Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
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 |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. " You have a poor opinion of the rest of us then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
proud to be tory !!!!!!! lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. You have a poor opinion of the rest of us then. " Yes. Most people have so little idea of the economic reality that they believe George Osborne is a good chancellor, rather than a disastrous one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. " Ah.... that must mean I'm pretty stupid then.... Strange though, because I don't feel stupid... But then again what would I know,,,,tuh apparently I'm unable to understand weighty matters such as economics.....  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. You have a poor opinion of the rest of us then. Yes. Most people have so little idea of the economic reality that they believe George Osborne is a good chancellor, rather than a disastrous one." I see. Since "most people" didn't vote Tory I'm not sure where you get that idea from. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. You have a poor opinion of the rest of us then. Yes. Most people have so little idea of the economic reality that they believe George Osborne is a good chancellor, rather than a disastrous one. I see. Since "most people" didn't vote Tory I'm not sure where you get that idea from." That they didn't vote for him doesn't automatically mean they understand that he is an economic disaster. Most people are clueless when it comes to economics. You only have to look at Parliament to realise that. Or read the comments in the forum here, or following any newspaper article. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics no-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. " Not surprised you've read it in The Guardian lefty lefty paper. Corbyn couldn't run a piss up in a brewery he would bankrupt Britain see sense.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. You have a poor opinion of the rest of us then. Yes. Most people have so little idea of the economic reality that they believe George Osborne is a good chancellor, rather than a disastrous one. I see. Since "most people" didn't vote Tory I'm not sure where you get that idea from. That they didn't vote for him doesn't automatically mean they understand that he is an economic disaster. Most people are clueless when it comes to economics. You only have to look at Parliament to realise that. Or read the comments in the forum here, or following any newspaper article." In my life I've come across many people and find that many of them actually do have a fair grasp of economics. The problems arise when the few follow the media in my opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 is not a large number from the total available....certainly enough to make a headline but hardly a majority. You couldn't find 41 labour MPs who would agree. Luckily we aren't as bad as the states etc.... You could round up 41 economists in any large city over there...who would all be happy to regain you of the time they were kidnapped by aliens. Economists Shonomists is all I would say. Remember the engineers definition of an expert is...someone who is on the next page ahead of you..." On the other hand, you'll be lucky to find 4.1 economists who would sign their name to a letter defending Osborne's economics. I wonder why!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics no-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. Not surprised you've read it in The Guardian lefty lefty paper. Corbyn couldn't run a piss up in a brewery he would bankrupt Britain see sense. "If you think The Guardian is a 'lefty' paper, you really need to do a bit more reading. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think The Guardian is a 'lefty' paper, you really need to do a bit more reading." What? It is somewhere to the left of Putin....unless they have a different Guardian down your way......? The Guardian were behind Ed Milliband over his brother the last time Labour had a farce....sorry I mean leadership election.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
just pulling your chain Ed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 Economists easily found...visit the LSE library any day and Voila ... "Along with at least 200 others who would NOT sign any such letter....no matter who touted it around. I bet half of them thought it was a sponsor form anyway....? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. You have a poor opinion of the rest of us then. Yes. Most people have so little idea of the economic reality that they believe George Osborne is a good chancellor, rather than a disastrous one. I see. Since "most people" didn't vote Tory I'm not sure where you get that idea from. That they didn't vote for him doesn't automatically mean they understand that he is an economic disaster. Most people are clueless when it comes to economics. You only have to look at Parliament to realise that. Or read the comments in the forum here, or following any newspaper article. In my life I've come across many people and find that many of them actually do have a fair grasp of economics. The problems arise when the few follow the media in my opinion."  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. You have a poor opinion of the rest of us then. " this bit OP is where you let your point of view down, only speaking personally but many on here have a grasp of what 'economics' is I would wager albeit on a domestic scale.. the principles are pretty much the same.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people responding on this thread like Corbyn has a shot at becoming Prime Minister and forming a government? Arguing about the economic policies and the report makes sense - the differences between what Osborne has and is doing and what Corbyn proposes should be done. We are in the first three months of a 5 year Conservative Government. If Corbyn is elected as Labour Leader all he will be doing is acting in opposition. He won't be changing economic policies. " Because the job of an opposition is to propose an alternative. That is their duty, especially when the incumbent government is proven to be economically illiterate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would estimate that no more than 10% of voters have enough of a grasp of economics to make an informed choice at the ballot box. In fact, that is probably a wildly optimistic estimate." do you perchance place yourself amongst that number? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would estimate that no more than 10% of voters have enough of a grasp of economics to make an informed choice at the ballot box. In fact, that is probably a wildly optimistic estimate." We don't require anyone to have a grasp of anything to put their cross in the box. The information is presented (or not in some cases) and we ask people to make up their own minds. Was your post about the economic policies or about the lack of knowledge the electorate has? If it's the latter, are you suggesting we should remove their right to vote? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people responding on this thread like Corbyn has a shot at becoming Prime Minister and forming a government? Arguing about the economic policies and the report makes sense - the differences between what Osborne has and is doing and what Corbyn proposes should be done. We are in the first three months of a 5 year Conservative Government. If Corbyn is elected as Labour Leader all he will be doing is acting in opposition. He won't be changing economic policies. Because the job of an opposition is to propose an alternative. That is their duty, especially when the incumbent government is proven to be economically illiterate." I agree that it is the duty of the opposition to oppose, especially when they have an alternative. That's not the same as agreeing they should oppose everything. The problem with domestic economics is that it is influenced by global factors, Nature's whims, blips and slips. There are enough economists that will argue every angle. I don't think this government is making the right economic decisions but I know that "unproven/proven" can't be claimed because only time will tell. We make the best estimation. Economists, and others, can skew that best estimation by talking up (or down) something (look at runs on banks). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would estimate that no more than 10% of voters have enough of a grasp of economics to make an informed choice at the ballot box. In fact, that is probably a wildly optimistic estimate. do you perchance place yourself amongst that number? " You do get the feeling that may be the case..Bless | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would estimate that no more than 10% of voters have enough of a grasp of economics to make an informed choice at the ballot box. In fact, that is probably a wildly optimistic estimate. We don't require anyone to have a grasp of anything to put their cross in the box. The information is presented (or not in some cases) and we ask people to make up their own minds. Was your post about the economic policies or about the lack of knowledge the electorate has? If it's the latter, are you suggesting we should remove their right to vote? " There's some folk I wouldn't allow out with money in their pocket, never mind enter the ballot box. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would estimate that no more than 10% of voters have enough of a grasp of economics to make an informed choice at the ballot box. In fact, that is probably a wildly optimistic estimate. We don't require anyone to have a grasp of anything to put their cross in the box. The information is presented (or not in some cases) and we ask people to make up their own minds. Was your post about the economic policies or about the lack of knowledge the electorate has? If it's the latter, are you suggesting we should remove their right to vote? There's some folk I wouldn't allow out with money in their pocket, never mind enter the ballot box." I take it that doesn't include you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would estimate that no more than 10% of voters have enough of a grasp of economics to make an informed choice at the ballot box. In fact, that is probably a wildly optimistic estimate. We don't require anyone to have a grasp of anything to put their cross in the box. The information is presented (or not in some cases) and we ask people to make up their own minds. Was your post about the economic policies or about the lack of knowledge the electorate has? If it's the latter, are you suggesting we should remove their right to vote? There's some folk I wouldn't allow out with money in their pocket, never mind enter the ballot box." My guess is that large numbers of those don't enter the ballot box any way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would estimate that no more than 10% of voters have enough of a grasp of economics to make an informed choice at the ballot box. In fact, that is probably a wildly optimistic estimate." approximately 45.6 million eligible to vote and only 10% have any useful grasp of economics!! Blimey you really do consider the majority of people beneath you in intellect  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would estimate that no more than 10% of voters have enough of a grasp of economics to make an informed choice at the ballot box. In fact, that is probably a wildly optimistic estimate. approximately 45.6 million eligible to vote and only 10% have any useful grasp of economics!! Blimey you really do consider the majority of people beneath you in intellect "I doubt it even reaches 10%. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'In a faraway scene Sipping down Raki And reading Maynard Keynes' Best place for JMK 80'S idealistic student politics. Perhaps the sainted Jeremy will grow up one day." Confusing post of the day. Is it not the case that Keynsian economics were the mantra of the right in the 80s (although it is true that he was slightly bastardised by the free marketeers - he did believe in state healthcare etc, but that was often ignored)? Idealistic? Keynesian free marketeers, or someone else? Students? Students seemed to favour the politics of the moderate left, as far as I am aware. Jeremy who? Corbyn? He's already quite old, isn't he? Or are you implying that a left wing interpretation of the relationship between wage-labour and capital is somehow more childlike than anyone elses? In your mild are all the right wing economists somehow more ancient than those on the left? So many questions, such a short post.... Is it a haiku? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'In a faraway scene Sipping down Raki And reading Maynard Keynes' Best place for JMK 80'S idealistic student politics. Perhaps the sainted Jeremy will grow up one day. Confusing post of the day. Is it not the case that Keynsian economics were the mantra of the right in the 80s (although it is true that he was slightly bastardised by the free marketeers - he did believe in state healthcare etc, but that was often ignored)? Idealistic? Keynesian free marketeers, or someone else? Students? Students seemed to favour the politics of the moderate left, as far as I am aware. Jeremy who? Corbyn? He's already quite old, isn't he? Or are you implying that a left wing interpretation of the relationship between wage-labour and capital is somehow more childlike than anyone elses? In your mild are all the right wing economists somehow more ancient than those on the left? So many questions, such a short post.... Is it a haiku?" now that made me genuinely laugh out loud | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'In a faraway scene Sipping down Raki And reading Maynard Keynes' Best place for JMK 80'S idealistic student politics. Perhaps the sainted Jeremy will grow up one day. Confusing post of the day. Is it not the case that Keynsian economics were the mantra of the right in the 80s (although it is true that he was slightly bastardised by the free marketeers - he did believe in state healthcare etc, but that was often ignored)? Idealistic? Keynesian free marketeers, or someone else? Students? Students seemed to favour the politics of the moderate left, as far as I am aware. Jeremy who? Corbyn? He's already quite old, isn't he? Or are you implying that a left wing interpretation of the relationship between wage-labour and capital is somehow more childlike than anyone elses? In your mild are all the right wing economists somehow more ancient than those on the left? So many questions, such a short post.... Is it a haiku?" Keynesian economics mantra of Thatcher? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Keynesian economics mantra of Thatcher? " I believe that they were popular with the Regan administration too... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Probably 41 Tory economists.....love to see him elected leader as he would have no chance being elected PM. Everyone in his own party know this...." It's amazing how many people who'd hate to see Corbyn elected can be bothered to take the time to warn everybody that it won't happen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
now i dont know if im right or wrong but i usually manage a good nights sleep ,,,,,,,, even tho im a tory LOL | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'In a faraway scene Sipping down Raki And reading Maynard Keynes' Best place for JMK 80'S idealistic student politics. Perhaps the sainted Jeremy will grow up one day. Confusing post of the day. Is it not the case that Keynsian economics were the mantra of the right in the 80s (although it is true that he was slightly bastardised by the free marketeers - he did believe in state healthcare etc, but that was often ignored)? Idealistic? Keynesian free marketeers, or someone else? Students? Students seemed to favour the politics of the moderate left, as far as I am aware. Jeremy who? Corbyn? He's already quite old, isn't he? Or are you implying that a left wing interpretation of the relationship between wage-labour and capital is somehow more childlike than anyone elses? In your mild are all the right wing economists somehow more ancient than those on the left? So many questions, such a short post.... Is it a haiku?" Hi Jim, From what i remember of the 80s economic policies - think you've got things wrong way round there? Thatcher went more with monetarist policies in 80s. The thinking is that the Money supply helps 'manage' the economy . As opposed t Keynesian economics which suggests economic growth comes from government spending, or not. So in Keynesian theory, f you wanted to grow the economy, the govt would spend a lot. Kinda like 30s Germany. The thatcher govs didn't really spend money. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Keynesian economics mantra of Thatcher? I believe that they were popular with the Regan administration too..." Please tell me this is a wind up? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Probably 41 Tory economists.....love to see him elected leader as he would have no chance being elected PM. Everyone in his own party know this.... It's amazing how many people who'd hate to see Corbyn elected can be bothered to take the time to warn everybody that it won't happen." And it's also amazing that lots of Tories would love to see Corbyn elected, maybe by joining the Labour party and voting for him! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Probably 41 Tory economists.....love to see him elected leader as he would have no chance being elected PM. Everyone in his own party know this.... It's amazing how many people who'd hate to see Corbyn elected can be bothered to take the time to warn everybody that it won't happen. And it's also amazing that lots of Tories would love to see Corbyn elected, maybe by joining the Labour party and voting for him!" I think Andy Burnham would agree with you there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics no-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. Not surprised you've read it in The Guardian lefty lefty paper. Corbyn couldn't run a piss up in a brewery he would bankrupt Britain see sense.
If you think The Guardian is a 'lefty' paper, you really need to do a bit more reading."Come on, the Guardian is as much on the left as the Daily Mail is in the right. Not surprised in the least the guardian would run a story like this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Come on, the Guardian is as much on the left as the Daily Mail is in the right. Not surprised in the least the guardian would run a story like this. "1) the letter was actually printed in the observer... rather than the guardian (it is the guardian website that reported it) 2) on the the signees is a former member of the bank of england committee... and bearing in mind the way the independent BoE have dealt with all of this, I am inclined to give it some weight..... saying all that... I don't mind the opposition having a complete different opinion.. its not like they can act on it for the next 5 years anyway..... but if it looks like the tories lets say 12-18 months out from the next election look like they are possibly in trouble... they will start to drift in that direction | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"8 out of 10 cats say that spending more money than you have is a bad idea" Unless it was on Dreamies, then my cat would be one of the 2 out of 10 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
, they both loved supply side economic ideas.
You will hear many people claim on here that reducing tax rates makes you more tax income, this idea was wrote on a napkin by laffer 5 minutes before a meeting with Reagan and became known as the laffer curve, there's never been any evidence to support it then or now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also anyone that started keynes as being loved by Thatcher and Reagan , they both loved supply side economic ideas.
You will hear many people claim on here that reducing tax rates makes you more tax income, this idea was wrote on a napkin by laffer 5 minutes before a meeting with Reagan and became known as the laffer curve, there's never been any evidence to support it then or now."Except that previous coalition increased the tax take by reducing to top rate of tax. Labour referred to it as a tax cut for millionaires which it may have been, but the tax take did increase. Just a bit further back in the 1970's brain drain, the tax take increased when top rate of tax was slashed and so maybe there is a bit of proof out there. Wealth distribution is a nonsense concept if there is no wealth to distribute. Like it or not, wealth creators are greedy, they don't make jobs for purely altruistic purposes. Stifle the wealth creators and you have less wealth to redistribute. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wealth distribution is a nonsense concept if there is no wealth to distribute. Like it or not, wealth creators are greedy, they don't make jobs for purely altruistic purposes. Stifle the wealth creators and you have less wealth to redistribute. " Well there's your logical argument and what you're going to get back is "it's better to be poor and stick to your principles" - because 8 of 10 cats would rather live in the Soviet union (not) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those that keep comparing house hold economics to state economics.... Oh dear where to begin, there completely different! Unless your printing your own money for your household budget!" so those who have not had the ability to 'print money' and yet have been fortunate enough to be in a comfortable position due to managing their own 'economy' albeit without the myriad of factors that beset a government/country have been lucky or just used common sense and good practises.. take away the ability to 'QE' and its a different story.. i am pants at dead hard sums but i know if i spend more than we earn we get into debt and yes using credit sensibly is an option it has a cost down the line.. the mantra that some of our forebears had of 'cant afford it, go without now or save' has been lost with some both individually and collectively.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People feeling smug because they "know about economics" should pause for a minute and realise that modern economic theory is an academic embarrassment. Somewhere between the classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc) and 1998 - economics got invaded by a bunch of moronic mathematicians who were more concerned about building sexy models than predicting anything. They completely detached themselves from reality in order to make their models fit a vacuum world that doesn't exist. There are 15,000 economists in the USA alone and as sexybum will tell you, most of us have enough fingers to count the number that saw 2008 coming. Most of them were trained in very abstract mathematical models that don't understand even the most basic principles of real economics. If you don't believe me, look at their definition of "productivity" and see if you can't spot a flaw in it. If you don't understand productivity then you definately don't understand how the economy works. Modern economic theory is pseudo science at its best. Most of the Nobel prize winners in economics have driven private companies into the ground with their nonsense (Google: Long Term Capital Management)" Sorry, but you seem confused..you say between Adam Smith et al through to 1998 economics was invaded by moronic mathematicians...long old spell!...what changed in 1998? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those that keep comparing house hold economics to state economics.... Oh dear where to begin, there completely different! Unless your printing your own money for your household budget! so those who have not had the ability to 'print money' and yet have been fortunate enough to be in a comfortable position due to managing their own 'economy' albeit without the myriad of factors that beset a government/country have been lucky or just used common sense and good practises.. take away the ability to 'QE' and its a different story.. i am pants at dead hard sums but i know if i spend more than we earn we get into debt and yes using credit sensibly is an option it has a cost down the line.. the mantra that some of our forebears had of 'cant afford it, go without now or save' has been lost with some both individually and collectively.. " Because some people believe that spending money creates more money, the fancy term is "the multiplier effect" - it's a lovely thing to believe in, come drink the kool-aid won't you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those that keep comparing house hold economics to state economics.... Oh dear where to begin, there completely different! Unless your printing your own money for your household budget! so those who have not had the ability to 'print money' and yet have been fortunate enough to be in a comfortable position due to managing their own 'economy' albeit without the myriad of factors that beset a government/country have been lucky or just used common sense and good practises.. take away the ability to 'QE' and its a different story.. i am pants at dead hard sums but i know if i spend more than we earn we get into debt and yes using credit sensibly is an option it has a cost down the line.. the mantra that some of our forebears had of 'cant afford it, go without now or save' has been lost with some both individually and collectively.. Because some people believe that spending money creates more money, the fancy term is "the multiplier effect" - it's a lovely thing to believe in, come drink the kool-aid won't you " yes i get that its not the end of the world to borrow if one uses that to decrease unemployment, major infrastructure, create more opportunities etc.. respect others will differ.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People feeling smug because they "know about economics" should pause for a minute and realise that modern economic theory is an academic embarrassment. Somewhere between the classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc) and 1998 - economics got invaded by a bunch of moronic mathematicians who were more concerned about building sexy models than predicting anything. They completely detached themselves from reality in order to make their models fit a vacuum world that doesn't exist. There are 15,000 economists in the USA alone and as sexybum will tell you, most of us have enough fingers to count the number that saw 2008 coming. Most of them were trained in very abstract mathematical models that don't understand even the most basic principles of real economics. If you don't believe me, look at their definition of "productivity" and see if you can't spot a flaw in it. If you don't understand productivity then you definately don't understand how the economy works. Modern economic theory is pseudo science at its best. Most of the Nobel prize winners in economics have driven private companies into the ground with their nonsense (Google: Long Term Capital Management) Sorry, but you seem confused..you say between Adam Smith et al through to 1998 economics was invaded by moronic mathematicians...long old spell!...what changed in 1998?" 1998 was when the collapse of long term capital management obliterated the efficient market hypothesis that most modern economic theory rests upon. Of course people that had been educated in the subject and whose jobs depended on it continue sprout the same old crap to this present day. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good model. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
)
What I do know is that we are doing pretty well economically since the last labour government left . And since the famous note they left was saying they were sorry there was nothing left in the kitty , that's some achievement .
