We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
This Budget kills recovery at birth - David Blanchflower
Comments
-
What I find difficult to get my head round is that the coalition seem to be of the opinion that the state is "crowding out" private enterprise and that cutting budgets and public expenditure, will lead to private enterprise filling the gap. That, although the economy could contract, any contraction will be countered by private enterprise spending and investing more.
If things had not been so bad (high unemployment and a weak economy) I could have believed that private enterprise would have spent the £'s the gov't had stopped spending.
In the current climate I find it hard to believe that the private sector will fill the gap - if they don't (as I suspect they won't) what then? Will we be even deeper in the mire?
Or am I being too simplistic?0 -
It is a really good article.
I suppose many posters have a closed mind and only want to read material that supports their view point.
They have Blind Faith for sure.
how ironic you refer to blind faith.
You are a Labour activist charged with spreading their gospel on various websites.0 -
Well at least that is an honest account of what is really happening to our economy. This isn't about what is the best course of action for UK plc, it's all about Tory ideology.
Terrible isn't it? When the elected Govt follow their convictions.
After all. Look where the Labour ideology of 'spend spend spend' got us....Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
Terrible isn't it? When the elected Govt follow their convictions.
After all. Look where the Labour ideology of 'spend spend spend' got us....
Strange, but I didn't realise it was one of the LibDem convictions
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Well at least that is an honest account of what is really happening to our economy. This isn't about what is the best course of action for UK plc, it's all about Tory ideology.
So ideologically the Tories think that a smaller Government is consistent with a healthier economy. In that case they are doing what they think is best for UK PLC.
Do you think that increasing taxes and regulation on companies is better for the economy of the UK than reducing those? That seems a bit weird to me. Perhaps you could explain how increasing costs for British businesses makes them more competitive rather than less.0 -
So ideologically the Tories think that a smaller Government is consistent with a healthier economy. In that case they are doing what they think is best for UK PLC.
Do you think that increasing taxes and regulation on companies is better for the economy of the UK than reducing those? That seems a bit weird to me. Perhaps you could explain how increasing costs for British businesses makes them more competitive rather than less.
OK, with the first paragraph, it should be pretty clear by now that the Tory party is doing what they think is best for UK PLC. But this doesn't mean that they are right. And, I believe Labour did what they thought was best for UK PLC. But that doesn't mean they were right.
On the second point, it's pretty obvious to me that the arguments that markets are efficient is often wrong. If you start from the perspective that markets are not always efficient, that people are irrational, and that there is often an incentive to individuals to engage in conduct that is harmful on aggregate, then it is possible deregulating can harm the economy.“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0 -
Well oddly enough Blanchflower was a lone voice in the MPC when from October 2007 all through 2008 he voted - and I think only he - voted for interest rate cuts - warning of what was to come.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6374879.ece
If you read any of his articles from 2007 and 2008 - he was right and if you look at the MPC minutes he was the only one calling for rate cuts in view of a deteriorating economy - the trouble is those who got it wrong are still in the MPC.
The New Statesman article is from June - and if I remember rightly the gov't have said that if the economy is adversely impacted the proposed cuts will be spread over a longer period - so perhaps "Slasher" has been listening.
You do know he was also calling for even greater interest cuts in 2005 which would have inflated the property boom even more? Stopped clock and all that. I think those people on the left predicting double dip recessions and death spirals as he has done repeatedly (incidentally that article was written four months ago- no sign of any recession yet) are spouting hyperbole and are going to look rather stupid in a years time. They are becoming hostage to fortune by their words and if they get it wrong their economic reputation will be shot to pieces. Only time will tell of course. I wonder if Blanchflower will be doing interviews admitting he got it wrong? I doubt it- he will just disappear.0 -
Entertainer wrote: »I doubt it- he will just disappear.
He should drop dead from shame, but obviously is too much of a bubble head to realise how wrong he has been. He's not even a proper economist is he? Qualifications wise.
The article I read this morning, which might be the same one as in this thread, had him in some dapper expensive suit and some bling thin goldy watch. Money galore and he doesn't want to realise recessions and depressions can be inventory adjustments which give new blood a chance, shake out the dead wood, and after some pain, be a period of new growth or new paradigms of doing things. Can't believe King and Blanchflower are still in power / listened to after they led the economy into this.
King, especially, not because he voted for interest rates cut at that crucial time before massive over-heat (he voted to raise them iirc) but because he told a female MP there was "nothing to worry your pretty head" (or words to that) about with the reckless lending and reckless borrowing taking place. New blood.Mr King responded by telling her she did not understand banking and insisted there was nothing to worry about. The confrontation took place in 2005 when Mr King went to the House of Lords to address Conservative peers.0 -
Blanchflower always sounds like a wally to me or maybe that is because he sounds like an Finance Director that we used to have.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0
-
Perhaps it's more than just the size of state involvement too.So ideologically the Tories think that a smaller Government is consistent with a healthier economy. In that case they are doing what they think is best for UK PLC.
It's interesting to note that in 2013 £1bn will be saved by the Child Benefit changes.
However, government will spend an extra £2bn on corporation tax changes.
It's possibly a case of rob Peter to pay Paul.
I believe we should spend a lot more on national infrastructure projects. Power, rail, utilities will all need massive investment over the next 2 decades. If done well, these projects could bring in good quality jobs with skills which will be in demand in other countries.
However, to pay for it, I believe we should be hard-nosed and shrink state expenditure in other areas, such as housing benefit.
Does this equate to a socialist or capitalist agenda?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards