do we need 'economic advisers'?

TruckerT

my answer is an emphatic 'yes'

despite the fact that they are completely unable to formulate any kind of meaningful response, it is important that they continue to debate the issues

TruckerT

DiggerUK

TruckerT wrote: »

....despite the fact that they are completely unable to formulate any kind of meaningful response, it is important that they continue to debate the issues....

Generali has a a fan it seems.
..._

TruckerT

DiggerUK wrote: »

Generali has a a fan it seems.
..._

It seems, from another thread, that Generali is retiring from actice MoneySaving, and has got a proper job

I have recently stopped working, and until I find a suitable alternative, I am very happy to represent the voice of pragmatism

TruckerT

DiggerUK

TruckerT wrote: »

It seems, from another thread, that Generali is retiring.....

The Rolling Stones are still going strong, maybe their secret to longevity is having three 'Farewell Concerts', to date, in their portfolios.
..._

worldtraveller

TruckerT wrote: »

my answer is an emphatic 'yes'

despite the fact that they are completely unable to formulate any kind of meaningful response, it is important that they continue to debate the issues

TruckerT

Surely an adviser is not required as a debater. An adviser should be offering professional, or official advice, not debating a point.

Exactly what type of 'meaningful response' are you looking for from an adviser?

the_flying_pig

don't understand, who's an advisor, sorry adviser, advising what?

TruckerT

worldtraveller wrote: »

Surely an adviser is not required as a debater. An adviser should be offering professional, or official advice, not debating a point.

Exactly what type of 'meaningful response' are you looking for from an adviser?

I don't do semantics, I do pragmatism

(that could be a line from a new Rolling Stones song, if I had the talent to write the rest of it...)

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey

TruckerT wrote: »

my answer is an emphatic 'yes'

despite the fact that they are completely unable to formulate any kind of meaningful response, it is important that they continue to debate the issues

TruckerT

You say you're pragmatic. Well done!

You should therefore probably understand that so-called 'economists' are little different from any other run-of-the-mill 'Consultant' [definition: someone who steals your watch and then charges a six figure sum to tell you the time].

Economics is not a science. It's an art. Economists are very good at telling you what happened in the past - just like historians. Historic figures for GNP, RPI, Interest Rates, Balance of Payments, you name it, are there to see.

They then 'pretend' that one factor is linked to another in some sort of scientific way, tha can only repeat itself. But they forget that it's 90% about human behaviour. For example. In the past, 'benefits' were a good and cheap way of making sure a family didn't starve to death, but ensured that they were 'stigmatised' in their local society and would probably eventually get a job. Behaviour has changed. Do the same today, and they bleat for more until they have so much they can't afford to go to work.

In the past, most countries were fairly 'autonomous' in that they could affect their economy by simple acts like printing money, devaluing, raising taxes, altering import duty, and building infrastructure. Today it's a 'global' economy, and what tin-pot little Britain does in the world is irrelevant. We will get screwed by China whatever we do.

No longer does a VAT rise (or fall) do diddly-squat for UK, other than make one half of the country bleat about it, while the other half debates and defends it. It simply alters the amount of money swishing about the High street, the Town Hall, and Whitehall. And because this does absolutely nothing for our trade gap, we simply continue to get poorer.

UK will only get richer when behaviour changes. That behaviour will include things like 'living within means', 'working', 'saving', 'exporting', 'competing' with other countries, and learning to accept personal responsibility rather than sponging on the ever-declining population who still have a £ or two in their pockets.

We will get richer when commerce and industry is allowed to change behaviour and 'produce' things rather than become organisations catering for equal rights, minimum wage, ethnic diversity, pregnancy leave, breast-feeding breaks, and cossetting staff in the untenable cotton wool called 'Health and Safety'.....

The economists can debate Interest Rates/QE all they like. Changes here will certainly affect most of the population one way or another. But it will not enhance the overall UK economy one way or the other.

It is literally as useful as arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic - while people are sitting in them. In other words, they'll all drown. We are simply changing the order in which they do so.

wymondham

Economic Advisors are like weathermen - rarely get it right, and when they get it wrong they just blame 'too many variables that were the cause'!

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

It is literally as useful as arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic - while people are sitting in them. In other words, they'll all drown. We are simply changing the order in which they do so.

It ain't necessarily so - it ought to be possible to to ensure that nobody will drown

Wealth is a moveable feast, and long may it remain so - the day it becomes fixed is the day we all have to give up hope of change

Economists eat your hearts out, but please don't ever come up with a sensible explanation of the world...

TruckerT

1984ReturnsForReal_2

TruckerT


Clue- Sell now or risk it till Monday.