MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I wouldn't say that the qualification is any easier,
You sure?
I went back to my faculty 10 years after I graduated to chat to the staff and they were only able to complete the first two years of my three year degree as the quality of entrants was so poor that they spent the first year doing what used to be A levels. Entrance qualifications hadn't changed, just the ability of people with the right A levels was much lower.
I suspect that at Oxbridge the standards are pretty much unchanged, but everywhere else it's definitely been watered down. It was not so longer ago I was explaining Pythagoras to a MEng graduate, who was completely clueless about what used to be considered very basic 'O' level geometry.
I thought degrees were just a financial exchange nowadays? As long as you can pay the fees......
Having said that, I got a degree 20 years ago, and if you met me you'd wonder how I managed to get myself dressed in the morning without injuring myself
the productivity gap is hardly new news and is a direct by product of the government encouraging employers to reduce hours in order to avoid redundancies and allowing flexibility in contracts - so we've got more people working but collectively producing slightly less... the alternative was a massive increase in unemployment and slow job creation.
direct by product of the government encouraging employers to reduce hours
I think you're crediting them with far too much. I doubt any employer gives politicians a second's worth of consideration when working out hiring policies. Low productivity is more likely caused by weak demand and the fact companies haven't cut right back (yet).
just5minutes - I've read exactly that explanation.
I also read an article (I think by Will Hutton) saying that the drop in productivity was also due to the lack of investment by British Companies since 2007. So that previous advances though R&D, and newer technology and equipment simply hasn't happened. And British business never invested anywhere near as much as somewhere like Germany in the first place, preferring to pay any money made as dividends to shareholders instead, rather than invest back in the business
Feels smug*
*At the moment anyway
Smug about living in London? 😆
Is there any link between low productivity and the rise in access to the internet, mobiles and social media, by any chance? 😀
just5minutes - Memberthe productivity gap is hardly new news and is a direct by product of the government encouraging employers to reduce hours in order to avoid redundancies and allowing flexibility in contracts - so we've got more people working but collectively producing slightly less... the alternative was a massive increase in unemployment and slow job creation.
Having just completed another 80+hr week, I wish the government were a bit more successful in their scheming! 😆
Ok, it's a crappy minimum wage job, but surely out of all the (what is it at the mo, 2 million?) unemployed there is someone who is desperate enough.
Where are all the job-thieving foreigners I've been promised? 🙂
what recession?
footflaps - MemberWell we'll have to agree to disagree, with 50% of the population getting a qualification which only 5% used to get and no time for an evolutionary jump in intelligence, we've just lowered the bar by 45%.
Absolute horseflops this; the reason more people are getting more degrees is that more people have the education required and the opportunity required to get them. This is a success story, it's not due to the bar being lowered.
(whether the average bachelor's degree is easier or harder to achieve is a reasonable question, it's just that the attainment rate isn't a remotely useful metric)
Whether or not it's now easier to get a degree, the reasoning that went "graduates get paid more, so if more people are graduates average income will rise" was obviously bogus. Graduate salaries were higher because the supply of graduates was constrained, so removing the constraint was always likely to lead to a reduction in the salaries.
As for me, I pay more tax than I did 5 years ago, and my pay has risen at less than the rate of inflation so I am noticeably worse off. I earn enough for this not to be a problem, but I'm really not happy about the state of the economy, partly because I don't like to see how many people are suffering, and partly because I have children who will shortly have to make their own way in the world.
Aye, we've largely removed the scarcity which used to inflate graduate salaries; but that cuts both ways, I think it's almost certain that while the average earnings are down, the total earnings are up- ie more people are making more, more people are contributing more to the economy.
The comparison I always make; I got an offer to a russell group uni, took up an offer with another one just because I preferred the package. These days, with the same grades, I'd have been told to **** off by oth. Maybe I'd have had better grades but probably not by the amount needed
Short Answer; Nope
Long Answer; don't have time still in work
Just heard a local school sixth form is not going to be run in september teachers getting made redundant, and more cut backs in local authority staffing.
As for the band q cutting stores and starting up more screwfix sheds, b and q also run B and q trade in a lot of the sheds, same prices as screwfix and same catalogues pictures and codes.Problem they both have is they dont seem to stock more than 4 of anything.
