Forum menu
always struck me that economics is very similar to ecology of all the branches of science. Both subjects are massively complex and will never be fully understood. In both we see things happening and then try and fit a theory to it, then when something looks the same we use the theory again but because its so complex it doesnt work. The other approach is to make the theories so simple they work when applied to the real world but are so simple that they are useless.
So Cable and Oakeshott plotting now against Clegg. Would you really want these kind of people in your team? Certainly not in the trenches.
An interesting comment from someone who constantly claims to be apolitical and castigates those who see things from a party political perspective.
It would appear that you put loyalty to the party and its leader above all other considerations [i]after all[/i].
Let's face it teamhurtmore, you use the "above party politics" argument purely when it suits you, ie, when the Tories are seen as an embarrassment. Like a couple of other people on this thread.
E_L, really don't see the need to personalise this, so will only respond to the general comments. This applies to all parties (so pls don't ignore my comments about the Tories and Heathrow etc), it's just that the LIb Dems seem to be taking centre stage over past 48 hours. Oh yes, and I am biased. I don't trust Cable with a barge pole.
Loyalty? Well yes in a team you want your players facing the same way don't you?!? At least someone like Balotelli scores goals [i]for his own side[/i] occassionally.
[wasn't Mark clear enough about new forum guidelines?]
The trouble with economic theories IMHO is that certain politicians, bankers and economists seem to view them akin to a religion. With themselves as the high priests. Mainly as it seems to always benefit them, whatever happens.
The whole Milton Friedman Chicago School economic model is now so utterly discredited its absolutely laughable. Yet they still not only cling to it, but advocate yet more extreme versions of it as the only solution. Trouble is, its the rest of us it impacts, and pick up the tab. Not its practitioners
They're like those Japanese soldiers found in the jungle 40 years later, still thinking the wars going on. Only this time they've got nuclear weapons
A_A, a lot of truth in that! Also summed up in Goodhart's Law.
Binners, I would add that it has been extremely unhelpful for debates to have been consistently centred around monetarism vs keynesianism as this has led to massive mis-understanding of both (especially the latter). This leads to false monetary vs fiscal policy type debates. The failing at the moment stems from a basic misundersatnding of (1) when different policies are more and less appropriate and (2) that monetary and fiscal policies work better in combination rather than in isolation. Its a pity that the current elite dominating politics, central banks and the IMF seem to have ignored this (although recent signs that the IMF is now modifying its orthodoxy to an extent) but as I said before most of them were schooled in exactly the same frameworks of analysis.
[wasn't Mark clear enough about new forum guidelines?]
Well I missed the "new forum guidelines" which state that no one must disagree with teamhurtmore or expose his contradictory comments. How convenient for you.
Are you going to rely on that stroke from now on when you find yourself in a tight corner, or do you think you might manage something a bit more intellectually challenging ?
Hate to say this THM, but I think we're in complete agreement on this.
Funny thing was that some politicians initial reaction to the banking crisis seemed like it was finally doing away with the divide, and using the best aspects of both systems, combined.
Of course as soon as the initial blind panic and meltdown had been averted (albeit at ridiculous cost to us) the a fore-mentioned politicians, bankers and economists promptly forgot all that and went straight back to business as usual
Depressing really. Whats that phrase about repeating the same exercise, but expecting different results? Because that's the route we're presently embarked upon. Ah, yes..... madness
No, like the majority (apparently) I prefer a forum that debates without personal attacks. But feel free to carry on if you want to chose to ignore recent advice (and the evidence from my posts). The mods can decide where their boundaries should be drawn.
binners - Member
Hate to say this THM, but I think we're in complete agreement on this.
😉
.....debates without personal attacks
So exposing your contradictory comments amounts to a "personal attack" does it ?
You are clearly trying to personalise this in an attempt to divert attention away from the embarrassing fact that you have been caught out contradicting yourself.
IE, claiming that people should be above party politics and yet castigating Vince Cable for disloyalty to the party leader, with talk of "your team" and "trenches".
Nice try attempting to get the mods to save you btw......"the mods can decide" lol 🙂
Your pathetic discussion above is a prime example of why Politics is a waste of time other than for ego-fluffing.
