Jeremy Corbyn

they tell people what they want to hear, massage their vanity,

Tried and test technique that's worked through time and will continue to do so.

Still like you say the Tories speak of aspiration (in America it would be the 'dream') which is amazingly powerful and Labour about tax hikes.

Tax hikes to the rich whilst the tories dont mention it but do tax hikes to the poor

I have never understood why folk care so much about tax changes that will not affect them except to make them better off.

Ditto America where many of those least likely to achieve the American dream still support it

the problem with capitalism is that it has to have millions of losers for every massive winner and the losers still vote for it.

Labour are in the business of telling people how poor they are

Lolz. People know when they're poor, ffs. In fact, a lot of people think they're poor when they're not.

Labour are (now) in the business of telling poor and vulnerable people how they can help. Whether or not these people are listening, and if there are enough of them, is another issue.

Still like you say the Tories speak of aspiration (in America it would be the 'dream') which is amazingly powerful and Labour about tax hikes.

And labour could quite easily too. They could talk a very good game about the power of collective and cooperative action, and how everyone would be better off because of it. Also social mobility, most people's primary concern and worry is that their kids do as well or much better than they do. With a few well placed policies (free higher education being one of them), labour could own the social mobility issue where all the tories can offer is lower inheritance tax. I'm all for straight talking and honesty but it doesn't take a PR genius to think of ways of countering the tories message without coming across like an 19th century revolutionary.

without coming across like an 19th century revolutionary.

You think that's what Corbyn sounds like? Something wrong with your ears, they're Tory ears...

People know when they're poor, ffs.

Do they? Why then do they go and get massive loans to by crap they don't need? I know people at work who are quite sensible and intelligent in their jobs, but complete basket cases when it comes to money. I reckon many people think they are far richer than they actually are, and a labour party telling them they're wrong isn't going to win them many new votes, unless they can persuade people that it was the tories (and new labour, to be fair) who fooled them into thinking this.

You think that's what Corbyn sounds like?

Do you actually read these threads? A tiny flick back will show you I'm a Corbyn supporter. I'm simply commenting on how labour can still talk about 'aspiration' without sounding like lefty trots or watering down their policies. It's about showing that these crazy 'extreme' policies the press talk about are rather just sensible middle of the road things. Some may call it spin, I'd call it common sense.

Edit: To answer your question directly, yes I think he does sound a bit too much like that. Also he's in danger of coming across as too academic. All this stuff about discussions and conversations is all very well, but it sounds the same as Milband did when he won, except back then it was all about 'developing narratives' and 'telling a story'.

Point of information :

....... without coming across like an 19th century revolutionary.

I'm simply commenting on how labour can still talk about 'aspiration' without sounding like lefty trots ....

There were no 'lefty trots' in the 19th century. Trots are a 20th century phenomenon.

Carry on.....

Yeah ok, probably not fair to associate, however loosely, the likes of Bakhunin and Kropotkin (only a little 19th, but mostly 20th century) with Trotsky and his acolytes, especially given Trotsky's betrayal of the Kronstadt sailors. I stand corrected 🙂

the problem with capitalism is that it has to have millions of losers for every massive winner and the losers still vote for it.

Labour knew they had a problem with not being an "aspirational" party before Corbyn, this has now got even harder.

The American dream is interesting as it's a country founded on mainly economic migrants desperate to start a new life, far from trying to create a socialist society as you might imagine they want the opportunity to work and to keep more of the money they earn via low taxes and to buy the services they need.

Taxes on the "the rich" are far higher than they where 10 years ago, extra 2% on NI with no cap, extra 5% top rate band, no personal allowance (cost £4k+ pa) plus the 5% VAT rise (although it was only down to 15% in 2008/9). Far higher taxes on property purchase.

Peoples QE is a gimmick - the government has the instruments of policy it needs whatever Richard Murphy would like us to believe. Futhermore, in practice there is v little difference between peoples' QE and Osborne's version (other than the technical issue of whether the bought bonds are cancelled or not)

Mol, QE did not involve giving money to banks, that is a fallacy. QE was designed to support asset prices (tick) and depress LT interest rates (tick) - it has actually made it harder for banks to make money. The winners from QE were the asset holders - and yes that does include the top 5% of the pop - so GO can be criticised, but only in the correct grounds. Of course, indirectly, many more benefitted from QE but that's a different story.

With interest rates low, investment in infrastructure can be made relatively easily. No gimmicks required.

Well its working so well in Europe there are millions of people desperate to be part of that system.

Even for you that's daft claim, they want to come here because they don't face being bombed or shot. Funny I didn't see the millions wanting to come in before the middle east and Africa were taken over by religious nutjobs largely due to the foreign policy of the capitalist countries.

