tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post1568246239644356469..comments2024-03-29T12:16:15.785+00:00Comments on mainly macro: Can we have our instrument back?Mainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-33834467800036851742014-12-07T19:51:51.873+00:002014-12-07T19:51:51.873+00:00Government spending can be spent unwisely, good po...Government spending can be spent unwisely, good point. Also it can invested in long term good for the future, like flood defenses.<br />By worrying about 'running out of money' the UK government is harming the future of our children and grandchildren by failing to invest in things we need.Randomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445772572707818311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-25144142854907686402014-12-07T19:48:53.252+00:002014-12-07T19:48:53.252+00:00No, because that would cause inflation. 100% of go...No, because that would cause inflation. 100% of government spending is eventually returned to the treasury, excluding net savings and imports (money sent abroad) Think of it like buckets- every transaction you lose some in VAT, income tax, corporation tax, etc. <br />You have to spend before you tax, where do you think money ever came from?<br />The national debt just represents national savings plus net imports.Randomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445772572707818311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-62039240656385602082014-11-21T21:54:08.073+00:002014-11-21T21:54:08.073+00:00A good point Andreas, though the international com...A good point Andreas, though the international comparison wasn't originally the root of the debate, I think its fair to say both Anon and I agreed (how could we not given the figures) that the UK s golden years were'nt as golden as France or Germanys. But golden they still were - despite what that page in the book said, and only 'unimpressive' when compared to other countries - though this still needs careful evaluation as your last sentence touches upon in explaining the more impressive GDP growth per capita figures of France and Germany. Whilst of course the UK economy,infrastructure, industry suffered greatly as a result of War, the greater destruction and devastation suffered by Germany and France meant they were starting the post-war period from a much lower base/trough...so the gains and 'bounce back' to be made from such a low economic level and 'the catch-up effect' would be greater for these nations as millions of workers and vast amounts of capital and infrastructure are repaired/rebuilt/ put to more productive efforts than war usage and generally brought back into play, together with the help of allied finance (Marshall Plan), equipment, manpower, expertise and technology. This too applies to the UK, but crucially not from such a 'low base' as other countries, making improvements in GDP (per capita) not as impressive as theirs. <br />An even more extreme example is Japan post WW2, or for different reasons the economies of SE Asia in later decades which are classic examples of the catch-up effect. <br />This is a much simplified version of events, with many other contributory factors helping to explain faster/slower growth rates of various countries. And as already mentioned, the implementation/timing of policy in the UK appears to have room for improvement, though it still resulted in some of the best economic performances as measured by GDP, infltion and unemployment for the UK during that century. The 1970s, other than noting that was when it went all wrong, together with the following decades was never part of the discussion, but it all makes for interesting study. <br /> <br />Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453060744510427275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-75468798093836028372014-11-21T17:35:58.966+00:002014-11-21T17:35:58.966+00:00Because I'm the kind of person who is interest...Because I'm the kind of person who is interested in this kind of thing, I've crunched a few numbers on GDP per capita from <a href="http://www.worldeconomics.com/Data/MadisonHistoricalGDP/Madison%20Historical%20GDP%20Data.efp" rel="nofollow">Angus Maddison's data</a>.<br /><br />In 1950 the UK had by far the largest GDP per capita, France's GDP/capita was 75% that of the UK, Germany's was 56% of the UK. Growth of GDP per capita in each decade was as follows:<br /><br />50s (France 43%,Germany 99%, UK 25%) <br />60s (France 54%,Germany 40%, UK 25%) <br />70s (France 29%,Germany 30%, UK 20%)<br />80s (France 20%,Germany 13%, UK 27%) <br />90s (France 16%,Germany 19%, UK 24%)<br /><br />In the post war years France and Germany caught up to the UK, overtaking it by 1970. In the 70s both France and Germany surge ahead, in the 80s the UK comes back overtaking Germany but not France. In the 90s the UK continues to surge ahead almost catching France (although the UK does not overtake France until 2002).