Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Boredatwrork

Arklight wrote: »

Your view of Britain's economy is so far at variance with the majority of the electorate who would now vote for a Labour government,

The only concrete evidence of how the country voted was the last election, and that result is far far away from your claim. Unless of course you have some kind of insider information, do you? I'm starting to think what you believe to be true and what actually is true is getting a little blurry in your consciousness. Seems a bit all wishful thinking.

The rest of your post (which doesn't need quoting) appears to be just attacking a stereotype that in the main really is just a list of your own prejudices, which harks back to the same point I have made over and over here.
You assume you are on a moral crusade and this justifies you (in your mind) to get away with saying things that are just as bad as the image you are portraying on others, which in most cases just isn't true.
Therefore in reality, to the bystander you end up looking like the bigger @$$ than those imaginary enemies you seek to condemn. This is the birthplace for what is commonly known as the loony left, you seem to have signed up, hook line and sinker.

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

If you go back to the start of this discussion, way back before poor Generali was banned (does anyone know how he is?), Labour's model for funding is based on peoples' quantitative easing, some tax rises, and issuing bonds for nationalised industries, followed by increased tax revenue from an expanding economy.

This is in contrast to Tory austerity which is impoverishing people at a faster rate than state borrowing will do.

There is a ton of "everybody knows" whataboutery in this thread and very little actual dissection of Labour's spending plans. Firstly, 30% of the national debt that we owe is to ourselves. Apparently it's fine for Tory governments to print billions of pounds to give to banks to enrich their own balance sheets, but if a Labour government wants to do the same for capital infrastructure it's the return of Mao.

Tories are not operating 'austerity' they are spending as much as they feel the economy can sustainable support. If they thought they could spend another £100 billion on the national credit card they would probably do it

The national debt has ballooned it has not gone down. The only true time this nation has faced austerity in living memory is arguably the post war 1945 period where rationing was still in place and national debt went down from over 200% of GDP to under 50% of GDP


Fundamentally there is no slack in the economy at this point in the cycle. We are at full employment. If the state wanted to do some big projects it needs to cannibalise the private sector to do it. That is to say for example if the state wanted to hire 2 million more people it would have to take those people from the private sector there just isn't the 2 million people waiting outside the job center to take on

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

I'm afraid I have to break the news to you that Labour hasn't been in power since 2010.

Blaming Labour for the world's economic ills was fine in 2011, and 2012, and even 2013. It was starting to wear a bit thin in 2014 and 2015. It's now 2017 and you need to find a different song to sing.

yes and that song is unemployment at 40 year lows a growing economy and good quality lives for the many

ukcarper

Arklight wrote: »

If you go back to the start of this discussion, way back before poor Generali was banned (does anyone know how he is?), Labour's model for funding is based on peoples' quantitative easing, some tax rises, and issuing bonds for nationalised industries, followed by increased tax revenue from an expanding economy.


This is in contrast to Tory austerity which is impoverishing people at a faster rate than state borrowing will do.


There is a ton of "everybody knows" whataboutery in this thread and very little actual dissection of Labour's spending plans. Firstly, 30% of the national debt that we owe is to ourselves. Apparently it's fine for Tory governments to print billions of pounds to give to banks to enrich their own balance sheets, but if a Labour government wants to do the same for capital infrastructure it's the return of Mao.

But the figures Labour use are disputed by everybody else.

gadgetmind

ilovehouses wrote: »

Are willpower and determination attributes only special people have? You know; those special people born with a UK passport, into a rich, safe country with decent education and healthcare who can afford to chew the fat on a weekday morning on an internet forum.

No, of course not, many people elsewhere in the world don't get opportunities that we take for granted in the UK, opportunities that some people sadly squander.

gadgetmind

GreatApe wrote: »

Changing your brain is as difficult as changing your character literally changing who you are.

Yes, it is that hard, and it's also that easy. We're self aware, conscious of what we do and (usually) why we've done it, so we can self-correct and self-improve.