We need a benevolent dictatorship, none of this namby pamby pretence that people care about others. Life is the survival of you and your progeny. Nothing more, nothing less. Human or not.
Mountain biking is a nice distraction.
Let's face it teamhurtmore, you use the "above party politics" argument purely when it suits you, ie, when the Tories are seen as an embarrassment. Like a couple of other people on this thread.
A bit like you've used the "I don't vote Labour" line to distance yourself from them, but consistently tell us that they are the only answer to the evil tory masterplan... (whilst actually voting for their official mayoral candidate, repeatedly, after saying you wouldn't)
There's only one person on this thread making abusive comments about other posters Ernie, and its not THM
No, like the majority (apparently) I prefer a forum that debates without personal attacks.
THM - the reason you get personal attacks is the somewhat disingenuous nature of many of your posts.
You constantly claim to be apolitical and deride others for making arguments along party lines - yet it's pretty obvious to many people where your sympathies lie. Why not just be honest about it?
Binners - Vince Cable was Cheif Economist at Shell. His has never been a finance director.
There's only one person on this thread making abusive comments about other posters Ernie, and its not THM
people have a funny idea about the word abusive these days
none of this namby pamby pretence that people care about others. Life is the survival of you and your progeny. Nothing more, nothing less. Human or not.
Don't project your own sociopathy onto everyone else please. Pretty much all of the best things in human history have been achieved through collaboration and co-operation.
E_L, really don't see the need to personalise this,
Remind you of anyone THM ?
He is not beyond than the fact he is responding to you.
Does this also mean you will stop making references to TJ and how the mods have reacted recently as obviously you would not want to personalise this 😕
JY - I think this is becoming boring and would normally try to ignore, but you make a specific point that I will address. I have made no comment re any of the recent bans nor of any of the individuals involved. Perhaps after Prescott you were looking forward to a "touche" moment. If you can find any reference to comments re individuals and their bans, then you can enjoy the moment at my expense. But I am confident that this is not the case.
Mark has made his wishes for the future of STW very clear. IMO, E_L's comments over-stepped the mark and I took (mild) offence to them. Frankly, I think reporting posts is a bit wet and sneaky, so I prefer to make the point openly in the thread and leave it at that. Ernie felt it appropriate to continue but I do not.
I see that Lord Ashdown has made similar comments to me this morning. Perhaps those who prefer to personalise things can direct their venom in his direction as well.
I hardly wish to continue the spat, but thm, I have read several references to TeeJ in posts by you, sometimes in threads to which he hasn't even contributed, and most not actually mentioning him - a bit of inbuilt deniability there, wot with you being so clever an' all. And quite a few since he got ban-hammered. I'd find them if I could be arsed but you know they're there - often finished with a winky flourish. It's time to leave them now isn't it?
Mark has made his wishes for the future of STW very clear. IMO, E_L's comments over-stepped the mark and I took (mild) offence to them.
Eh ? Overstepped what mark ? 😕
Yes I can see that you might have been [i]offended[/i] by the fact that I have exposed your contradictions and inconsistencies with regards to party politics, but don't come out with nonsense about overstepping the mark.
Ernie felt it appropriate to continue but I do not.
Again.......Eh ???
I made my point and was happy to leave it at that ........ but you keep returning to it making absurd claims that I have made a "personal attack" against you. It's called "not agreeing with you", I'm sorry if you feel offended by it - perhaps keep off threads where people might disagree with you, such as political ones ? 💡
... can direct their venom
"Venom" ??? Seriously mate, get a grip, ffs 😐
[img] 
[/img]
"grum - Member
none of this namby pamby pretence that people care about others. Life is the survival of you and your progeny. Nothing more, nothing less. Human or not.
Don't project your own sociopathy onto everyone else please. Pretty much all of the best things in human history have been achieved through collaboration and co-operation."
Yes thats because it helps the individual, cooperation is drive by selfishness not the common good. That's one of great things about being a collective, the individual can fare better if persuaded to work together. Grum is right though.
