Forum menu
James Cleverly actually had the audacity to say that the Labour party scrapped the scheme without an alternatve (which is clearly bollocks), but interestingly he didn’t dispute the figures
Presumably a sensible alternative to spending 700 million on literally nothing, would be spending no money at all on the same thing?
I’m not sure they thought it would work. I’m not sure they cared.
I had an argument with someone who did. They think Labour is scrapping the perfect solution that would definitely have saved us all.
Im with one wheel.
It was never going to work and they knew it. The purpose of the rwanda scheme was to make it look like they were doing something and to create an enemy in the judiciary as it was clearly going to get tangled in legal stuff and a stick tobeat labour with
Also to feed raw meat to racists
She then described it, somewhat superfluously, as the biggest waste of taxpayers money she’d ever seen
It's poor use of public money. The Tories are good at that.
But it's not tax payer's money. Then again it's Yvette Cooper talking.
Labour should concentrate their efforts on fixing things I reckon rather than what the Tories have messed up.
Let's look to the future? What are they going to do to improve things?
Labour should concentrate their efforts on fixing things I reckon rather than what the Tories have messed up. Let’s look to the future? What are they going to do to improve things?
Labour is fixing the leak of taxpayer money to the Kigali regime by stopping it. That is an improvement. It's 22 July, they haven't been in power 3 weeks yet.
Short of adopting your exotic monetary theory in full, is there anything this Labour government could do to win your approval?
Scrapping this bonkers policy… but let’s not talk about it? Why not? This is exactly the kind of change in direction we need.
This should get some Tory cronies arses twitching…
https://Twitter.com/carolvorders/status/1815425636762001720?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
It doesn't really matter if they are is or aren't, it's not their theory that they are espousing. It's an alternative theory to the mainstream and I'm not well versed enough to know if it is right or not.
The problem with economics, is that like a science it has the potential to construct theories about how things work, what the effect of doing A is on B, and so on. The specific problem with macroeconomics is that unlike a science it's hard to run side by side comparisons to see what happens if you do A or don't do A. I'm sure Rone will say words to the effect that mainstream theory has been shown to not work overall and aspects of MMT have been tried and haven't crashed the ship; they might be right and consequently I'm not writing it off in the way some do. Others will say it has been tried in places and caused problems, the MMTers counter that it wasn't done properly. IANAE, IDK.
It is a bit wearing that every third post seems to be reminding us all that Reeves isn't a fan of the theory. But I hope they are right; it would make writing our business cases way easier.
Dear Chancellor;
It's clear we need <it> - any fule can see. Just issue some more money and let's get on with it, save all the hassle?
Rgds;
TOJV
Suella's amazed they didn't include it in the KS too.
Erm.....
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1815437104609898596
theotherjonv
Full Member
Suella’s amazed they didn’t include it in the KS too.
I am immensely happy that she is an opposition back bencher now. Shame she didn't lose her seat of course but this will do.
The Tories already seem like a bad dream that a morning coffee is gradually wiping from memory.
In many ways yes, it is, but it's not one that it's easy to run experiments on.
I guess it is but few proven facts and no consernsus
Its a bit like you have evolution, creationism, intelligent design and pastafarianism all given equal creedence
theotherjonv
Full Member
In many ways yes, it is, but it’s not one that it’s easy to run experiments on.
Truss have it a good go though. Lol
In many ways yes, it is, but it’s not one that it’s easy to run experiments on.
Not necessarily, but it may not go quite as you expect…
In many ways yes, it is, but it’s not one that it’s easy to run experiments on.
No, it's like the other social sciences or cosmology etc in that respect. You don't get to stare at petri dishes, it's true. But denying the existence of a science isn't a promising start. Notably some of the most fervent opinions on this subject are coming from people who not only disagree with the orthodox policy prescriptions (which is fair enough) but actually don't seem to grasp some of the most fundamental concepts.
Since everyone abandoned the gold standard, money has been entirely imaginary, worth only what the consensus of vested interests decide that's it's worth. It's just a confidence thing. Difficult to build a science on such tenuous foundations.
