Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
despite (or perhaps because of) all those cuts
good work economy virgins
Cut harder and cut faster until the deficit disappears.
and Osborne blames the increased borrowing on the fall in corporation tax receipts - perhaps he might have seen that one coming as he was the one who cut corporation tax from 24%-28%
the big problem is that because the economy has no growth, tax returns are down and the government is having to borrow *more* than Labour ever did to make up the difference because of the rising benefit bill caused by mass unemployment.
With the majority of new jobs being temporary and/or part time many people are having to claim benefits to top up their wages to a decent living amount.
If the government could invest some of its colossal borrowing into stimulating the economy - building projects, loan schemes for businesses - it could increase the amount of people in full time work and increase tax receipts from those new and/or growing businesses meaning it would have more money coming in at the same time as having less going out.
But for some reason they want to keep cutting government spending - even though those cuts have resulted in a need for increased borrowing and spending.
they will then slash all benefits and repress the resultant disquiet brutally, the only flaw in this is that they shortsightedly seem to be cutting the army and police forces.......perhaps they havnt really thought this through properly.......this bunch are turning out to be really crap right wing facists
I mean, if even people who are supposed to know what they're talking about keep on getting it wrong, it seems a bit unreasonable to expect Gideon to get it right.
I mean the economic news is unexpected but the more fundamental problem is that we're working from an economic model that doesn't work and can't compute unexpected information and it gets erroneously treated as a 'science'.
It's not so much the unexpected news but the failure to put systems in place that can stand up robustly against unexpected economic developments.
all that neo-liberal pishwank doesn't hold water
but the unknown unknowns are the real fuckers in this instance. Historically the Wall Street Crash, Black Monday, inflation crises etc. show that economic crashes are probable and frequent, even if we don't know exactly what's going to cause them.
It's utter madness to have a financial system set-up in such a way that so much money was put into places where it was deemed 'unlikely' to be lost but would be potentially lethal if it did. It's well worth reading these two books:
Which are both far more eloquent than I am on this, as I know even less about economics than your average economist.
and they're full of neo-liberal tosh
actually, they're full of seemingly sensible common sense logical arguments unfortunately situated in a land called neo-liberal tosh
Good point otherwise though.
they presume a status quo of advanced capitalism and advocate a change in the spread-betting of risky investments
neither stops to examine the possibility that, instead of just changing the moves of the pieces it might be more prescient to come up with a new game - or at the very least redefine the board
I'd accept both of them (and specifically Taleb) advocate a form of capitalism. But given that neoliberalism involves an assumption of privatisation of state enterprises and the value of market deregulation and an opposition to closed markets and the Chang book in particular agues against all these things, they're certainly not neo-liberal.
And neither of either of them tosh, come to that. Both contain interesting and complex arguments that you don't happen to agree with, which is fine. But it's a bit silly to dismiss well-reasoned arguments just because they're not arguments you particularly support.
contained within limited parameters
they don't advocate a form of capitalism more than they presume its ongoing existence - sure it would save a lot more passengers if there were twice the number of lifeboats but that doesn't address the problem of the Titanic actually ploughing into the iceberg
Taleb, in his previous book, expresses his reasons for preferring Capitalist societies to Socialist societies. That said, Black Swan obviously isn't an explicitly political book but a book about probability so it might be odd if he started advocating alternative political systems.
Plus, you know, if someone proposes a workable model of an alternate system that could be realistically achieved and would work in practice then I'll happily get behind that but, until then, I'm quite happy with people suggesting things to make the existing system better.
you're missing my point - new rolling stock for broken rails, sit more comfortably while you crash
I don't agree with your point. Which is quite a different thing.
seems like you're doing both
given your mischaracterisation of them. Also, you're essentially criticising them for not addressing a point that they don't seek to address in the first place.
my deep disappointment in reading both of these books is in how they are both somewhat self-congratulatory in purporting to have discovered or addressed something new or original or valuable in navigating through the economic fog
but at a distance, in the context of history and politics, neither say anything that is really original or insightful (though much of what they say may be useful) and moreover both books indicate a submission to the fog being the natural, normal or default landscape - the de facto reality of the world we live in with no alternative
I don't really want a map of the prison, however illuminating it might be - I'd rather be shown the shown the tunnel entrance or some other way out
Wouldn't eloquent have been to say, "There are things we aren't sure of and there are things we don't know about. Both of these can affect the outcome," or something like that?