Recessions in the post war era work top down. The first hit are the richest, who can usually bully the nearest government into helping them out. By the time the business leaders are getting hit, the government is working day and night to prop up as many failing businesses as it can. Then the middle classes get hit when house prices start to slide, so the government puts out policies aimed at maintaining the housing market and inflating land (and rent) prices. Not many people helped by the government up to this point will ever need a food bank, yet the government is happy to take from the most vulnerable to look after them.
So when people start losing their jobs and need to fall back on welfare, the government cuts it. When people try to get an education instead of sitting on their arse, the government force them into massive debt.
Recessions are just numbers on the news to a lot of people who were poor before it, are poorer now and will continue to get poorer, growth or not.
Sorry, forgot to answer the question...
I work in public services, so no, not by a long shot.
Absolute horseflops this; the reason more people are getting more degrees is that more people have the education required and the opportunity required to get them. This is a success story, it's not due to the bar being lowered.
Do you really believe that a qualification that was only obtained by 5% of the population, which in less than a generation is then obtained by nearly 50% is exactly the same standard. If you do, then I suspect you're a recent graduate and a prime example of the uselessness of bachelor degrees as a measure of anything other than time passed.
It seems in my industy you need a degree just to be tea boy
Which has somewhat devalued the point in having a degree.
My politics degree (graduated 2004) was easier than my politics A level.
Our module on Karl Marx used only "The Communist Manifesto" as source material 🙄
However petrol is cheap, that makes a huge difference not just filling up the car, but keeping food and other prices lowOf course that's got sod all to do with the government
Not going to stop the current government claiming that it is their policies and their's alone that have improved the lot of all of us and that the current low inflation and marginal easing of austerity for some is a huge credit to their abilities and foresight. And obviously, although this was a two party coalition both parties are trying to claim sole credit. Equally clearly both parties deserve equal credit in that the marginal improvement is no thanks to them but because of the drop in oil prices which is mainly because of increased production in USA IIRC.
On the other hand I have little difficulty in remembering that despite working extra hours and taking greater responsibility, my family income is still 5-10% down on what it was 5 years ago and if I had not got extra hours and greater responsibility I would be 15-20% down.
Yes, for me..
I set up my own business last year in October, and work is going very well.
I've not had work this week, but that's the first time since I started.
The Telecomms industry is booming at the minute, and the day rates are great.
Never been happier.
footflaps - MemberDo you really believe that a qualification that was only obtained by 5% of the population, which in less than a generation is then obtained by nearly 50% is exactly the same standard.
I think it's fundamentally stupid to think that you can glean any useful information on one from the other. If the same number of candidates resulted in 50% instead of 5% you would have an excellent point; but as it is... horseflops. The number of people obtaining a degree in the past wasn't limited by capability, but by opportunity. And just for clarity, I'm not saying it's the exact same standard- I'm saying the argument you're making to suggest standards have lowered is pish.
10 people try to jump over a puddle, only 1 makes it. 100 people try to jump over a puddle, 10 make it. The puddle must be smaller! Gravity has got weaker since I was a lad. The 90 people who never got to try to jump over the puddle definitely wouldn't have made it.
No, I am not a recent graduate and I do not have a bachelor's degree. Is there anything else I can correct you on?
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/two-thirds-of-economists-say-coalition-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html ]Two thirds of economists say Coalition austerity harmed the economy [/url]
[b][i]Of 33 economists surveyed by the Centre for Macroeconomics two thirds disagreed with the proposition that the Government’s policies since 2010 have had a “positive effect” on the economy.
“Premature austerity has damaged UK welfare and as I and others argued at the time, delaying consolidation would have left the UK in a much stronger position than it is today” said John Van Reenen of the London School of Economics.
“The only interesting question is how much GDP has been lost as a result of austerity” said Simon Wren-Lewis of the University of Oxford.
Richard Portes of the London Business School said the UK’s recovery since 2013 was a consequence of the Government’s easing of austerity. “The recovery is aborted immediately after austerity begins, then [there is] revival when it is (semi-covertly) relaxed” he noted.[/i][/b]
http://cfmsurvey.org/surveys/importance-elections-uk-economic-activity
It was not so longer ago I was explaining Pythagoras to a MEng graduate, who was completely clueless about what used to be considered very basic 'O' level geometry.
I teach GCSE maths to adults and you need to know Pythagoras to stand a chance of getting a C grade. Every one of my A level physics students knows what it is.
Perhaps your sample of one isn't enough to judge the worth of all modern qualifications?