<br /><br />A lot of this could be seen to bear out the claims that in the 50s and 60s the UK's record was unimpressive, although it's worth bearing in mind that during this period Germany and France were playing catch up terms of technology and so on.Andreas Patersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06431120459465519240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-26801749391359195772014-11-21T15:12:50.937+00:002014-11-21T15:12:50.937+00:00Thats a shame. And I thought progress had been mad...Thats a shame. And I thought progress had been made - agreeing that policy wasn't executed in an optimal way, and the Chris Dillows misinterpretation. <br />Saying that the author's descriptions in that book portray a misleading and often inaccurate picture of the UK economy would in no way discredit you, only the author of those inaccuracies himself. <br />The last word really should be left to JM Keynes, as recounted by Paul Samuelson, and is something I adhere to: “When my information changes,I change my mind. What do you do?” Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453060744510427275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-8057016963610043312014-11-21T13:17:41.343+00:002014-11-21T13:17:41.343+00:00Simon21 November 2014 04:02
I cannot resist havin...Simon21 November 2014 04:02<br /><br />I cannot resist having the last word. It is:<br /><br />Yes, dear.<br /><br />After all, the whole thing started wih a joke about Harold Wilson.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-29532015704186675752014-11-21T12:02:28.936+00:002014-11-21T12:02:28.936+00:00The problem we were discussing began with you clai...The problem we were discussing began with you claiming "micro-management, which was practised in the UK in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, was a dismal failure", using the book page you sent as the source of your views and confirmation. <br />This view has been shown, by the evidence, to be untrue - particularly the findings of the book regarding the performance of the UK economy. We de agree that policy implementation (stop/go) was less than desirable. But to be described as a dismal failure would have surely meant poor UK economic performance in the period, whereas in fact it was some of the best. The argument was not about UK performance compared to other countries, and neither was it in the book you sent. But yes, "the whole world grew, but Britain less" is something we can obviously agree on as the evidence support this assertion. <br />Evidence however does not support the assertions of the author of that book and the notion of 'dismal policy failure'. The era of the 'golden years' in the UK under the less than perfectly implemented Keynesian demand management policies still produced the most outstanding years economically for the UK, even if they were not as outstanding as compared to France/Germany (but this comparison was not part of the debate originally remember). <br />I think we’ve done this to death…but I still cannot understand how that author from the book you sent reached their conclusions on UK performance – just read it again and incredibly there is no mention of anything positive happening in the UK economy in the period, only negative. How is that possible? I suspect the hand of a politician – Lawson in this case!<br />Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453060744510427275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-19429750465793519032014-11-21T10:30:46.583+00:002014-11-21T10:30:46.583+00:00Simon20 November 2014 07:44
Thank you for your wi...Simon20 November 2014 07:44<br /><br />Thank you for your willingness to discuss details.<br /><br />Criticisms of British economic policy from 1950 to 1980, which I share, are based on Britain' low growth rates compared not only to Germany but to France.<br /><br />From the text you yourself quote<br />www.socscistaff.bham.ac.uk/backhouse/homepage/aukm/Chapter1.pdf<br /><br />"Between 1966 and 1980 the UK was overtaken by<br />West Germany, France and Japan. <br />❏ The UK was overtaken, in terms of GDP per head, by West<br />Germany in 1966, France in 1972 and Japan in 1980. The<br />equivalent dates based on earlier, non-PPP comparisons were<br />1959, 1965 and 1972 respectively. The use of of PPPs rather than<br />exchange rates to make the comparisons makes Britain’s position<br />look better compared with other countries."<br /><br />The same in <br />http://www.rozenbergps.com/books/britain/kern.pdf<br /><br />"As Table 1 shows, Britain’s growth performance has been the most<br />stable of the major economies - but also the lowest. It is this relative<br />growth under-performance that has been the nub of the dissatisfaction with<br />the UK’s record. It is an undeniable fact that the UK has lost ground over<br />the past century to the US, its European neighbours and Japan in terms of<br />economic expansion.<br /><br />In particular, the relative under-performance against European countries<br />such as Germany, France and Italy was seen as an especially serious issue.<br />At the political level the key question that came to a head under the<br />Thatcher government in the 1980s was whether the UK’s relative decline<br />must be accepted or whether it could be resisted and reversed.