The problem with economics
I think Churchill summed up its issues well.
" if you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions."
Despite the fact that there are no test tubes involved, economics is a science.
But best viewed as part of the social sciences. As the underlying subject matter is humans behaving collectively in a social setting.
But denying the existence of a science isn’t a promising start
It isnt a science.
It is a social science.
If you choose to deny why they are separated then that isnt a promising start.
Wasn't one of the arguments for the 2 child cap that it shouldn't be more financially viable for the unemployed to have many children, than it is for working people? Seemed like a fair principle, but the practical effects seem not to be pretty.
onewheelgood
Full Member
Since everyone abandoned the gold standard,
Isn't the value of gold purely down to human perception though?
Ultimately it has held a value due to it being pretty, rare and non oxidising. It's still just a perception of worth, just like "paper" money.
Since everyone abandoned the gold standard, money has been entirely imaginary, worth only what the consensus of vested interests decide that’s it’s worth.
If it were entirely imaginary, you could just imagine yourself another million quid. Keep pursuing the "consensus" point, though, you're about to stumble across why it's a social science and not a natural one!
PS what caused gold to rise and fall in value in that golden era...?
I'm not denying it's a science, but it is distinct from a pure science like physics. I guess if you want to be absolute, it would be the same if you could if you wanted run experiments but the morals and ethics would be difficult, as well as the detail.
But I suppose that's not totally different to eg: medicine where experimentation to produce an answer can be difficult as well. That too works (to some extent) by allowing choice and observing the outcomes; even then we don't know the right answer, and the allegations of "few proven facts and no consensus" can also be made. Is a glass of red wine good for you or not?
So, it might be but it might not be.
It isnt a science. It is a social science.
lol
Is a glass of red wine good for you or not? So, it might be but it might not be.
I'm trying to find that list of foods the Daily Mail has said are simultaneously good and bad for you, but it seems to have disappeared...
it would be the same if you could if you wanted run experiments but the morals and ethics would be difficult
It was amusing when I did some psychology modules for my degree how often the professor said something along the lines of "whilst we would want to study this further we cant because the ethics committee wouldnt permit it nowadays".
Awkwardly several of those experiments are very well known but have also been increasingly challenged for their lack of rigour in design.
Sticking with psychology it is also amusing how much got rebranded as behavioural economics in order to get the bigger paychecks.
If y9ou cannot prove anything is it a science?
If y9ou cannot prove anything is it a science?
I guess that's why it falls more into the catagory of 'social science' rather than 'pure' science.
I mean, you can make projections and models based on certain assumptions, but, it all gets a bit fuzzy, quickly.
Like with pure science, we know that it takes a different amount of energy to boil one litre of water at sea level, than it does at the top of mount everest.
If y9ou cannot prove anything is it a science?
To a degree.
For example theoretical physics blurs the line since it moves into experimental physics once someone comes up with a way to test the theory and then after that it ends up as technology when someone practically implements the idea eg Einsteins theory of relativity started off as theoretical physics before being tested and then ended up being practically implemented in such things as gps.
Sadly economics doesnt generally follow such a path.
I don't care whether economics is a science or not, and due to all the inputs/outputs/externalities and so on predictions of what will happen when lever a is pulled is never going to be exact. The thing that matters to me are the biases and politics behind those who are sort of/think they are in control of the economy.
Will truly start to see what the differences are between Labour and Tories soon enough and hopefully they can let the public finances BS disappear over time.
If y9ou cannot prove anything is it a science?
Who says "you cannot prove anything" in economics? It's just not true. Don't listen to cranks - they want to degrade the established body of knowledge and academia because they want to present their oddball ideas as equally valid. And don't listen to people whose only knowledge of economics is (sometimes amusing) aphorisms and quips.
Lots of science isn't 'proven' there are thousands of hypotheses with evidence to support them but no definitive 'proof'
Medicine in particular, lots of mechanisms that are near impossible to directly observe and affected by complex factor but whose operations are inferred from observable chemical or physical changes
And don’t listen to people whose only knowledge of economics is (sometimes amusing) aphorisms and quips.
