's never mentioned and, to be honest, no govt ever raises taxes in a boom as they would get terrible press.

Hyak is often called a monetarist or supply side economist because his theories define the flow or supply of money in an economy to be key and it's not really relevant to this argument as it's really a theory on how to combat high inflation.....

The argument going on at the moment is between Keynesians and economists of the Austrian school (,who argue that government is the problem by sucking money out of the economy)

I'm a Keynesian because I feel that the private sector doesn't have the incentive or means to generate confidence during a recession, to do so on an individual basis is commercial suicide so logic dictates that the worse the economy the less businesses spend, ipso facto the deeper and steeper the.spiral......governments are the only power with the ability to spend heavily in a recession.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *essex1Man
over a year ago

Falmouth

Keynes is the way forward.

Also cut the benefits dramatically.

Cut income tax and corporate tax

Reduce the minimum wage.

Stop funding failure and make the banks make their own changes due to pressure from investors. Force them to be more transparent to the public rather than make them jump through hoops.

Reduce the power of trade unions

Open the market and let the money flood in!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *essex1Man
over a year ago

Falmouth

Still need to get back to the Economics dissertation

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Quantitative easing isn't about inventing money, that happened about 3000 years ago, first we didn't have money, then someone invented it.

What you mean is that QE is creating money, and it used to be called devaluation......

Keynes economic system works by manipulating demand and so you can employ 10 people to dig big holes all day and then employ another 10 to fill in the holes the first lot dug yesterday. It creates employment which means those 20 people go and spend that money and also demand for spades and shovels. It works well I'm a recession by limiting the depth of the recession. It does create debt on the govt part but the 2nd part of the plan is that when the economy is booming you raise taxes to pay bwack the borrowing. That's never mentioned and, to be honest, no govt ever raises taxes in a boom as they would get terrible press.

Hyak is often called a monetarist or supply side economist because his theories define the flow or supply of money in an economy to be key and it's not really relevant to this argument as it's really a theory on how to combat high inflation.....

The argument going on at the moment is between Keynesians and economists of the Austrian school (,who argue that government is the problem by sucking money out of the economy)

I'm a Keynesian because I feel that the private sector doesn't have the incentive or means to generate confidence during a recession, to do so on an individual basis is commercial suicide so logic dictates that the worse the economy the less businesses spend, ipso facto the deeper and steeper the.spiral......governments are the only power with the ability to spend heavily in a recession."

My apologies - 'creating' money is what I'd meant. Strange how the use if that word sounds that bit more legitimate, a little like creating profit - and yet actually it was 'created' from nothing but playing with words and numbers in the hope of building 'confidence'... to not much success apparently.

If the employment theory works - why hasn't this been the case while employment has apparently increased?

I'm guessing a lot of it's to do with people repaying their personal debts - and what happens to that money when they repay it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Quantitative easing isn't about inventing money, that happened about 3000 years ago, first we didn't have money, then someone invented it.

What you mean is that QE is creating money, and it used to be called devaluation......

Keynes economic system works by manipulating demand and so you can employ 10 people to dig big holes all day and then employ another 10 to fill in the holes the first lot dug yesterday. It creates employment which means those 20 people go and spend that money and also demand for spades and shovels. It works well I'm a recession by limiting the depth of the recession. It does create debt on the govt part but the 2nd part of the plan is that when the economy is booming you raise taxes to pay bwack the borrowing. That's never mentioned and, to be honest, no govt ever raises taxes in a boom as they would get terrible press.

Hyak is often called a monetarist or supply side economist because his theories define the flow or supply of money in an economy to be key and it's not really relevant to this argument as it's really a theory on how to combat high inflation.....

The argument going on at the moment is between Keynesians and economists of the Austrian school (,who argue that government is the problem by sucking money out of the economy)

I'm a Keynesian because I feel that the private sector doesn't have the incentive or means to generate confidence during a recession, to do so on an individual basis is commercial suicide so logic dictates that the worse the economy the less businesses spend, ipso facto the deeper and steeper the.spiral......governments are the only power with the ability to spend heavily in a recession."

Your view of the Keynesian model is outdated. If applied properly on supply chain projects the multiplier will actually produce income (via tax) for the goverment. The externalities that flow from targeted spending cannot be readily measured but near full employment reduces crime........we have the money its just not in some politicians interest to spend it on improving social housing or flood defence systems, weapons and defence products however make a lot of money for a few people.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Keynes is the way forward.

