Forum menu
which book out of interst?
Horatio,
This one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=steven+keen&x=0&y=0
I wish I had this back when I was studying my degree - I felt much the same way as Keen for most of the course. Its an interesting read and starts with basic concepts such as the downward-sloping demand curve.
Its not a rip-roarer and has taken me three goes to complete. But worth the effort nonetheless. It will be interesting to see how A level students react to having two years work effectively debunked!!
The banks have been screwing trading businesses with good credit histories ever since the crisis. I expect this to be a bit of a disaster. The banks will trouser the loans and then refuse to pass them on unless they have a punitive rate of interest, a load of extra charges, and all kinds of guarantees from the SME in question.
thm - good to read your posts and thanks for your specific insights and knowledge - clearly a far higher level of understanding than mine on this/these issue/s.
One question I would like to ask your opinion on... (whilst trying not to appear too puerile and facetious 😕 ): What would be your thoughts on Germany leaving the Euro? Clearly a book could be written on this, however it appears to me that the value of the Euro is being kept high because of the strength of just one economy in the EZ, therefore, would it not be quicker to establish some kind of parity if Germany resurrected the Mark?
Slackalice - of all the various policy options, this would make relative economic sense IMO but would be a very difficult political decision. But if people want to persist with fixed exchange rates, then IMO they need to think about what constitutes an optimum currency area - Germany yes, Germany plus other N Euro states probably yes, Germany plus all of Euroland no IMO. In the end, I think we could see 2/3 fixed currency regimes possible co-existing with flexible ones within a greater Euro trade union. Germany will/may be in one of the 2/3. Alternatively we may simple move back to flexible exchange rates - this has been the ultimate outcome through time after all! 😉
But first, I fear that things are going to get messy again in the short run. Spain's continued problems plus Greece's elections are all pointing to further storm clouds IMO.
thm - many thanks, perhaps I'm not being too simplistic after all?!!
I hadn't considered the flexibility of exchange rates within the EZ... why oh why was this mechanism not introduced in the outset? Or is that a legacy of the ERM?
Agree with the short-term messiness, I too fear that it will stretch to medium term and a whole lot messier before anything sensible/flexible is even considered.
Either way, have a great weekend and enjoy the ride 😀
Please keep sending it to us, please keep giving us low interest rates and preferential loan repayment schemes, please keep on giving..
I need to keep myself and MrsBouy in the manner we currently have.
😆
If a fool is easily parted from his money, how hard can it be to rob the shit out off, a super massive bunch of TV brain washed retards ❓
Is your way of life! shit X shit with shit on top ❓ I wonder why ❓
Plenty of articles on Germany leaving the Euro eg:
http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hbreditors/2012/06/germany_should_leave_the_euro_but.html
teamhurtmore - MemberI think it is somewhat ridiculous to personalise this debate, be it Thatcher, Brown, Darling, CMD or Osborne
Yeah right, because prime ministers and chancellors of the exchequer have no bearing on the economy or leave a legacy.
BTW your Krugman link isn't working. Never mind, here he was a couple of weeks ago on Hardtalk.
He lacks oratory skills doesn't he ?
E_L, perhaps unsurprisingly that is not what I am saying! Of course Cameron and Osborne take responsibility (read above) but merely personalising the issue does not solve it, merely creates easy scapegoats. The more pressing challenge is the fact that genuine debate about policy options is being strangled by the over-powering orthodoxy of institutions like the BoE and the IMF. You may be correct about Krugmans rhetorical skills and the same can be said of Skidelsky. Krugman writes better (for an economist!) but in an argumentative manner at times which can leave him alienated. But we need the over reliance of monetary policy to be challenged and these are probably the most high profile economists capable of doing it. Balls tried it with his Fabian Society speech but as he said Labour and Keynes is a misunderstood relationship. If Merkel persists with her unlateral adjustment policy for the pigs then we fail to learn the lessons of history.
If there is a case for personalising things however, I would Mervyn KIng higher on the list that Osborne as it is fair to say that there is even less reason for him to fail as an Economist. He ignored the warnings of his own team as the debt bubble accelerated, his forecasting record is poor and his policy mixes inadequate and inconsistent. Oh and apparently his management skills leave things to be desired! But apart from that eminently qualified......?
Ernie, I will say thank you however for the Krugman video link. Just watched over the pre-ride porridge. I think his oratory skills are pretty good in that dry US way. Very clear message apart from two hitches (inferring what the IMF is saying and talking to EU politicians). Nice that he started with the basic issue of sustained deleveraging by multiple parties and the failure of people to understand the basic issues in front of us. His comments on Greece ring a bell as well!!
Thanks for that.
As there's a few people on this thread with some knowledge on the subject: is this new bank of England money just a pre-emptive bank bailout? In preparation for the fallout from the Greek elections, and subsequent market chaos next week? Because that's how it looks.
In which case, going back to the original post, no more of this money is going to make it into business lending as last time. In fact, it's likely to continue falling?
Of course Cameron and Osborne take responsibility (read above) but merely personalising the issue does not solve it, merely creates easy scapegoats.
