60 Economists support delaying cuts.....

aelitaman

StevieJ wrote: »

He thinks ahead

So when he repeated "No more Boom and Bust" ad ifinitum, then he was lying because he had prepared for the bust. Nice man.

StevieJ

aelitaman wrote: »

So when he repeated "No more Boom and Bust" ad ifinitum, then he was lying because he had prepared for the bust. Nice man.

It would be a very stupid person who doesn't anticipate the worst that can happen

stueyhants

Stimuli were needed to prevent a collapse of the country. However labour stimulus measures have been to heavily weighted in supporting foreign manufactures (VAT, scrappage etc). When the commerical/residential bubble burst and 000s of construction workers were laid off, why didn't we provide stimulus to build the power stations we actually need to provide long term benefits.

The money spent to date has been wasted on short term gimmicks trying to preserve a flawed economic model of consummer spend spend spend !!

StevieJ

stueyhants wrote: »

The money spent to date has been wasted on short term gimmicks trying to preserve a flawed economic model of consummer spend spend spend !!

You mean our banking system?

jetta_wales

StevieJ wrote: »

It would be a very stupid person who doesn't anticipate the worst that can happen

Yes that's right, and he clearly didn't.

I agree he is a very stupid person, well put

lol

abaxas

Conrad wrote: »

The tories I'm ashamed to say have shown themsleves to be very much behind the curve. The recession would be far far worse has Os had his way.

I would say ahead of the curve.

We would be in position to grow now, however we chose the long slow death apporach.

The question is, do you want a cold that lasts 2 months or 2 days in bed with evil flu. I'll take option 2 please.

stueyhants

StevieJ wrote: »

You mean our banking system?

No, you could argue the money supporting the banking system hasn't been spent, just invested/guaranteed for a time until the shares can be sold and the guarantees removed. The government should get its money back on this, how long this takes is anyones guess.

I was referring to the scrapage car and boiler schemes, VAT and employing extra PS workers last year. This money will not be returned later and I'm arguing it has been a wasted opportunity and could have been used to promote long term growth rather than postpone pain to a retail/consumer sector which is based on a ‘boom’ level of spending. Do you think otherwise?

kabayiri

stueyhants wrote: »

Stimuli were needed to prevent a collapse of the country. However labour stimulus measures have been to heavily weighted in supporting foreign manufactures (VAT, scrappage etc). When the commerical/residential bubble burst and 000s of construction workers were laid off, why didn't we provide stimulus to build the power stations we actually need to provide long term benefits.

I agree with this.
I'd further argue that government is not very good at picking solid investment and growth opportunities.

If you create major capital programs to modernise rail and power infrastructure, and combine it with a way of spreading the work to a number of small and big firms alike (rather than the big monopoly suppliers), you generate income for these firms, and in turn they recruit new staff who gain new skills.

If I and my children are being asked to pay serious amounts of tax now and in the future to repay debt, I would find it easier to accept if we end up with world class infrastructure.

stueyhants

kabayiri wrote: »

If I and my children are being asked to pay serious amounts of tax now and in the future to repay debt, I would find it easier to accept if we end up with world class infrastructure.

100% agree.

I'd be happy to pay more tax (only a little more though ) if I felt it was going to the right areas. We are facing an energy crunch in a decades time and we need to get on and build some more power generation. The government has just used our taxes to subsides buying Chinese consumer goods. Well done GB!! The VAT cost of 12bn could have built 000s of new homes, power stations etc. When you think of the lost opportunity its quite sad.

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

Clearly, it remains unclear! There must be more than 80 economists in the country?

:j:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


Not necessarily savvy ones though LIR;)

I'll add my vote to the 67 personally because I believe if we cut too harshly and too quickly then the result will be devastation on a level not seen since the depression years.

I base that on having worked in Social Economics (that is working out the potential outcomes of moving money from one part of the economy to another) since I was 20 (so 31 years) on and off, and a deep understanding of the economic history of this Country.

I always find that the Economists that go with the cut and the thrust come from the Maths side of Economics (which only looks at numbers and doesn't read anything into the effect) and those of us who are more interested in the social outcome tend to be those that would prefer a steady approach.

I personally know which side of the fence I find more ethical:D