Osborne brings ruin to the UK economy

Voyager2002

According to the real experts:
"The chancellor’s plans... have no basis in economics. Osborne’s proposals are not fit for the complexity of a modern 21st-century economy and, as such, they risk a liquidity crisis that could also trigger banking problems, a fall in GDP, a crash, or all three."

And yet some people worry about Corbyn running the economy: he couldn't possibly do any worse!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/12/osborne-plan-has-no-basis-in-economics?CMP=share_btn_fb

Masomnia

Is it April 1st?

antrobus

Voyager2002 wrote: »

According to the real experts:
"The chancellor’s plans... (announced in his Mansion House speech, for “permanent budget surpluses” are nothing more than an attempt to outmanoeuvre his opponents (Report, 10 June) ).... have no basis in economics. Osborne’s proposals are not fit for the complexity of a modern 21st-century economy and, as such, they risk a liquidity crisis that could also trigger banking problems, a fall in GDP, a crash, or all three."....

And yet those are the very same plans that McDonnell has signed up for.:)

Labour will back George Osborne's financial plan reveals anti-austerity John McDonnell - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-back-george-osbornes-financial-6519257

Voyager2002 wrote: »

...And yet some people worry about Corbyn running the economy: he couldn't possibly do any worse!...

Oh I don't know. The French Parti Socialiste doesn't have much to boast about, and Syriza managed to wreck the Greek economy in about six months. It's really not that difficult to find examples of worse run economies Venezuela springs to mind for some reason.:)

kinger101

Can you explain this one to me;

(a) Corbyn wants to print money to fund public spending;
(b) Corbyn wants to nationalize the utility companies;
(c) Corbyn (pretends he) wants the UK to remain in the EU.

Neither (a) or (b) or compatible with (c).

.string.

There is the little matter of paying back the large National Debt - we can't do that without a surplus.

But once that is done, the surplus should ramp down I think to give an emergency balance, and then perhaps to zero averaged over, say, 5 years.

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

Can you explain this one to me;

(a) Corbyn wants to print money to fund public spending;
(b) Corbyn wants to nationalize the utility companies;
(c) Corbyn (pretends he) wants the UK to remain in the EU.

Neither (a) or (b) or compatible with (c).

On a point of order.

Corbyn has now dropped his plans to nationalise the energy sector. (I don't think he ever mentioned 'utility'companies in general.)

One of the many Corbyn U-turns we have seen in recent days.:)

Thrugelmir

Voyager2002 wrote: »

According to the real experts:
"The chancellor’s plans... have no basis in economics. Osborne’s proposals are not fit for the complexity of a modern 21st-century economy and, as such, they risk a liquidity crisis that could also trigger banking problems, a fall in GDP, a crash, or all three."

And yet some people worry about Corbyn running the economy: he couldn't possibly do any worse!

No one knows what Corbyn's plans are. There's no guarantee the UK will ever achieve a surplus. However the objective at least means the UK is heading in the right direction. Good financial management is something I'd never trust to an economist. Theories don't address day to day on the ground problems.

Masomnia

Thrugelmir wrote: »

No one knows what Corbyn's plans are. There's no guarantee the UK will ever achieve a surplus. However the objective at least means the UK is heading in the right direction. Good financial management is something I'd never trust to an economist. Theories don't address day to day on the ground problems.

It's noteworthy (to me at least) that the signatories to that letter are all academics or work for charities. No economists who work in industry.

kinger101

antrobus wrote: »

One of the many Corbyn U-turns we have seen in recent days.:)

I guess in a few more weeks, we'll just be able to work on the assumption that his policies are the opposite of what they were prior to becoming leader.

.string.

There's a word I want to use which may not be familiar to everyone, American in origin I think, which I've found useful in the past.

Druther - which is short for I'd rather >> drather >> Druther.

So Druthers is a word derived from that which stands for the things, or events, one would rather have.

So, to the point; If Old Old Labour continues in this vein they will change most of Corbyn's nutty policies into policies which might go down better with the electorate (one U-turn after another). But they will keep their "Druthers", the things they really want as their goal and intent.

The rest of us need to keep that in mind.

So if their wildest dreams were realised and Old Old Labour were to get into power, they will do a Corbyn and complete a whole bunch of reverse U-turns in order to revert to their original Druthers.

Ironical isn't it that the the trumpeted novelty of a politician staying true to principles wavers in the harsh light of reality, while the myth lingers on even while the U-turns come and come.

Come to your senses Labour; Labour won those years in power because they moved from Old Labour to New Labour and not the opposite.

Thrugelmir

.string. wrote: »

Come to your senses Labour; Labour won those years in power because they moved from Old Labour to New Labour and not the opposite.

Old Labour never changed to New Labour. Blair was an illusion that's being airbrushed out of history.