As a proud Tory , I hope Corbyn gets in . Then another term is pretty much guaranteed and by then I will be past caring | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People feeling smug because they "know about economics" should pause for a minute and realise that modern economic theory is an academic embarrassment. Somewhere between the classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc) and 1998 - economics got invaded by a bunch of moronic mathematicians who were more concerned about building sexy models than predicting anything. They completely detached themselves from reality in order to make their models fit a vacuum world that doesn't exist. There are 15,000 economists in the USA alone and as sexybum will tell you, most of us have enough fingers to count the number that saw 2008 coming. Most of them were trained in very abstract mathematical models that don't understand even the most basic principles of real economics. If you don't believe me, look at their definition of "productivity" and see if you can't spot a flaw in it. If you don't understand productivity then you definately don't understand how the economy works. Modern economic theory is pseudo science at its best. Most of the Nobel prize winners in economics have driven private companies into the ground with their nonsense (Google: Long Term Capital Management) Sorry, but you seem confused..you say between Adam Smith et al through to 1998 economics was invaded by moronic mathematicians...long old spell!...what changed in 1998? 1998 was when the collapse of long term capital management obliterated the efficient market hypothesis that most modern economic theory rests upon. Of course people that had been educated in the subject and whose jobs depended on it continue sprout the same old crap to this present day. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good model. " Still confused are you saying Hayek,Friedman...free market economists, prior 1998 were mad mathematicians? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People feeling smug because they "know about economics" should pause for a minute and realise that modern economic theory is an academic embarrassment. Somewhere between the classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc) and 1998 - economics got invaded by a bunch of moronic mathematicians who were more concerned about building sexy models than predicting anything. They completely detached themselves from reality in order to make their models fit a vacuum world that doesn't exist. There are 15,000 economists in the USA alone and as sexybum will tell you, most of us have enough fingers to count the number that saw 2008 coming. Most of them were trained in very abstract mathematical models that don't understand even the most basic principles of real economics. If you don't believe me, look at their definition of "productivity" and see if you can't spot a flaw in it. If you don't understand productivity then you definately don't understand how the economy works. Modern economic theory is pseudo science at its best. Most of the Nobel prize winners in economics have driven private companies into the ground with their nonsense (Google: Long Term Capital Management) Sorry, but you seem confused..you say between Adam Smith et al through to 1998 economics was invaded by moronic mathematicians...long old spell!...what changed in 1998? 1998 was when the collapse of long term capital management obliterated the efficient market hypothesis that most modern economic theory rests upon. Of course people that had been educated in the subject and whose jobs depended on it continue sprout the same old crap to this present day. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good model. Still confused are you saying Hayek,Friedman...free market economists, prior 1998 were mad mathematicians?" I'm saying their work has gaping flaws in it and their predictive validity are wank. Again, if you can't explain productivity then you can't explain an economy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. " I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People feeling smug because they "know about economics" should pause for a minute and realise that modern economic theory is an academic embarrassment. Somewhere between the classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc) and 1998 - economics got invaded by a bunch of moronic mathematicians who were more concerned about building sexy models than predicting anything. They completely detached themselves from reality in order to make their models fit a vacuum world that doesn't exist. There are 15,000 economists in the USA alone and as sexybum will tell you, most of us have enough fingers to count the number that saw 2008 coming. Most of them were trained in very abstract mathematical models that don't understand even the most basic principles of real economics. If you don't believe me, look at their definition of "productivity" and see if you can't spot a flaw in it. If you don't understand productivity then you definately don't understand how the economy works. Modern economic theory is pseudo science at its best. Most of the Nobel prize winners in economics have driven private companies into the ground with their nonsense (Google: Long Term Capital Management) Sorry, but you seem confused..you say between Adam Smith et al through to 1998 economics was invaded by moronic mathematicians...long old spell!...what changed in 1998? 1998 was when the collapse of long term capital management obliterated the efficient market hypothesis that most modern economic theory rests upon. Of course people that had been educated in the subject and whose jobs depended on it continue sprout the same old crap to this present day. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good model. Still confused are you saying Hayek,Friedman...free market economists, prior 1998 were mad mathematicians? I'm saying their work has gaping flaws in it and their predictive validity are wank. Again, if you can't explain productivity then you can't explain an economy. " And Keynes?..predictive validity? it's not Science....what are their gaping flaws? And you, as opposed to most Economists since Malthus, can explain productivity, wellI think you should offer your services to the present Government | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People feeling smug because they "know about economics" should pause for a minute and realise that modern economic theory is an academic embarrassment. Somewhere between the classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc) and 1998 - economics got invaded by a bunch of moronic mathematicians who were more concerned about building sexy models than predicting anything. They completely detached themselves from reality in order to make their models fit a vacuum world that doesn't exist. There are 15,000 economists in the USA alone and as sexybum will tell you, most of us have enough fingers to count the number that saw 2008 coming. Most of them were trained in very abstract mathematical models that don't understand even the most basic principles of real economics. If you don't believe me, look at their definition of "productivity" and see if you can't spot a flaw in it. If you don't understand productivity then you definately don't understand how the economy works. Modern economic theory is pseudo science at its best. Most of the Nobel prize winners in economics have driven private companies into the ground with their nonsense (Google: Long Term Capital Management) Sorry, but you seem confused..you say between Adam Smith et al through to 1998 economics was invaded by moronic mathematicians...long old spell!...what changed in 1998? 1998 was when the collapse of long term capital management obliterated the efficient market hypothesis that most modern economic theory rests upon. Of course people that had been educated in the subject and whose jobs depended on it continue sprout the same old crap to this present day. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good model. Still confused are you saying Hayek,Friedman...free market economists, prior 1998 were mad mathematicians? I'm saying their work has gaping flaws in it and their predictive validity are wank. Again, if you can't explain productivity then you can't explain an economy. And Keynes?..predictive validity? it's not Science....what are their gaping flaws? And you, as opposed to most Economists since Malthus, can explain productivity, wellI think you should offer your services to the present Government" One of the many gaping flaws is that they don't understand productivity. Have you ever seen how a university faculty works? When a subject goes off on a tangent, as economics has, the best people leave the sinking ship. Plenty of people can explain productivity, I'd start with Peter Drucker or Clayton Christensen but you won't find them in the economics department. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. " economically speaking, the economics of the economy has the econs to economise on the ecogistical ecology | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People feeling smug because they "know about economics" should pause for a minute and realise that modern economic theory is an academic embarrassment. Somewhere between the classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc) and 1998 - economics got invaded by a bunch of moronic mathematicians who were more concerned about building sexy models than predicting anything. They completely detached themselves from reality in order to make their models fit a vacuum world that doesn't exist. There are 15,000 economists in the USA alone and as sexybum will tell you, most of us have enough fingers to count the number that saw 2008 coming. Most of them were trained in very abstract mathematical models that don't understand even the most basic principles of real economics. If you don't believe me, look at their definition of "productivity" and see if you can't spot a flaw in it. If you don't understand productivity then you definately don't understand how the economy works. Modern economic theory is pseudo science at its best. Most of the Nobel prize winners in economics have driven private companies into the ground with their nonsense (Google: Long Term Capital Management) Sorry, but you seem confused..you say between Adam Smith et al through to 1998 economics was invaded by moronic mathematicians...long old spell!...what changed in 1998? 1998 was when the collapse of long term capital management obliterated the efficient market hypothesis that most modern economic theory rests upon. Of course people that had been educated in the subject and whose jobs depended on it continue sprout the same old crap to this present day. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good model. Still confused are you saying Hayek,Friedman...free market economists, prior 1998 were mad mathematicians? I'm saying their work has gaping flaws in it and their predictive validity are wank. Again, if you can't explain productivity then you can't explain an economy. And Keynes?..predictive validity? it's not Science....what are their gaping flaws? And you, as opposed to most Economists since Malthus, can explain productivity, wellI think you should offer your services to the present Government One of the many gaping flaws is that they don't understand productivity. Have you ever seen how a university faculty works? When a subject goes off on a tangent, as economics has, the best people leave the sinking ship. Plenty of people can explain productivity, I'd start with Peter Drucker or Clayton Christensen but you won't find them in the economics department. " Explain to me how Friedman and Keynes didn't understand productivity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wealth distribution is a nonsense concept if there is no wealth to distribute. Like it or not, wealth creators are greedy, they don't make jobs for purely altruistic purposes. Stifle the wealth creators and you have less wealth to redistribute. " Not so! If you open your eyes and look around you you will find that the vast majority of wealth creators have been and are highly altruistic and socially responsible. It is when the inventors and innovators loose control of their 'children' and the bankers and 'investors' take over that greed and 'profit taking' become the order of the day. "Well there's your logical argument and what you're going to get back is "it's better to be poor and stick to your principles" - because 8 of 10 cats would rather live in the Soviet union (not) " What has the Soviet Union got to do with anything? And to be absolutely clear the Soviet Union was not a communist state. It was a Dictatorship with a command economy. Just as China under Moe was a dictatorship with a command economy and was the enemy of the West. Now that China is a dictatorship with a private enterprise lassez faire economy its suddenly our friend and a place to do business. Meaning the latest super cheap unregulated workshop and marketplace for greedy bankers to skim money off the top in! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People feeling smug because they "know about economics" should pause for a minute and realise that modern economic theory is an academic embarrassment. Somewhere between the classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc) and 1998 - economics got invaded by a bunch of moronic mathematicians who were more concerned about building sexy models than predicting anything. They completely detached themselves from reality in order to make their models fit a vacuum world that doesn't exist. There are 15,000 economists in the USA alone and as sexybum will tell you, most of us have enough fingers to count the number that saw 2008 coming. Most of them were trained in very abstract mathematical models that don't understand even the most basic principles of real economics. If you don't believe me, look at their definition of "productivity" and see if you can't spot a flaw in it. If you don't understand productivity then you definately don't understand how the economy works. Modern economic theory is pseudo science at its best. Most of the Nobel prize winners in economics have driven private companies into the ground with their nonsense (Google: Long Term Capital Management) Sorry, but you seem confused..you say between Adam Smith et al through to 1998 economics was invaded by moronic mathematicians...long old spell!...what changed in 1998? 1998 was when the collapse of long term capital management obliterated the efficient market hypothesis that most modern economic theory rests upon. Of course people that had been educated in the subject and whose jobs depended on it continue sprout the same old crap to this present day. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good model. Still confused are you saying Hayek,Friedman...free market economists, prior 1998 were mad mathematicians? I'm saying their work has gaping flaws in it and their predictive validity are wank. Again, if you can't explain productivity then you can't explain an economy. And Keynes?..predictive validity? it's not Science....what are their gaping flaws? And you, as opposed to most Economists since Malthus, can explain productivity, wellI think you should offer your services to the present Government One of the many gaping flaws is that they don't understand productivity. Have you ever seen how a university faculty works? When a subject goes off on a tangent, as economics has, the best people leave the sinking ship. Plenty of people can explain productivity, I'd start with Peter Drucker or Clayton Christensen but you won't find them in the economics department. Explain to me how Friedman and Keynes didn't understand productivity." I think I've explained enough that a reasonable, unbiased person who was genuinely interested would go look at the sources I've mentioned and form their own opinion. That is where my line of argument ends, I'm not nieve enough to think everyone forms their opinion on logic and reason. Hence I don't care about trying to change the opinions of die hards. If modern economic theory had predictive validity there would have been warnings galore leading up to 2008. There weren't. Connect the dots... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People feeling smug because they "know about economics" should pause for a minute and realise that modern economic theory is an academic embarrassment. Somewhere between the classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc) and 1998 - economics got invaded by a bunch of moronic mathematicians who were more concerned about building sexy models than predicting anything. They completely detached themselves from reality in order to make their models fit a vacuum world that doesn't exist. There are 15,000 economists in the USA alone and as sexybum will tell you, most of us have enough fingers to count the number that saw 2008 coming. Most of them were trained in very abstract mathematical models that don't understand even the most basic principles of real economics. If you don't believe me, look at their definition of "productivity" and see if you can't spot a flaw in it. If you don't understand productivity then you definately don't understand how the economy works. Modern economic theory is pseudo science at its best. Most of the Nobel prize winners in economics have driven private companies into the ground with their nonsense (Google: Long Term Capital Management) Sorry, but you seem confused..you say between Adam Smith et al through to 1998 economics was invaded by moronic mathematicians...long old spell!...what changed in 1998? 1998 was when the collapse of long term capital management obliterated the efficient market hypothesis that most modern economic theory rests upon. Of course people that had been educated in the subject and whose jobs depended on it continue sprout the same old crap to this present day. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good model. Still confused are you saying Hayek,Friedman...free market economists, prior 1998 were mad mathematicians? I'm saying their work has gaping flaws in it and their predictive validity are wank. Again, if you can't explain productivity then you can't explain an economy. And Keynes?..predictive validity? it's not Science....what are their gaping flaws? And you, as opposed to most Economists since Malthus, can explain productivity, wellI think you should offer your services to the present Government One of the many gaping flaws is that they don't understand productivity. Have you ever seen how a university faculty works? When a subject goes off on a tangent, as economics has, the best people leave the sinking ship. Plenty of people can explain productivity, I'd start with Peter Drucker or Clayton Christensen but you won't find them in the economics department. " Drucker is the guy who wrote 'in search of excellence' yeah? Like what 25 years ago? He was a bit of a guru, from what I remember - but this is a management type writer. He may have economic quallies, dunno. Now as for productivity - it's a big subject- but would be interested to hear what you're driving at. You have micro economics + you have macro economics. Micro just analyses why or how a standard supply/demand curve works. Macro - I guess is where you think productivity is relevant. Can you explain? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wealth distribution is a nonsense concept if there is no wealth to distribute. Like it or not, wealth creators are greedy, they don't make jobs for purely altruistic purposes. Stifle the wealth creators and you have less wealth to redistribute. Not so! If you open your eyes and look around you you will find that the vast majority of wealth creators have been and are highly altruistic and socially responsible. It is when the inventors and innovators loose control of their 'children' and the bankers and 'investors' take over that greed and 'profit taking' become the order of the day. Well there's your logical argument and what you're going to get back is "it's better to be poor and stick to your principles" - because 8 of 10 cats would rather live in the Soviet union (not) What has the Soviet Union got to do with anything? And to be absolutely clear the Soviet Union was not a communist state. It was a Dictatorship with a command economy. Just as China under Moe was a dictatorship with a command economy and was the enemy of the West. Now that China is a dictatorship with a private enterprise lassez faire economy its suddenly our friend and a place to do business. Meaning the latest super cheap unregulated workshop and marketplace for greedy bankers to skim money off the top in! " Corbyn favours public ownership of assets does he not? The soviet union is what happens when you take that argument to its logical conclusion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People feeling smug because they "know about economics" should pause for a minute and realise that modern economic theory is an academic embarrassment. Somewhere between the classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc) and 1998 - economics got invaded by a bunch of moronic mathematicians who were more concerned about building sexy models than predicting anything. They completely detached themselves from reality in order to make their models fit a vacuum world that doesn't exist. There are 15,000 economists in the USA alone and as sexybum will tell you, most of us have enough fingers to count the number that saw 2008 coming. Most of them were trained in very abstract mathematical models that don't understand even the most basic principles of real economics. If you don't believe me, look at their definition of "productivity" and see if you can't spot a flaw in it. If you don't understand productivity then you definately don't understand how the economy works. Modern economic theory is pseudo science at its best. Most of the Nobel prize winners in economics have driven private companies into the ground with their nonsense (Google: Long Term Capital Management) Sorry, but you seem confused..you say between Adam Smith et al through to 1998 economics was invaded by moronic mathematicians...long old spell!...what changed in 1998? 1998 was when the collapse of long term capital management obliterated the efficient market hypothesis that most modern economic theory rests upon. Of course people that had been educated in the subject and whose jobs depended on it continue sprout the same old crap to this present day. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good model. Still confused are you saying Hayek,Friedman...free market economists, prior 1998 were mad mathematicians? I'm saying their work has gaping flaws in it and their predictive validity are wank. Again, if you can't explain productivity then you can't explain an economy. And Keynes?..predictive validity? it's not Science....what are their gaping flaws? And you, as opposed to most Economists since Malthus, can explain productivity, wellI think you should offer your services to the present Government One of the many gaping flaws is that they don't understand productivity. Have you ever seen how a university faculty works? When a subject goes off on a tangent, as economics has, the best people leave the sinking ship. Plenty of people can explain productivity, I'd start with Peter Drucker or Clayton Christensen but you won't find them in the economics department. Explain to me how Friedman and Keynes didn't understand productivity. I think I've explained enough that a reasonable, unbiased person who was genuinely interested would go look at the sources I've mentioned and form their own opinion. That is where my line of argument ends, I'm not nieve enough to think everyone forms their opinion on logic and reason. Hence I don't care about trying to change the opinions of die hards. If modern economic theory had predictive validity there would have been warnings galore leading up to 2008. There weren't. Connect the dots..." Not a die hard either way, open minded....just wanted to bring clarity to your confusing generalisations and connect the dots..hey ho | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. " Had a look at the link OP, the majority are left-wing university lecturers, hardly 'leading economists'. Even David Blanchflower was a bit discredited by the end. It's a bit like saying "41 turkeys have all voted that Christmas is a bad thing", then deciding that this must therefore be true. The economy seems to be doing well currently, perhaps we should just be grateful for that at least. Mr ddc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People feeling smug because they "know about economics" should pause for a minute and realise that modern economic theory is an academic embarrassment. Somewhere between the classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc) and 1998 - economics got invaded by a bunch of moronic mathematicians who were more concerned about building sexy models than predicting anything. They completely detached themselves from reality in order to make their models fit a vacuum world that doesn't exist. There are 15,000 economists in the USA alone and as sexybum will tell you, most of us have enough fingers to count the number that saw 2008 coming. Most of them were trained in very abstract mathematical models that don't understand even the most basic principles of real economics. If you don't believe me, look at their definition of "productivity" and see if you can't spot a flaw in it. If you don't understand productivity then you definately don't understand how the economy works. Modern economic theory is pseudo science at its best. Most of the Nobel prize winners in economics have driven private companies into the ground with their nonsense (Google: Long Term Capital Management) Sorry, but you seem confused..you say between Adam Smith et al through to 1998 economics was invaded by moronic mathematicians...long old spell!...what changed in 1998? 1998 was when the collapse of long term capital management obliterated the efficient market hypothesis that most modern economic theory rests upon. Of course people that had been educated in the subject and whose jobs depended on it continue sprout the same old crap to this present day. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good model. Still confused are you saying Hayek,Friedman...free market economists, prior 1998 were mad mathematicians? I'm saying their work has gaping flaws in it and their predictive validity are wank. Again, if you can't explain productivity then you can't explain an economy. And Keynes?..predictive validity? it's not Science....what are their gaping flaws? And you, as opposed to most Economists since Malthus, can explain productivity, wellI think you should offer your services to the present Government One of the many gaping flaws is that they don't understand productivity. Have you ever seen how a university faculty works? When a subject goes off on a tangent, as economics has, the best people leave the sinking ship. Plenty of people can explain productivity, I'd start with Peter Drucker or Clayton Christensen but you won't find them in the economics department. Drucker is the guy who wrote 'in search of excellence' yeah? Like what 25 years ago? He was a bit of a guru, from what I remember - but this is a management type writer. He may have economic quallies, dunno. Now as for productivity - it's a big subject- but would be interested to hear what you're driving at. You have micro economics + you have macro economics. Micro just analyses why or how a standard supply/demand curve works. Macro - I guess is where you think productivity is relevant. Can you explain? " I don't think "in search of excellence" was Drucker but still. Search for "the poverty of economic theory" by Peter Drucker (1987) if you'd like to know what I'm getting at. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This report is from the Guardian but the economists actually wrote to the Observer." And the Observer is the Guardian at prayer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wealth distribution is a nonsense concept if there is no wealth to distribute. Like it or not, wealth creators are greedy, they don't make jobs for purely altruistic purposes. Stifle the wealth creators and you have less wealth to redistribute. Not so! If you open your eyes and look around you you will find that the vast majority of wealth creators have been and are highly altruistic and socially responsible. It is when the inventors and innovators loose control of their 'children' and the bankers and 'investors' take over that greed and 'profit taking' become the order of the day. Well there's your logical argument and what you're going to get back is "it's better to be poor and stick to your principles" - because 8 of 10 cats would rather live in the Soviet union (not) What has the Soviet Union got to do with anything? And to be absolutely clear the Soviet Union was not a communist state. It was a Dictatorship with a command economy. Just as China under Moe was a dictatorship with a command economy and was the enemy of the West. Now that China is a dictatorship with a private enterprise lassez faire economy its suddenly our friend and a place to do business. Meaning the latest super cheap unregulated workshop and marketplace for greedy bankers to skim money off the top in! Corbyn favours public ownership of assets does he not? The soviet union is what happens when you take that argument to its logical conclusion." Again, not quite so. He favours a mixed economy where vital public services are owned by the public, held in trust and run as non profit enterprises for the good of the country. To be clear, he favours utilities, communications and mass transport to be in public ownership. I would suggest that the 150,000 to 250,000 people who are now having to boil their water in Lancashire because United Utilities have put profits before maintaining water quality would agree, as would all of those who have seen their daily rail commutes to work change from painful to nightmarish over the last 20 years while train operators make larger and larger profits. But I quite understand how those who read the propaganda sheets of powerful private self interest groups would be mistake mistaken. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People feeling smug because they "know about economics" should pause for a minute and realise that modern economic theory is an academic embarrassment. Somewhere between the classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc) and 1998 - economics got invaded by a bunch of moronic mathematicians who were more concerned about building sexy models than predicting anything. They completely detached themselves from reality in order to make their models fit a vacuum world that doesn't exist. There are 15,000 economists in the USA alone and as sexybum will tell you, most of us have enough fingers to count the number that saw 2008 coming. Most of them were trained in very abstract mathematical models that don't understand even the most basic principles of real economics. If you don't believe me, look at their definition of "productivity" and see if you can't spot a flaw in it. If you don't understand productivity then you definately don't understand how the economy works. Modern economic theory is pseudo science at its best. Most of the Nobel prize winners in economics have driven private companies into the ground with their nonsense (Google: Long Term Capital Management) Sorry, but you seem confused..you say between Adam Smith et al through to 1998 economics was invaded by moronic mathematicians...long old spell!...what changed in 1998? 1998 was when the collapse of long term capital management obliterated the efficient market hypothesis that most modern economic theory rests upon. Of course people that had been educated in the subject and whose jobs depended on it continue sprout the same old crap to this present day. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good model. Still confused are you saying Hayek,Friedman...free market economists, prior 1998 were mad mathematicians? I'm saying their work has gaping flaws in it and their predictive validity are wank. Again, if you can't explain productivity then you can't explain an economy. And Keynes?..predictive validity? it's not Science....what are their gaping flaws? And you, as opposed to most Economists since Malthus, can explain productivity, wellI think you should offer your services to the present Government One of the many gaping flaws is that they don't understand productivity. Have you ever seen how a university faculty works? When a subject goes off on a tangent, as economics has, the best people leave the sinking ship. Plenty of people can explain productivity, I'd start with Peter Drucker or Clayton Christensen but you won't find them in the economics department. Explain to me how Friedman and Keynes didn't understand productivity. I think I've explained enough that a reasonable, unbiased person who was genuinely interested would go look at the sources I've mentioned and form their own opinion. That is where my line of argument ends, I'm not nieve enough to think everyone forms their opinion on logic and reason. Hence I don't care about trying to change the opinions of die hards. If modern economic theory had predictive validity there would have been warnings galore leading up to 2008. There weren't. Connect the dots... Not a die hard either way, open minded....just wanted to bring clarity to your confusing generalisations and connect the dots..hey ho" I'm sorry I thought I detected sarcasm in the comment: "And you, as opposed to most Economists since Malthus, can explain productivity, well I think you should offer your services to the present Government" If I'm confusing then I'm obviously not explaining it well so if refer you to the aforementioned Drucker article. Combine that with the basic logic that 99.9% of economists couldn't predict the greatest economic event in a lifetime. Then combine that with a quick Google search of how Nobel prize winning economists performed when their theory was put into practice at Long Term Capital Management. If that doesn't convince you there's a problem in modern economic theory then we'll agree to disagree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wealth distribution is a nonsense concept if there is no wealth to distribute. Like it or not, wealth creators are greedy, they don't make jobs for purely altruistic purposes. Stifle the wealth creators and you have less wealth to redistribute. Not so! If you open your eyes and look around you you will find that the vast majority of wealth creators have been and are highly altruistic and socially responsible. It is when the inventors and innovators loose control of their 'children' and the bankers and 'investors' take over that greed and 'profit taking' become the order of the day. Well there's your logical argument and what you're going to get back is "it's better to be poor and stick to your principles" - because 8 of 10 cats would rather live in the Soviet union (not) What has the Soviet Union got to do with anything? And to be absolutely clear the Soviet Union was not a communist state. It was a Dictatorship with a command economy. Just as China under Moe was a dictatorship with a command economy and was the enemy of the West. Now that China is a dictatorship with a private enterprise lassez faire economy its suddenly our friend and a place to do business. Meaning the latest super cheap unregulated workshop and marketplace for greedy bankers to skim money off the top in! Corbyn favours public ownership of assets does he not? The soviet union is what happens when you take that argument to its logical conclusion. Again, not quite so. He favours a mixed economy where vital public services are owned by the public, held in trust and run as non profit enterprises for the good of the country. To be clear, he favours utilities, communications and mass transport to be in public ownership. I would suggest that the 150,000 to 250,000 people who are now having to boil their water in Lancashire because United Utilities have put profits before maintaining water quality would agree, as would all of those who have seen their daily rail commutes to work change from painful to nightmarish over the last 20 years while train operators make larger and larger profits. But I quite understand how those who read the propaganda sheets of powerful private self interest groups would be mistake mistaken." Ok so have a look at the Soviet union to see what happens when everything is "run for the good of the country", or cuba. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"discussing politics on a swingers site? Is this the level of conversation you give when trying to sweet talk someone into bed??" Good Lord, yes! You wouldn't want someone shouting "Corbyn for pm" as they got to the vinegar strokes would you? These people need to be carefully and subtly ed out
Mr ddc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"discussing politics on a swingers site? Is this the level of conversation you give when trying to sweet talk someone into bed?? Good Lord, yes! You wouldn't want someone shouting "Corbyn for pm" as they got to the vinegar strokes would you? These people need to be carefully and subtly ed out
Mr ddc"I'd never shout "Corbyn for pm" under any circumstances. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wealth distribution is a nonsense concept if there is no wealth to distribute. Like it or not, wealth creators are greedy, they don't make jobs for purely altruistic purposes. Stifle the wealth creators and you have less wealth to redistribute. Not so! If you open your eyes and look around you you will find that the vast majority of wealth creators have been and are highly altruistic and socially responsible. It is when the inventors and innovators loose control of their 'children' and the bankers and 'investors' take over that greed and 'profit taking' become the order of the day. Well there's your logical argument and what you're going to get back is "it's better to be poor and stick to your principles" - because 8 of 10 cats would rather live in the Soviet union (not) What has the Soviet Union got to do with anything? And to be absolutely clear the Soviet Union was not a communist state. It was a Dictatorship with a command economy. Just as China under Moe was a dictatorship with a command economy and was the enemy of the West. Now that China is a dictatorship with a private enterprise lassez faire economy its suddenly our friend and a place to do business. Meaning the latest super cheap unregulated workshop and marketplace for greedy bankers to skim money off the top in! Corbyn favours public ownership of assets does he not? The soviet union is what happens when you take that argument to its logical conclusion. Again, not quite so. He favours a mixed economy where vital public services are owned by the public, held in trust and run as non profit enterprises for the good of the country. To be clear, he favours utilities, communications and mass transport to be in public ownership. I would suggest that the 150,000 to 250,000 people who are now having to boil their water in Lancashire because United Utilities have put profits before maintaining water quality would agree, as would all of those who have seen their daily rail commutes to work change from painful to nightmarish over the last 20 years while train operators make larger and larger profits. But I quite understand how those who read the propaganda sheets of powerful private self interest groups would be mistake mistaken. Ok so have a look at the Soviet union to see what happens when everything is "run for the good of the country", or cuba." Firstly what part of The soviet union being a dictatorship and command economy do you not understand? Second what part of mixed economy do you not understand? Thirdly Cuba is never is never a good country to quote when attempting to justify knuckling under to US foreign economic policy. If you do not understand this reference do a little research into Cuba's health system and draw some concussions of your own... As for your inferred conclusion that private ownership is better than public. At one time we had publicly owned coal mining, steel making, ship building and munitions industries that when combined employed well over a million people and who in turn stimulated markets for millions more servicing those industries and the demand generated by the income earned by those employed in those industries and their service industries... The steel and shipbuilding industries were sold off to the private sector. Result, we are an island trading nation that is dependant on food imports to feed ourselves that has to buy ships from the countries our shipbuilding industry was transferred to. We no longer make steel. And we need to buy all our militaries munitions from foreign powers. But we do have an admitted 3 million unemployed or underemployed and a social security and defence bill of something round £165/170 billion to pay. Private ownership of everything is not the best way to go. That is why mixed economies are the best! Finally, I think you need to understand that the USA has no interest in any countries internal politics. It uses internal politics as an excuse to use its economic and military might to gain unfettered access to market for its multinational corporations. Allow the USA to exploit your economy and you can cut peoples hand and heads off in public (Saudi Arabia) and your a goody. You kick out the mafia and the corrupt government they bought (Cuba) and your part of a communist plot to overthrow everything that is good and wholesome as apple pie! I think a lot of Tory supporters really need to open their eyes and see exactly what they are supporting! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are these the same economists that thought Gordon Brown was a competent chancellor? The guy who ruined everyone's pension, the bloke who could grasp the simple idea that you buy when price is low and sell when high so virtually gave away all our gold reserves to fritter away on shite? Excuse me if I don't give a flying fuck what they or the guardian think." But Osburn selling off the publicly owned shares of the banks we bailed out (to the banks themselves) for less than we paid for them when they are now in profit and paying dividends is good governance? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wealth distribution is a nonsense concept if there is no wealth to distribute. Like it or not, wealth creators are greedy, they don't make jobs for purely altruistic purposes. Stifle the wealth creators and you have less wealth to redistribute. Not so! If you open your eyes and look around you you will find that the vast majority of wealth creators have been and are highly altruistic and socially responsible. It is when the inventors and innovators loose control of their 'children' and the bankers and 'investors' take over that greed and 'profit taking' become the order of the day. Well there's your logical argument and what you're going to get back is "it's better to be poor and stick to your principles" - because 8 of 10 cats would rather live in the Soviet union (not) What has the Soviet Union got to do with anything? And to be absolutely clear the Soviet Union was not a communist state. It was a Dictatorship with a command economy. Just as China under Moe was a dictatorship with a command economy and was the enemy of the West. Now that China is a dictatorship with a private enterprise lassez faire economy its suddenly our friend and a place to do business. Meaning the latest super cheap unregulated workshop and marketplace for greedy bankers to skim money off the top in! Corbyn favours public ownership of assets does he not? The soviet union is what happens when you take that argument to its logical conclusion. Again, not quite so. He favours a mixed economy where vital public services are owned by the public, held in trust and run as non profit enterprises for the good of the country. To be clear, he favours utilities, communications and mass transport to be in public ownership. I would suggest that the 150,000 to 250,000 people who are now having to boil their water in Lancashire because United Utilities have put profits before maintaining water quality would agree, as would all of those who have seen their daily rail commutes to work change from painful to nightmarish over the last 20 years while train operators make larger and larger profits. But I quite understand how those who read the propaganda sheets of powerful private self interest groups would be mistake mistaken. Ok so have a look at the Soviet union to see what happens when everything is "run for the good of the country", or cuba. Firstly what part of The soviet union being a dictatorship and command economy do you not understand? Second what part of mixed economy do you not understand? Thirdly Cuba is never is never a good country to quote when attempting to justify knuckling under to US foreign economic policy. If you do not understand this reference do a little research into Cuba's health system and draw some concussions of your own... As for your inferred conclusion that private ownership is better than public. At one time we had publicly owned coal mining, steel making, ship building and munitions industries that when combined employed well over a million people and who in turn stimulated markets for millions more servicing those industries and the demand generated by the income earned by those employed in those industries and their service industries... The steel and shipbuilding industries were sold off to the private sector. Result, we are an island trading nation that is dependant on food imports to feed ourselves that has to buy ships from the countries our shipbuilding industry was transferred to. We no longer make steel. And we need to buy all our militaries munitions from foreign powers. But we do have an admitted 3 million unemployed or underemployed and a social security and defence bill of something round £165/170 billion to pay. Private ownership of everything is not the best way to go. That is why mixed economies are the best! Finally, I think you need to understand that the USA has no interest in any countries internal politics. It uses internal politics as an excuse to use its economic and military might to gain unfettered access to market for its multinational corporations. Allow the USA to exploit your economy and you can cut peoples hand and heads off in public (Saudi Arabia) and your a goody. You kick out the mafia and the corrupt government they bought (Cuba) and your part of a communist plot to overthrow everything that is good and wholesome as apple pie! I think a lot of Tory supporters really need to open their eyes and see exactly what they are supporting!" Sorry but half that rant passed me by as off topic. I'm just pointing out to you that there's something called the agent -principle problem. It exists whether assets are run by government or private companies. Therefore, the idea the government runs things for "the good of the country" logically flawed. Most large organisations end up being run for the good of their management (the agent). I'm not a Tory either but thanks for asking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are these the same economists that thought Gordon Brown was a competent chancellor? The guy who ruined everyone's pension, the bloke who could grasp the simple idea that you buy when price is low and sell when high so virtually gave away all our gold reserves to fritter away on shite? Excuse me if I don't give a flying fuck what they or the guardian think." Hey, I'm no brown nose (like it? ) but if you don't know why he sold the gold, it's worth finding out. Let's just say, he saved goldmans ass. As for economists, it's the old joke - put 100 economists in a room and you get 100 different opinions. It's not an exact predictive science. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
I am still mildly perplexed about why students in the 80s overly involved themselves in the economic theory differences of the centre-right, but then, I wasn't there.
I never found out if that post was a Haiku either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok so have a look at the Soviet union to see what happens when everything is "run for the good of the country", or cuba." "what happens" given the particular economic circumstances at that time and in that particular location. The USSR, is not Cuba, is not Chile, is not Great Britain.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry but half that rant passed me by as off topic. I'm just pointing out to you that there's something called the agent -principle problem. It exists whether assets are run by government or private companies. Therefore, the idea the government runs things for "the good of the country" logically flawed. Most large organisations end up being run for the good of their management (the agent). I'm not a Tory either but thanks for asking." Of course it would, being that it was 3 or 4 separate answers to 3 or 4 separate posts. Maybe if you read and answered each post in turn you would not be so confused or just possibly you would find that you would not be able to look quite so reasonable by misquoting and misrepresenting what others say. I look forward to being added to your ignore list. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. " You mean left wing loonies,North Korea probably has so called economists to! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People feeling smug because they "know about economics" should pause for a minute and realise that modern economic theory is an academic embarrassment. Somewhere between the classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc) and 1998 - economics got invaded by a bunch of moronic mathematicians who were more concerned about building sexy models than predicting anything. They completely detached themselves from reality in order to make their models fit a vacuum world that doesn't exist. There are 15,000 economists in the USA alone and as sexybum will tell you, most of us have enough fingers to count the number that saw 2008 coming. Most of them were trained in very abstract mathematical models that don't understand even the most basic principles of real economics. If you don't believe me, look at their definition of "productivity" and see if you can't spot a flaw in it. If you don't understand productivity then you definately don't understand how the economy works. Modern economic theory is pseudo science at its best. Most of the Nobel prize winners in economics have driven private companies into the ground with their nonsense (Google: Long Term Capital Management)" . They were the first people to be bailed out, what gets on my nerves is this intrinsic view that somebody who's made millions did it out of brilliance.... That may have been true 40 years ago! Today they just take handouts, their no different than anybody receiving gosubsidies subsidies | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those that keep comparing house hold economics to state economics.... Oh dear where to begin, there completely different! Unless your printing your own money for your household budget! so those who have not had the ability to 'print money' and yet have been fortunate enough to be in a comfortable position due to managing their own 'economy' albeit without the myriad of factors that beset a government/country have been lucky or just used common sense and good practises.. take away the ability to 'QE' and its a different story.. i am pants at dead hard sums but i know if i spend more than we earn we get into debt and yes using credit sensibly is an option it has a cost down the line.. the mantra that some of our forebears had of 'cant afford it, go without now or save' has been lost with some both individually and collectively.. " . I'll give you exact evidence of why it's wrong. Usa. Worlds biggest debter, worlds biggest economy! Imagine your credit card was owned by you! And you could give yourself unlimited credit by... How shall we say, fraud. Right all you have to do is make sure the next you is fucked over, ie you've no competition! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those that keep comparing house hold economics to state economics.... Oh dear where to begin, there completely different! Unless your printing your own money for your household budget! so those who have not had the ability to 'print money' and yet have been fortunate enough to be in a comfortable position due to managing their own 'economy' albeit without the myriad of factors that beset a government/country have been lucky or just used common sense and good practises.. take away the ability to 'QE' and its a different story.. i am pants at dead hard sums but i know if i spend more than we earn we get into debt and yes using credit sensibly is an option it has a cost down the line.. the mantra that some of our forebears had of 'cant afford it, go without now or save' has been lost with some both individually and collectively.. . I'll give you exact evidence of why it's wrong. Usa. Worlds biggest debter, worlds biggest economy! Imagine your credit card was owned by you! And you could give yourself unlimited credit by... How shall we say, fraud. Right all you have to do is make sure the next you is fucked over, ie you've no competition!" QE is wrong..? if thats what your saying then its pretty clear i agree.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up." . That's bollocks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are these the same economists that thought Gordon Brown was a competent chancellor? The guy who ruined everyone's pension, the bloke who could grasp the simple idea that you buy when price is low and sell when high so virtually gave away all our gold reserves to fritter away on shite? Excuse me if I don't give a flying fuck what they or the guardian think." . Again utter bollocks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those that keep comparing house hold economics to state economics.... Oh dear where to begin, there completely different! Unless your printing your own money for your household budget! so those who have not had the ability to 'print money' and yet have been fortunate enough to be in a comfortable position due to managing their own 'economy' albeit without the myriad of factors that beset a government/country have been lucky or just used common sense and good practises.. take away the ability to 'QE' and its a different story.. i am pants at dead hard sums but i know if i spend more than we earn we get into debt and yes using credit sensibly is an option it has a cost down the line.. the mantra that some of our forebears had of 'cant afford it, go without now or save' has been lost with some both individually and collectively.. . I'll give you exact evidence of why it's wrong. Usa. Worlds biggest debter, worlds biggest economy! Imagine your credit card was owned by you! And you could give yourself unlimited credit by... How shall we say, fraud. Right all you have to do is make sure the next you is fucked over, ie you've no competition! QE is wrong..? if thats what your saying then its pretty clear i agree.. " . QE sounds good, it ticks all the ooo aren't we doing well boxs but in reality it just bites you on the arse, 10 years later!. Look the bank of England bought hundreds of billions of worthless shite debt (private debt) from banks, to help with their balance sheet.... It's a pointless exercise in futility! What we should have done is bail out the average shmuck with maximum 30k deposits, let everyone else who bet black take a big stick up the arse and restart the banking industry.... First lesson, just because things look good, they aint necessary good. On that point I would say, less than 1% understand economics | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those that keep comparing house hold economics to state economics.... Oh dear where to begin, there completely different! Unless your printing your own money for your household budget! so those who have not had the ability to 'print money' and yet have been fortunate enough to be in a comfortable position due to managing their own 'economy' albeit without the myriad of factors that beset a government/country have been lucky or just used common sense and good practises.. take away the ability to 'QE' and its a different story.. i am pants at dead hard sums but i know if i spend more than we earn we get into debt and yes using credit sensibly is an option it has a cost down the line.. the mantra that some of our forebears had of 'cant afford it, go without now or save' has been lost with some both individually and collectively.. . I'll give you exact evidence of why it's wrong. Usa. Worlds biggest debter, worlds biggest economy! Imagine your credit card was owned by you! And you could give yourself unlimited credit by... How shall we say, fraud. Right all you have to do is make sure the next you is fucked over, ie you've no competition! QE is wrong..? if thats what your saying then its pretty clear i agree.. " . Worse still it gets back to the argument I had with man4 you... It's why the third world is fucked.... We have to keep it fucked, there out next competitor! Money doesn't make the world go around! Oil does | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those that keep comparing house hold economics to state economics.... Oh dear where to begin, there completely different! Unless your printing your own money for your household budget! so those who have not had the ability to 'print money' and yet have been fortunate enough to be in a comfortable position due to managing their own 'economy' albeit without the myriad of factors that beset a government/country have been lucky or just used common sense and good practises.. take away the ability to 'QE' and its a different story.. i am pants at dead hard sums but i know if i spend more than we earn we get into debt and yes using credit sensibly is an option it has a cost down the line.. the mantra that some of our forebears had of 'cant afford it, go without now or save' has been lost with some both individually and collectively.. . I'll give you exact evidence of why it's wrong. Usa. Worlds biggest debter, worlds biggest economy! Imagine your credit card was owned by you! And you could give yourself unlimited credit by... How shall we say, fraud. Right all you have to do is make sure the next you is fucked over, ie you've no competition! QE is wrong..? if thats what your saying then its pretty clear i agree.. . Worse still it gets back to the argument I had with man4 you... It's why the third world is fucked.... We have to keep it fucked, there out next competitor! Money doesn't make the world go around! Oil does" You can collect that £5 for plugging my profile on April 1st next year --- in the meanwhile the only argument we've had is about your dodgy use of numbers from time to time | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up.. That's bollocks" While you may be able to nit pick on a few details, I think calling it "bollocks" is a bit strong. One way or another every Labour government has left the country in the shit. Even Atlee bit off more than he could chew and presided over a period of austerity that would make today's bit of hardship look like the land of milk and honey. Rationing and food queue's were part of life for the whole of his period in power and only finally came to an end during the subsequent Conservative administration. I know than many Labour supporters like to airbrush history a little but a truck load of whitewash couldn't make the Wilson/Callaghan government look competent on the economy. They left the country well and truly up shit creek in 1979. Then we come to Blair/Brown. I'll admit that Major's government was not perfect, screw ups like the ERM didn't do him or Lamont any favours, but the books were in pretty good shape, but from day one Blair and Brown put the interests of the Labour party above the country at every turn. They set about building a client state of benefit claimants, public sector workers, and encouraged mass immigration all driven by the one thought, that they would all be natural Labour voters forever. Tory propaganda you may say. Nope, all of the above was admitted by Peter Mandelson no less. Flogging the gold (although treacherous) was a minor detail compared to the real damage caused by the last Labour government. So please tell me which Labour government left the country financially better off than when they took over? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up.. That's bollocks While you may be able to nit pick on a few details, I think calling it "bollocks" is a bit strong. One way or another every Labour government has left the country in the shit. Even Atlee bit off more than he could chew and presided over a period of austerity that would make today's bit of hardship look like the land of milk and honey. Rationing and food queue's were part of life for the whole of his period in power and only finally came to an end during the subsequent Conservative administration. I know than many Labour supporters like to airbrush history a little but a truck load of whitewash couldn't make the Wilson/Callaghan government look competent on the economy. They left the country well and truly up shit creek in 1979. Then we come to Blair/Brown. I'll admit that Major's government was not perfect, screw ups like the ERM didn't do him or Lamont any favours, but the books were in pretty good shape, but from day one Blair and Brown put the interests of the Labour party above the country at every turn. They set about building a client state of benefit claimants, public sector workers, and encouraged mass immigration all driven by the one thought, that they would all be natural Labour voters forever. Tory propaganda you may say. Nope, all of the above was admitted by Peter Mandelson no less. Flogging the gold (although treacherous) was a minor detail compared to the real damage caused by the last Labour government. So please tell me which Labour government left the country financially better off than when they took over?" Interesting ironic side note, in the 1951 General Election manifestos Labour pledged to retain the austerity policy of rationing...The Conservatives pledged to end it if voted in, and is widely acknowledged as one of the reasons the Tories got back in power. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up.. That's bollocks While you may be able to nit pick on a few details, I think calling it "bollocks" is a bit strong. One way or another every Labour government has left the country in the shit. Even Atlee bit off more than he could chew and presided over a period of austerity that would make today's bit of hardship look like the land of milk and honey. Rationing and food queue's were part of life for the whole of his period in power and only finally came to an end during the subsequent Conservative administration. I know than many Labour supporters like to airbrush history a little but a truck load of whitewash couldn't make the Wilson/Callaghan government look competent on the economy. They left the country well and truly up shit creek in 1979. Then we come to Blair/Brown. I'll admit that Major's government was not perfect, screw ups like the ERM didn't do him or Lamont any favours, but the books were in pretty good shape, but from day one Blair and Brown put the interests of the Labour party above the country at every turn. They set about building a client state of benefit claimants, public sector workers, and encouraged mass immigration all driven by the one thought, that they would all be natural Labour voters forever. Tory propaganda you may say. Nope, all of the above was admitted by Peter Mandelson no less. Flogging the gold (although treacherous) was a minor detail compared to the real damage caused by the last Labour government. So please tell me which Labour government left the country financially better off than when they took over? Interesting ironic side note, in the 1951 General Election manifestos Labour pledged to retain the austerity policy of rationing...The Conservatives pledged to end it if voted in, and is widely acknowledged as one of the reasons the Tories got back in power. " Yes and the Tory's kept that promise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those that keep comparing house hold economics to state economics.... Oh dear where to begin, there completely different! Unless your printing your own money for your household budget! so those who have not had the ability to 'print money' and yet have been fortunate enough to be in a comfortable position due to managing their own 'economy' albeit without the myriad of factors that beset a government/country have been lucky or just used common sense and good practises.. take away the ability to 'QE' and its a different story.. i am pants at dead hard sums but i know if i spend more than we earn we get into debt and yes using credit sensibly is an option it has a cost down the line.. the mantra that some of our forebears had of 'cant afford it, go without now or save' has been lost with some both individually and collectively.. . I'll give you exact evidence of why it's wrong. Usa. Worlds biggest debter, worlds biggest economy! Imagine your credit card was owned by you! And you could give yourself unlimited credit by... How shall we say, fraud. Right all you have to do is make sure the next you is fucked over, ie you've no competition! QE is wrong..? if thats what your saying then its pretty clear i agree.. . Worse still it gets back to the argument I had with man4 you... It's why the third world is fucked.... We have to keep it fucked, there out next competitor! Money doesn't make the world go around! Oil does You can collect that £5 for plugging my profile on April 1st next year --- in the meanwhile the only argument we've had is about your dodgy use of numbers from time to time ". Cha ching | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up.. That's bollocks While you may be able to nit pick on a few details, I think calling it "bollocks" is a bit strong. One way or another every Labour government has left the country in the shit. Even Atlee bit off more than he could chew and presided over a period of austerity that would make today's bit of hardship look like the land of milk and honey. Rationing and food queue's were part of life for the whole of his period in power and only finally came to an end during the subsequent Conservative administration. I know than many Labour supporters like to airbrush history a little but a truck load of whitewash couldn't make the Wilson/Callaghan government look competent on the economy. They left the country well and truly up shit creek in 1979. Then we come to Blair/Brown. I'll admit that Major's government was not perfect, screw ups like the ERM didn't do him or Lamont any favours, but the books were in pretty good shape, but from day one Blair and Brown put the interests of the Labour party above the country at every turn. They set about building a client state of benefit claimants, public sector workers, and encouraged mass immigration all driven by the one thought, that they would all be natural Labour voters forever. Tory propaganda you may say. Nope, all of the above was admitted by Peter Mandelson no less. Flogging the gold (although treacherous) was a minor detail compared to the real damage caused by the last Labour government. So please tell me which Labour government left the country financially better off than when they took over?" . Which government ever did! Your just picking on labour to suit your ideology! The 1970s was a mixture of mismanaged government (nothing new there) and an oil crises... You remember don't you 1974 oil quadrupled in price and that was the end of our manufacturing, of which at the time that was our main industry (a bit like banking going up the swannie) And again we had the second energy crises in 78 and that was that! Margret Thatcher did nothing special except benefit from the emerging north sea oil (of which the uk government had spent a fortune in the 70s extracting) , sell off state assets and deregulate the financial industries ( which took 30 years to become yet another government fuck up, with labour help id add in 2002 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up.. That's bollocks While you may be able to nit pick on a few details, I think calling it "bollocks" is a bit strong. One way or another every Labour government has left the country in the shit. Even Atlee bit off more than he could chew and presided over a period of austerity that would make today's bit of hardship look like the land of milk and honey. Rationing and food queue's were part of life for the whole of his period in power and only finally came to an end during the subsequent Conservative administration. I know than many Labour supporters like to airbrush history a little but a truck load of whitewash couldn't make the Wilson/Callaghan government look competent on the economy. They left the country well and truly up shit creek in 1979. Then we come to Blair/Brown. I'll admit that Major's government was not perfect, screw ups like the ERM didn't do him or Lamont any favours, but the books were in pretty good shape, but from day one Blair and Brown put the interests of the Labour party above the country at every turn. They set about building a client state of benefit claimants, public sector workers, and encouraged mass immigration all driven by the one thought, that they would all be natural Labour voters forever. Tory propaganda you may say. Nope, all of the above was admitted by Peter Mandelson no less. Flogging the gold (although treacherous) was a minor detail compared to the real damage caused by the last Labour government. So please tell me which Labour government left the country financially better off than when they took over?. Which government ever did! Your just picking on labour to suit your ideology! " Er!!!! Churchill/Eden/McMillan/Home did pretty well from 1951-64. Thatcher/Major left the country a damn site better off in 1997 than what they inherited in '79. I suppose you could pick on Heath but he was sandwiched between two bouts of Wilson and hamstrung by the deliberate chaos caused by Labour's paymasters, so he was always on a hiding to nothing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up.. That's bollocks While you may be able to nit pick on a few details, I think calling it "bollocks" is a bit strong. One way or another every Labour government has left the country in the shit. Even Atlee bit off more than he could chew and presided over a period of austerity that would make today's bit of hardship look like the land of milk and honey. Rationing and food queue's were part of life for the whole of his period in power and only finally came to an end during the subsequent Conservative administration. I know than many Labour supporters like to airbrush history a little but a truck load of whitewash couldn't make the Wilson/Callaghan government look competent on the economy. They left the country well and truly up shit creek in 1979. Then we come to Blair/Brown. I'll admit that Major's government was not perfect, screw ups like the ERM didn't do him or Lamont any favours, but the books were in pretty good shape, but from day one Blair and Brown put the interests of the Labour party above the country at every turn. They set about building a client state of benefit claimants, public sector workers, and encouraged mass immigration all driven by the one thought, that they would all be natural Labour voters forever. Tory propaganda you may say. Nope, all of the above was admitted by Peter Mandelson no less. Flogging the gold (although treacherous) was a minor detail compared to the real damage caused by the last Labour government. So please tell me which Labour government left the country financially better off than when they took over?. Which government ever did! Your just picking on labour to suit your ideology! Er!!!! Churchill/Eden/McMillan/Home did pretty well from 1951-64. Thatcher/Major left the country a damn site better off in 1997 than what they inherited in '79. I suppose you could pick on Heath but he was sandwiched between two bouts of Wilson and hamstrung by the deliberate chaos caused by Labour's paymasters, so he was always on a hiding to nothing. " . 51- 64 The boom years after the war you mean where they taxed the top rate at 90%! Yeah well you couldn't really go wrong, there'd just spent 6 blowing everybody's industry to shit and had a pretty big rebuilding job! Oh and rationing ended... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up.. That's bollocks While you may be able to nit pick on a few details, I think calling it "bollocks" is a bit strong. One way or another every Labour government has left the country in the shit. Even Atlee bit off more than he could chew and presided over a period of austerity that would make today's bit of hardship look like the land of milk and honey. Rationing and food queue's were part of life for the whole of his period in power and only finally came to an end during the subsequent Conservative administration. I know than many Labour supporters like to airbrush history a little but a truck load of whitewash couldn't make the Wilson/Callaghan government look competent on the economy. They left the country well and truly up shit creek in 1979. Then we come to Blair/Brown. I'll admit that Major's government was not perfect, screw ups like the ERM didn't do him or Lamont any favours, but the books were in pretty good shape, but from day one Blair and Brown put the interests of the Labour party above the country at every turn. They set about building a client state of benefit claimants, public sector workers, and encouraged mass immigration all driven by the one thought, that they would all be natural Labour voters forever. Tory propaganda you may say. Nope, all of the above was admitted by Peter Mandelson no less. Flogging the gold (although treacherous) was a minor detail compared to the real damage caused by the last Labour government. So please tell me which Labour government left the country financially better off than when they took over?. Which government ever did! Your just picking on labour to suit your ideology! The 1970s was a mixture of mismanaged government (nothing new there) and an oil crises... You remember don't you 1974 oil quadrupled in price and that was the end of our manufacturing, of which at the time that was our main industry (a bit like banking going up the swannie) And again we had the second energy crises in 78 and that was that! Margret Thatcher did nothing special except benefit from the emerging north sea oil (of which the uk government had spent a fortune in the 70s extracting) , sell off state assets and deregulate the financial industries ( which took 30 years to become yet another government fuck up, with labour help id add in 2002" Your doing well to remember 1974 considering, according to your profile, you were three at the time..lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up.. That's bollocks While you may be able to nit pick on a few details, I think calling it "bollocks" is a bit strong. One way or another every Labour government has left the country in the shit. Even Atlee bit off more than he could chew and presided over a period of austerity that would make today's bit of hardship look like the land of milk and honey. Rationing and food queue's were part of life for the whole of his period in power and only finally came to an end during the subsequent Conservative administration. I know than many Labour supporters like to airbrush history a little but a truck load of whitewash couldn't make the Wilson/Callaghan government look competent on the economy. They left the country well and truly up shit creek in 1979. Then we come to Blair/Brown. I'll admit that Major's government was not perfect, screw ups like the ERM didn't do him or Lamont any favours, but the books were in pretty good shape, but from day one Blair and Brown put the interests of the Labour party above the country at every turn. They set about building a client state of benefit claimants, public sector workers, and encouraged mass immigration all driven by the one thought, that they would all be natural Labour voters forever. Tory propaganda you may say. Nope, all of the above was admitted by Peter Mandelson no less. Flogging the gold (although treacherous) was a minor detail compared to the real damage caused by the last Labour government. So please tell me which Labour government left the country financially better off than when they took over?. Which government ever did! Your just picking on labour to suit your ideology! The 1970s was a mixture of mismanaged government (nothing new there) and an oil crises... You remember don't you 1974 oil quadrupled in price and that was the end of our manufacturing, of which at the time that was our main industry (a bit like banking going up the swannie) And again we had the second energy crises in 78 and that was that! Margret Thatcher did nothing special except benefit from the emerging north sea oil (of which the uk government had spent a fortune in the 70s extracting) , sell off state assets and deregulate the financial industries ( which took 30 years to become yet another government fuck up, with labour help id add in 2002 Your doing well to remember 1974 considering, according to your profile, you were three at the time..lol" . There called history books, I know a fair bit about the Napoleonic wars as well even though my parents weren't even born! You ever wondered why they gloss over facts like an oil crises? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up.. That's bollocks While you may be able to nit pick on a few details, I think calling it "bollocks" is a bit strong. One way or another every Labour government has left the country in the shit. Even Atlee bit off more than he could chew and presided over a period of austerity that would make today's bit of hardship look like the land of milk and honey. Rationing and food queue's were part of life for the whole of his period in power and only finally came to an end during the subsequent Conservative administration. I know than many Labour supporters like to airbrush history a little but a truck load of whitewash couldn't make the Wilson/Callaghan government look competent on the economy. They left the country well and truly up shit creek in 1979. Then we come to Blair/Brown. I'll admit that Major's government was not perfect, screw ups like the ERM didn't do him or Lamont any favours, but the books were in pretty good shape, but from day one Blair and Brown put the interests of the Labour party above the country at every turn. They set about building a client state of benefit claimants, public sector workers, and encouraged mass immigration all driven by the one thought, that they would all be natural Labour voters forever. Tory propaganda you may say. Nope, all of the above was admitted by Peter Mandelson no less. Flogging the gold (although treacherous) was a minor detail compared to the real damage caused by the last Labour government. So please tell me which Labour government left the country financially better off than when they took over?. Which government ever did! Your just picking on labour to suit your ideology! The 1970s was a mixture of mismanaged government (nothing new there) and an oil crises... You remember don't you 1974 oil quadrupled in price and that was the end of our manufacturing, of which at the time that was our main industry (a bit like banking going up the swannie) And again we had the second energy crises in 78 and that was that! Margret Thatcher did nothing special except benefit from the emerging north sea oil (of which the uk government had spent a fortune in the 70s extracting) , sell off state assets and deregulate the financial industries ( which took 30 years to become yet another government fuck up, with labour help id add in 2002 Your doing well to remember 1974 considering, according to your profile, you were three at the time..lol. There called history books, I know a fair bit about the Napoleonic wars as well even though my parents weren't even born! You ever wondered why they gloss over facts like an oil crises?" Of course, History books...who is they? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up.. That's bollocks While you may be able to nit pick on a few details, I think calling it "bollocks" is a bit strong. One way or another every Labour government has left the country in the shit. Even Atlee bit off more than he could chew and presided over a period of austerity that would make today's bit of hardship look like the land of milk and honey. Rationing and food queue's were part of life for the whole of his period in power and only finally came to an end during the subsequent Conservative administration. I know than many Labour supporters like to airbrush history a little but a truck load of whitewash couldn't make the Wilson/Callaghan government look competent on the economy. They left the country well and truly up shit creek in 1979. Then we come to Blair/Brown. I'll admit that Major's government was not perfect, screw ups like the ERM didn't do him or Lamont any favours, but the books were in pretty good shape, but from day one Blair and Brown put the interests of the Labour party above the country at every turn. They set about building a client state of benefit claimants, public sector workers, and encouraged mass immigration all driven by the one thought, that they would all be natural Labour voters forever. Tory propaganda you may say. Nope, all of the above was admitted by Peter Mandelson no less. Flogging the gold (although treacherous) was a minor detail compared to the real damage caused by the last Labour government. So please tell me which Labour government left the country financially better off than when they took over?. Which government ever did! Your just picking on labour to suit your ideology! The 1970s was a mixture of mismanaged government (nothing new there) and an oil crises... You remember don't you 1974 oil quadrupled in price and that was the end of our manufacturing, of which at the time that was our main industry (a bit like banking going up the swannie) And again we had the second energy crises in 78 and that was that! Margret Thatcher did nothing special except benefit from the emerging north sea oil (of which the uk government had spent a fortune in the 70s extracting) , sell off state assets and deregulate the financial industries ( which took 30 years to become yet another government fuck up, with labour help id add in 2002 Your doing well to remember 1974 considering, according to your profile, you were three at the time..lol. There called history books, I know a fair bit about the Napoleonic wars as well even though my parents weren't even born! You ever wondered why they gloss over facts like an oil crises? Of course, History books...who is they?" Thems the people that lived to tell the tale | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up.. That's bollocks While you may be able to nit pick on a few details, I think calling it "bollocks" is a bit strong. One way or another every Labour government has left the country in the shit. Even Atlee bit off more than he could chew and presided over a period of austerity that would make today's bit of hardship look like the land of milk and honey. Rationing and food queue's were part of life for the whole of his period in power and only finally came to an end during the subsequent Conservative administration. I know than many Labour supporters like to airbrush history a little but a truck load of whitewash couldn't make the Wilson/Callaghan government look competent on the economy. They left the country well and truly up shit creek in 1979. Then we come to Blair/Brown. I'll admit that Major's government was not perfect, screw ups like the ERM didn't do him or Lamont any favours, but the books were in pretty good shape, but from day one Blair and Brown put the interests of the Labour party above the country at every turn. They set about building a client state of benefit claimants, public sector workers, and encouraged mass immigration all driven by the one thought, that they would all be natural Labour voters forever. Tory propaganda you may say. Nope, all of the above was admitted by Peter Mandelson no less. Flogging the gold (although treacherous) was a minor detail compared to the real damage caused by the last Labour government. So please tell me which Labour government left the country financially better off than when they took over?. Which government ever did! Your just picking on labour to suit your ideology! The 1970s was a mixture of mismanaged government (nothing new there) and an oil crises... You remember don't you 1974 oil quadrupled in price and that was the end of our manufacturing, of which at the time that was our main industry (a bit like banking going up the swannie) And again we had the second energy crises in 78 and that was that! Margret Thatcher did nothing special except benefit from the emerging north sea oil (of which the uk government had spent a fortune in the 70s extracting) , sell off state assets and deregulate the financial industries ( which took 30 years to become yet another government fuck up, with labour help id add in 2002 Your doing well to remember 1974 considering, according to your profile, you were three at the time..lol. There called history books, I know a fair bit about the Napoleonic wars as well even though my parents weren't even born! You ever wondered why they gloss over facts like an oil crises? Of course, History books...who is they? Thems the people that lived to tell the tale "Indeed... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Proud Corbynite here. He's just what Labour needs. Hated Fucking Blair - class betrayer." Be honest, did you hate him in '97 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Proud Corbynite here. He's just what Labour needs. Hated Fucking Blair - class betrayer." Love him or hate him he was an ELECTABLE class traitor. Corbyn will never be electable as PM. He will appeal to the Labour core vote and could even bring back a few SNP defectors but he will never take the middle ground, and no party has ever won an election without it. I should be saying "bring him on" but no, because as much as I despise the Labour party I accept that any government needs a credible opposition and currently that has to be (for all its faults) the Labour party. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I hated him the instant he rewrote the manifesto getting rid of all mention of socialism. That was when he first became leader of the party. I never ever voted for the bastard because of that. " Both Gaitskell and Kinnock tried to amend Clause 4, both were voted down. The 1995 Labour conference voted to amend it to as it stands today. Were they all class traitors? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up.. That's bollocks While you may be able to nit pick on a few details, I think calling it "bollocks" is a bit strong. One way or another every Labour government has left the country in the shit. Even Atlee bit off more than he could chew and presided over a period of austerity that would make today's bit of hardship look like the land of milk and honey. Rationing and food queue's were part of life for the whole of his period in power and only finally came to an end during the subsequent Conservative administration. I know than many Labour supporters like to airbrush history a little but a truck load of whitewash couldn't make the Wilson/Callaghan government look competent on the economy. They left the country well and truly up shit creek in 1979. Then we come to Blair/Brown. I'll admit that Major's government was not perfect, screw ups like the ERM didn't do him or Lamont any favours, but the books were in pretty good shape, but from day one Blair and Brown put the interests of the Labour party above the country at every turn. They set about building a client state of benefit claimants, public sector workers, and encouraged mass immigration all driven by the one thought, that they would all be natural Labour voters forever. Tory propaganda you may say. Nope, all of the above was admitted by Peter Mandelson no less. Flogging the gold (although treacherous) was a minor detail compared to the real damage caused by the last Labour government. So please tell me which Labour government left the country financially better off than when they took over?. Which government ever did! Your just picking on labour to suit your ideology! The 1970s was a mixture of mismanaged government (nothing new there) and an oil crises... You remember don't you 1974 oil quadrupled in price and that was the end of our manufacturing, of which at the time that was our main industry (a bit like banking going up the swannie) And again we had the second energy crises in 78 and that was that! Margret Thatcher did nothing special except benefit from the emerging north sea oil (of which the uk government had spent a fortune in the 70s extracting) , sell off state assets and deregulate the financial industries ( which took 30 years to become yet another government fuck up, with labour help id add in 2002 Your doing well to remember 1974 considering, according to your profile, you were three at the time..lol. There called history books, I know a fair bit about the Napoleonic wars as well even though my parents weren't even born! You ever wondered why they gloss over facts like an oil crises? Of course, History books...who is they? Thems the people that lived to tell the tale
Indeed...". I prefer Napoleons quote History is written by the victors! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There weren't even 41 economists in the world who managed to foresee and warn us of the 2008 meltdown so please forgive me if I fail to give a crap about their opinion now. I agree I suspect that the backing of Jeremy Corbyn by economists may actually be part of a ploy to ensure he gets elected as Labour leader thus ensuring a Conservative election victory in 2020 and thereby keeping our economy in safe hands. Labour have NEVER been credible when it has come to the economy. Every time they have been in government they have over spent and over borrowed leaving a mess for a Conservative government to clear up.. That's bollocks While you may be able to nit pick on a few details, I think calling it "bollocks" is a bit strong. One way or another every Labour government has left the country in the shit. Even Atlee bit off more than he could chew and presided over a period of austerity that would make today's bit of hardship look like the land of milk and honey. Rationing and food queue's were part of life for the whole of his period in power and only finally came to an end during the subsequent Conservative administration. I know than many Labour supporters like to airbrush history a little but a truck load of whitewash couldn't make the Wilson/Callaghan government look competent on the economy. They left the country well and truly up shit creek in 1979. Then we come to Blair/Brown. I'll admit that Major's government was not perfect, screw ups like the ERM didn't do him or Lamont any favours, but the books were in pretty good shape, but from day one Blair and Brown put the interests of the Labour party above the country at every turn. They set about building a client state of benefit claimants, public sector workers, and encouraged mass immigration all driven by the one thought, that they would all be natural Labour voters forever. Tory propaganda you may say. Nope, all of the above was admitted by Peter Mandelson no less. Flogging the gold (although treacherous) was a minor detail compared to the real damage caused by the last Labour government. So please tell me which Labour government left the country financially better off than when they took over?. Which government ever did! Your just picking on labour to suit your ideology! The 1970s was a mixture of mismanaged government (nothing new there) and an oil crises... You remember don't you 1974 oil quadrupled in price and that was the end of our manufacturing, of which at the time that was our main industry (a bit like banking going up the swannie) And again we had the second energy crises in 78 and that was that! Margret Thatcher did nothing special except benefit from the emerging north sea oil (of which the uk government had spent a fortune in the 70s extracting) , sell off state assets and deregulate the financial industries ( which took 30 years to become yet another government fuck up, with labour help id add in 2002 Your doing well to remember 1974 considering, according to your profile, you were three at the time..lol. There called history books, I know a fair bit about the Napoleonic wars as well even though my parents weren't even born! You ever wondered why they gloss over facts like an oil crises? Of course, History books...who is they? Thems the people that lived to tell the tale
Indeed....
I prefer Napoleons quote
History is written by the victors!"That's the problem with History books! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Of course, History books...who is they? Thems the people that lived to tell the tale
Indeed....
I prefer Napoleons quote
History is written by the victors!
