Just going back to Torminalis first post “we can’t go on spending over 50% of GDP on the public sector”. The greatest myth the ConDems have managed to perpetuate through the right wing press is that out-of-control public spending is what got the country into a financial mess and not the global economic meltdown.

There are two very simple, clear, graphs here that do a lot to piss all over that claim.

The other thing to remember is that, as someone else has pointed out already, the majority of public spending does not go on public servants (ie employees). The ‘dirty hospitals’ you’re complaining of are to a great extent a result of the privatisation/outsourcing of services such as cleaning. Put a company in charge of cleaning that’s put in a bid at the lowest possible price, likely employing workers on short term contracts at low rates, whose aim is to do the minimum possible to reach the SLA that was set (and which needs an inordinate amount of resource to report on and monitor but is actually near impossible to enforce) and the quality goes out of the window.

Once upon a time you had cleaners employed by the hospital itself, probably at no greater cost, who had some job security and continuity, and possibly took some pride in their work.

•Q: Why did God create economists ?
•A: In order to make weather forecasters look good.

I didn’t bring up the subject of economics.

I just started questioning you when you started to try and reduce the complexity of the NHS to a simple economic problem.

It’s not my fault you always bang out the same old argument.

epicyclo – Member

So, for idiots:

If the government is employing the finest economic experts, how come we’re fecked?

Because they don’t agree and there is no one right answer

My understanding is that at the moment the “wise men” who rule monetary policy in the “independent” bank of england are split

One wants more money pumped into the system to stimulate growth ( quantitative easing)- pure Keynes

One wants restriction of the money supply to reduce infallible – pure monetarism

The rest want to wait and see

The greatest myth the ConDems have managed to perpetuate through the right wing press is that out-of-control public spending is what got the country into a financial mess and not the global economic meltdown.

Er…. we get that – the loss of confidence in the financial system has gummed everything up and ultimately tipped everyone into recession. I think the Libservatives are perhaps making the point instead that public spending at this level is unsustainable – as the economy contracted, the total spending grew as a share of GDP, and the cost of debt now being much greater, it’s simply unsustainable.
Of course the issues that they face are trying to support the shoots of recovery whilst at the same time reducing the huge public debt. I’m not sure I’d want that job right now…

Soya is not a “solution” to bluefin tuna extinction numb nuts. Its a substitute source of protein at cheaper production cost. That is all. Economists don’t design how things happen they make a stab at demonstrating why things happen. If you want to piss your rocks off at someone then do it at politicians. It takes social policy to modify free markets. Not f***ing with the analysis of the market itself. Youd shoot a messenger because?

Genuine question from an economics retard, but is it possible to construct apolitical macro economic theories in the same was as say mathematical theory is essentially apolitical?

An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn’t happen today

as the economy contracted, the total spending grew as a share of GDP, and the cost of debt now being much greater, it’s simply unsustainable.

It was never anyones intention that increase public spending would be sustained

IanMunro – Member

Genuine question from an economics retard, but is it possible to construct apolitical macro economic theories in the same was as say mathematical theory is essentially apolitical?

No – there are no absolutes only opinion.

its more like medicine. Teh consensus even overwhelming consensus may point one way but there will always be someone who points the other way and has a good case to make

Having said that expert opinion worldwide is that the Condems policy is economically illiterate – even Bush went for quantitative easing and most economists believe this to be the right course.

I am convinced taking money out of the economy now is counter-productive. I can’t decide if it is just stupid or the conservatives know it is wrong but are doing it anyway to reduce the hated public sector and to destroy public sector pensions as a politics of hatred and envy

Osbourne is spectacularly thick however

Even hindsight is not 20 / 20 however. We won’t really even know who is right in ten years time

Genuine question from an economics retard, but is it possible to construct apolitical macro economic theories in the same was as say mathematical theory is essentially apolitical?

not really because when you define a mathematical hypothesis you define its universe and because of the certainty of theorem it is a fully defined universe. When you define an economic theory you also define its universe but its a hypothetical one that will not include all definable variables.

It is more akin to the physicist in this joke:
A group of wealthy investors wanted to be able to predict the outcome of a
horse race. So they hired a group of biologists, a group of statisticians,
and a group of physicists. Each group was given a year to research the
issue. After one year, the groups all reported to the investors. The
biologists said that they could genetically engineer an unbeatable
racehorse, but it would take 200 years and $100 billion. The statisticians
reported next. They said that they could predict the outcome of any race,
at a cost of $100 million per race, and they would only be right 10% of the
time. Finally, the physicists reported that they could also predict the
outcome of any race, and that their process was cheap and simple. The
investors listened eagerly to this proposal. The head physicist reported,
“We have made several simplifying assumptions… first, let each horse be a
perfect rolling sphere…”

Folks at work were discussing the programme this morning and I thought I would take a peek on 4oD later. Then I found out who made it.

I will give it a miss. I prefer intelligent discussion and not polemics, especially with the track record of Durkin, who is known to cut interviews to make people appear to say the opposite of what they actually did. If it were made by someone else I’d most probably have had a look.

The people at work seemed impressed until I suggested that removal of the state completely would mean they would have no NHS, roads, police, et. That, unfortunately, was what a number of them were suggesting.

No – there are no absolutes only opinion

its not a matter of opinion its a matter of faith in/acceptance of any particular incomplete model.

Opinion is what forum posters have. Informed or otherwise.

As an occasional toe dipper into the world of economics, this is a fantastically bonkers thread.

Next week on STW: Bees.

A scientist once said bees shouldn’t be able to fly, from a theoretical standpoint.

The room is split 3 ways – there’s one scientist, surrounded by people who’ve decided they either don’t believe in bees or science, and will defend that position for n+1 posts.

wrong.

a scientist once commented that the best mathematical models of flight couldn’t explain how a bee could fly.

(they’re very big for their little wings).

he/she knew that this was because the models didn’t adequately account for particular way in which bees flap their wings.

a little bit of research later, and we now have a better understanding of Bee flight.

aren’t we clever?

Tonight’s In Business on R4 will be discussing whether permanent economic growth is possible.