Forum menu
OOB - depends on what you are spending the money on IIRC
OOB - depends on what you are spending the money on IIRC
Terrific, in which case perhaps you could answer the QT guy's question to Emily Thornberry and offer an example of a Country that's spent the money on the right stuff and succeeded.
Germany would be the best example. Continued with printing money after the UK went to austerity. Result - economic growth far outstripping the UKs
Needless to say that neither the above is true.
Germany underperformed UK for sustained period 2012-16 but is growing faster now. DIfferent cycles.
Germany running record budget surpluses, UK running large deficits.
Merkel committed to balanced budgets too.
What next? Labour's plans fully costed?
Germany would be the best example. Continued with printing money after the UK went to austerity. Result - economic growth far outstripping the UKs
Germany!? German is pretty much the gold standard of European Neo-Liberal economics. They even force it on the likes of Spain and Greece.
You can't just point at any successful country and say "That was Corbynomics!".
C'mon try harder.
Germany continued to spend money on capital projects and infrastructure which led to growth. Pretty much my understanding of what Corbyn intends. the tories cut spending leading to less growth thus Germany outperformed the UK
Its basic Keynes economics
So if Corbynomics is right GDP should be rapidly increasing fueled by all the spending and thus 'reducing' borrowing. Is it?
1. WTF is Corbynomics?
2. Is that what you claim the tories are now doing?
In answer to 1 It looks like pretty standard Keynesiasm to me. If you borrow/spend to invest to create jobs and maintain full employment and livable wages it drives demand. If instead you cut investment/spending you end up spending the same to plug the gap created by decreasing tax receipts and increasing welfare budgets, which is what the tories are now doing*
*Doesn't even take into account brexit, which we've barely started paying for.
*Waits for THM to come along with a patronising comment about how I'm not an economics professor*
Continued with printing money after the UK went to austerity. Result - economic growth far outstripping the UKs
nothing to do with everybody buying German goods then or Germany taking in as many immigrants as it can ?
the percentages are so low you can't draw a conclusion like that from them, or rather only a rabid leftie can...
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth
Politics aside how do we improve the UK for non London non rich people?
Genuine question
Its basic Keynes economics
It looks like pretty standard Keynesiasm to me
In which case the treasuries of the world will be well aware of it, and already using it as appropriate.
Is that what you claim the tories are now doing?
I think almost all EU govts are, and they all started to do it about the same time. Once they ran out of room on the monetary side, as much fiscal as they could get away with was the only tool they had left.
The question was which country spent money for greater growth. Germany is a classic example. NOw of course the total situatioin was different but it is beyond doubt that germany kept on spending the money and got greater growth
As I said - basic Keynes.
Germany would be the best example. Continued with printing money after the UK went to austerity. Result - economic growth far outstripping the UKs
Nothing to do with the failing EU economies depressing the value of the Euro helping Germany's balance of trade?
daz correct but don't worry Keynes is probably the most widely misused/abused economists ever, so you are not alone. What people generally call Keynsian policies are generally a million miles from what he actually advocated. He must be turning in his grave. Poor guy
Errm - the pound fell more than the euro so that one won't wash
Angela Merkel 2009
"The crisis did not take place because we were spending too little but because we were spending too much to create growth that was not sustainable."
And don't forget the Germans were to ones who were insisting that S European economies implemented austerity (real austerity not the fake UK version) at exactly the wrong times, creating economic destruction in those countries.
Still you chose who you want to believe....
As I said - basic Keynes.
John MacDonnel's going to look like a right muppet if/when he's in power and he turns up to his first meeting with the Treasury Civil Service economists and his grand plan is something taught at A Level.
Their response is gonna be: "Don't you think we already thought of that?"
This gives Angela Merkel’s government — which has been following tight fiscal policies and limiting spending
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/nov/21/uk-borrowing-deficit-public-finances-hammond-bank-of-england-business-live
This is what the tories policies have done.
Interesting all this stuff about Keynesian economics and whether it's a workable solution, but I actually think the labour party are thinking far more radically. [url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/12/doughnut-growth-economics-book-economic-model ]Something along the lines of this[/url]. Don't ask me if it'll work, but a new solution that is neither 20th century Keynesianism or 20th century neo-liberalism is required, and the labour party are at least exploring the possibilities.
@daz pretty well, they have halved the deficit. That's incredibly difficult (and painful) to do. Overspending is easy, reigning it in is hard
@mike the Tories aren't spending anything on Brexit (**), May has offered to pay into the EU budget for a further two years in return for a transition period and future free trade deal.[b] No deal no money[/b]. As to the various sums thrown around (€40bn, €60bn, €100bn) they just show the [b]real and hidden[/b] cost of being an EU member, deliberately underfunded pensions, lots of "development loans" which never get repaid etc. All adds up to way more than the €363m per week in the official ONS data.
