Corbynomics: A Dystopia

.string.

Generali wrote: »

I'm merely trying to steer the thread back on topic.

Obviously you're a bit embarrassed about your new friends' dodgy mates but you're trying to make the best of it and that is to your credit.

Anyway, about Corbynomics. Stupid or dangerous? I think both.

I have admit I gave up trying understand the actual Labour policies on economics. Do you happen to know if it is written down in joined-up writing?

I gave up when it became clear that the Labour party leader, the Labour Party members, the Labour front bench, the Labour MPs and maybe also the EMPs all had different policies.

Moby

.string. wrote: »

Have Corbyn at al claimed that they were acting quasi-officially on behalf of the UK Government? .. If so has it been confirmed?

I don't think so but maybe I missed it.

In the meantime I can only interpret this reported quote from McDonnell


“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.”

as the words if an apologist rather than someone who abhors terrorism.

Sorry but I'm not raking it up all over again. There is nothing to be gained imo!

Moby

.string. wrote: »

I have admit I gave up trying understand the actual Labour policies on economics. Do you happen to know if it is written down in joined-up writing?

I gave up when it became clear that the Labour party leader, the Labour Party members, the Labour front bench, the Labour MPs and maybe also the EMPs all had different policies.

It's called a post lost election review....it often happens.

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

I have admit I gave up trying understand the actual Labour policies on economics. Do you happen to know if it is written down in joined-up writing?

I gave up when it became clear that the Labour party leader, the Labour Party members, the Labour front bench, the Labour MPs and maybe also the EMPs all had different policies.

There was an article by McDonnell in the Sunday Times about the economy : well actually simply saying that Osbornes's WTC cuts should be reversed.

He gave as an example of those that would as otherwise suffer, as junior doctors.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

why don't we print money and build say 2,000,000 new homes over say the next 3/4 years?

No amount of money is going to supply the skilled labour and materials to achieve such a target.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

No amount of money is going to supply the skilled labour and materials to achieve such a target.

yes indeed there is a skills shortage in the building trades

however there is still the matter of whether the principle of mass building funded by printing money makes economic sense

so I guess the question could be rephrased something like

what would the economic consequences of printing money to achieve the highest practical building rate (accounting for physical constraints of manpower and materials and logistics)

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

Labour wont be trusted there for years methinks but London is different and I reckon we'll have a Labour mayor back soon!

No chance. It'll be Zach.

setmefree2

Generali wrote: »

It's worth remembering that Mr Khan has been done several times for dodgy expenses claims and is tainted by having nominated Mr Corbyn.

And he keeps flip flopping over Heathrow expansion. He's not to be trusted on anythig much - he just says what he thinks voters want to hear. He's totally lacking in integrity - whereas Zach has bucket loads.

Generali

setmefree2 wrote: »

No chance. It'll be Zach.

Mr Goldsmith has some very interesting political positions some of which I agree with more than others I admit.

It's pretty poor to write him off as 'just a toff'. Imagine saying that you shouldn't vote for someone because of their skin colour or country of descent. Dismissing Zac because of his parents' wealth is exactly the same.

His ideas on quality of life are interesting for example and go against the grain of British political thought.

setmefree2

CLAPTON wrote: »

however there is still the matter of whether the principle of mass building funded by printing money makes economic sense

Are you serious?

Printing money would (obviously cause inflation). Traditional QE is supposed to be rewound and can be rewound at any time. Under the 2009-12 QE programme, the bonds have not been cancelled and the BoE retains the option of selling them into the market.

Printing money for people's QE can never be rewound. The money creation is permanent. And once the inflation genie is out of the bottle a whole new nightmare will unfold.

The 2009-12 version was not intended to prop up the banking system. The BoE bought very few government bonds from banks and the money was not used to recapitalise them. The money required to recapitalise — or nationalise — banks was raised by standard government borrowing, not money printing, regardless of what Mr Corbyn and Mr Livingstone say.

The distinction between people’s QE and ordinary QE boils down to whether the government or officials at the central bank have control of the monetary printing press, and whether the assets are cancelled after purchase.

There is no doubt that people’s QE ends the operational independence of monetary policy as the government, not the BoE. would decide whether to pump more money into the economy to stimulate demand. At present, the MPC is split between doing nothing and tightening monetary policy with higher interest rates. None of its nine members advocates using monetary policy further to boost demand and growth.

Mr Murhpy agrees people’s QE would end BoE independence but he says the Bank’s operational independence of monetary policy — introduced by Labour in 1997 — is a myth and is, in any case, undesirable. “If the governor of the Bank of England does not like what an elected government wants to do, then he has to go,” he wrote this week.

If the government prints money for infrastructure spending, this creates an additional problem. Either the amount of infrastructure purchased would be determined by the perceived need for additional stimulus; or the government would first determine the right amount of infrastructure regardless of whether it left the economy with too much or too little demand. The risk is rampant inflation or deflation.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c1060fb0-41b4-11e5-b98b-87c7270955cf.html#axzz3r5iPscgG