That's the problem with History books!"They're written by people and people lie. Both to others and to themselves. They see things through the prism of their experiences and become a manifestation of the sum of those experiences.. I've little doubt that most people are well intentioned and are convinced by their motivations....its a shame we humans are such a fractured collective. As far as economics is concerned, to me it's the science of conjecture. Leading economists are like modern day imams and priests calling us to their dogma. I plead ignorance. How can I not when there are as many schools of economic though as there are denominations with in a single religion? And so scarce among them were those able to prophesy the financial doomsday of '08. Ultimately, I feel a balance of thought is necessary to get close to the social harmony we'd all like. For me, whether I'm a supporter/blind follower of Corbyn or not, I think he brings that to us by being such a vivid alternative to the status quo. Electable or not - the government of any day needs the opposition to hold a mirror to the decision makers and provide both support and criticism. May the best team win. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would estimate that no more than 10% of voters have enough of a grasp of economics to make an informed choice at the ballot box. In fact, that is probably a wildly optimistic estimate." It would be a complete fool who voted based on a political parties economic claims. Economics work over periods of decades politics works to a maximum of half a decade, those figures will never balance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes that's why you need to read many of them and take in account facts with theories! So someone may say oooo the labour party ruined the countries economics in the 70s but I would counter that with.... Any party would have ruined the economics of the country in the 70s because outside interests play more a role in growth than inside tinkering by politicans! Think of it this way! A litre of fuel in an average car will get you somewhere in the region of 12 miles down the road, it costs £1:10 Now try pushing your car for 12 miles and see how much it costs you in labour.... "Oh I've read lots! Think of it this way If History is indeed written by victors it doesn't really matter how much you read, it will all be a jaundiced view. Unless of course you are privy to information denied the rest of us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes that's why you need to read many of them and take in account facts with theories! So someone may say oooo the labour party ruined the countries economics in the 70s but I would counter that with.... Any party would have ruined the economics of the country in the 70s because outside interests play more a role in growth than inside tinkering by politicans! Think of it this way! A litre of fuel in an average car will get you somewhere in the region of 12 miles down the road, it costs £1:10 Now try pushing your car for 12 miles and see how much it costs you in labour....
Oh I've read lots!
Think of it this way
If History is indeed written by victors it doesn't really matter how much you read, it will all be a jaundiced view.
Unless of course you are privy to information denied the rest of us.". Why insinuate some conspiracy theory?. There's as much history that you've heard of, as history you haven't heard of. Mainstream theology of economics changes every couple of decades, it changes because some people think outside of traditional thinking, some of these ideas get backed up by facts and become mainstream, the exact same thing happens with history | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes that's why you need to read many of them and take in account facts with theories! So someone may say oooo the labour party ruined the countries economics in the 70s but I would counter that with.... Any party would have ruined the economics of the country in the 70s because outside interests play more a role in growth than inside tinkering by politicans! Think of it this way! A litre of fuel in an average car will get you somewhere in the region of 12 miles down the road, it costs £1:10 Now try pushing your car for 12 miles and see how much it costs you in labour....
Oh I've read lots!
Think of it this way
If History is indeed written by victors it doesn't really matter how much you read, it will all be a jaundiced view.
Unless of course you are privy to information denied the rest of us..
Why insinuate some conspiracy theory?.
There's as much history that you've heard of, as history you haven't heard of.
Mainstream theology of economics changes every couple of decades, it changes because some people think outside of traditional thinking, some of these ideas get backed up by facts and become mainstream, the exact same thing happens with history"Ahem..you quoted History is written by the victors..now that's a conspiracy theory. One which I happen not to believe...thinks sometimes sexy bum you should refer to your previous posts in order to remain consistent. You still haven't answered my question re the 'they' who glossed over the oil crisis in the seventies. Please tell me it's not a conspiracy theory. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes that's why you need to read many of them and take in account facts with theories! So someone may say oooo the labour party ruined the countries economics in the 70s but I would counter that with.... Any party would have ruined the economics of the country in the 70s because outside interests play more a role in growth than inside tinkering by politicans! Think of it this way! A litre of fuel in an average car will get you somewhere in the region of 12 miles down the road, it costs £1:10 Now try pushing your car for 12 miles and see how much it costs you in labour....
Oh I've read lots!
Think of it this way
If History is indeed written by victors it doesn't really matter how much you read, it will all be a jaundiced view.
Unless of course you are privy to information denied the rest of us..
Why insinuate some conspiracy theory?.
There's as much history that you've heard of, as history you haven't heard of.
Mainstream theology of economics changes every couple of decades, it changes because some people think outside of traditional thinking, some of these ideas get backed up by facts and become mainstream, the exact same thing happens with history
Ahem..you quoted History is written by the victors..now that's a conspiracy theory.
One which I happen not to believe...thinks sometimes sexy bum you should refer to your previous posts in order to remain consistent.
You still haven't answered my question re the 'they' who glossed over the oil crisis in the seventies.
Please tell me it's not a conspiracy theory.". You keep going off on a tangent. I quoted you a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, that's not a conspiracy theory, it's pretty well obvious that a victor will write their eulogie better than what it was! They are people who use historical context to conclude an ideology but fail to point out an important bit of that history that fail to fit in with their ideology ie an energy crises in 74 and 78? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes that's why you need to read many of them and take in account facts with theories! So someone may say oooo the labour party ruined the countries economics in the 70s but I would counter that with.... Any party would have ruined the economics of the country in the 70s because outside interests play more a role in growth than inside tinkering by politicans! Think of it this way! A litre of fuel in an average car will get you somewhere in the region of 12 miles down the road, it costs £1:10 Now try pushing your car for 12 miles and see how much it costs you in labour....
Oh I've read lots!
Think of it this way
If History is indeed written by victors it doesn't really matter how much you read, it will all be a jaundiced view.
Unless of course you are privy to information denied the rest of us..
Why insinuate some conspiracy theory?.
There's as much history that you've heard of, as history you haven't heard of.
Mainstream theology of economics changes every couple of decades, it changes because some people think outside of traditional thinking, some of these ideas get backed up by facts and become mainstream, the exact same thing happens with history
Ahem..you quoted History is written by the victors..now that's a conspiracy theory.
One which I happen not to believe...thinks sometimes sexy bum you should refer to your previous posts in order to remain consistent.
You still haven't answered my question re the 'they' who glossed over the oil crisis in the seventies.
Please tell me it's not a conspiracy theory..
You keep going off on a tangent.
I quoted you a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, that's not a conspiracy theory, it's pretty well obvious that a victor will write their eulogie better than what it was!
They are people who use historical context to conclude an ideology but fail to point out an important bit of that history that fail to fit in with their ideology ie an energy crises in 74 and 78?
"I don't disagree with what you are saying but would like to add that bad leaders always blame external events for their failure. Good leaders expect that shit will indeed happen and make allowances for it in their strategy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
".... I don't disagree with what you are saying but would like to add that bad leaders always blame external events for their failure. Good leaders expect that shit will indeed happen and make allowances for it in their strategy. " And the Tories will just continue to blame everyone else. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes that's why you need to read many of them and take in account facts with theories! So someone may say oooo the labour party ruined the countries economics in the 70s but I would counter that with.... Any party would have ruined the economics of the country in the 70s because outside interests play more a role in growth than inside tinkering by politicans! Think of it this way! A litre of fuel in an average car will get you somewhere in the region of 12 miles down the road, it costs £1:10 Now try pushing your car for 12 miles and see how much it costs you in labour....
Oh I've read lots!
Think of it this way
If History is indeed written by victors it doesn't really matter how much you read, it will all be a jaundiced view.
Unless of course you are privy to information denied the rest of us..
Why insinuate some conspiracy theory?.
There's as much history that you've heard of, as history you haven't heard of.
Mainstream theology of economics changes every couple of decades, it changes because some people think outside of traditional thinking, some of these ideas get backed up by facts and become mainstream, the exact same thing happens with history
Ahem..you quoted History is written by the victors..now that's a conspiracy theory.
One which I happen not to believe...thinks sometimes sexy bum you should refer to your previous posts in order to remain consistent.
You still haven't answered my question re the 'they' who glossed over the oil crisis in the seventies.
Please tell me it's not a conspiracy theory..
You keep going off on a tangent.
I quoted you a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, that's not a conspiracy theory, it's pretty well obvious that a victor will write their eulogie better than what it was!
They are people who use historical context to conclude an ideology but fail to point out an important bit of that history that fail to fit in with their ideology ie an energy crises in 74 and 78?
"Sexy bum you really should be on Question Time!....you don't answer questions directly.....you swerve deftly off topic, and most tellingly hold opinions that are absolute, totally certain in their provenance, patronising, and consequently highly entertaining. Bless you..keep it up! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes that's why you need to read many of them and take in account facts with theories! So someone may say oooo the labour party ruined the countries economics in the 70s but I would counter that with.... Any party would have ruined the economics of the country in the 70s because outside interests play more a role in growth than inside tinkering by politicans! Think of it this way! A litre of fuel in an average car will get you somewhere in the region of 12 miles down the road, it costs £1:10 Now try pushing your car for 12 miles and see how much it costs you in labour....
Oh I've read lots!
Think of it this way
If History is indeed written by victors it doesn't really matter how much you read, it will all be a jaundiced view.
Unless of course you are privy to information denied the rest of us..
Why insinuate some conspiracy theory?.
There's as much history that you've heard of, as history you haven't heard of.
Mainstream theology of economics changes every couple of decades, it changes because some people think outside of traditional thinking, some of these ideas get backed up by facts and become mainstream, the exact same thing happens with history
Ahem..you quoted History is written by the victors..now that's a conspiracy theory.
One which I happen not to believe...thinks sometimes sexy bum you should refer to your previous posts in order to remain consistent.
You still haven't answered my question re the 'they' who glossed over the oil crisis in the seventies.
Please tell me it's not a conspiracy theory..
You keep going off on a tangent.
I quoted you a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, that's not a conspiracy theory, it's pretty well obvious that a victor will write their eulogie better than what it was!
They are people who use historical context to conclude an ideology but fail to point out an important bit of that history that fail to fit in with their ideology ie an energy crises in 74 and 78?
I don't disagree with what you are saying but would like to add that bad leaders always blame external events for their failure.
Good leaders expect that shit will indeed happen and make allowances for it in their strategy. ". No you hit the nail on the proverbial head before, there's only one real wealth creator, efficiency, however you'd wouldn't fix an energy crises of that magnitude in that space of time though efficiency alone. Yes you could have planned ahead but I guess they never thought the king of Saudi would have stopped selling oil to countries who supported Israel,I guess they were just lucky he was assassinated not long after by his cousin and his successor reverted the decision!. In reality it doesn't matter if your a Muslim, Buddhist, Christian or Jew, your real god is petroleum!, it's in your food, your transport, your industry, your clothing, your plastics, and your cosmetics | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes that's why you need to read many of them and take in account facts with theories! So someone may say oooo the labour party ruined the countries economics in the 70s but I would counter that with.... Any party would have ruined the economics of the country in the 70s because outside interests play more a role in growth than inside tinkering by politicans! Think of it this way! A litre of fuel in an average car will get you somewhere in the region of 12 miles down the road, it costs £1:10 Now try pushing your car for 12 miles and see how much it costs you in labour....
Oh I've read lots!
Think of it this way
If History is indeed written by victors it doesn't really matter how much you read, it will all be a jaundiced view.
Unless of course you are privy to information denied the rest of us..
Why insinuate some conspiracy theory?.
There's as much history that you've heard of, as history you haven't heard of.
Mainstream theology of economics changes every couple of decades, it changes because some people think outside of traditional thinking, some of these ideas get backed up by facts and become mainstream, the exact same thing happens with history
Ahem..you quoted History is written by the victors..now that's a conspiracy theory.
One which I happen not to believe...thinks sometimes sexy bum you should refer to your previous posts in order to remain consistent.
You still haven't answered my question re the 'they' who glossed over the oil crisis in the seventies.
Please tell me it's not a conspiracy theory..
You keep going off on a tangent.
I quoted you a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, that's not a conspiracy theory, it's pretty well obvious that a victor will write their eulogie better than what it was!
They are people who use historical context to conclude an ideology but fail to point out an important bit of that history that fail to fit in with their ideology ie an energy crises in 74 and 78?
Sexy bum you really should be on Question Time!....you don't answer questions directly.....you swerve deftly off topic, and most tellingly hold opinions that are absolute, totally certain in their provenance, patronising, and consequently highly entertaining.
Bless you..keep it up!". Bizarre | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes that's why you need to read many of them and take in account facts with theories! So someone may say oooo the labour party ruined the countries economics in the 70s but I would counter that with.... Any party would have ruined the economics of the country in the 70s because outside interests play more a role in growth than inside tinkering by politicans! Think of it this way! A litre of fuel in an average car will get you somewhere in the region of 12 miles down the road, it costs £1:10 Now try pushing your car for 12 miles and see how much it costs you in labour....
Oh I've read lots!
Think of it this way
If History is indeed written by victors it doesn't really matter how much you read, it will all be a jaundiced view.
Unless of course you are privy to information denied the rest of us..
Why insinuate some conspiracy theory?.
There's as much history that you've heard of, as history you haven't heard of.
Mainstream theology of economics changes every couple of decades, it changes because some people think outside of traditional thinking, some of these ideas get backed up by facts and become mainstream, the exact same thing happens with history
Ahem..you quoted History is written by the victors..now that's a conspiracy theory.
One which I happen not to believe...thinks sometimes sexy bum you should refer to your previous posts in order to remain consistent.
You still haven't answered my question re the 'they' who glossed over the oil crisis in the seventies.
Please tell me it's not a conspiracy theory..
You keep going off on a tangent.
I quoted you a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, that's not a conspiracy theory, it's pretty well obvious that a victor will write their eulogie better than what it was!
They are people who use historical context to conclude an ideology but fail to point out an important bit of that history that fail to fit in with their ideology ie an energy crises in 74 and 78?
"I was there in '79, not '78 BTW but that date wouldn't fit the usual Labour line of blame something or someone else for everything. While the '79 crisis started on Labours watch, within four months there was a general election so Mrs T pretty much picked up the tab. Callaghan was well and truly fucked long before it started, so no excuses there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes that's why you need to read many of them and take in account facts with theories! So someone may say oooo the labour party ruined the countries economics in the 70s but I would counter that with.... Any party would have ruined the economics of the country in the 70s because outside interests play more a role in growth than inside tinkering by politicans! Think of it this way! A litre of fuel in an average car will get you somewhere in the region of 12 miles down the road, it costs £1:10 Now try pushing your car for 12 miles and see how much it costs you in labour....
Oh I've read lots!
Think of it this way
If History is indeed written by victors it doesn't really matter how much you read, it will all be a jaundiced view.
Unless of course you are privy to information denied the rest of us..
Why insinuate some conspiracy theory?.
There's as much history that you've heard of, as history you haven't heard of.
Mainstream theology of economics changes every couple of decades, it changes because some people think outside of traditional thinking, some of these ideas get backed up by facts and become mainstream, the exact same thing happens with history
Ahem..you quoted History is written by the victors..now that's a conspiracy theory.
One which I happen not to believe...thinks sometimes sexy bum you should refer to your previous posts in order to remain consistent.
You still haven't answered my question re the 'they' who glossed over the oil crisis in the seventies.
Please tell me it's not a conspiracy theory..
You keep going off on a tangent.
I quoted you a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, that's not a conspiracy theory, it's pretty well obvious that a victor will write their eulogie better than what it was!
They are people who use historical context to conclude an ideology but fail to point out an important bit of that history that fail to fit in with their ideology ie an energy crises in 74 and 78?
I was there in '79, not '78 BTW but that date wouldn't fit the usual Labour line of blame something or someone else for everything.
While the '79 crisis started on Labours watch, within four months there was a general election so Mrs T pretty much picked up the tab. Callaghan was well and truly fucked long before it started, so no excuses there. ". China's in meltdown, the uk efficiency numbers are plummeting and shares are getting hammered, does that mean the Tories are economically incompetent?? I guess if your a rabid labour supporter it will, just like the 70s crises was labours if your a rabid Tory! I personally would have no problem with massive government spending on huge infrastructure changes, there'd improve our efficiency and stimulate real growth with decent wages and more importantly there'd pay for themselves over the long run! However I'm quite happy to cut back on government waste and inefficancy as well at the same time! If we really wish to plan ahead.... Maybe it's time we start listening to the overwhelming scientific evidence thats climate change or maybe it's time we actually make corporations and their shareholders responsible for their actions!.... I mean isn't that the Tory mantra, personal responsibility! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes that's why you need to read many of them and take in account facts with theories! So someone may say oooo the labour party ruined the countries economics in the 70s but I would counter that with.... Any party would have ruined the economics of the country in the 70s because outside interests play more a role in growth than inside tinkering by politicans! Think of it this way! A litre of fuel in an average car will get you somewhere in the region of 12 miles down the road, it costs £1:10 Now try pushing your car for 12 miles and see how much it costs you in labour....
Oh I've read lots!
Think of it this way
If History is indeed written by victors it doesn't really matter how much you read, it will all be a jaundiced view.
Unless of course you are privy to information denied the rest of us..
Why insinuate some conspiracy theory?.
There's as much history that you've heard of, as history you haven't heard of.
Mainstream theology of economics changes every couple of decades, it changes because some people think outside of traditional thinking, some of these ideas get backed up by facts and become mainstream, the exact same thing happens with history
Ahem..you quoted History is written by the victors..now that's a conspiracy theory.
One which I happen not to believe...thinks sometimes sexy bum you should refer to your previous posts in order to remain consistent.
You still haven't answered my question re the 'they' who glossed over the oil crisis in the seventies.
Please tell me it's not a conspiracy theory..
You keep going off on a tangent.
I quoted you a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, that's not a conspiracy theory, it's pretty well obvious that a victor will write their eulogie better than what it was!
They are people who use historical context to conclude an ideology but fail to point out an important bit of that history that fail to fit in with their ideology ie an energy crises in 74 and 78?
I was there in '79, not '78 BTW but that date wouldn't fit the usual Labour line of blame something or someone else for everything.
While the '79 crisis started on Labours watch, within four months there was a general election so Mrs T pretty much picked up the tab. Callaghan was well and truly fucked long before it started, so no excuses there. .