You note yourself the incredible plasticity of the brain, something we previously thought we lost in adulthood but this proved to be very simplistic.

But as you note its almost impossible with our current understanding to change things.

I did? I think we've all got it within ourselves to change ourselves, to gain new skills, to grasp new levels of abstraction, but many people don't even try, either because they don't think it will help (wrong) or that they simply can't be bothered.

I'm in my 50s and if you showed the "me" of a year ago what I was doing now I'd think "Wow, who did that, sure wasn't me!" and I fully expect to surprise myself over the next year. And every other year.

Best not to think too much about it

I'm kind of writing a novel about it, something else that I didn't think I'd even do!

System

gadgetmind wrote: »

No, of course not, many people elsewhere in the world don't get opportunities that we take for granted in the UK, opportunities that some people sadly squander.

You're in the top 1% of the UK's wealthiest people I'd guess.

Maybe the other 99% just don't have your work ethic.

Thrugelmir

Originally Posted by Arklight
If you go back to the start of this discussion, way back before poor Generali was banned (does anyone know how he is?), Labour's model for funding is based on peoples' quantitative easing, some tax rises, and issuing bonds for nationalised industries, followed by increased tax revenue from an expanding economy.

Unfortunately it's not a model that people will take seriously. Austerity isn't a question of choice it's a necessity.

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

Your view of Britain's economy is so far at variance with the majority.

The power of group think and confirmation bias

UK wages are one of the highest in the world
They are also better than next door France (of course dependant on the exchange rate but most of the time the exchange rate is such that the UK economy and UK wages are higher)

This is despite us contributing more foreign aid than France
Despite spending our 2% commitment in defense while the EU freeloads
Despite the French getting big agricultural subsidies and despite UK making big net EU contribution

antrobus

Arklight wrote: »

If you go back to the start of this discussion, way back before poor Generali was banned (does anyone know how he is?), Labour's model for funding is based on peoples' quantitative easing,..

Labour's model for funding is not based on peoples' quantitative easing. Granted that fool Richard Murphy may have come up with the idea, Corbyn might well have said he was interested, hence Corbynomics Mk1. There was no mention of peoples' quantitative easing in the recent Labour manifesto; there has been no mention of it by McDonnell or anybody else for that matter.

Don't make things up.:)

Arklight wrote: »

..some tax rises,

How many billions make a 'some'?

Arklight wrote: »

...and issuing bonds for nationalised industries,

Well yes, if you nationalise something you often have to pay for it. Flogging off some more Gilts is the usual way of raising money. I'm not so sure that's a good idea. Perhaps it would be better to spend the money on something else. infrastructure maybe?

Arklight wrote: »

..
followed by increased tax revenue from an expanding economy. ...

That is a hope not a policy.

Arklight wrote: »

..

This is in contrast to Tory austerity which is impoverishing people at a faster rate than state borrowing will do.

So you are saying that state borrowing will impoverish people? If that's true, then it's like a choice between dying from a bullet to the brain, or bleeding out from a stomach wound.:rotfl:

By the way, have you got any sources for your claim. I'm only asking. After all, Greece managed to impoverish itself with excess state borrowing pretty damn quick.

Arklight wrote: »

..
There is a ton of "everybody knows" whataboutery in this thread and very little actual dissection of Labour's spending plans. Firstly, 30% of the national debt that we owe is to ourselves.

I'd be more concerned about the utter nonsense that can be found in this thread. Wwhataboutery is a fundamental part of economics.

Arklight wrote: »

..
Apparently it's fine for Tory governments to print billions of pounds to give to banks to enrich their own balance sheets, but if a Labour government wants to do the same for capital infrastructure it's the return of Mao.

Err, it was the last Labour government who kicked off quantitative easing in the first place. How can you knock subsequent governments from following the same path? (Besides, QE is down to the BOE, it now being independent thanks to whichever one of Blair and Brown though it up.)

And, of course, the "Labour [STRIKE]government[/STRIKE] opposition does not wants (sic) to do the same for capital infrastructure". Read the flippin manifesto.:)