Well we'll have to agree to disagree, with 50% of the population getting a qualification which only 5% used to get and no time for an evolutionary jump in intelligence, we've just lowered the bar by 45%
Not saying you don't have a general point, but this is awful use of statistics. When only 5% went do you think they were the only 5% capable or did some not get the opportunities through good school or finance to go?
Misleading headline up there Ernie (the normal curse of media/commentaries) but at least the article goes on to explain things as economists should.
as posted on the Tory thread
teamhurtmore - MemberAusterity was designed to address other things.
Austerity in itself is unlikely to increase growth, why? Because it involves cutting spending and/or raising taxes both of which are withdrawals from the economy. They both reduce aggregate demand.
Posted 2 days ago #
So "no shit Sherlock" should be the reply to the headline. Of course, the article goes on to discuss why austerity happened or at least the debate around it
Some of those who neither agree nor disagree say that austerity may have had an initial positive effect in preventing a loss in confidence in UK economic policy. Giancarlo Corsetti (Cambridge) notes that a key achievement had been to insulate the country from ‘the most damaging type of financial crisis – the loss of market confidence on “sovereign signature”.’Sir Charles Bean (LSE) makes a similar point: that the motivation for consolidation was to ‘reduce the likelihood of a loss of market confidence… which, had it occurred... would have necessitated a much larger consolidation.’
John Driffill (Birkbeck) disagrees with the proposition and suggests that ‘markets might have found less austere policies equally credible.’
Of course, in relation to....
teamhurtmore - Member
What do you need to forgive them for? They haven't done anything they didn't say they would,Relaxed austerity measures?
Posted 2 days ago #
...this bit was interesting....
Of those who agree that there has been a positive effect on activity, Nick Oulton (LSE) suggests that austerity has been ‘greatly exaggerated’ as real current expenditure by general government has been higher in each year between 2010 and 2013 and general government investment is higher than it was in most of the years under the preceding government.
To which some (yes, Minford's back!!) add
Patrick Minford (Cardiff) also agrees, noting that the coalition has set a definite direction towards deficit reduction ‘without moving so rapidly to destabilise the economy.’ Jagjit Chadha (Kent) suggests that the coalition’s fiscal policies are better thought of as ‘sound money’ as deficits have continued to fall.
Beware the dreaded headline or at least read the text that accompanies it as they rarely match!!
the counter argument THM is that they could have protected confidence without as much austerity and that may have enabled more growth
As THM's quote says.
Most of the standard commentary around the application of austerity omits to consider the febrile environment of the time. It really was a possibility that there would be a sovereign debt crisis given the state the UK economy and banks were in, hence the government had to manage perceptions. Maybe the capital markets would have accepted a more obviously relaxed approach to managing the deficit, but if I'd been Chancellor I would not have taken the risk. Far worse to have a debt crisis than a period of 'signposted' deficit reduction (even if actually the corrections were being deliberately mitigated in a game of smoke and mirrors).
Anyone who thinks this is unimportant needs to remember that the market is just a collection of individuals.
anagallis_arvensis - Memberthe counter argument THM is that they could have protected confidence without as much austerity and that may have enabled more growth
Well that is indeed where the debate lies (and IMO what has happened).
I think GO has made several mistakes including the choice of the main instrument of policy. Nevertheless, he/the coalition deserve credit for (1) addressing/protecting against (negative) market sentiment initially and the (2) relaxing austerity even though they never admit that this is what they did. There may be the link between the two issues or they are being "economical with the truth". You decide 😉
The problem is the two main parties have ideologies which drive their policies rather than doing whats best, whilst still trying to say what they are doing is best for the economy
On the contrary, they do (arguably) what is required which is why despite alleged ideological differences their policies only differ slightly.
Frankly this is true across much of the developed world. We all have to deal with the pain of excess leverage
IMO "austerity" was the only option in 2010, the fact it has worked and the economy is now growing only leads to the detractors saying "our plan would have worked better". As I have posted before austerity to me just means reducing spending to be more consistent with income (tax revenue). We where living beyond our means and once the economy starting shrinking due to the financial crises there was only one viable option which was to reduce spending and increase taxes.
Re BQ - we have too many DIY stores, BQ and Homebase plus the old Texas stores. The fact that there is a rationalisation makes sense. I am sure many of the stores don't make any money.
IMO "austerity" was the only option in 2010, the fact it has worked and the economy is now growing
So many baseless assumptions in your post it's hard to know where to start. Can you explain why you think 'austerity has worked'?
