Forum menu
Nobel Prize-winning economist Christopher Pissarides, an expert on the jobs market, said Mr Osborne’s plan to take £81 billion out of the economy would send the jobless total soaring.Professor Pissarides said George Osborne and David Cameron were “exaggerating” Britain’s indebtedness by comparing it to Greece and misleading voters.
Fellow prize-winning economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz criticised Mr Osborne’s assault on jobs as a gamble with no real upside. They also expressed puzzlement at his deference to the same credit rating agencies whose own failures contributed so much to the 2008 banking collapse.
[b]Professor Krugman said of the planned cuts: “The British Government’s plan goes in exactly the wrong direction. It would cut Government employment by 490,000 workers at a time when the private sector is in no position to provide alternative employment.
“It would slash spending at a time when private demand isn’t at all ready to take up the slack.”[/b]
Bit of loonie lefty propaganda from back in October last year
the problem was not the sub-prime market as such, it was in the derivative products based on them, and the lack of competance in the banks assessing those risks, or actually just ignoring them.
@ both Red & Blue corners...
...you know it's entirely possible that both Conservative AND Labour governments have been grossly incompetent and continue to lie to the electorate.
the problem was not the sub-prime market as such, it was in the derivative products based on them, and the lack of competance in the banks assessing those risks, or actually just ignoring them.
Erm, what are you responding to there exactly?
@ both Red & Blue corners......you know it's entirely possible that both Conservative AND Labour governments have been grossly incompetent and have lied to the electorate.
Yup, like I said - I detest New Labour for many reasons - they are just marginally less wrong than the Tories.
Q. How do you know Ed Balls is lying ?
A. He has his mouth open.
my voting policy is still based on the number of tw*ts there were in the respective political parties at Uni, hence I vote tory, for whom there were a fair fewer.
still true as far as I see it.
Yup, like I said - I detest New Labour for many reasons - they are just marginally less wrong than the Tories.
There's wrong and then there's taking a wrong turn at wrong junction in Wrongtonshire.
I can't see either one of them as being any less wrong than the other.
Erm, what are you responding to there exactly?
should have quoted, it was molgrips:
Hang on. The recession was caused by Labour then? Not a world wide economic crisis that'd been brewing for 20 years? Wow.
threads moving too fast - it is bit like the money that was flowing out of the treasury whilst under Labours control...
No, they are just causing a recession in this country, rather than enduring a worldwide one. Crucial difference
And why, exactly, is that happening then? Not becasue they're attempting to pay back some of the money that Labour borrowed when they should have known better, perhaps?
D'oh, what am I thinking? That Labour had changed since the 70s? Silly me....
I choose not to vote, so I'm not a fanboy of either party, but blaming one or the other seems a bit silly..
Once the crash was underway, labour dropped taxes (a fairly right wing policy, as policies go) printed\borrowed, and spent a lot of money. This is pretty acceptable behaviour in times of hardship, as the reduce the length/impact of the recession
Once the recession was over, the tories raised taxes (a fairly left wing thing to do), stopped printing, and applied some cuts to try and reduce the rather large goverment defecit. This is quite normal activity in times of wealth.
I doubt that the actions of the other side would have been much difference, if those in power were the other way round at the time. Sure - labour might have cut a little less and taxed a little more, but there was nothing in their manefesto to suggest this would be the case.
0.5% drop over 3 months is everyone taking 3 hours off work, once in that period. It is fairly reasonable to assume that 2 seperate weeks of snow can be blamed for a chunk of this impact.
And why, exactly, is that happening then? Not becasue they're attempting to pay back some of the money that Labour borrowed when they should have known better, perhaps?
I've already answered that one. 🙄
Going soft on banks? You do realise that there's a dilemma here, don't you? Clamp down on the banks, they take their business elsewhere...
Oh hang on, Labour caused a worldwide recession?
Maybe not, but you seem to think the Tories are for some odd reason....
I do? No, I'm saying it's been the entire economic culture since the start of the 80s. Pigeons coming home to roost, that's all. Infantile to blame one group of people.
Infantile to blame one group of people.
Nobel prize winning economists have strongly suggested the government is going in the wrong direction. Is their opinion infantile?
buyeee
Cheerio, we're missing you already.
That's the trouble with economists - they like to think it's some kind of science. I hope universities are still just giving BAs in it.
I know lets concentrate on the problem and not worry about, proposing alternative solutions.
