Corbynomics: A Dystopia

setmefree2

Generali wrote: »

Given the Baker Boom, the incomes and bank reserves policies of the Wilson/Callaghan government and the Lawson boom I think it's fair to say that the only organisation that has been shown to be less capable of running monetary policy than the BoE in the UK is the Government.

I trust Mark Carney more than Corbyn. In fact, I think the UK is very lucky to have such a great governor of BOE.

CLAPTON

setmefree2 wrote: »

I trust Mark Carney more than Corbyn. In fact, I think the UK is very lucky to have such a great governor of BOE.

if indeed we are 'lucky' to have such a great man, then it shows that the institution is a bad one

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Given the Baker Boom, the incomes and bank reserves policies of the Wilson/Callaghan government and the Lawson boom I think it's fair to say that the only organisation that has been shown to be less capable of running monetary policy than the BoE in the UK is the Government.

yes indeed

but under Baker or Wilson/Callaghan we didn't have a financial crisis like 2007/8

are you sure that if we had built houses during 2007- 2015 (with printed money) we would, on balance and with all things considered, be worse off than now?

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes indeed

but under Baker or Wilson/Callaghan we didn't have a financial crisis like 2007/8

are you sure that if we had built houses during 2007- 2015 (with printed money) we would, on balance and with all things considered, be worse off than now?

Under Wilson & Callaghan there was a pretty nasty financial crisis. A different one to 2007/8 but it's arguable that it was worse.

For the second question, no I'm not sure. I suspect that at some point in the future the UK would be a damn sight worse off then otherwise the case but then that's the problem with economics; a double blind study is often impossible.

I think that if you're going to dismiss economic orthodoxy then I think that it's better not to do it on a whim.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Under Wilson & Callaghan there was a pretty nasty financial crisis. A different one to 2007/8 but it's arguable that it was worse.

For the second question, no I'm not sure. I suspect that at some point in the future the UK would be a damn sight worse off then otherwise the case but then that's the problem with economics; a double blind study is often impossible.

I think that if you're going to dismiss economic orthodoxy then I think that it's better not to do it on a whim.

I would suggest that is massive QE and zero interest isn't entirely economic orthodoxy.

I would suggests that the economic outcomes for the southern EU countries wasn't optimal even with an independent central bank

Personally I don't count building more homes in London and the SE as a whim but would concede that if the government is involved I'm pretty sure we would build the wrong homes in the wrong places for the wrong people

gadgetmind

It's breaking up! It's breaking up!

'A Labour MP has claimed those who have defied the party leadership have been subject to "vile abuse and pure bile" from supporters of Jeremy Corbyn.

Graham Jones, the MP for Hyndburn, told the BBC Mr Corbyn's allies had "taken over" Labour but some of them had "unpleasant" political backgrounds.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34809744

How long can this train wreck keep on rolling?

Generali

An interesting summation of the problem Mr Corbyn's on the fly approach to policy making is causing (if you think that Labour being given a monumental kicking at the next election is a problem):

ALL VOTERS
Yes, I understand – they OPPOSE renewing it: 12%
Yes, I understand – they SUPPORT renewing it: 18%
No, I don’t understand what their position is: 70%

LABOUR VOTERS ONLY
Yes, I understand – they OPPOSE renewing it: 18%
Yes, I understand – they SUPPORT renewing it: 21%
No, I don’t understand what their position is: 61%

Figures are from the latest Scottish opinion polling by Survation (sp?).

So 4/5ths of Labour voters don't understand their own party's policy on Trident replacement. Hmmmm.

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

We'll see but London is naturally Labour and Khan is a good candidate with a 'good story' about his background. Whereas Zac is a privileged toff, born with the Goldsmith millions to grease his way into politics. That's what we tell people on the doorstep;)

Paris attacks terrorist suspect Ahmed Almuhamed 'was rescued near Greece after his refugee boat sunk'

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/paris-attacks-terrorist-suspect-ahmed-6836199




Yes we'll see Moby.

michaels

Ou se trouve Jeremy Corbyn?

Sapphire

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/paris-attacks-terrorist-suspect-ahmed-6836199




Yes we'll see Moby.

Additionally, Zac Goldsmith is actually a very good, clued-in, honest and hard-working MP with a conscience. It's amazing, but he manages to answer any email sent to him helpfully and fast – and he generally answers emails personally.

I'll be voting for him for mayor – though I'd be sorry to see him go as my MP.