Is it because Britain lost it's AAA credit rating under this government? Or because the government missed virtually all of it's own targets on borrowing, unemployment, exports, inflation, lending etc etc etc
😕
BQ and Homebase [b]plus the old Texas stores[/b]
I'd say they've had more than enough time to sort that one out.
And if you think austerity has worked go and talk to someone who has been living out of food banks and charity for the past few years through literally no fault of their own. They will happily set you straight.
[quote=grum said]the government missed virtually all of it's own targets on borrowing, unemployment, exports, inflation, lending etc etc etc
What was the unemployment target which was missed ?
Here's one for you:
A multi-billion-pound scheme to help long-term unemployed people into work has been branded extremely poor by MPs.The government's Work Programme only managed to get 3.6% of the people on the scheme off benefits and into secure employment in its first 14 months, the Public Accounts Committee said.
The government said it was "early days" for the scheme and the committee's report had painted a "skewed picture".But Labour said the programme was "worse than doing nothing".
[b]The 3.6% of claimants on the scheme who had moved off benefits into sustained employment between June 2011 and July 2012 was a mark well below the target of 11.9% that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) expected to achieve, the MPs said.[/b]
The committee's report pointed out that it was also below the official estimate of how many of those claimants would have found work anyway if the programme had never been launched.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21532191
Couldn't find updated 2015 figures. Regardless, it's utterly ludicrous for Tory supporters to claim that the financial crisis was all the fault of Labour and nothing to do with global economic conditions, then when we eventually get a regression to mean and the economy picks up a bit (much slower than expected and worse than most similar nations) it's apparently thanks to the Tories' genius economic policies. 🙄
[quote=grum said]
Couldn't find updated 2015 figures. Regardless, it's utterly ludicrous for Tory supporters to claim that the financial crisis was all the fault of Labour and nothing to do with global economic conditions, then when we eventually get a regression to mean and the economy picks up a bit (much slower than expected and worse than most similar nations) it's apparently thanks to the Tories' genius economic policies.
Quite a few people remember this though.
[img] 
[/img]
And your point is....?
In the economic good times, the previous Government were running a large budget deficit, leaving us unprepared for the financial crisis.
Gordon seemed to have believed his own "no more boom and bust" PR.
http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm
Regardless, it's utterly ludicrous for Tory supporters to claim that the financial crisis was all the fault of Labour
I thought it was the bankers fault?!? 😉
Then when we eventually get a regression to mean
Really? No output gap then. Quick get on to Mark Carney, they have it all wrong....
and worse than most similar nations
Really ^2?
Labour more that other parties believe that governments should play an active role in managing the economy through managing Aggregate Demand (AD). Not surprisingly, this links them to Keynesian ideas - again no surprise this is Ed Ball's training. Keynesian policy options are largely counter-cyclical - you build up budget surpluses (ie tax>spend) during good times so that you can run deficits (spend > tax) in the bad times. So far, so good (leaving out why this only works at some points on the AD curve). Labour to their credit delivered budget surpluses in an almost classic Keynesian case study - something which the Tories struggled with. But, and its a big but, Gordie then starts to play politics and believes his own hype/reverts to type and decided to spend more [b]at exactly the wrong time.[/b] Hence, instead of cooling demand he stoked it including increasing jobs in the public sector (which with fin services created an increasingly unbalanced economy). So bang there goes the budget surpluses, just before you need them. And then the folly of flooding markets with liquidity at a time of artificially low interest rates leads (well done Sir Eddie) to its ultimate (and predicted) conclusion - the crisis - which is compounded by too much borrowing by states, banks, corporates and individuals.
No problem, we now reverse our budget surplus that we created and spend > tax to smooth things out. Ooops, we forgot that bit. Bllx, we already have a deficit and a big one already - that's not meant to happen, where's Prudence when you need her? Never mind blame those bastard bankers and see if we can get away with it. Others seem to have pulled that off.
So we lose one instrument of policy - fiscal stimulus. In fact we need (?) to do the opposite of what is required. Never mind, the new lot then steal money off those who have it and fu*k up all financial markets and their pricing (QE). This will make those nasty bankers solve our problems by making people borrow more(sound familiar?). At the same time, we will introduce regulation that means that the banks will reduce their lending - errrrr,,,,,,you cant make this stuff up.
The silver lining? Ed and Gordi avoided the ultimate folly of the Euro.