Will be interesting what numbers the OBR/HMT put into the budget on Wednesday, what amounts if any post April 2019
(**) we have and will spend some amounts on implementing Brexit, customs etc but we'll get that back in tariffs as we'll no longer have to send 80% of what we collect to Brussels.
we have and will spend some amounts on implementing Brexit, customs etc but we'll get that back in tariffs
Oh yeah? The number of things we'll now need is looking pretty big.
Will tariffs depress exports though?
we have and will spend some amounts on implementing Brexit, customs etc but we'll get that back in tariffs
hilarious
jambalaya - Member
@mike the Tories aren't spending anything on Brexit
At it again I see. from the Sun too, so hardly a hostile newspaper.
THE £1.5 billion cost of delivering Brexit was hidden deep in the Budget small print, the Sun can reveal.
The Chancellor has earmarked £400 million a year for the two Whitehall departments set up to oversee our EU divorce
Interesting all this stuff about Keynesian economics and whether it's a workable solution, but I actually think the labour party are thinking far more radically. Something along the lines of this.
I don't. I think they want to offer a giveaway manifesto and scream spend, spend, spend. I don't think there's any logic behind it.
HOWEVER, the growth ponzi sceme we're all living in is mental, so anyone who [b]did[/b] offer a controlled worldwide economic decline instead of growth until we all die like rabbits would win my vote. Can't see that being popular in poorer nations, of course.
hilarious
80% of the tariffs we already collect from the rest of the world (and we are the EU's largest importer from outside the block) are sent to Brussels.
Net tariffs from a WTO deal with the EU are projected to be in the region of €12bn pa
If we have a free trade deal we don't need all the extra customs
Whatever we spend on customs infrastructure and jobs the French, Dutch, Irish etc have to spend the same and then they have to send 80% of anything collected to Brussels, we get to keep the money.
[ delete ]
I don't. I think they want to offer a giveaway manifesto and scream spend, spend, spend. I don't think there's any logic behind it.
If they weren't interested in new ideas they wouldn't be looking at things like a universal basic income. In terms of implementation I think they probably are looking to spend a lot up front, then move to a more sustainable model. You can't do a managed decline (or more likely standstill) from such a low base, people won't accept it. You have to invest and make the gains first, then move to something based on long term sustainability.
jambalaya - Member
@daz pretty well, they have halved the deficit. That's incredibly difficult (and painful) to do.
At least the people who died as a direct result of the Tories (and by default yours, if you voted for them) austerity policies won't get to feel any more of that pain.
If we have a free trade deal we don't need all the extra customs
Mmm but since we have no idea IF we will have a trade deal (and time is running out) we will have to start implementing things anyway because they will need to be operational straight away. Do you agree?
Whatever we spend on customs infrastructure and jobs the French, Dutch, Irish etc have to spend the same and then they have to send 80%
Surely not? We have to double our capacity - they will only have to increase by a small amount?
Net tariffs from a WTO deal with the EU are projected to be in the region of €12bn pa
Net meaning minus the tariffs we will have to pay as well?
we will have to start implementing things anyway because they will need to be operational straight away. Do you agree?
I don't.
We don't need to have better customs on day 1 or rigidly enforce import tarrifs on day 1. It's up to us. Our borders won't be any more leaky than they already are. (If you think our borders are leaky.)
jambalaya - Member
hilariousNet tariffs from a WTO deal with the EU are projected to be in the region of €12bn pa
hilarious indeed, uncited jambafact, plus ca change...
£12bn gross maybe, but a little lie here, a little lie there, you should really go back to the brexit thread, its the perfect home for BS!
edit . William Norton, “Mitigating the impact of UK-EU tariffs”, Civitas, 9 January 2017. reckons 5.2bn off that from reciprocal tarrifs,
Treasury reckons long term WTO -7% gdp
NIESR reckons up to -7.8%
All threads lead back to brexit I see. It’s almost becoming a STW Godwin’s law 🙂
On the subject though, and relevant to the thread, I think I trust Kier Starmer a million times more than boris, Davis and Liam Fox to provide a better outcome.
If you want some light relief re brexit read the manifesto section on it. It’s like a send up off snake oil salesman and populist clap trap.
Amazed a smart bloke like Starmer was happy to stand behind such tosh
@kimbers prominent Remain econimist (I forget his name) said an “opportunity cost” of 2%, ie we’d still grow but by 2% less. None of that of course assumes we sign new trade deals or factors in the likelihood of a true eurozone crises. The Treasury has hugely discredited itself via its role in Osbourne’s Project Armageddon. Anyway Corbyn is a lifelong Leaver and Labour are supporting Brexit where it counts, in the Parliamentary votes. The rest is just trying to score political points in opposition.
So I played the game here. I named a Labour policy (nationalising stuff at below market value - eg utilities at historic valuation rather than current) ... now STW lefties have to name a country successfully following such a policy. It’s neither Germany nor Sweden.