Do you know what a "scapegoat" is ? ..... it's someone who is unfairly blamed for the mistakes of others. I have no wish to blame Cameron and Osborne for the mistakes of others. I am perfectly happy for them to be blamed for their own mistakes.
Obviously if I was a Tory I wouldn't happy about them receiving shitloads of criticism and might well argue "this isn't fair, you're personalising the issue". But I'm not a Tory, so I don't have a problem with them being forced to take responsibility for their own actions.
Binners, I am sure that there is no coincidence in the timing of the announcement. This is not a bank bailout as such - thee are no capital injections going in to boost their capital. This is another case, in a long line, of attempts to provide liquidity and to reduce the cost of lending for banks. Lending to consumers and mortgages have been essentially flat for an extended period but lending to corporates continues to decline but at a slower pace than before. So on paper a good idea as were the previous attempts. Will it work - who knows, but considering the fact that the cost of credit is not really the issue rather companies are unwilling to invest when the global and especially European outlook looks so bleak, I think that this is more a case of pushing string again. The lessons of recent liquidity boosts point to the same conclusion - prevent a catastrophe but don't create new demand. Hence flatlining.
Ernie, not sure why you are trying to make a point of nothing. I think we agree that DC and GO take responsibility, that is their job. But I guess if individuals feel the need to define themselves along narrow party lines then the danger is that their perspectives will remain equally narrow. Hence I prefer to believe that there is a much wider issue than the strength or weakness of particular individuals and remain happy to be free to think about such issues without the artificial burden of predetermined terms of reference. But thanks for the English lesson!
thm,
thanks for the links and economic explanations, both interesting and useful. And apologies for my comments re CMD and Osbourne earlier. I posted hastily and with genuine intent, but have since realised that I could easily have derailed a very intriguing thread. Although there is always an overlap between politics and economics, It is good, and unusually rare, to see a STW thread that focuses more on the economics than the politics side. We all already know the political leanings of most posters, myself included, and its refreshing for a thread to get to 4 pages without hearing them repeated and the usual left-right argulympics breaking out.
But after last night, I do feel that my own post from page one is now worthy of repeat 😉
loum - Member
Need to try something different.
Stick the lot on England to win tonight at 6/5, or half on Andy Carroll as first goalscorer at 7/1 if we're feeling lucky, with the winnings to be shared nationally as a tax rebate.
Maybe I'm just a simple soul but it seems to me that what we need in the long term is a return to more traditional industries, maybe growing more of our own food and making more of the things we use.
I really can't understand how we can be predominantly consumers rather than producers and not get progressively poorer as a nation.
Ernie, not sure why you are trying to make a point of nothing. I think we agree that DC and GO take responsibility, that is their job. But I guess if individuals feel the need to define themselves along narrow party lines then the danger is that their perspectives will remain equally narrow.
So you haven't noticed that David Cameron and George Osborne are both following the identical line because they are in the same party then ? It's just a weird coincidence and "narrow party line" doesn't come into it ?
According to Paul Krugman, who's opinions you apparently value, Cameron and Osborne are both wrong. But if Cameron and Osborne are wrong then it means that the Tory Party is also wrong. Your perspective will remain very narrow will you fail to grasp that simple truth.
Although of course if I was a Tory I would rather that people didn't grasp that simple truth. I would also rather that Cameron and Osborne weren't personally blamed either. I would probably come out with stuff like "let's not personalise this, lot's of people have been proved wrong" and "it's the system which is at fault, not the individuals". You know .......... the unusual Tory bullshit.
A man walks into an empty room and starts an argument!?! 😕
What are you on about THM - you can see an argument somewhere ?
I can't see any. Unless of course you consider anyone having a different opinion to yours as constituting an argument - is that what you mean ?
Ernie - Osbourne and Cameron are about as 'Tory' as Tony and Gordon Were 'Labour' 🙄
I find the true interesting factor is the dichotomy of the 'left' argument that Dave & Co are responsible for the current UK economic outlook, when the whole of Europe (who [i]both[/i] parties have tied us to like a millstone) is undergoing the 'worst financial crisis ever seen' - whilst at the same time maintaining that Gordon the moron was effectively powerless in the hands of a 'global economic crisis'.
I would also like to hear Ernie's and TJ's position on the research by the Spatial Economics Centre of the LSE that - quite comprehensively - trounces the oft repeated claim that public sector job creation stimulates the wider economy and creates private sector jobs - in fact it reveals no net benefit at all!
For some reason, the 'usual suspects' don't appear to have been shouting from the rooftops about that one 😉
Get wages up and or prices down so we can afford to spend money, problem solved!
Zulu-Eleven - MemberErnie - Osbourne and Cameron are about as 'Tory' as Tony and Gordon Were 'Labour' 🙄
Yes that's right Zulu-Eleven, David Cameron and George Osborne are in the Tory Party, and Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are in the Labour Party. Thank you for your pointless comment.
Just seen this thread as I've been away riding.
The majority of the money "given" to the banks are actually loans. They are replacing the loans the banks used to be able to get from the markets.
The money being lent to the banks is for the most part already in the economy for example in the form of mortgages to individuals or loans to businesses. Without these additional loans the banks would ask companies to repay their business overdrafts for example. There would certainly be no money for new loans.