So praise for that but give them deserved sh1t for the folly of snatching economic defeat from the jaws of victory. Muppets!
^^ the more verbose version 🙂
Right, because it seems more like the point is 'people pay undue attention to media-friendly quotes and soundbites'
How do you explain this then allthepies? Seeing as the problem was Labour profligacy right?
[img] 
[/img]
The Government, having already borrowed £58bn between April and September, is almost certain to miss its £96bn annual target by a mile. It’s now all but certain the UK will post a sixth successive year of triple-digit, billion-pound deficits, five of them under the Tories. Osborne has borrowed more in his half-decade as Chancellor than his predecessor Gordon Brown did during a decade at the Treasury. The Conservatives’ 2010 “emergency Budget” said the books would be balanced by next year. Official projections now suggest that won’t happen until 2018-19.
The Tories said they were going to completely eliminate the deficit, which they haven't done - instead [i][b]lying[/b][/i] about halving it:
If you're saddled with a huge budget deficit then the national debt is going to massively increase until such point that the deficit is brought down. That's my understanding of deficit-> debt anyway.
[i]Regardless, it's utterly ludicrous for Tory supporters to claim that the financial crisis was all the fault of Labour and nothing to do with global economic conditions[/i]
I don't think it was NOTHING to do with global economic conditions, however Labour had played fast and loose with the economy for years, spending all our money without thought for the future. They fuelled the credit problems by allowing people to put themselves in debt with endless credit cards and easy mortgage and credit facilities. I recall thinking at the time, when hearing about record personal debt levels back in the boom times, how awful it was that no one in Government was doing anything about it. (Restricting Cards for example)
You have to look out for those with little resistance to spending money they don't have. Its like having kids and saying to them...'sure have as much money as you want to spend and you can pay it back later'. It aint gonna happen because they have no understanding of what they are getting into. That is what Government is for...looking out for these issues and protecting the people from themselves.
Therefore not only did we suddenly lose the ability to earn decent money, but those with such high levels of debt found themselves up sh1t creek without a paddle. We're still in the sh1t, its just that the depth has changed and despite the pain we have all suffered and still suffering, I see the Torys as the only party with the strength to pull us out completely.
@grum - comparing borrowing under Tories to Labour in the prior 13 is a good comparison. Labour presided over a period of significant economic growth and prosperity when you would expect borrowing to fall substantially. it was profligate of them to keep spending and borrowing in the way they did. If we had not had the Tory policies of the last 5 years our situation today would have been far far worse. Compare the UK to France who took the opposite tack. On things like the AAA rating and debt levels as above it would have been far far worse under Labour, it was about damage limitation.
The financial crises wasn't all the fault of Labour any more than it was all the fault of the right under George Bush. However Labour where at the controls so they are going to be seen as bearing the most responsibilty. They made many poor decisions in running the economy in the years prior (see above) and some dire decisions in dealing with it (like pushing Lloyds into buying the defunct HBOS and allowing RBS to run amok via acquisitions and in how they managed the bailout of the bank)
@squirrelking - my point about Texas is that there are too many stores, oversupply
So i gave a long list of targets the government has failed on, you tried to pick holes in just one, and failed. Now we're just back to 'it's all Labour's fault when it goes wrong, and all thanks to the Tories when it goes right' again.
Great arguing skills. 🙄
I recall thinking at the time, when hearing about record personal debt levels back in the boom times, how awful it was that no one in Government was doing anything about it. (Restricting Cards for example)You have to look out for those with little resistance to spending money they don't have. Its like having kids and saying to them...'sure have as much money as you want to spend and you can pay it back later'. It aint gonna happen because they have no understanding of what they are getting into. That is what Government is for...looking out for these issues and protecting the people from themselves.
Sounds very nanny-state. Surely the free market will solve all our problems if allowed to do it's thing without meddling from the government? What about personal responsibility? Is this not a key principle for Tories. 😕
If we had not had the Tory policies of the last 5 years our situation today would have been far far worse.
Again you make these completely baseless assertions as if they are facts. 🙄
[i]So i gave a long list of targets the government has failed on, you tried to pick holes in just one, and failed. Now we're just back to 'it's all Labour's fault' again.
Great arguing skills. [/i]
Your argument is poor because when these targets are set, they are based on the past performance and present criteria, so they may be realistic targets at that time, but can become unrealistic at future points due to unknown circumstances. I'm not going to reel off where they have exceeded targets such as with jobs, but just say that you have to look at the bigger picture such as how the rest of the EU have fared with their targets.