Hmmmm....
You said it's ok for Brexit to have an opportunity cost, but it's not ok for renationalisation to have one?
Railways [i]should[/i] be nationalised - who cares if some money is lost in the process? It's the principle.
(Note, I am paraphrasing here to make a point)
(The point being that you seem to be cherry picking arguments to confirm your existing bias)
How to nationalise railways. Don't renew any deals on them.
You have picked a tough policy there because most of the countries that have successfully run state owned stuff were the ones who didn't sell them off for peanuts to their mates.
Now maybe list the countries trading on WTO terms alone (ie no trade deals)
jambalaya - Memberie we’d still grow but by 2% less.
Considering our economy grew by 1.6% in the last year and 1.8% the year before, that's mathematically challenging
Northwind that was cumulative over 15 (?) years. Personally I am expecting a healthy jump upwards in our GDP post any resolution inc wto as investment returns once there is certainty
@molgrips yes I would expect trade with the EU to decline further (has fallen materially in last 10 years), more locally sourced products, imports/exports better distributed globally.
@kimbers that was a net number I saw (admittedly highest one) your number is £5.4bn mine was about £10bn (I quoted €)
Apologies for Brexit diversion but that’s a Labour policy too
Labour want to nationalise utilities esp water at below market value. That will lead to legal challenges from shareholders and French (supported by their government)
Railways are arguably “better” in state hands but for sure they’ll cost a lot more to run that way and either fares and/or subsidies will be higher. They’ll be many more strikes (Unions knowing a Labour Govt will cave in or making a political point to Tories)
we have and will spend some amounts on implementing Brexit, customs etc but we'll get that back in tariffs
Magic Money Tree located !!
They’ll be many more strikes (Unions knowing a Labour Govt will cave in or making a political point to Tories)
jambafact
1898 con
1912 lib
1913 coalition
1921 coalition
1926 con
1972 con
1979 lab
1981 con
2011 con
https://visual.ons.gov.uk/the-history-of-strikes-in-britain/
It's about far more than simple GDP.
The Thatcher years saw GDP jump significantly, but the benefits were concentrated on a relatively small group and geographical area, not to be distributed across the entire economy. One of the few things I agree with Osborne on is the need to create a more evenly distributed economy in the North - northern powerhouse if you will.
It's fast becoming apparent that Hayekian economics simply shift wealth upward and offshore. It's simply not working for the majority.
As for nationalisations, please remember that our rail and utilities are in part owned by state run organisations from Europe (in particular France and Germany). It's truly the worst of all worlds right now. Better to nationalise the basic utilities and transport, one of the reasons why utilities and transport is so expensive for the end user is that we're paying for cumulative decades of no investment (thank you Tories, both blue and red).
And if Tory policies aren't popular with ordinary people, then I would go so far as to suggest that there are extremely good reasons for that.
more locally sourced products
Right. So how is this going to work? A few scenarios:
1) The product is much cheaper from an EU country because it's cheaper/easier to make there (like say, wine). If we source locally prices will go up, which will drive inflation.
2) The product isn't cheaper from an EU country, in which case it'll be being sourced locally anyway cos transport is cheaper.
3) If there's a local product available, that is competitive we'd already be buying it (see 2) but if it's not available, we can't simply start buying it. Take wine for instance - to start sourcing wine locally we'd need 20 years of investment in vineyards before this would work. So we're back to 1.
Any thoughts Jam?
(to clarify, I am accusing you of over-simplification to suit your bias - brushing details under the carpet, if you like)
Excuse Brexit talk here ...
Mols you seen to have missed the fact we are are talking about how WTO will change trade flows between the UK and the EU. I am assuming new trade deals with countries (so zero tariffs) and WTO with the EU. The EU loses its tariff advantage and has to stand on its own two feet. As we are open8ng up new relationships and removing EU penal tariffs (like on African coffee producers) trade with the EU will go down and Rest of the World will go up. Even if we have a free trade deal with the EU they will lose out as we sign new free trade deals elsewhere, why not tariff free cars and components from Japan and USA ?
Corbyn wanted out of the EU as it ties his hands re Nationalisation and Govt support/subsidy
Corbyn wanted out of the EU as it ties his hands re Nationalisation and Govt support/subsidy
and he'll go back to that view if he ever got in...
s we are open8ng up new relationships and removing EU penal tariffs (like on African coffee producers) trade with the EU will go down and Rest of the World will go up.
For food, yes. This is great. More food miles is exactly what we need. Why get green beans from Spain when you can get them from Kenya?
But anyway - that only applies to food.
why not tariff free cars and components from Japan and USA ?
Cos US cars are shite. I don't want EU cars to be more expensive than US cars. We'll even be able to fudge our own safety rules to let them in. Hoo bloody ray.
Anyway. Off-topic.