Jeremy Corbyn wins economists’ backing for anti-austerity policies

Thrugelmir

Fella wrote: »

But the "living wage" nonsense is both economically bad & pure politics.

What's the alternative to reversing Browns welfare state dependent policies? Simply cutting hand outs is not an option.

GO has simply plucked one of Labour's good manifesto pledges, improved it and in the process changed perceptions of himself as a Chancellor.

cepheus

Rinoa wrote: »

Would that be the same David Blanchflower who predicted Osborne's policies would create 5 million unemployed?

Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well as unemployment figures? Let's see what the Tory press thought it was under Labour. I can't image the Tories have added any exempt categories to the unemployment total since then?

Nearly ten million people in Britain are out of work - more than six times the official ... .

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-475517/Unemployment-rate-times-higher-official-figures.html#ixzz3jeiVTjLU

Thrugelmir

cepheus wrote: »

Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well as unemployment figures?

Gordon Brown did. How many times did he refer to abolishing boom and bust in speeches.

Fella

DiggerUK wrote: »

Couldn't agree more comrade. Let us also hope that the dire political nonsense, that argues we should stop sending those under the age of twelve down the mines to dig coal is ended as well. It will lead to the wholesale closure of our mining industry.

......and don't get me started on the suggestion that we limit the working week to six days of no more than ten hours, it will be our ruin sir.
..._

A high minimum wage doesn't force employers to pay £xx/hour. If it did we could just make the minimum wage £1million pounds & all be millionaires. Wouldn't that be nice.

A high minimum wage simply destroys jobs. The jobs that merit such wage generally pay it already. The one's where the numbers no longer add up either cease to exist or cease to legitimately exist.

Incidentally do you really believe there are no jobs out there that should pay less than £9 an hour? For a 40-hour week that's over £1550/month. I can think of plenty of jobs I would do for less. And might well want to at some point. Alas they won't exist then.

CLAPTON

cepheus wrote: »

Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well as unemployment figures? Let's see what the Tory press thought it was under Labour. I can't image the Tories have added any exempt categories to the unemployment total since then?



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-475517/Unemployment-rate-times-higher-official-figures.html#ixzz3jeiVTjLU

The figures for the 'economically inactive' are well known and would only be described as 'buried ' by the illiterate.

I'm sure Corbyn will resolve this by
-forcing all stay at home mothers/fathers (who look after children at home or the sick or disabled) to go out to work or suffer heavy fines
-obviously force any people choosing not to work (early retired, gap year people or pursuing their own interests) to work or suffer heavy fines
-simply withdraw all funding from the disabled layouts who are cheating ordinary decent workers

I'm warming to Corbyn already

cepheus

Whatever happened to #ToriesForCorbyn? :rotfl:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11817162/Jeremy-Corbyn-must-be-stopped.html …

Thrugelmir

Fella wrote: »

A high minimum wage doesn't force employers to pay £xx/hour. If it did we could just make the minimum wage £1million pounds & all be millionaires. Wouldn't that be nice.

A high minimum wage simply destroys jobs. The jobs that merit such wage generally pay it already. The one's where the numbers no longer add up either cease to exist or cease to legitimately exist.

Should other taxpayers continue to subsidise the low paid with WTC's?

Fella

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Should other taxpayers continue to subsidise the low paid with WTC's?

No but I don't agree with your logic that the only way to reverse Brown's welfare state policies is to impose an artificially high minimum wage on the private sector.

If you want the private sector to pay enough that the state doesn't have to subsidise wages, implement policies that help the private sector make more profit, so they can afford to pay higher wages.

That would be the correct way to address the situation. Creating a high minimum wage (and incidentally choosing to rename it the living wage, when in fact that term relates to an entirely different thing) is pure politics & bad economics.

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

Yes. Blanchflower the arch-dove moron who thinks the answer to everything is to cut IRs &/or print money.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

No, because George Osborne has never made a decision to cut interest rates or to implement QE. As you will recall, the last Labour government devolved such decisions to the Bank of England. Furthermore the BOE base rate was 0.5% by 2009 - before Osborne was chancellor - and has stayed their ever since.

Fair point so Fella is saying the BoE (which most people think have done a reasonable job in the past 10 years are morons!

That said, correct me if I am wrong, the Treasury delegates responsibility to the BoE by Act of Parliament and sets the policy it will follow. If the Government did not agree with the way the BoE was doing this they could repeal the Act.

Fella

BobQ wrote: »

Fair point so Fella is saying the BoE (which most people think have done a reasonable job in the past 10 years are morons!

That said, correct me if I am wrong, the Treasury delegates responsibility to the BoE by Act of Parliament and sets the policy it will follow. If the Government did not agree with the way the BoE was doing this they could repeal the Act.

More accurately I'm saying at least some members of the MPC are morons. Absolutely.

I'll happily extend that description to anyone who thinks that printing money with nothing more than a guess (at best) what the long-term consequences may be is a good idea.