China's in meltdown, the uk efficiency numbers are plummeting and shares are getting hammered "Please stop reading the BBC. You can't judge an economy by the last 5 minutes. The FTSE is at 5,900 - it was dipping below 5,000 in 2011. The last time the average Chinese person was this well off was the 15th century and their growth is 'only' ~7% - cry me a river. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes that's why you need to read many of them and take in account facts with theories! So someone may say oooo the labour party ruined the countries economics in the 70s but I would counter that with.... Any party would have ruined the economics of the country in the 70s because outside interests play more a role in growth than inside tinkering by politicans! Think of it this way! A litre of fuel in an average car will get you somewhere in the region of 12 miles down the road, it costs £1:10 Now try pushing your car for 12 miles and see how much it costs you in labour....
Oh I've read lots!
Think of it this way
If History is indeed written by victors it doesn't really matter how much you read, it will all be a jaundiced view.
Unless of course you are privy to information denied the rest of us..
Why insinuate some conspiracy theory?.
There's as much history that you've heard of, as history you haven't heard of.
Mainstream theology of economics changes every couple of decades, it changes because some people think outside of traditional thinking, some of these ideas get backed up by facts and become mainstream, the exact same thing happens with history
Ahem..you quoted History is written by the victors..now that's a conspiracy theory.
One which I happen not to believe...thinks sometimes sexy bum you should refer to your previous posts in order to remain consistent.
You still haven't answered my question re the 'they' who glossed over the oil crisis in the seventies.
Please tell me it's not a conspiracy theory..
You keep going off on a tangent.
I quoted you a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, that's not a conspiracy theory, it's pretty well obvious that a victor will write their eulogie better than what it was!
They are people who use historical context to conclude an ideology but fail to point out an important bit of that history that fail to fit in with their ideology ie an energy crises in 74 and 78?
I was there in '79, not '78 BTW but that date wouldn't fit the usual Labour line of blame something or someone else for everything.
While the '79 crisis started on Labours watch, within four months there was a general election so Mrs T pretty much picked up the tab. Callaghan was well and truly fucked long before it started, so no excuses there. .
China's in meltdown, the uk efficiency numbers are plummeting and shares are getting hammered
Please stop reading the BBC. You can't judge an economy by the last 5 minutes.
The FTSE is at 5,900 - it was dipping below 5,000 in 2011.
The last time the average Chinese person was this well off was the 15th century and their growth is 'only' ~7% - cry me a river. ". I was using that as a similar argument to blaming the 70s on labour! If you've just lost 25% of your pension because China has financial problems, can you blame that on Tory incompetence, should they have thought ahead and mitigated for Chinese bubble finances?. There's things we can't influence and things we can, we can't do alot about Chinese economics or European disasters But you can say without really pushing the envelope of probability that... If you deregulate an industry that makes profit from lending money, and then let them create money through double entry bookkeeping, it won't take a genius to realise there'll want to create as much money as possible through debt because... The more they make... The more they make! .... Ta da debt crises Or if you allow FTSE 100 companies to borrow at a cost of nothing.. You really shouldn't be that surprised when they go on a massive share buy back, pushing prices through the roof....ta da share bubble. Or if you issue a ten fold increase in government bonds you really shouldn't be surprised when the yields collapse to 300 year lows...ta da, bond bubble Or if you roll out first time buyer policies and at the same time deregulate the pension industry allowing a massive buy to let programme while increasing your population with immigration and restricting house building... you really shouldn't be that surprised when you get a house price bubble. Ps nobody trys to prop up a correction, they try to prop up a bubble though! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes that's why you need to read many of them and take in account facts with theories! So someone may say oooo the labour party ruined the countries economics in the 70s but I would counter that with.... Any party would have ruined the economics of the country in the 70s because outside interests play more a role in growth than inside tinkering by politicans! Think of it this way! A litre of fuel in an average car will get you somewhere in the region of 12 miles down the road, it costs £1:10 Now try pushing your car for 12 miles and see how much it costs you in labour....
Oh I've read lots!
Think of it this way
If History is indeed written by victors it doesn't really matter how much you read, it will all be a jaundiced view.
Unless of course you are privy to information denied the rest of us..
Why insinuate some conspiracy theory?.
There's as much history that you've heard of, as history you haven't heard of.
Mainstream theology of economics changes every couple of decades, it changes because some people think outside of traditional thinking, some of these ideas get backed up by facts and become mainstream, the exact same thing happens with history
Ahem..you quoted History is written by the victors..now that's a conspiracy theory.
One which I happen not to believe...thinks sometimes sexy bum you should refer to your previous posts in order to remain consistent.
You still haven't answered my question re the 'they' who glossed over the oil crisis in the seventies.
Please tell me it's not a conspiracy theory..
You keep going off on a tangent.
I quoted you a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, that's not a conspiracy theory, it's pretty well obvious that a victor will write their eulogie better than what it was!
They are people who use historical context to conclude an ideology but fail to point out an important bit of that history that fail to fit in with their ideology ie an energy crises in 74 and 78?
I was there in '79, not '78 BTW but that date wouldn't fit the usual Labour line of blame something or someone else for everything.
While the '79 crisis started on Labours watch, within four months there was a general election so Mrs T pretty much picked up the tab. Callaghan was well and truly fucked long before it started, so no excuses there. .
China's in meltdown, the uk efficiency numbers are plummeting and shares are getting hammered
Please stop reading the BBC. You can't judge an economy by the last 5 minutes.
The FTSE is at 5,900 - it was dipping below 5,000 in 2011.
The last time the average Chinese person was this well off was the 15th century and their growth is 'only' ~7% - cry me a river. .
I was using that as a similar argument to blaming the 70s on labour!
If you've just lost 25% of your pension because China has financial problems, can you blame that on Tory incompetence, should they have thought ahead and mitigated for Chinese bubble finances?.
There's things we can't influence and things we can, we can't do alot about Chinese economics or European disasters
But you can say without really pushing the envelope of probability that... If you deregulate an industry that makes profit from lending money, and then let them create money through double entry bookkeeping, it won't take a genius to realise there'll want to create as much money as possible through debt because... The more they make... The more they make! .... Ta da debt crises
Or if you allow FTSE 100 companies to borrow at a cost of nothing.. You really shouldn't be that surprised when they go on a massive share buy back, pushing prices through the roof....ta da share bubble.
Or if you issue a ten fold increase in government bonds you really shouldn't be surprised when the yields collapse to 300 year lows...ta da, bond bubble
Or if you roll out first time buyer policies and at the same time deregulate the pension industry allowing a massive buy to let programme while increasing your population with immigration and restricting house building... you really shouldn't be that surprised when you get a house price bubble.
Ps nobody trys to prop up a correction, they try to prop up a bubble though!
"Who has lost 25% of their pension? The FTSE isn't down 25%. Chinese shares don't have the ratings to be included in a standard pension portfolio to begin with. An 8% drop in the stock market is really not as statistically rare as the BBC would have you believe. If you doubt it, go look at the price to earnings ratios of the FTSE 100 constituents and try pick up some bargains - you won't find any. Much ado about nothing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
.
So to summarise there great at telling you when to get into a market but pretty shit at telling you when to get out! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On August 9 2007, BNP Paribas, the French investment bank, stopped investors withdrawing their money! 1 month later in September the run on northern rock started!. As a rule of thumb the oecd predicts upturns twice as well as downturns about 90%-45%( I'm sure mr man4you will offer me the exact figure!). There forecast for June 2007 was quite upbeat .
So to summarise there great at telling you when to get into a market but pretty shit at telling you when to get out!"Well how does you getting out of the market benefit BNP? They can't charge fees when they aren't managing your money. Agent-principal problem all over again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On August 9 2007, BNP Paribas, the French investment bank, stopped investors withdrawing their money! 1 month later in September the run on northern rock started!. As a rule of thumb the oecd predicts upturns twice as well as downturns about 90%-45%( I'm sure mr man4you will offer me the exact figure!). There forecast for June 2007 was quite upbeat .
So to summarise there great at telling you when to get into a market but pretty shit at telling you when to get out!
Well how does you getting out of the market benefit BNP? They can't charge fees when they aren't managing your money. Agent-principal problem all over again. ". I don't go along with their bullshit plans to begin with, I've adopted the idea of working just enough for me to get by, I personally don't want to work my arse off to make loads of money to perhaps retire earlier but when my body is not at its best! So I work less now and consume less now and I'll probably have to work on doing a few days a week longer than I would have had! I'm not saying it's better or that it's for everyone but it fits in with my life. I don't have a pension or an insurance policy or mitigate my tax's with offset schemes, it's all to time consuming and my time is my wealth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On August 9 2007, BNP Paribas, the French investment bank, stopped investors withdrawing their money! 1 month later in September the run on northern rock started!. As a rule of thumb the oecd predicts upturns twice as well as downturns about 90%-45%( I'm sure mr man4you will offer me the exact figure!). There forecast for June 2007 was quite upbeat .
So to summarise there great at telling you when to get into a market but pretty shit at telling you when to get out!"That's another fiver on April 1st for plugging the profile. I won't offer to do your research for you, just point out that when you quote figures 'caveat emptor' applies. As for my own track record, it's far worse than the OECD - if you wired me up to the FTSE the general rule would be if I'm buying you should sell. That's a generic 'you', not you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On August 9 2007, BNP Paribas, the French investment bank, stopped investors withdrawing their money! 1 month later in September the run on northern rock started!. As a rule of thumb the oecd predicts upturns twice as well as downturns about 90%-45%( I'm sure mr man4you will offer me the exact figure!). There forecast for June 2007 was quite upbeat .
So to summarise there great at telling you when to get into a market but pretty shit at telling you when to get out!
That's another fiver on April 1st for plugging the profile. I won't offer to do your research for you, just point out that when you quote figures 'caveat emptor' applies.
As for my own track record, it's far worse than the OECD - if you wired me up to the FTSE the general rule would be if I'm buying you should sell. That's a generic 'you', not you.". Haha I like you, even if you do use Latin phrases! I'm off to Google caveat emptor...I hope it's a decent red wine | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"WoW! What a load of monetary crap talked by so many so called economists! You cannot make money by trading money! All you can do is skim off the top! Money is nothing more than trade bater coin and its value rises and falls in direct relation to the stuff it represents in trade. Financial markets make nothing, they skim off the top and reduce the potential for trade and expansion. the only way to expand an economy is by making more or adding value by moving stuff from places of surplus to places of deficit where the same stuff has greater value. Anyone who tell you different is talking total shit and probably ripping you off! At present the £, $, and Eu are devaluing against the Yuan. This is because the production of stuff is being moved by those who control the 'financial markets' are moving production of stuff (and wealth) to china while skimming a nice little earner off the top for themselves. And all the time the majority of those who have an interest in politics and economics swallow the shite fed to us by those trousering a little share of our wealth they are giving away!" I don't often agree with you but that post was actually pretty much spot on, a few minor exceptions but the bottom line is that improved productivity creates economic growth not moving money from your left trouser pocket to your right | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. You have a poor opinion of the rest of us then. Yes. Most people have so little idea of the economic reality that they believe George Osborne is a good chancellor, rather than a disastrous one." Ironic then that the only major economies that have been seeing growth is the US and UK. According to the news from several TV stations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. You have a poor opinion of the rest of us then. Yes. Most people have so little idea of the economic reality that they believe George Osborne is a good chancellor, rather than a disastrous one. Ironic then that the only major economies that have been seeing growth is the US and UK. According to the news from several TV stations. " No idea what you are talking about; France and Greece have had their champagne socialist saviours and life has never been bet... Oh wait, what's that... they didn't deliver what they promised? .... talking a lot of shit were they ... well fuck me sideways | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"41 leading economists sign letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans, and criticise Osborne's foolishness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics No-one with any economic understanding has ever thought Osborne credible on the economy, of course...unfortunately, that rules out most voters. You have a poor opinion of the rest of us then. Yes. Most people have so little idea of the economic reality that they believe George Osborne is a good chancellor, rather than a disastrous one. Ironic then that the only major economies that have been seeing growth is the US and UK. According to the news from several TV stations. " . What do you mean by major, g8 or g20 Canada, Australia, south Africa, new Zealand, Brazil, China, India Malaysia. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"France has better productivity rates than the UK and has better growth than the UK recently!" Absolute horse shite and you sir, know better. Only using some bizarre economists measure of "productivity" that isn't remotely close to what any man on the street understands the word to mean. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"France has better productivity rates than the UK and has better growth than the UK recently!" You sir, you be trollin' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"France has better productivity rates than the UK and has better growth than the UK recently! Absolute horse shite and you sir, know better. Only using some bizarre economists measure of "productivity" that isn't remotely close to what any man on the street understands the word to mean. " lol Horse shit, no I don't think they do horse shit. GDP per person per hour worked I believe they use, but don't quote me on it?. Although I think the imf use another calculator. Anyhow the UK comes out about 13th to 20th You have to go down to 47th to find Japan surprisingly
Usa tops the list with Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Sweden Belgium and Holland all in the top ten! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"France has better productivity rates than the UK and has better growth than the UK recently! Absolute horse shite and you sir, know better. Only using some bizarre economists measure of "productivity" that isn't remotely close to what any man on the street understands the word to mean. lol Horse shit, no I don't think they do horse shit. GDP per person per hour worked I believe they use, but don't quote me on it?. Although I think the imf use another calculator. Anyhow the UK comes out about 13th to 20th You have to go down to 47th to find Japan surprisingly
Usa tops the list with Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Sweden Belgium and Holland all in the top ten!"And yet Japan kicks the shit out of France on productivity if you measure it properly. GDP per head per hour is cringe worthy and represents everything that is wrong with modern economists, measuring what fits easily into their models instead of what matters. You can't measure output with currency because currency is not a fixed unit of measurement. It's like saying I'm going to measure how many software lines of code a programmer can write in the time it takes to eat a sandwich. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"France has better productivity rates than the UK and has better growth than the UK recently! Absolute horse shite and you sir, know better. Only using some bizarre economists measure of "productivity" that isn't remotely close to what any man on the street understands the word to mean. lol Horse shit, no I don't think they do horse shit. GDP per person per hour worked I believe they use, but don't quote me on it?. Although I think the imf use another calculator. Anyhow the UK comes out about 13th to 20th You have to go down to 47th to find Japan surprisingly
Usa tops the list with Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Sweden Belgium and Holland all in the top ten!"I challenge you to find a single MBA programme in the world (outside France) that uses a French company in a case study on productivity and doesn't use a Japanese company. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"France has better productivity rates than the UK and has better growth than the UK recently! Absolute horse shite and you sir, know better. Only using some bizarre economists measure of "productivity" that isn't remotely close to what any man on the street understands the word to mean. lol Horse shit, no I don't think they do horse shit. GDP per person per hour worked I believe they use, but don't quote me on it?. Although I think the imf use another calculator. Anyhow the UK comes out about 13th to 20th You have to go down to 47th to find Japan surprisingly
Usa tops the list with Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Sweden Belgium and Holland all in the top ten!
And yet Japan kicks the shit out of France on productivity if you measure it properly.
GDP per head per hour is cringe worthy and represents everything that is wrong with modern economists, measuring what fits easily into their models instead of what matters.
You can't measure output with currency because currency is not a fixed unit of measurement. It's like saying I'm going to measure how many software lines of code a programmer can write in the time it takes to eat a sandwich.". The most productive countries will be the ones with the most effective transport, a cheap and efficient energy supply, well trained and educated labour, happy and healthy citizens and a working civil service! Now let's think do France have Decent transport! Roads, airports trains and sea links. Nuclear power stations that a provide good supply of energy on well established grid. Good university's. Good schools. Happy citizens. A decent health service. A working civil service. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"France has better productivity rates than the UK and has better growth than the UK recently! Absolute horse shite and you sir, know better. Only using some bizarre economists measure of "productivity" that isn't remotely close to what any man on the street understands the word to mean. lol Horse shit, no I don't think they do horse shit. GDP per person per hour worked I believe they use, but don't quote me on it?. Although I think the imf use another calculator. Anyhow the UK comes out about 13th to 20th You have to go down to 47th to find Japan surprisingly
Usa tops the list with Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Sweden Belgium and Holland all in the top ten!
And yet Japan kicks the shit out of France on productivity if you measure it properly.
GDP per head per hour is cringe worthy and represents everything that is wrong with modern economists, measuring what fits easily into their models instead of what matters.
You can't measure output with currency because currency is not a fixed unit of measurement. It's like saying I'm going to measure how many software lines of code a programmer can write in the time it takes to eat a sandwich..
The most productive countries will be the ones with the most effective transport, a cheap and efficient energy supply, well trained and educated labour, happy and healthy citizens and a working civil service!
Now let's think do France have
Decent transport! Roads, airports trains and sea links.
Nuclear power stations that a provide good supply of energy on well established grid.
Good university's.
Good schools.
Happy citizens.
A decent health service.
A working civil service.
"You forgot: 1) A work ethic, 2) Social cohesion (i.e not going on strike every 5 minutes), 3) A culture that promotes entrapreneurship, 4) Management skill, 5) Internationally competitive private companies. France has 1 of those at best, Japan has 4. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"France has better productivity rates than the UK and has better growth than the UK recently! Absolute horse shite and you sir, know better. Only using some bizarre economists measure of "productivity" that isn't remotely close to what any man on the street understands the word to mean. lol Horse shit, no I don't think they do horse shit. GDP per person per hour worked I believe they use, but don't quote me on it?. Although I think the imf use another calculator. Anyhow the UK comes out about 13th to 20th You have to go down to 47th to find Japan surprisingly
Usa tops the list with Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Sweden Belgium and Holland all in the top ten!