<br />...<br />the UK performance in the 1950-1980 period is<br />indicative of relative economic decline, as broadly similar economies in<br />Europe developed output per head that substantially exceeded the level of<br />the UK without any obvious advantages in resource endowment,<br />geographic size or location."<br /><br />Of course, things have changed. As David Kern says in Rozenbergs:<br /><br />" In the past 15 years, however, the UK economy has performed relatively<br />well compared with its industrial peers, particularly in Europe. "<br /><br />The problem we are discussing are the "Golden years" or "Trente glorieuses" when the whole world grew, but Britain less.<br /><br />Can we agree on that?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-15749422856884765592014-11-20T18:04:01.732+00:002014-11-20T18:04:01.732+00:00Andreas Paterson20 November 2014 07:37
Simon20 Nov...Andreas Paterson20 November 2014 07:37<br />Simon20 November 2014 07:44<br /><br />I take that back about Chris Dillow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-49477835446256062532014-11-20T15:44:53.434+00:002014-11-20T15:44:53.434+00:00What about that authors claims from the last comme...What about that authors claims from the last comments I asked you about? <br /><br />I think you've taken the notion of uncertainty and risk out of context and not made the necessary distinction between 'uncertainty' and 'risk' in relation to:<br />(1) The global economy<br />(2) Government fiscal solvency and their ability to service their debts<br />Each of these has a very different impact on yields. One down, the other up respectively.<br /><br />1. Dillows talks of the global economic downturn 'uncertainty', making investors seek safer returns in gilts (thus lowering their yields) as other investments (stocks) become riskier and interest bearing accounts become less attractive (paying such low interest rates).<br />- So here we are talking about risk and uncertainty to the global economy.<br /><br />2. However, the risk and uncertainty which causes bond yields to rise refers to the risk/uncertainty of a government being unable to service and honour its debts such that potential purchasers of gilts may be at risk of not getting their money back. <br />- So here the risk and uncertainty (you mention in relation to ECON101) is very different from that in (1), as this one refers to the ability of a government to honour their debts and thus greater risk in relation to government solvency, not the global economy.<br /><br />So there is a need to distinguish between ‘risk/uncertainty’ in terms of: <br />i) global economic downturn – which sends gilt yield lower as investors flood into gilts in the absence of other ‘safe’ places, causing the price of gilts to rise, and the yield to drop (given the inverse relationship between price and yield).<br /><br />and <br /><br />ii) government finances brought into serious question – which send gilt yields higher due to higher risk of default <br /><br />There can of course be a mixture of these, plus other effects, making it difficult to predict a rise/fall in gilt yields.<br /><br />Hope this helps – if only to show he is not talking nonsense at all + macro101, whilst it often simplifies the real worlds using models, is more often than not very convincing.<br />Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453060744510427275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-86833402500905267502014-11-20T15:37:24.132+00:002014-11-20T15:37:24.132+00:00I think you're misunderstanding Chris here, wh...I think you're misunderstanding Chris here, what he's describing is the choice investors might make between a safe and risky assets. In times of uncertainty investors choose safe assets like government bonds because they don't want to risk losing their money, in times where the outlook is less risky people feel more comfortable risking their money for higher returns.Andreas Patersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06431120459465519240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-67512640501435524082014-11-20T14:48:02.521+00:002014-11-20T14:48:02.521+00:00Simon20 November 2014 04:14
I looked up your late...Simon20 November 2014 04:14<br /><br />I looked up your latest link, and Chris Dillow says:<br /><br />*What's more, uncertainty reduces gilt yields because investors seek out safer assets; it is this, more than confidence in fiscal policy, that explains why long-term interest rates are low*. This makes government borrowing more affordable."<br /><br />Econ 101 says that higher risk (uncertainty) makes bond yields higher. Of course, Econ 101 may be wrong (Macroecon 101 is actually not very convincing), but I doubt that - it seems more plausible that he's talking nonsense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-15639470400993027122014-11-20T14:30:15.781+00:002014-11-20T14:30:15.781+00:00Andreas Paterson20 November 2014 02:44