Or even better, let's all argue or call each other names, everyone knows how much fun it is to club someone with an insult 😀
We have all these individuals in one place, who are smart enough to have an opinion on what is wrong.
But not one of you is smart enough to figure out, that all we have are the moments and you lot a throwing them away, while gaining nothing.
It's only paper money kids
no it's only debt.
remember kids debt is wealth (until the banks want it back).
Or even better, let's all argue or call each other names, everyone knows how much fun it is to club someone with an insult.
Ploppypants.
Double dip?
[img] 
[/img]
Edited: there's no point feeding the trolls.
Not entirely sure that we in the UK are disciplined enough on the whole to curtail our lifestyles for very long, to be honest. I know I'm not!
I prefer the term dead cat bounce and it hit the ground long before the Condems turned up.
In discussions such as these i find visual aids help:
[img] 
[/img]
Nobel prize winning economists have strongly suggested the government is going in the wrong direction.
Who, this one?
In July 2008 Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs) "didn't do any subprime lending, because they can't: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn't meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income." (New York Times, July 18, 2008)
Read a bit of the first page, couldn't be bothered with most of the second - but, with my massive grasp of economics (massively small, that is) how can we know that this wouldn't have happened anyway if Labour had stayed in power and 'the cuts' hadn't been quite so severe.
We can't run both choices in parallel, so there's no real way of knowing.
Whoah Darcy! Stop knocking Economists! I've got a an economics degree, I do forecasting and stuff for a living... my favourite phrase when I'm not right... 'Well it's an art not a science' 😆
Only had to use it once though 8)
Not entirely sure that we in the UK are disciplined enough on the whole to curtail our lifestyles for very long, to be honest. I know I'm not!
we have some of the highest levels of personal debt in the world.
you only have to look at areas of the grim north where average wages are in the high teens early 20's but people expect to have a new car and 40in plasma screens (all on the never-never) and live in homes 'worth'* more than 5-6 times their salary fueled by the property porn on tv and the myth that 'property can only go up in value' we are seeing the results of this absence of prudence and desire for instant gratification in our current situation.
the government is stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to let the property boom deflate gently without upsetting the fickle voters too much (can't raise interest rates to deal with inflation) while saving some money through cuts and attempting to regulate the banking system without pissing it off.
don't worry about it, just chuck another bundle of notes on the debt bonfire.
You all wanna hear something funny?
You know how all the banks were wringing their hands and promising to behave themselves? Well get this - I'm moving house on Friday. After my wife went back to work in October it's seemed like a good idea and with an expanding family yada yada yada....
We got a mortgage deal from a high street lender at 4.25 times EACH of our incomes which seemed pretty mental, but the best bit was that my wife only needed her first month's payslip to qualify.
Is that responsible lending?
This is not a political issue folks, this is about corporate greed.
tominalis - in case you missed it earlier
grumm - MemberNobel Prize-winning economist Christopher Pissarides, an expert on the jobs market, said Mr Osborne’s plan to take £81 billion out of the economy would send the jobless total soaring.
Professor Pissarides said George Osborne and David Cameron were “exaggerating” Britain’s indebtedness by comparing it to Greece and misleading voters.
Fellow prize-winning economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz criticised Mr Osborne’s assault on jobs as a gamble with no real upside. They also expressed puzzlement at his deference to the same credit rating agencies whose own failures contributed so much to the 2008 banking collapse.
Professor Krugman said of the planned cuts: “The British Government’s plan goes in exactly the wrong direction. It would cut Government employment by 490,000 workers at a time when the private sector is in no position to provide alternative employment.
“It would slash spending at a time when private demand isn’t at all ready to take up the slack.”
Bit of loonie lefty propaganda from back in October last year
you only have to look at areas of the grim north where average wages are in the high teens early 20's but people expect to have a new car and 40in plasma screens (all on the never-never) and live in homes 'worth'* more than 5-6 times their salary
Oh, it's all povvy northerners' fault?
You all wanna hear something funny?You know how all the banks were wringing their hands and promising to behave themselves? Well get this - I'm moving house on Friday. After my wife went back to work in October it's seemed like a good idea and with an expanding family yada yada yada....
We got a mortgage deal from a high street lender at 4.25 times EACH of our incomes which seemed pretty mental, but the best bit was that my wife only needed her first month's payslip to qualify.
Is that responsible lending?