And yet Japan kicks the shit out of France on productivity if you measure it properly.
GDP per head per hour is cringe worthy and represents everything that is wrong with modern economists, measuring what fits easily into their models instead of what matters.
You can't measure output with currency because currency is not a fixed unit of measurement. It's like saying I'm going to measure how many software lines of code a programmer can write in the time it takes to eat a sandwich..
The most productive countries will be the ones with the most effective transport, a cheap and efficient energy supply, well trained and educated labour, happy and healthy citizens and a working civil service!
Now let's think do France have
Decent transport! Roads, airports trains and sea links.
Nuclear power stations that a provide good supply of energy on well established grid.
Good university's.
Good schools.
Happy citizens.
A decent health service.
A working civil service.
"Transport: While the French do have a very good rail system and top quality rolling stock that is the only part of their transport system that is any better than Britain's. Their roads are either expensive toll motorways or national roads that have never heard of a bypass and you get snarled up at every town. Trust me, I've driven thousands of Kms on both. Ferry's are no better than Britain's, in fact most of them are between France and Britain. Nuclear Power Stations: Yes the French have invested heavily in them. What a pity that successive British governments have been too busy tilting at useless bloody windmills to do the same. Good University's: I wouldn't know, but Oxford and Cambridge are crap? Good Schools: Again I don't know, but they don't need to be that good to beat a sizeable chunk of Britain's. Happy Citizens: Than one really made me LOL. The French are so pissed off at the moment that the far right National Front (yes they are REALLY far right, they make UKIP look like a bunch of Marxists) are topping the polls and winning elections, and Hollande is the most unpopular president since the revolution. Maybe you missed the farmers and ferry workers protests the other week, and so many French are leaving the country that London now qualify's as France's 5th or 6th largest city. A Decent Health Service: The French health system is around 50% private and not free at the point of use but I would agree that it performs better than the NHS. Privatisation anyone? A Working Civil Service: I (and most French) would say a bloated, expensive, and totally inefficient civil service. It has been used (pretty much the same as in Britain) as a government job creation scheme for years. French (like Spanish) bureaucracy is legendary as being akin to wading through treacle. I'm sure some of the members on here that live there will back me up on that one. But after saying all that they have Cap d'Agde. Viva la France | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"im not the brightest bulb on a christmas tree when it comes to economics but the little i do know is that i shouldnt spend more each month than comes in ,,,,,, had some hard times over the years and to meet my criteria we havent been on a foreign holiday for 24 years till this year ,,,,,, yet i have friends who have to have their yearly fortnight on a beach somewhere 5 hours away by plane because it is there right !!!!! they just bang it on the pastic
now i dont know if im right or wrong but i usually manage a good nights sleep ,,,,,,,, even tho im a tory LOL "Well said Mindys lover from Stratford on Avon a sound well written proper reply totally agree. By the way I looked at your very sexy pics and just had to fab them David | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"France has better productivity rates than the UK and has better growth than the UK recently! Absolute horse shite and you sir, know better. Only using some bizarre economists measure of "productivity" that isn't remotely close to what any man on the street understands the word to mean. lol Horse shit, no I don't think they do horse shit. GDP per person per hour worked I believe they use, but don't quote me on it?. Although I think the imf use another calculator. Anyhow the UK comes out about 13th to 20th You have to go down to 47th to find Japan surprisingly
Usa tops the list with Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Sweden Belgium and Holland all in the top ten!
And yet Japan kicks the shit out of France on productivity if you measure it properly.
GDP per head per hour is cringe worthy and represents everything that is wrong with modern economists, measuring what fits easily into their models instead of what matters.
You can't measure output with currency because currency is not a fixed unit of measurement. It's like saying I'm going to measure how many software lines of code a programmer can write in the time it takes to eat a sandwich..
The most productive countries will be the ones with the most effective transport, a cheap and efficient energy supply, well trained and educated labour, happy and healthy citizens and a working civil service!
Now let's think do France have
Decent transport! Roads, airports trains and sea links.
Nuclear power stations that a provide good supply of energy on well established grid.
Good university's.
Good schools.
Happy citizens.
A decent health service.
A working civil service.
Transport: While the French do have a very good rail system and top quality rolling stock that is the only part of their transport system that is any better than Britain's. Their roads are either expensive toll motorways or national roads that have never heard of a bypass and you get snarled up at every town. Trust me, I've driven thousands of Kms on both. Ferry's are no better than Britain's, in fact most of them are between France and Britain.
Nuclear Power Stations: Yes the French have invested heavily in them. What a pity that successive British governments have been too busy tilting at useless bloody windmills to do the same.
Good University's: I wouldn't know, but Oxford and Cambridge are crap?
Good Schools: Again I don't know, but they don't need to be that good to beat a sizeable chunk of Britain's.
Happy Citizens: Than one really made me LOL. The French are so pissed off at the moment that the far right National Front (yes they are REALLY far right, they make UKIP look like a bunch of Marxists) are topping the polls and winning elections, and Hollande is the most unpopular president since the revolution. Maybe you missed the farmers and ferry workers protests the other week, and so many French are leaving the country that London now qualify's as France's 5th or 6th largest city.
A Decent Health Service: The French health system is around 50% private and not free at the point of use but I would agree that it performs better than the NHS. Privatisation anyone?
A Working Civil Service: I (and most French) would say a bloated, expensive, and totally inefficient civil service. It has been used (pretty much the same as in Britain) as a government job creation scheme for years. French (like Spanish) bureaucracy is legendary as being akin to wading through treacle. I'm sure some of the members on here that live there will back me up on that one.
But after saying all that they have Cap d'Agde. Viva la France
". Contradictions Private health service good? Private toll roads bad? Government run rail and power stations good? The trouble with the French is they don't have a word for Bureaucratic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"France has better productivity rates than the UK and has better growth than the UK recently! Absolute horse shite and you sir, know better. Only using some bizarre economists measure of "productivity" that isn't remotely close to what any man on the street understands the word to mean. lol Horse shit, no I don't think they do horse shit. GDP per person per hour worked I believe they use, but don't quote me on it?. Although I think the imf use another calculator. Anyhow the UK comes out about 13th to 20th You have to go down to 47th to find Japan surprisingly
Usa tops the list with Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Sweden Belgium and Holland all in the top ten!
And yet Japan kicks the shit out of France on productivity if you measure it properly.
GDP per head per hour is cringe worthy and represents everything that is wrong with modern economists, measuring what fits easily into their models instead of what matters.
You can't measure output with currency because currency is not a fixed unit of measurement. It's like saying I'm going to measure how many software lines of code a programmer can write in the time it takes to eat a sandwich..
The most productive countries will be the ones with the most effective transport, a cheap and efficient energy supply, well trained and educated labour, happy and healthy citizens and a working civil service!
Now let's think do France have
Decent transport! Roads, airports trains and sea links.
Nuclear power stations that a provide good supply of energy on well established grid.
Good university's.
Good schools.
Happy citizens.
A decent health service.
A working civil service.
Transport: While the French do have a very good rail system and top quality rolling stock that is the only part of their transport system that is any better than Britain's. Their roads are either expensive toll motorways or national roads that have never heard of a bypass and you get snarled up at every town. Trust me, I've driven thousands of Kms on both. Ferry's are no better than Britain's, in fact most of them are between France and Britain.
Nuclear Power Stations: Yes the French have invested heavily in them. What a pity that successive British governments have been too busy tilting at useless bloody windmills to do the same.
Good University's: I wouldn't know, but Oxford and Cambridge are crap?
Good Schools: Again I don't know, but they don't need to be that good to beat a sizeable chunk of Britain's.
Happy Citizens: Than one really made me LOL. The French are so pissed off at the moment that the far right National Front (yes they are REALLY far right, they make UKIP look like a bunch of Marxists) are topping the polls and winning elections, and Hollande is the most unpopular president since the revolution. Maybe you missed the farmers and ferry workers protests the other week, and so many French are leaving the country that London now qualify's as France's 5th or 6th largest city.
A Decent Health Service: The French health system is around 50% private and not free at the point of use but I would agree that it performs better than the NHS. Privatisation anyone?
A Working Civil Service: I (and most French) would say a bloated, expensive, and totally inefficient civil service. It has been used (pretty much the same as in Britain) as a government job creation scheme for years. French (like Spanish) bureaucracy is legendary as being akin to wading through treacle. I'm sure some of the members on here that live there will back me up on that one.
But after saying all that they have Cap d'Agde. Viva la France
.
Contradictions
Private health service good?
Private toll roads bad?
Government run rail and power stations good?
The trouble with the French is they don't have a word for Bureaucratic "Why should it be a contradiction? The toll roads work quite well, just expensive. The health system also works quite well but expensive. You get what you pay for. Some supposed contradictions are found because someone wants to find them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"France has better productivity rates than the UK and has better growth than the UK recently! Absolute horse shite and you sir, know better. Only using some bizarre economists measure of "productivity" that isn't remotely close to what any man on the street understands the word to mean. lol Horse shit, no I don't think they do horse shit. GDP per person per hour worked I believe they use, but don't quote me on it?. Although I think the imf use another calculator. Anyhow the UK comes out about 13th to 20th You have to go down to 47th to find Japan surprisingly
Usa tops the list with Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Sweden Belgium and Holland all in the top ten!
And yet Japan kicks the shit out of France on productivity if you measure it properly.
GDP per head per hour is cringe worthy and represents everything that is wrong with modern economists, measuring what fits easily into their models instead of what matters.
You can't measure output with currency because currency is not a fixed unit of measurement. It's like saying I'm going to measure how many software lines of code a programmer can write in the time it takes to eat a sandwich..
The most productive countries will be the ones with the most effective transport, a cheap and efficient energy supply, well trained and educated labour, happy and healthy citizens and a working civil service!
Now let's think do France have
Decent transport! Roads, airports trains and sea links.
Nuclear power stations that a provide good supply of energy on well established grid.
Good university's.
Good schools.
Happy citizens.
A decent health service.
A working civil service.
Transport: While the French do have a very good rail system and top quality rolling stock that is the only part of their transport system that is any better than Britain's. Their roads are either expensive toll motorways or national roads that have never heard of a bypass and you get snarled up at every town. Trust me, I've driven thousands of Kms on both. Ferry's are no better than Britain's, in fact most of them are between France and Britain.
Nuclear Power Stations: Yes the French have invested heavily in them. What a pity that successive British governments have been too busy tilting at useless bloody windmills to do the same.
Good University's: I wouldn't know, but Oxford and Cambridge are crap?
Good Schools: Again I don't know, but they don't need to be that good to beat a sizeable chunk of Britain's.
Happy Citizens: Than one really made me LOL. The French are so pissed off at the moment that the far right National Front (yes they are REALLY far right, they make UKIP look like a bunch of Marxists) are topping the polls and winning elections, and Hollande is the most unpopular president since the revolution. Maybe you missed the farmers and ferry workers protests the other week, and so many French are leaving the country that London now qualify's as France's 5th or 6th largest city.
A Decent Health Service: The French health system is around 50% private and not free at the point of use but I would agree that it performs better than the NHS. Privatisation anyone?
A Working Civil Service: I (and most French) would say a bloated, expensive, and totally inefficient civil service. It has been used (pretty much the same as in Britain) as a government job creation scheme for years. French (like Spanish) bureaucracy is legendary as being akin to wading through treacle. I'm sure some of the members on here that live there will back me up on that one.
But after saying all that they have Cap d'Agde. Viva la France
.
Contradictions
Private health service good?
Private toll roads bad?
Government run rail and power stations good?
The trouble with the French is they don't have a word for Bureaucratic
Why should it be a contradiction? The toll roads work quite well, just expensive. The health system also works quite well but expensive. You get what you pay for.
Some supposed contradictions are found because someone wants to find them.". No I like that saying, you get what you pay for! Now seen as we pay like 10% of our GDP on health care and that's like lower than alot of other countries, would you expect a better health care system or a worse health care system? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"France has better productivity rates than the UK and has better growth than the UK recently! Absolute horse shite and you sir, know better. Only using some bizarre economists measure of "productivity" that isn't remotely close to what any man on the street understands the word to mean. lol Horse shit, no I don't think they do horse shit. GDP per person per hour worked I believe they use, but don't quote me on it?. Although I think the imf use another calculator. Anyhow the UK comes out about 13th to 20th You have to go down to 47th to find Japan surprisingly
Usa tops the list with Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Sweden Belgium and Holland all in the top ten!
And yet Japan kicks the shit out of France on productivity if you measure it properly.
GDP per head per hour is cringe worthy and represents everything that is wrong with modern economists, measuring what fits easily into their models instead of what matters.
You can't measure output with currency because currency is not a fixed unit of measurement. It's like saying I'm going to measure how many software lines of code a programmer can write in the time it takes to eat a sandwich..
The most productive countries will be the ones with the most effective transport, a cheap and efficient energy supply, well trained and educated labour, happy and healthy citizens and a working civil service!
Now let's think do France have
Decent transport! Roads, airports trains and sea links.
Nuclear power stations that a provide good supply of energy on well established grid.
Good university's.
Good schools.
Happy citizens.
A decent health service.
A working civil service.
Transport: While the French do have a very good rail system and top quality rolling stock that is the only part of their transport system that is any better than Britain's. Their roads are either expensive toll motorways or national roads that have never heard of a bypass and you get snarled up at every town. Trust me, I've driven thousands of Kms on both. Ferry's are no better than Britain's, in fact most of them are between France and Britain.
Nuclear Power Stations: Yes the French have invested heavily in them. What a pity that successive British governments have been too busy tilting at useless bloody windmills to do the same.
Good University's: I wouldn't know, but Oxford and Cambridge are crap?
Good Schools: Again I don't know, but they don't need to be that good to beat a sizeable chunk of Britain's.
Happy Citizens: Than one really made me LOL. The French are so pissed off at the moment that the far right National Front (yes they are REALLY far right, they make UKIP look like a bunch of Marxists) are topping the polls and winning elections, and Hollande is the most unpopular president since the revolution. Maybe you missed the farmers and ferry workers protests the other week, and so many French are leaving the country that London now qualify's as France's 5th or 6th largest city.
A Decent Health Service: The French health system is around 50% private and not free at the point of use but I would agree that it performs better than the NHS. Privatisation anyone?
A Working Civil Service: I (and most French) would say a bloated, expensive, and totally inefficient civil service. It has been used (pretty much the same as in Britain) as a government job creation scheme for years. French (like Spanish) bureaucracy is legendary as being akin to wading through treacle. I'm sure some of the members on here that live there will back me up on that one.
But after saying all that they have Cap d'Agde. Viva la France
.
Contradictions
Private health service good?
Private toll roads bad?
Government run rail and power stations good?
The trouble with the French is they don't have a word for Bureaucratic
Why should it be a contradiction? The toll roads work quite well, just expensive. The health system also works quite well but expensive. You get what you pay for.
Some supposed contradictions are found because someone wants to find them..
No I like that saying, you get what you pay for!
Now seen as we pay like 10% of our GDP on health care and that's like lower than alot of other countries, would you expect a better health care system or a worse health care system?"OK flying off at a bit of a tangent but hey ho I will humour you. My French comparisons were made to answer someone who painted France as such a wonderful place to live but without putting much detail on the comparisons. The French health system is better than the NHS (as is the German) and you are quite right to point out that they pay much more for it, but does that make the NHS good just because it's cheap? People are always banging on about how good the NHS is, but it isn't. It is an over managed under funded state monolith that hasn't been fit for purpose since the '70's. Do I blame Labour? YES. Do I blame the Tory's? YES. That is where the problem lies, with politicians who have used it as a political football for years nay decades. Labour always harp on that they are the only ones who will look after it properly but the reality is that they just chuck money at it without any serious thought of reform or bringing it kicking and screaming into the 21st century. The Tory's are just as bad. They make lots of noises about reform and occasionally shuffle the deckchairs, but they are scared shitless of actually grasping the nettle and doing something positive. So in the end they are no better than Labour and just chuck more money at it and very little changes. Then there are the health unions who will complain if anyone wants to so much as change the brand of tea bags. Britain does need to spend more on health care but not just throwing more and more cash at an outdated management heavy system. Some privatisation would be good, an end, and I mean an END to health tourism would be a move in the right direction, and either through taxation or higher NI contributions everyone will have to pay a bit more. I would also bring "free at the point of use" to an end. The French pay a small, I will call it an excess, charge and so do we in Germany. You can either pay it out of your own pocket or pay a small extra insurance premium to cover it. Whatever the politicians do or don't do will come to pass but trying to run a first class state healthcare system on the cheap will never work. Funny is that the politicians are always telling us that the NHS is the envy of the world. Strange then why no other country has tried to copy it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People are always banging on about how good the NHS is, but it isn't. It is an over managed under funded state monolith that hasn't been fit for purpose since the '70's. " Oh really? http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health "The NHS has been declared the best healthcare system by an international panel of experts who rated its care superior to countries which spend far more on health." "The report has been produced by the Commonwealth Fund, a Washington-based foundation which is respected around the world for its analysis of the performance of different countries' health systems. It examined an array of evidence about performance in 11 countries, including detailed data from patients, doctors and the World Health Organisation. "The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency," the fund's researchers conclude in their 30-page report. Their findings amount to a huge endorsement of the health service, especially as it spends the second-lowest amount on healthcare among the 11 – just £2,008 per head, less than half the £5,017 in the US. Only New Zealand, with £1,876, spent less." Who should we believe, I wonder. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