Also cut the benefits dramatically.

Cut income tax and corporate tax

Reduce the minimum wage.

Stop funding failure and make the banks make their own changes due to pressure from investors. Force them to be more transparent to the public rather than make them jump through hoops.

Reduce the power of trade unions

Open the market and let the money flood in!!!!"

Maggie? Are you masquerading as a single man again!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Well no 'thinkers' modern or old appear to have a solution. And people can talk bollocks about justifying making up 'money' to 'stimulate' 'confidence' for as long as they like, but bollocks it will remain.

If somebody could think about a system that rewards genuine contribution to society rather than rewarding greed - or as has happened recently, rewarding parasites who promise wealth to others, that would be a start.

Actually the Keynesian model does have the answers in my own humble opinion, but no Government has the bollocks to risk its testing, they just dip in their toes with little Keynesian tacktics when the shit hits the fan and they have no clue how to fix things- Like bailing out Banks, which as much as we all despise- saved a Global Meltdown far worse than we are in now and saved millions their savings too."

Keynesian economics worked for the worse depression the world has seen, the facts are there for all to see. Whether you like him or not Brown saved this country from a far worse mess by spending as he did. Before anybody bangs on, prior to the US banking fiasco this country had the 2nd lowest deficit in the world.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *essex1Man
over a year ago

Falmouth

pretty much!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"Yes the rich should be taxed but ! I'm never comfortable with this concept that they should be hammered for everything. Many have worked hard to get where they are as opposed to coasting and demanding. Is their reward simply paying to those who can't be bothered ? Keep it proportionate and fair for all, not just those who are unhappy with their lot ? "

^^^^This gets my vote!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Confession time...Im in the middle of an essay for John Maynard Keynes model vrs Hayek free market econonomics, hence this thread, so for all your comments CHEERS- How to make fab work for you...........incidently my conclusion is to free up greenfield sites of land and get Gov investing in mass building of housing both affordable and social, through RSLs, build roads, parks, community centres, knock down and rebuild any derelict housing, but a first kickstart for our economy - give every person one hundred pounds on the agreement they go out and spend it.........yes all on the deficit, which in theory will come back tenfold through the income tax generated, end trickle down theory, build build build..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Wont't matter, if Scotland votes YES in the referendum we will be subjected to Salmondism economics where everything is rosy and we will miraculously be able to pay for everything.

Unfortunately like n it won't be thought through properly and figures will be fudged. A bit like the difference between inches and centimetres when it comes to measuring cocks or cock ups as it will be in his case."

Could you please elaborate you perspective on salmondism ???

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Confession time...Im in the middle of an essay for John Maynard Keynes model vrs Hayek free market econonomics, hence this thread, so for all your comments CHEERS- How to make fab work for you...........incidently my conclusion is to free up greenfield sites of land and get Gov investing in mass building of housing both affordable and social, through RSLs, build roads, parks, community centres, knock down and rebuild any derelict housing, but a first kickstart for our economy - give every person one hundred pounds on the agreement they go out and spend it.........yes all on the deficit, which in theory will come back tenfold through the income tax generated, end trickle down theory, build build build.."

good luck with that...

and the essay

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Confession time...Im in the middle of an essay for John Maynard Keynes model vrs Hayek free market econonomics, hence this thread, so for all your comments CHEERS- How to make fab work for you...........incidently my conclusion is to free up greenfield sites of land and get Gov investing in mass building of housing both affordable and social, through RSLs, build roads, parks, community centres, knock down and rebuild any derelict housing, but a first kickstart for our economy - give every person one hundred pounds on the agreement they go out and spend it.........yes all on the deficit, which in theory will come back tenfold through the income tax generated, end trickle down theory, build build build..

good luck with that...

and the essay"

The Essay has been nailed thanks

As for the giving each citizen £100 to go out and spend as a way of injecting a cash boost movement in to the economy - I cannot take the credit for this brilliant idea, it was the advice given to Brown during the start of the recession by a team of Economists. Unfortunately Brown didnt have the guts to try this tactic, mainly due to fear of the political backlash that would follow or so I read....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top