the parties in politics are virtually all offering different versions of the same thing-- how do you like your pain---they are all bankrupt of ideas-- they all live in a pampered world, with salaries, fringe benefits,rewards when leaving office, and pensions that ordinary people never see. Its no wonder they all sing from the same sheet, but in different tones.....
It may well not be the solution but that is not to say that people in power will abandon the idea that it is required. It is the whole chicken and egg aspect that makes life so difficult for policy makers (in their defence). Determining the level of interest rate that makes current debt levels unsustainable is easier and more formulaic. The challenge is that different things can cause them to rise rapidly. And that is where the debate lies.
they all live in a pampered world, with salaries, fringe benefits,rewards when leaving office, and pensions that ordinary people never see. Its no wonder they all sing from the same sheet, but in different tones.....
I like the way that, as usual, it's all just the fault of politicians.
[i]One[/i] of the reasons why there is so little difference between Labour and the Tories is because Labour are aware that it is far easier to adopt Tory policies which the electorate has by and large already bought, and which continues to be sold to them on a daily basis by the right-wing press, than go through the difficult and arduous task of attempting to win an alternative argument, in face of a very unsympathetic press/media, and which is far from guaranteed to succeed.
If the electorate were demanding that Labour provides a serious alternative to the Tories then they probably would. But until then Labour will continue to play it safe by not offering anything radically different to the Tories. And the "just like the Tories but nicer" strategy will very probably be enough to win them the next general election.
the idea that you can make capitalism more palatable with some reforms and controls is laughable--given that the first thing to go in a crisis is all those reforms and controls-- reformist politics can only appeal in a time of economic growth not decline-- hence all parties adherence to austerity, they do not have any control over global capitalism-- they all seek to appease the business class--at the expense of everyone else.
i agree that people expect more form a Labour govt, but it doesn't take long for normal service to be resumed--i do however remain optimistic that events may pass them all by and consign them to the dustbin of history....
the idea that you can make capitalism more palatable with some reforms and controls is laughable--given that the first thing to go in a crisis is all those reforms and controls
It's not laughable at all - you [i]can[/i] make capitalism much more palatable.
And which "reforms and controls" were removed by the last government when it found itself faced with the worst global capitalist crises since the 1930s ?
One way of making capitalism more palatable is to avoid running up budget deficits during the good times. The powder keg needs to be dry not essentially empty when the time to use it (ie,recessions)comes. As a self_confesses Keynesian economist the one bloke out of the current Uk political elite who "should" understand this is Ed Balls. At least his lot didnt tie us to a fixed currency at the same time. Imagine the mess we would be in then - then we would be facing "real" austerity not the type that was described in one broadsheet yesterday as moving from Income of £40 and expenditure of £50 to income of £40 and expenditure of £47. Some austerity package that?
FWIW - at least some (!?!) honesty from the "great and good" of the world's economic and political elites this weekend at the IMF meetings...
Reflecting the lack of consensus, Mr Tharman (Chairman of IMF's governing body) added: “There is no single bullet that will get us to normal growth and some normality in jobs”.
...which I guess can be translated as, "help, anyone got any new ideas?". At least we are only on version 3 of what the IMF says the UK should do!! And after the attempt at consensus, then we get the interesting bickering as to whose fault it is:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/acb7a84a-a9fc-11e2-9c7b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2R5mMF6Ru
...and further comments on the risks of QE from the worlds biggest bond investor
The idea is simple: [b]manipulate[/b] key financial markets in order to "push" investors to [b]take more risk[/b], thus also stimulating spending and investing. With time, improving fundamentals would validate the artificial prices, thus also allowing central banks to exit.Most investors have responded to QE as very few wished to take on institutions with a printing press in the basement. Yet, despite the [b]manipulation of financial markets, growth and jobs have consistently fallen short of expectations.[/b]
Facing insufficient demand, structural impediments and policy uncertainty, [b]the real economy has not responded as envisaged by central bankers.[/b] In response, officials have widened the scope and scale of QE.....
....So, what exactly are these collateral damages and unintended circumstances?
[b]Modern market-based economies are not wired to function well at artificial prices for any prolonged period of time. [/b]The pricing system loses its critical signaling role. Markets operate less well. And, critically, resources are misallocated – both in the financial sector and also in certain parts of the real economy.
So, less than five years after a global crisis triggered by irresponsible risk-taking, concerns are again surfacing about bubbles. [b]The worry is heightened by the fact that both governments and central banks now have fewer weapons to counter the detrimental effects of another financial crisis.[/b]
http://www.businessinsider.com/el-erian-g-20-warns-of-qe-collateral-damage-2013-4
[img] 
[/img]