The narrative I’m talking about goes like this: In the years before the financial crisis, the British government borrowed irresponsibly, so that the country was living far beyond its means. As a result, by 2010 Britain was at imminent risk of a Greek-style crisis; austerity policies, slashing spending in particular, were essential. And this turn to austerity is vindicated by Britain’s low borrowing costs, coupled with the fact that the economy, after several rough years, is now growing quite quickly.[b]Simon Wren-Lewis of Oxford University has dubbed this narrative “mediamacro.” As his coinage suggests, this is what you hear all the time on TV and read in British newspapers, presented not as the view of one side of the political debate but as simple fact.
Yet none of it is true.[/b]
Which brings me to claims that austerity has been vindicated. Yes, British interest rates have stayed low. So have almost everyone else’s. For example, French borrowing costs are at their lowest level in history. Even debt-crisis countries like Italy and Spain can borrow at lower rates than Britain pays.What about growth? When the current British government came to power in 2010, it imposed harsh austerity — and the British economy, which had been recovering from the 2008 slump, soon began slumping again. In response, Prime Minister David Cameron’s government backed off, putting plans for further austerity on hold (but without admitting that it was doing any such thing). And growth resumed.
[b]If this counts as a policy success, why not try repeatedly hitting yourself in the face for a few minutes? After all, it will feel great when you stop.[/b]
But I'm sure you all know better than the Nobel-prize winning economist. I realise this is only one interpretation of events but you lot really need to stop confusing your own political prejudices with established facts - it's ludicrous.
And regarding unemployment, looks like a good graph to me given the recession.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117
now, now grum, dave is very careful these days (I am watching) to saying halving in relation to GDP!!! 😉
So you have proved that Austerity George is no such thing!!! (or that real austerity is yet to come, but at a better time). Either way econ growth will be well below trend for some time - or may be we have a new trend at a much lower level as we pay back (finally) more than we consume.
The Greens should be in their element 😉
[i]Sounds very nanny-state. Surely the free market will solve all our problems if allowed to do it's thing without meddling from the government? What about personal responsibility? Is this not a key principle for Tories. [/i]
Nanny state indeed, which is why our welfare bill has leapt out of control. Are you saying that its okay to let people get themselves into levels of personal debt that are never going to be repaid, leading to bankruptcy, repossesions, depression, more welfare payments etc etc.
Some people need protecting from themselves.
[quote=grum said] but you lot really need to stop confusing your own political prejudices with established facts - it's ludicrous.
😛
Care to point out a statement I've made that I havent backed up with evidence? Or where I've presented my opinions as facts? Thought not.
the clue is in "really"! 😉
After calling Carney, have a word with the French bird at the IMF who keeps changing her mind on the UK. Last version was:
“A few countries, only a few, are driving growth: America and the UK. From a global perspective we see growth that’s too low, too fragile.”Speaking about prospects for 2015, Lagarde said she expected it to be a good year for the US, which is experiencing strong growth. She offered a strong endorsement for the British chancellor, adding: “And the UK, where clearly growth is improving, the deficit has been reduced, and where the unemployment is going down.
“Certainly from a global perspective this is exactly the sort of result that we would like to see … More growth, less unemployment, a growth that is more inclusive, that is better shared, and a growth that is also sustainable and more balanced.”
Then again what does she know?
IMO the crisis is too deep for any party or political ideology to be able to provide a solution. We've overspent, massively and changes in our demography and our relative position in the global economy mean we have a much lower capability to pay off that kind of debt than we used to... it's a bit like borrowing twice your salary when you're earning 50k on the basis you'll be getting a payrise next year so you can pay off the debt, and then being given a massive pay cut instead... you've made a wrong calculation and now you're screwed.
We've come to the end of the post-war boom, which was as much as anything a matter of demography... it was always going to come to an end at some point...
I don't think any political party or central bank in UK, Europe or the States has any idea how to fix this - otherwise they'd have done it by now.
We've an ageing population in poor health - we've got used to living beyond our means and have largely not set aside enough for our pensions... and the old ways of making ourselves wealthy aren't going to work in this new world...
As one of my mates who recently moved to Abu Dhabi said - "Interesting times we live in. Come and join the action… It is not in the UK…"
I'm 42 and I don't expect the 'recession' to be over in my lifetime tbh - slow, if any growth, static living standards most likely.