The truth is Capitalism has proven to be the most effective system for benefitting the whole population, that's why people vote for it to continue.

People voted for it? When were they ever given an alternative?

Where is the evidence that the poorest have got poorer?

Late 1970s through to 2012 (haven't got latest figs to hand) REAL wages of the poorest 20% of the population rose by 93%.

Futhermore, in practice there is v little difference between peoples' QE and Osborne's version

Except for the infrastructure and jobs...?

People voted for it? When were they ever given an alternative?

Of course, alternatives to capitalism have been tried abroad.

PS: Good point about council housing. I know people desperate to get out of renting. I don't know anybody who dreams of renting on a more beneficial basis.

teamhurtmore - Member

Peoples QE is a gimmick - the government has the instruments of policy it needs whatever Richard Murphy would like us to believe.

I appreciate that due to your own personal partisan political views you might not support peoples quantitative easing but why dismiss it as a "gimmick" ?

Why do you think economist Steve Keen who coined the term 'peoples quantitative easing' needs a gimmick ?

Why do you think that the 19 economists who back in April (long before most people knew who Jeremy Corbyn was) signed a letter to the Financial Times calling for the European Central Bank to instead of injecting money into the financial markets adopt 'quantitative easing for the people' needed a "gimmick" ?

Why do you think Nobel Prize Winning economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz and who support people's quantitative easing need a "gimmick" ?

I can understand how as a supporter of this government you don't agree with people's quantitative easing but I can't understand why you expect people to dismiss it as a "gimmick".

Because QE isn't the basis of an economy. It's a temporary emergency measure.

So temporary emergency measures are by definition "gimmicks" ? The propping up of UK financial institutions such as RBS was just a "gimmick"? ffs

Because QE isn't the basis of an economy. It's a temporary emergency measure.

For a temporary emergency measure it's been going on for an awfully long time.

I think governments have found that they rather like just printing money and letting the future worry about the fallout.

Well its working so well in Europe there are millions of people desperate to be part of that system.

The truth is Capitalism has proven to be the most effective system for benefitting the whole population, that's why people vote for it to continue.

REAL wages of the poorest 20% of the population rose by 93%.

Source please
How did the top 0.1 % do and can you tell us that in actual money and not percentages?
I suspect the top 0.1% made more and are worth more now than the bottom 20 % were then- oe the differential has increased

That is my point remains in order to have winners you have to have losers

its not even a debatable point
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme and all but a very few are worse off under it than with a fairer distribution of the income/wealth.

For a temporary emergency measure it's been going on for an awfully long time.
I think governments have found that they rather like just printing money and letting the future worry about the fallout.

I hope its not the modern equivalent of PFI. A desperately broke Major govt does it and Labour picks it up and runs with it. 20 years later its the norm.

Gimmick?

Because the required instruments of policy already exist. Ergo, its a gimmick.

Krugman and Stiglitz's policies can be delivered without gimmicks as they know.

Osbourne's QE is also a gimmick - no surprise that they argue that low interest rates are a sign of the confidence in the UK (yeh, right). Poppycock, they are because the BoE has been buying UK debt. Its a totally artificial market and also a gimmick.

we can easily make it better by simply redistributing the wealth/income of the very wealthiest more equally to those less fortunate.

We can certainly chase the wealthy and their wealth abroad, but I'm not sure uncompetitive tax regemes really bring in more revenue.

Gimmick?

Because the required instruments of policy already exist. Ergo, its a gimmick.

Why wouldn't "the required instruments of policy already exist" ? Who's claimed that they don't exist ?

What an odd question. If the instruments of policy already exist why create an unnecessary construct to deliver the same thing??? Oh, of course, it's politics and politicians need gimmicks that are easy to fall for. Job done, well done Jezza. And Murphy gets his advisory fee, I imagine?!?

Are the noble prize winning economists who support this politicians now?
Those who wrote and signed the letter?
What an odd thing to say??? I mean to ignore economist better qualified than you and just turn on "jezza"
Its clearly not a politically motivated gimmick on your part now is it and just "economics".

I can see how they earn the A* with this sort of level headed well argued points.

What an odd question. If the instruments of policy already exist why create an unnecessary construct to deliver the same thing???

Well people's quantitative easing isn't government policy at the present, or are you claiming that it is ?

And are you seriously suggesting that Nobel Prize Winning economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz are talking out of their arses and that it's just a "gimmick" when they express support for people's quantitative easing ?

No but the two types are essentially the same thing (despite the gimmickry title). But that is not the point, you do not need QE of any sort to deliver the results that PQE is claiming - ergo it's a gimmick.