You are qu...Andreas Paterson20 November 2014 02:44<br /><br />You are quite right to be against the euro. Germans were against it because they realized that it would not work without political (fiscal) union. If the other countries had only followed German advice.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-15028176347161975812014-11-20T12:14:51.435+00:002014-11-20T12:14:51.435+00:00Yes, as I mentioned before it is very fair to ques...Yes, as I mentioned before it is very fair to question and criticise the way fiscal policy was deployment - especially the timing of it which was highly politically motivated for elections, resulting in the exaggerated fluctuation in GDP during the period. However, use of this policy (recall monetary policy was all but non-existent as an instrument then), despite the fluctuation thus lack of ‘stability’ but no recessions) still resulted in the very good and often excellent economic performance between 1950-1970 as indicated by overwhelmingly positive growth rates, low inflation and low unemployment - which the info I sent you clearly illustrates and describes - and hence my original reference to the 'golden years'. Yes, it goes pear-shaped in the 70s, but this was after the golden years of course and was not the period in question (so I’m not sure why you included the information relating to the 70s and 80s above)<br />Therefore, with reference to the book you sent me, the question is how and why does the author describe a very negative picture of UK economic performance in the golden years period (1950-1970), using terms “slow growth, unsuccessful growth, further and high inflation etc” specifically for this era, when the evidence clearly indicates the complete opposite? I cannot reconcile this discrepancy, but am interested to know if you can. <br />You are right to say we can certainly criticise the deployment of fiscal policy during the 70s, but that is true given the economic context and circumstance of the time. We are not in anything like the same situation – in fact the opposite with very low inflation and monetary policy ineffective due to interest rates at the ZLB. Therefore the other policy available and favourable given the very low borrowing costs is fiscal policy…but SWL explain that part. Of course we must be wary of the downsides of this approach, but given present economic circumstances these appear to be far outweighed by the need and upsides of such an approach.<br />Anyway, its been constructive and interesting, but I’m still totally baffled as to how the author describes the UKs economic performance (GDP, inflation etc) as poor. I would genuinely like to know if you also think the data similarly indicates a ‘dismal failure’ of policy, now that the data is to hand. ( I think policy could have been deployed better, especially timing wise)<br />PS.(I notice the author provides no references or supporting evidence in his narrative, which can often be a tell-tale sign of an attempt to mislead and political motivation, but that is conjecture on my part.)<br />PPS. For a similar example, I posted a link from Chris Dillows on the other blog post which illustrates ‘fiscal deception’ and is worth a look over. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2014/11/camerons-lousy-defence.html<br />Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453060744510427275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-92190111847164695292014-11-20T10:44:26.468+00:002014-11-20T10:44:26.468+00:00I'm not sure what point you're getting at ...I'm not sure what point you're getting at here, if I want to judge a country's economic wellbeing I think it's generally worth looking at the economic stats like GDP, unemployment and so on rather than drawing up a list of technological must haves. However, if you'd like a list I'll start with the world wide web, I can also point to ARM(CPUs), JCB (Construction Machinery), Rolls Royce (Jet Engines), Jaguar Land Rover (Cars). There is thankfully far more to the British than financial "engineering".<br /><br />I get the impression you think I'm down on Europe, this really isn't the case. I do however object to certain policies coming from the EU and it's various associated organisations at the moment. I'm also against the euro, because I think it it bad for it's member nations. I look at it's short history and I don't see any gains from adopting it and can now see a host of negative consequences, especially for Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain. Italians are no richer now than they were in 1999, Greece and Spain have 25% unemployment. These are economic problems on a a similar scale to those of the great depression.<br /><br />I'm not down on Europe, I'm more frustrated at it's inability to actually recognise the scale of it's problems and do something about them. I should add at this point that I'm not ecactly happy with the way the UK government have handled things either.Andreas Patersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06431120459465519240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-89101190478743549942014-11-20T09:02:46.060+00:002014-11-20T09:02:46.060+00:00Simon:
Thank you for the link.