As always your arrogance is impressive. I know its difficult for a genius like yourself to understand but just possibly other people do have knowledge of economics but just are skeptical of those who treat it like a proper science rather than one of the weaker social sciences along the lines of sociology.
Even the, in theory, more testable version of behavioural economics has gone into replication hell recently although oddly enough for a self professed science the profession has been slower to start replication studies.
Fair enough thestabiliser - but there is a consensus in medicine whereas in economics there seems not to be
There's plenty of agreement in economics - it's just that the stuff that everyone agrees about is not particularly contentious or interesting. There are still unknowns and disagreements in medicine and ecology, but that doesn't mean they're not sciences. There are also plenty of non-economists who claim what they're doing is "economics" but it's really just the exercise of power.
treat it like a proper science rather than one of the weaker social sciences
OOOOoooooOOOOOooooHHHhhhhh!
With regard to medicine there is IMO "medical science" which is only a part of medicine. some parts of the medical world really are not science based but skills based where knowledge is useless if you do not have the skills
There's also space for 'social science' within medicine. One of my colleagues is a Health Geographer, looking at how different sections of society experience different access and outcomes within healthcare etc.
I guess I'm a social scientist these days, looking at the politics surrounding sustainable transitions. My own stance is that people who think that economics is a pure science somewhat missed the point in that in it's most basic sense, it is mainly a study in power relations and behaviours (other opinions are available).
Funny letter in the Guardian last week talking about the state of academia. It was along the lines of 'given these institutions are full of so called economic experts, why are they all on the verge of going bankrupt'.
....but I think the more salient point is.....yes, we know that one poster thinks that Reeves needs to embrace MMT, hearing every 7 posts is probably going to be a bit tedious for some. (I'm not in disagreement re MMT).
Anyway, Tory leadership stuff should kick off a bit this afternoon. Should be fun!
but I think the more salient point is…..yes, we know that one poster thinks that Reeves needs to embrace MMT, hearing every 7 posts is probably going to be a bit tedious for some. (I’m not in disagreement re MMT).
It's in reflection to people talking up the tax payer myth every 3 posts.
The point being we are stuck and nothing gets substantially better until we do away with Thatcherite thinking.
Let's face it Reeves' whole mandate has been about mythical government finances - I don't think we should let her get away with it at the expense of society crumbling away.
If Reeves and Labour generally didn't make such a thing out this - then there would be no value in my an others' counter-arguments.
Plus Centrists roll-on with tax payer stories all they time. Actually that's the tedious bit for me.
Balancing between tax take, spending, "borrowing", issuing.... all these have still have to be taken into account under MMT, as you know. We all know there's not a big pot that taxes go into, and money is then taken out of. That doesn't mean that the answer to anything or everything is... "just spend the money, there's no balancing to do"... "they're just pretending this stuff matters"... no, they know this matters, from experience... Reeves and her team aren't dealing in the abstract, they have a hard job ahead of them.
they have a hard job ahead of them
Yeah we know, they and their apologists like yourself never miss an opportunity to tell us just how hard it is to make life better for normal people. And yet they seem to find it very easy to help billionaires, arms companies, foreign states who are at war, and just about anyone and everyone who isn't a working person paying taxes on the income they earn.
It's all lies... it's all easy.
Our public services are failing left right and centre... the gap between what many people earn and their essential living costs is negative and worsening all the time... there's a hell of a lot to do, and it all needs doing now... but it's going to be a long slow process... the easy instantaneous fixes are illusionary.
Oh, and yes... war in Europe is now a constant, not just a threat... so that will be a drain on all European states for the foreseeable future as well.
there’s a hell of a lot to do
Yes there is. So they should start bloody doing it rather than thinking of demonstrably false reasons why they can't make an immediate impact by getting rid of the two child benefit cap. They have been elected to change things and they have an enormous mandate to do just that, rather than spend their time thinking of reasons to not do certain things.