Murphy of course misunderstands current QE so no surprise that he tries to pretend his version is fundamentally different when it isn't

Ah, the Nobel-winning cliche. How about the Nobel winning economists who oppose the idea???.

(Don't forget two economists in the same room lead to three answers!!!)

Ah, the Nobel-winning cliche. How about the Nobel winning economists who oppose the idea???.

(Don't forget two economists in the same room lead to three answers!!!)

Not really a problem. I'm not claiming that any economist is correct. I'm just puzzled how you can dismiss the suggestions that 19 economists have made to the Financial Times and what two Nobel Prize Winning economist are saying as a "gimmick".

Although I can see from your comment : [i]"you do not need QE of any sort"[/i] that the real problem is that you don't agree with them. Which is fair enough of course - there's no reason why you should. I don't think dismissing it as a "gimmick" is fair though.

In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature.

There is nothing unique nor special about PQE, the supposed "feature" is of little relevance*, hence the special feature is simple for the sake of itself. Ergo, it's a gimmick.

* Stiglitz and Krugmans policies can be achieved by traditional means that you favour. QE and PQE merely seek to hide the reality of what is happening, hence their popularity among politicians

Dont forget that 41 practicing economist (many from Russell Grouo unis plus one old colleague of mine) also wrote a letter criticising the policy. So S&K do not have a monopoly (sorry economist's joke) on what is correct (or even incorrect)

Haven't listened myself, so don't know if it's 'more of the same' or not, but here is the full rally from last night.

Corbyn speaks at 28mins and 47mins

Ok so can we summarise this whole QE 'gimmick' debate into this....
After the 2008 crash a temporary measure to prop up western economies was needed (aka a 'QE gimmick') there were 2 approaches offered
1) Give money to the banks, QE, who would then lend it to the SME's that needed it (or not)
2) Give money to the people, PQE, who would then either spend it (giving money to SME's) or save it (in the banks)

Apparently the corporate investors and right-wing papers & government advisors thought option 2 was madness but option 1) was called Austerity but has been profitable to coprporations & the top 1%

[quote=DaRC_L said]
1) Give money to the banks, QE, who would then lend it to the SME's that needed it (or not)

QE doesn't give money to the banks as far as I'm aware.

Well its high on old school rhetoric and due to it being at a CWU meeting the video is primarily about the Royal Mail. But I think he's rather missed the boat on privatisation of the Royal Mail. He should stick to the simple defence of universal service obligation and I think he'd get a lot of support for that.

I also think he is making a rather large mistake attacking the private sector, he needs to remember a lot of his potential voters are in the private sector.

Ok so can we summarise this whole QE 'gimmick' debate into this....

That's my understanding of it!

Not correct

QE did not give money to banks
QE does not = austerity.
QE relates to monetary policy, austerity to fiscal policy. Different things.
Income inequality narrowed since then crisis and then has been broadly unchanged over past 12 months

QE is simply creating money as a liability of the central bank and using it to buy bonds (assets) - either existing bonds (QE)or bonds from a national investment banks (PQE). There is no magic here and other instruments already exist.

It sounds a lot more complicated and novel than it is. Perfect for politicians!

QE did not give money to banks

Can someone explain this to an idiot - fully?

This money that was created - surely it ended up with banks?

QE did not give money to banks

This money that was created - surely it ended up with banks?

Sort of. It ended up with the banks and funded their ability to lend which in turn enabled investment which in turn enabled the strong economic growth we've seen compared to the rest of Europe. Although lending levels were lower than prior to the crash this partly reflected uncertainty in businesses and a delay in committing to investments rather than lack of available funding from banks.

No the money created by QE was used to buy up outstanding government debt

The recapitalisation of the banks using taxpayers money was funded out of normal policy ie, borrowing

The extent to which banks and the rest of us benefited from QE is a matter of debate. At the moment the depression of interest rates makes it very hard for them to generate top line growth.

To quote the B o England

QE does not, as is sometimes suggested, involve printing more banknotes. [b] And QE is not about giving money to banks.[/b] Rather, the policy was designed to help businesses raise finance without needing to borrow from banks. And also to lower interest rates for all households and businesses.

If you are really interested page 24 in this deals with the issue

reflected uncertainty in businesses and a delay in committing to investments rather than lack of available funding from banks.

or they are struggling to come to terms with higher capital adequacy requirements?

lending has continues to shrink in the Uk albeit at a slower rate

Late 1970s through to 2012 (haven't got latest figs to hand) REAL wages of the poorest 20%

What does that 'REAL' mean THM? Adjusted for price inflation of the goods and services the poorest have to purchase?

Good question 😉 - in this case, simply deflated by CPI......yes, but..... 😉

3600!