The point is more specifically the difference between the information you're aware you don't have and the information you don't have and have no idea could even possibly exist. Which, as you'll see, is far less eloquent than known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
Also you said exactly what I just said. The problem with the whole known unknowns thing is it's an overcomplicated way of pointing out what's obviously going to be true. There are always things you don't know about that could affect what you're doing and you are always aware of that. You don't need to make a point of them.
If people had been aware of things they didn't know about that could affect what they were doing then you'd hope the derivatives and loans markets wouldn't have been piled up in 2008 in a way that couldn't sustain an economic crash.
First: I'd say it has sustained an economic crash, in the sense that almost no one who was particularly rich beforehand is now poor. In fact they're now probably making even more money as they have a licence to drop wages and cut staff.
Second: the whole point about unknown unknowns is you can't plan for them. Most of the financial stuff we're talking about is various shades of risk and gambling and it makes money for some people by being inherently risky. The trick was to make a load of cash and move on before the market fell to pieces.
the results WERE predictable.
1) make all humans necessities be traded using the same resource to do some very high risk gambling
2) when the bets paid off those involved in the gambling trade, cream the winnings with some percentage going to 'the people/companies who have invested in the fund group
3) when the bets lost then the fund groups take 100% of the hit (the winnings from those doing the gambling were not used to balance the losses)
from this simple model it is easy to see that this is not a viable way to invest.
The winnings from 2 that go to the gambling industry do fuel some growth, in luxory cars, champagne, ridiculously overpriced clothes you can see in the gyuardian weekend, yachts etc. whilst the rest of society seems perfectly happy to have such differentials, somehow believing that these people somehow deserve it, because they have got into a position where they can gamble with everyone elses essentials, they can play and gamble, whilst we have to hope that providers of our water supply can perform better than sock shop economically
why do people keep saying that? in the hope that if enough say it it becomes true?
than economists, and a lot of us knowing less about economics than the Chancellor, had he taken advice from here, we'd almost certainly be in a better position than we are now.
I don't understand it, no one on DiS understands it, and even the economists don't understand, so I don't let it worry me too much.
For every professor or former Bank of England employee or whatever that someone on DiS wheels out to make the case their prejudices tell them is correct, you'll be able to find someone of exactly the same qualifications who argues the complete opposite.
you're saying that Osborne & his policies are performing well?
Or that for every billion the deficit increases there's a mystical parallel universe in which the deficit is being repaid?
No, what i'm saying is that I don't care.
because of the previous Labour Government's 'RECKLESS' spending
and then he makes his cuts and the Economy is WORSE than when he took over and the Government is borrowing MORE and the deficit has INCREASED and the public services are decimated
it's really not so complicated that you have to pretend nobody understands it but here's some handy info if you want to read up on it
of all kinds of political persuasions
Left Foot Forward
Socialist Economic Bulletin
Indeed, I don't think I found even one link that wasn't from an openly left of centre source.
I've just been trolled, haven't I...
Here he is in September 2010
Too many fucking qwerty experts in the world these days.
He doesn't argue that austerity won't work, just that it will affect the poorest the most. You've erroneously conflated the two.
you've not watched the whole thing or you weren't really paying attention
a youtube clip of Franck Lebouef repeating "Don't care, I won the World Cup" over and over
what an incompetant unprofessional professional has done? Do you think it would be wiser for osbourne to continue to take advice from a bunch of people who have proven that their advice is flawed? (because they are not unbias and have their own mandates) surely to continue to go to the source of bad advice is the insane thing to do?
Perhaps you are the sort of people who are the equivalent of those who are easily won over by smart uniforms and rows of glittering medals?
i'm no osbourne fan, but I wonder if there was ever a course of action that would have worked, think it is possible things were just that badly messed up that nothing would have worked and if labour had got in things would be different but just as bad in other ways. ive got nothing to back this up.
at least orthodox ones, and he probably realises this, and would probably have been to scared to say, in case he caused a run that precipitated a quick collapse (which is/was a real danger, its just that no osbournes have told the truth aboiut the options, and the likelyhood of them succeeding, hich ha suprised me)
Despite him not have telling people how it really is, he could still have undertaken more unorthodox methods of protecting this society against the building horror.
Still you guys, like the rest of society will blatter on about how its been bad before and how it will recover (like some bizarre athiests act of faith........IN WHAT?)
Because despite a lot of people pronouncing that they dont believe in capitalism, they actually DO BELIEVE in it as a model. they just dont like some of its aspects.
Thing is we havnt got 'capitalism' we have a system based on greed and fear and cruelty enabled by the distancing of the causes and effects.
Because these causes and effects are so distanced (to enable middlemen to make profits at others cruel expense without liberal democracies calling for an end to it) this means that such recent news can be said to be 'unexpected' but it isnt.