This is not a political issue folks, this is about corporate greed.
Is this responsible borrowing?
rs - it's a fair question, in our case I would say yes as the cost of the mortgage equates to less than 25% of our monthly income.
well if you think its responsible borrowing, surely its responsible lending too 😉
the myth that 'property can only go up in value'
No-one says that. People say that property will go up [i]in the long term[/i] and it does. If anyone thinks that they are being told property will ONLY EVER go up then they're an idiot.
< sighs >
No, the point I was making was that a high street lender was prepared to offer us a mortgage on the strength of a single payslip I.e. Practically zero employment history.
Clearer?
Ed Balls earlier today:
"George osborne needs to stop blaming the weather, and get a plan B"
.
.
.
is that it?! - is that his idea of a strong opposition?! - gee, thanks Ed, you're doing a great job.
he's a perfect replacement for Alan Johnson, they're both morons.
What concerns me is how these policies are consigning a whole cohort of young people to the scrapheap or a future on minimum wages. Increased fees are making poorer potential students debt averse and so that means more people chasing down the wages offered by the private sector. Without government intervention equilibrium will be established at less than full employment. When eventually recruitment does pick up, emplyers will be recruiting new graduates or school leavers and so a whole tranche of people will move through the system having been unable to get into anything recognisable as a career. 'We're all in it together'? KMA
tominalis - in case you missed it earlier
No TJ, I was responding to exactly that quote.
Just because someone is a Nobel Winning Economist does not make them infallible and Grumm's response implied that that was the case. The quote I responded with demonstrated that clearly.
Is this the same Nobel committee that awarded the peace prize to Obama(!?!?)? Or that awarded Liu Xiaobo the peace prize in 2010? They couldn't be, you know, politicised could they? I mean, surely that would somewhat undermine their credibility and thus remove some of the credibility of Grumm's resposte.
Fairy snuff
My reading is that there has been, and will continue to be, insufficient property in the market place compared to the high demand (for socio-economic reasons).
This elevates prices and they continue to inflate until they find a high balance point. This is above an affordable level for many potential buyers. When the banks started offering silly loans, of course some people took them up - it's a sensible risk, because its still a chance to own rather than rent. That further inflated prices, and all banks offered these massive loans to compete with each other. With this saturation of credit, the only way to buy is to take the same risks as every one else, MTFU and jump in.
So I regard this as a systemic problem that relates to two market forces:
1) excessive demand vs insufficient supply of property
2) deregulation of credit, encouraging ever greater risk taking
I see the problem like this: relying on unfettered markets is like
riding a bike with no hands - mostly the bike self corrects, but
crashes are frequent and painful. 🙂
Fairy snuff
I just got a warm feeling inside. 😀
Sorry if I called you priggish over the A&A thing btw, I get all uppity when people start trying to ban things but I was a bit ott.
I don't remeber you being particularly unpleasant - a fair bit of vitriol headed my way. I am sure I was called worse than "prigggish" 🙂
Just because someone is a Nobel Winning Economist does not make them infallible and Grumm's response implied that that was the case. The quote I responded with demonstrated that clearly.Is this the same Nobel committee that awarded the peace prize to Obama(!?!?)? Or that awarded Liu Xiaobo the peace prize in 2010? They couldn't be, you know, politicised could they? I mean, surely that would somewhat undermine their credibility and thus remove some of the credibility of Grumm's resposte.
No, but they are likely to have a better idea than you or I, and it is starting to look as though they may have been right on this one unfortunately.
Here you go, notorious lefty propagandist Sir Richard Lambert - outgoing head of the CBI:
The government has "taken a series of policy initiatives for political reasons, apparently careless of the damage they might do to business and to job creation", Sir Richard said in his last major speech before his departure on Friday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12267007
No, but they are likely to have a better idea than you or I, and it is starting to look as though they may have been right on this one unfortunately.
You can cherry pick quotes from any number of folk from opposing sides but it doesn't make them right. They are after all, just opinions, predictions of what is going to happen and
I could say if I were feeling contrary that you don't get to be the Governor of the Bank of England without know what is going on and his opinions surely trumps your support for some highly politicised Americans. As it is I think they are all largely self interested shysters who stand to make a huge amount of money whichever way the economies of the world turn because they are so in bed with the govt's.
King stood behind the cuts last May and appears to still do so.
You may respect these Yanks, but it does not automatically mean that those whose points you intend to refute have to.