Interesting Read Regarding the Collision Govt

[BlythPower]

Click ye here

 

[imagination]

You mean coalition not collision, right?

Very skewed article though.

 

[ainsworth74]

You mean coalition not collision, right?

Judging from their profile pic and sig I would assume they meant collision.

 

[Geezertronic]

Sounds like another biased article which is not worth reading then

 

[Pumbaa]

Obviously it's skewed, but then again its practically impossible to write a fully credible article.

And anyway, whether or not you consider it worth a read, you should at least read and understand the mentality behind it. It's rude and often shoot-yourself-in-the-foot territory if you make no effort to understand or learn about the opposite points of view to which you hold.

Some may have gleaned where I stand on both the economic and political spectrum. I disagree with the article in many ways, but I do agree with the main gist of it. Since the speculation for GE2010 stepped up, and even before then, I stood firmly in the "don't cut the economy" camp. Economists were divided then as they are now, and the truth is no-one's really sure what will go on. History has showed us that the best way to get yourself out of a situation like this is spend your way out; inflate your economy, grow and recycle the money to recover your composure. Few economies have tried to do what the Govt want to do, and thats because it goes against many principles of economic law. Some have tried it, and to the best of my knowledge none of those strategies worked out particularly well.

Websites like UK Debt Bombshell are simply there for scaremongering, and the Conservatives have done this job very well. Most members of the public are of the opinion that the UK is broke, because the only analogy they know is that of a bank account, and the economy of a country just doesn't work like that. They all support the cuts, although less now, because that's what the Govt wants them to think, rather than they may want to actually do.

One thing that article does do well, which a lot of people forget including people on this forum, is that the structure of the UK economy is unique and contributed to our problems. Many people try and attribute it to the previous Govt for getting us in such a mess, while not realising that actually it is a product of several decades of inept management of the economy, inept restructuring during the 70s/80s and short-term driven organic economic growth.

 

[Wyvern]

And we have yet to see the effect of VAT going up with a massive bump.:roll:

 

[MidnightFlyer]

To save me from reading it, can someone just tell me: Is it a load of Leftist crap? Thanks.

 

[Bill EWS]

MatteE2010: As we can take it that everything that you say comes from a right-ist 'crap' angle, can we totally dismiss anything you say on these pages from now on as it's not worth even glancing at!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

MatteE2010: As we can take it that everything that you say comes from a right-ist 'crap' angle, can we totally dismiss anything you say on these pages from now on as it's not worth even glancing at!

Can you find me 5 posts I have made on here than make me Rightist. I am neutral, with varying opinions on different matters. I just hate some off the left-wing rubbish that some bloggers/papers etc come out with.

 

[Donny Dave]

Obviously it's skewed, but then again its practically impossible to write a fully credible article.

And anyway, whether or not you consider it worth a read, you should at least read and understand the mentality behind it. It's rude and often shoot-yourself-in-the-foot territory if you make no effort to understand or learn about the opposite points of view to which you hold.

Some may have gleaned where I stand on both the economic and political spectrum. I disagree with the article in many ways, but I do agree with the main gist of it. Since the speculation for GE2010 stepped up, and even before then, I stood firmly in the "don't cut the economy" camp. Economists were divided then as they are now, and the truth is no-one's really sure what will go on. History has showed us that the best way to get yourself out of a situation like this is spend your way out; inflate your economy, grow and recycle the money to recover your composure. Few economies have tried to do what the Govt want to do, and thats because it goes against many principles of economic law. Some have tried it, and to the best of my knowledge none of those strategies worked out particularly well.

Websites like UK Debt Bombshell are simply there for scaremongering, and the Conservatives have done this job very well. Most members of the public are of the opinion that the UK is broke, because the only analogy they know is that of a bank account, and the economy of a country just doesn't work like that. They all support the cuts, although less now, because that's what the Govt wants them to think, rather than they may want to actually do.

One thing that article does do well, which a lot of people forget including people on this forum, is that the structure of the UK economy is unique and contributed to our problems. Many people try and attribute it to the previous Govt for getting us in such a mess, while not realising that actually it is a product of several decades of inept management of the economy, inept restructuring during the 70s/80s and short-term driven organic economic growth.

I'm not going to say your right or wrong here, I'm just going to provide an alternative viewpoint .....

Cuts did need to be made, as we (well, the government of any colour) could not carry on borrowing and spending. Government debt would have got so high, that Standard and Poor's would have downgraded the UKs credit rating, instantly adding billions on to the interest. This would have to be paid somehow, be it through cuts to services or tax rises.

In my opinion, it's far better to make moderate cuts to services now and then invest and grow them than to make drastic cuts in several years and hope they don't plunge us into an even bigger recession than we have just suffered.

 

[BlythPower]

I don't know a great deal about macro economics, but plain old fashioned common sense tells us that cuts on this scale aren't a good idea. We're about to have several hundred thousand public workers becoming economically inactive thus reducing the private sector's income. In addition to which, the public sector has always bought a lot of goods and services from the private sector. That too will reduce greatly, further putting the squeeze on the private sector. The same private sector which, apparently, is somehow supposed to grow and provide jobs for all the ex-public workers. I'd love to hear someone suggest how that's going to happen.

As pointed out by Wyvern, there's a VAT rise to come in the New Year too. Which will hit those on benefits (including all the newly unemployed public sector (ex) workers) far harder than the millionaires in the cabinet.

Britain's debt as a percentage of GDP is still remarkably low both by historic and global standards. Whilst the deficit does need reduction, only a dogmatic lunatic would attempt to do it this quickly with such drastic cuts. Remember, the government's tax income will shortly reduce greatly whilst at the same time the benefit bill (despite the cuts) will rise greatly. Someone (Hi Gideon!) hasn't done his sums correctly.