It might chill us all out a little. Maybe we'll get a bit less materialistic and go back to thinking about our communities again? personally I think people are craving a little simplicity and getting off the mad treadmill we've been on for the last 20 years..
well technically we have been out of a recession for while
LT v low growth (and sub trend) is probably a more apt description
Beware the dreaded headline or at least read the text that accompanies it as they rarely match!!
I don't know why the obsession with the headlines as I posted a direct link to the whole article/text.
I don't know anyone who is only interested in headlines but not the accompanying articles ........ do you?
I also posted a direct link to the Centre For Macroeconomics report, the one which says that two thirds of the UK's leading economists who responded to their survey disagreed with claim that "the austerity policies of the coalition government have had a positive effect on aggregate economic activity (employment and GDP) in the UK".
I thought some people might find it interesting because it's not what Tory politicians are claiming. In fact it's the complete opposite, ie, Tory politicians are claiming that their economic policies have had a positive effect.
Who to believe, the politicians facing reelection or a bunch of academics?
It's a tricky one.
Then again what does she know?
Well it is surprising to see a right-wing politician supporting a right-wing government, who'd have thought it eh?
Then again what does she know?
Well if Christine Lagarde, or the French bird at the IMF as you like to call her, keeps changing her mind, as you claim, why should anyone listen to what she has to say?
Although I'm not sure she has changed her mind that much. Two years ago she said that the poor performance of the British economy had left her with no alternative but to call on George Osborne to rethink his austerity strategy.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/18/george-osborne-imf-austerity ]George Osborne told by IMF chief: rethink your austerity plan [/url]
Isn't that exactly what George Osborne did - rethink his austerity plan, as you keep reminding us THM, and indeed do the economists in the Centre For Macroeconomics report?
Perhaps it's more of a case that George Osborne changed his mind rather than Christine Lagarde ?
I also posted a direct link to the Centre For Macroeconomics report, the one which says that two thirds of the UK's leading economists who responded to their survey disagreed with claim that "the austerity policies of the coalition government have had a positive effect on aggregate economic activity (employment and GDP) in the UK".I thought some people might find it interesting because it's not what Tory politicians are claiming. In fact it's the complete opposite, ie, Tory politicians are claiming that their economic policies have had a positive effect.
I may be missing your point here, but what other answer could possibly be given to that question? In other words, how could 'austerity' or reduction in government spending have any other effect that to reduce aggregate economic activity (ceteris paribus)? That statement tells me nothing, because the key question is whether the alternatives were any better.
Clearly if the taps had been opened on government spending instead of (slightly) restricted for optical reasons, then we may have been better off - unlikely though given potential debt crisis.
Its about making silly points, but as Ernie says, and I agree, the text is the interesting bit. Makes the headline look silly. Imagine:
"2/3 of economists believe that cutting spending and raising taxes is good for the economic growth"
The IMF did multiple flip flops here which was quite amusing!!! Not forgetting that there error in calculating the fiscal multiplier was one reason why people made policy errors
I may be missing your point here, but what other answer could possibly be given to that question?
My point? MY point??? 😯
I didn't ask the question! It was the Centre For Macroeconomics who asked the question 🙂
And they put that "one answer" question to 50 leading economists, 33 of which responded.
The result was two thirds disagreed that "the austerity policies of the coalition government have had a positive effect on aggregate economic activity (employment and GDP) in the UK".
While 15% of the leading economists surveyed AGREED that "the austerity policies of the coalition government have had a positive effect on aggregate economic activity (employment and GDP) in the UK".
Perhaps you need to point to [i]them[/i] the impossibility of such a feat?
A sure fire way of getting UK plc back to growth is to ratchet up manufacture of handbags, set up an online store and put a few ads on STW. There's definitely a market for them 🙂
Handbags, how disappointing.
Its Maserati's, luxury watches and private banking don't you know!
After calling Carney, have a word with the French bird at the IMF who keeps changing her mind on the UK. Last version was:
You mean the genius who masterminded Greece's escape from economic collapse?
Indeed doc
Not forgetting that there error in calculating the fiscal multiplier was one reason why people made policy errors
There estimation of the impact of tighter fiscal policy proved to be an incy-wincy bit out!!!
Still nothing compared to locking Greece into a fixed exchange rate combined with artificially low interest rates.....BOOM!