I have made no comment re any of the recent bans nor of any of the individuals involved. Perhaps after Prescott you were looking forward to a "touche" moment. If you can find any reference to comments re individuals and their bans, then you can enjoy the moment at my expense. But I am confident that this is not the case.
your first comment on this thread
[Nice to see a usually-contentious STW topic debated in a sensible manner. I wonder why? Chapeau les mods, peut-etre?)
HTH
@binners, the cost of containing the banking crises wasn't excessive. It was in the general populations interests that's why it was done. The alternative would have been far worse than the situation we find ourselves in now. I don't say things were done in the best possible way, if for example the government (both Labour and ConDem) wanted to ensure fundamental changes in banking policy it could have made those part of "the deal", but they didn't.
Our society is heavily reliant on borrowed money, mortgages, credit cards, business loans - if we as a society don't want to be as reliant on banks we would have to get used to borrowing less and having less.
The "rich" already pay the majority of the taxes, this motion that the "rich" are a bottomless supply of tax revenue for everyone else is ridiculous. I use "rich" in quotes because what most people mean is someone else, some else should pay more tax not me.
A wealth tax may be advertised as applying to the "rich", but University fees started at 1k, then 3k now 9k, ditto stamp duty on property which now rises to 5%, the reality is if it were to be introduced it would quite rapidly in my view start applying at slower and lower threshold. We already have too many taxes, a more complex system is not the answer. More complexity and higher rates just means more people acting to avoid payment and that includes leaving the country (top 1% pay 25% of taxes, if too many move it leaves a very big hole)
JY 😉 Ok, I will give you a "tou" as I can see that could be interpreted in the way you have. But that wasn't my intention. It was a general point as Mark and the mods came into quite a bit of flak.. I have not made any specific references to individuals, but can see that post could be interpreted differently.
Actually, for clumsy writing on my behalf, I will edit again and give you a "touc". Fair do's? But as DD says, time to leave it now isn't it?
I never started it and I dont think there is any other way to interpret your comment.
Happy to leave it alone for as long as you do.
jambalaya - I wasn't criticising the bank bailout. I'm aware it was the least worst option. I just think its insanity that the moment to change the system was squandered and that we're know absolutely back to business as usual in the city, with absolutely no structural reform at all.
The next banking crisis is a case of when, not if. The bank bailouts will ultimately have achieved nothing, but only the temporary postponement of the inevitable disaster. Only this time it might truly finish off the whole economy. Oh... except, as per usual... the ones responsible. Who'll no doubt swan off into the sunset completely unaffected once again, with their multi-million pound bonuses tucked safely away in offshore tax havens
Binners you are probably right that there will be another banking crisis, that's why we collectively and individually have got to reduce our debts. Household and goverment debts are a really big threat and they stifle growth on top of making us venerable to banks.
binners - Member
The next banking crisis is a case of when, not if.
But binners there is a subtle difference. Zombie banks have been rescued (at our expense) by transferring bad assets from banks balance sheets to those of the ECB and other Central Banks. The bank risk has been replaced to a large extent by sovereign risk (although these of course are completely inter-related). Either way, you know who ultimately foots the bill!!
On this issue, I wonder just how many SME owners feel "slightly uncomfortable" at the choice of the new Barclays CEO?
Me thm, the should have got Fred Goodwin in. Seriously one of the chaps sacked and paid(made) to shut up by Goodwin (I think) put his hat in the ring on Radio 4 a few weeks ago. He warned the bank he worked for about what the risks were and got the golden hand shake and gagging order. He made loads of sense, can't remember his name.
Grum/mt,
I get your point about cooperation, however there are too many in society that have not and never will cooperate.
They don't feature in my dictatorship. 🙂
mikertroid - Member
Know where you are comming from. The real art of cooperation in any type organisation is getting people to understand their best interests are served by working together. It's difficult I know and there is always some selfish git who thinks they should have more or are special. Mind you there are those that are just happy to spoil joint efforts just because they can, even when it's not in their own best interests. You don't have to be rich, poor, clever, thick or anything else to be a ****t.
[i]The gross overinflation of the property market is largely a result of ideological greed[/i]
Not really; its mainly due to not enough houses available to buy where people want to live.