Similarly because causes and effects are so distanced (in understandable links...understandable for the majority or easy discourse or discussion) it means that there is little to stop really horrible effects affecting any part of the system.....like us.....should a great cycle rail to turn and 'rescue all you believers'
'Oh well the great cycle of the gulf stream will always save us and keep us warm and safe' Do you really think that a sewries of cycles cant end and change? especially when conditions/feeds and parameters to them are changing in a specoific direction? Obviously those that believe that cycles will save them do NOT understand chaotic or cyclical systems as they might like to think that they do, probably because it is taught in a very superficial manner
I wonder what they are though?
I feel a thread coming on.
Have successfully predicted 5 of the last 3 recessions.
they were never going to cut the amount of debt, just reduce the amount they were intending to borrow
the uk is heavily dependant on importing food, and if debts were called in the uk could not afford to eat, as the resource that is necesssary to feed the uk is money.....which the UK doesnt have, we have to borrow it........THE UK HAS TO BORROW - TO FEED ITSELF.......(an aside, why are people in this country so dismissively critical of african countries that cant manage their affairs and sometimes have starving masses?)
what happens if they go bust? (they cant you say? because they can just raise their prices? well havnt you noticed people having less and less money? what if people literally had no money? cut them off?)
people doing essential jobs for water supply will need payment, money is noy used as the sole recompense, this is flawed. I would have thought that part of the payment for essential jobs is nice tied housing. Food transport and power can also be provided, remove the burden of taxes from such workers, then the burden of recompense with dosh becomes less, and there is not the same danger if the gov runs out of money
I think he is concerned that the value that the economic system places on certian things can differ wildly from the value theythese things offer humans, and one way to start to permenantly address the seemingly unresolvable economic pickle, is to take some essentual human things out of the unsolvable economic equation, for our benefit.
The politic thought that we have in the uk, is incapable of solving certain problems economically, therefore they need to go to more unusual(by the norms of today) solutions.
I'm so confused!
Because cuts are bad, right?
The irony being in this thread of course, where Osborne is being hammered for his 'cuts' and the fact they haven't worked, isa that the fact remains that borrowing is *up*. So Labour etc are actually criticising their own policy, because Osborne is following a lefty fiscal plan.
so Osborne says 'we NEED to make these cuts' in order to reduce the deficit because of the previous Labour Government's 'RECKLESS' spending
I don't see any cuts. Osborne is following Ed Balls' fiscal strategy. It doesn't seem to be working though.
public spending increases, but cuts in services and jobs
I wouldnt have thought you would have been too keen to crow about that :D
he's just trying to troll anschul into an early grave.
The final bastion of the keyboard warrior.
so what is Samuel Ibbott relying on these days?
stop taunting him and come and play with me.
Please re-assess your 'no comment' position (see further down)
physicaal punches can cause offence
to get less
Is public spending actually up though, borrowing is up to cover the gap as tax has shrunk with the economy, public spending on unemployment benefits will have gone up but probably not by enough to cancel out all the cuts though
spending on interest on - up
borrowing more to get less*
*possibly a result of spending on pointless consultancies going up (citation needed)
and realise that this is a problem than is bigger than the petty bickering you obviously thrive on. If you like, take heed from your leaders words "we're all in this together".
Perhaps realise that
cut(the wrong things), then that can reduce jobs/growth/inward investment and therefore reduces tax revenues
, and that
if we spend (on the wrong thing) then we increase the burden of debt without a compensating increase in our growth and tax revenue.
the above are the two problems that labour and tory are failing to address together, because above all else they are concerned about winning the political game still.
I would suggest that they, and yourself behave in a more mature manner
but just for a second, lets imagine that I didn't make that typo, any comments?
proceed in such a way that the availability of the remaining energy decreases.
In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves an isolated system, the entropy of that system increases.
Energy continuously flows from being concentrated, to becoming dispersed, spread out, wasted and useless.
New energy cannot be created and high grade energy is being destroyed. An economy based on endless growth is...
if you worked in the welfare to work sector you'd have a pretty good idea why, ever seen how much money is paid for 'access to work'?
to the people or country, and should increase spending in areas that would provide long term benefit. support and stabilty to enable the country to better withstand the reducing available monetary resource.
I think that all parties should concentrate on doing this rather than the stupid ineffectual measures that they are suggesting.
He's struggling with this stuff. He said up there.^
short-termism and gives us vapid purveyers of weak one-liners whose highest calling seems to be to 'not be as shit as the opposition'
and then a too late co-alition of all parties