These cuts have nothing to do with necessity and everything to do with idealogy. You can't even call them Thatcherite as both Thatcher and Major were adept at using the public sector to funnel taxpayer's money into private pockets through PFI, PPI, outsourcing, etc. An awful lot of Tory supporting business people are going to feel the squeeze from this too.

 

[TrainBrain185]

I watched Mr Osborne's Speech about the Spending Review unfold on TV. Did I focus on Mr Osborne? No. I focused on Mr Camerons's body language and facial expressions and boy he did not look entirely comfortable at certain times. It takes no expert like Doctor Lightman (Tim Roth-Lie To Me) to see on Mr Cameron's face that he is taking a gamble.
Experts are now stating the cuts will backfire stating its just too much too quick.
I hope not for the ConDems sake that the experts are wrong with their predictions but more for the well being of 1000's of people in this country who will suffer all this upheaval.
On a lighter note, we can all go and seek asylum in a nation where they will benefit the 34% hike in Overseas Aid and Development??

 

[EM2]

While you may consider the piece left-wing, it isn't written by some newspaper hack but by one of the world's leading economists, Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, and Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, as well as the winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography in 2008.
In short, he knows his onions.

 

[Pumbaa]

While you may consider the piece left-wing, it isn't written by some newspaper hack but by one of the world's leading economists, Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, and Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, as well as the winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography in 2008.
In short, he knows his onions.

Krugman is also highly dismissive of the US approach of 'throwing money at developing nations in the hope they work'. He is by nature economically market orientated, but stresses that he believes that a strong support from the state is necessary. I met him briefly after he talked at LSE on China's role in the devaluing of European gilts following the 2008 crisis, and he certainly knows his chips. He also gave me feedback on a paper I co-wrote in 2008 on the importance of emerging markets.

Oh and he's written thousands of articles, journals and books. And I do believe he's speaking in Manchester on Dec 14th?

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Click ye here

Collision government!
What was it when Bliar got voted in? Ah yes
Education
Education
Education

 

[Bill EWS]

MattE2010: I was merely pointing out the irony of your comment. I was not questioning your own political stance. That's your own choice.

As others have commented on here, it is worth the read just to get a broader view of the present financial and political situation. If you ignore something just because you presume it will be nothing more than left-ist rubbish then you can't possibly form a full opinion on what is really happening. Likewise, as I said, if it's good enough for you to ignore others simply because of their political leaning then they too can simply ignore anything they also presume that will be all from the right-ist point of view. However, that is not good democracy and we should all learn from each other. As we see all around the World no one political leaning is all good or has all the answers, only a mixture of the best of them comes anywhere near serving ALL the people as fairlly as possible. I don't like the extremes of any political system/party. These are all as bad as each other.

Getting back to the article, I found it very interesting and was quite able to see through the left-right or even tounge-in-cheek sections. As we see from the number of varying replies on here they were from all political leanings, or even none! If I hadn't read the article I would not have known what they were all referring to. A perfect example why you shouldn't dismiss anything/one out of hand simply because of one's own political stance. Especially presumtions.

 

[Mojo]

While you may consider the piece left-wing, it isn't written by some newspaper hack but by one of the world's leading economists, Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, and Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, as well as the winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography in 2008.
In short, he knows his onions.

You have to realise that economics isn't an single school of thought where you are either right or you are wrong like, say, mathematics or history[1], but perhaps more akin to politics where people believe different things. Paul Krugman is a Keynesian economist and of course it is no surprise he is saying some of these things as it is against what he believes in. A Keynesian who believes in government intervention through fiscal and monetary policy and therefore opposing a reduction of government spending is about as relevant to decision making as Labour telling us why the Conservatives are wrong or the Pope telling us we have to go to church on a Sunday, and it doesn't mean any of them are right.

[1] Of course mathematics has some quite complex areas which are still being debated within the community and history may have holocaust deniers, etc. but you get my gist

 

[BlythPower]

Collision government!
What was it when Bliar got voted in? Ah yes
Education
Education
Education

Just to help you out a little:
pun noun /pʌn/
a humorous use of a word or phrase which has several meanings or which sounds like another word
She made a couple of dreadful puns.
This is a well-known joke based on a pun: "What's black and white and red (= read) all over?" "A newspaper."

 

[Oswyntail]

....
a humorous use of a word or phrase which has several meanings or which sounds like another word...

Note the word "humorous" - an essential part of a pun.
The plain truth is that you can find credible experts arguing for and against both approaches. However, I do know that a lot of trouble, both in the public and private sector, arose in the last 13 years from the use of techniques to keep unhappy loans "off balance sheet". Just as we should not trust bankers who built hollow empires doing this, I feel we should not trust Brown (who, as Chancellor, strove to keep everything unpleasant off balance sheet, and, as PM, went against the advice of his Chancellor in continuing to do this) and those who supported his approach. Therefore, I am willing to give the coalition a chance. To date they have actually done nothing that cannot be logically defended. What I do not like is the knee-jerk politics of rejection by the opposition, without considering much of the facts; if they could come up with alternative policies that took the state of things into account, then we might avoid labelling the entire Labour Front Bench "Dumbest"

 

[EM2]

Mojo - I know what you're saying but I have hunted high and low and cannot find a comment from any respected economist, who thinks that this course of action is a good idea. Can you?

 

[scotsman]

I just hate some off the left-wing rubbish that some bloggers/papers etc come out with.

What about Guido Fawkes' blog? Sky News? The Sun? The Telegraph?