Allow me to quote...Simon:<br /><br />Thank you for the link.<br /><br />Allow me to quote:<br /><br />"1951-1964: the period of ‘stop-go’<br /><br />This period was dominated by Keynesian ideas, in particular the use of<br />fiscal policy to achieve a high level of demand, low unemployment and1964-1970: the balance of payments and the failure of<br />planning.................<br /><br />It has been disputed whether policy succeeded in stabilizing the<br />economy. It has been argued that the timing of policy was<br />frequently wrong and that this made fluctuations worse.........<br /><br />1964-1970: the balance of payments and the failure of<br />planning<br /><br />Planning came tonothing because the government found itself having to introducerestrictive policies, inconsistent with the plan’s targets. There were<br />other problems, such as an over-optimistic target for productivity<br />growth...........<br /><br />...growth remained lowand unemployment remained high,..........<br /><br />1970-1974: U-turn and dash for growth<br />The period was one of rising inflation..<br /><br />Inflation was never controlled,........<br /><br />1974-1979: responding to the oil crisis<br /><br />...........The main problem was that the rise in unemployment and the rise in<br />inflation called for different policies: the supply shock was both<br />‘deflationary’ and ‘inflationary’. Contractionary fiscal and monetary<br />policy would have made unemployment worse, whilst expansion<br />would have made inflation worse.<br />Inflation increased during 1974-5, reaching 25-30 per cent per annum<br />(the exact figure depends on what price index and what period is<br />taken). Unemployment rose and output fell, this leading to an<br />improvement in the balance of payments.<br /><br />...............British performance differed from that of similar economies in a<br />number of ways: (a) the recession of 1974-5 was longer lasting; (b)<br />inflation was much higher in the UK than in most similar<br />economies; (c) the recession of 1980-1 was much more severe than<br />elsewhere, because of the behaviour of sterling in 1979-80..."<br /><br />Is there so much of a difference? Both texts seem to indicate that Government actions then were not very bright. <br /><br />If you and SWL now ask for government action of a type then current, that means that both of you are optimistic about modern governments' qualities. Now that is a matter of opinion.<br /><br />What I miss is a detailed discussion of the tradeoffs of such policy, esp. of the disadvantages of inflation (not hyperinflation) as longterm effect and the little likelihood of reducing it in the short term.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-51450066090603913642014-11-19T23:29:08.113+00:002014-11-19T23:29:08.113+00:00Had a chance to read over the page linked (P.1316)...Had a chance to read over the page linked (P.1316) and to cut a long story short was very suprised, since much of the key observations relating to UK economic performance as a result of policy appears totally bizarre in the sense that it is not supported at all by independently published historical economic data. <br />To keep it to some brief excerpts: "continued slow growth...further inflation...in the 1940s-50s..."<br />But the evidence shows with the exception of the odd year there was very strong growth in these decades (averaging over 3% p.a, sometimes over 4%, with inflation falling after 1951-2 and remaining below 5% thereafter (which was low for this era, but not so today).<br /><br />"methods used to encourage investment and *economic growth* in an effort to micromanage the economy...*none of these were successful*...kept *inflation high*..." before mentioning 'stop-go' policies and moving onto the 70s.<br />In this period (1950s to early 1970s) in the era of 'stop-go', UK economic growth rates, though fluctuating (due to stop-go) were often exceptional, averaging over 3% for the 1960s, often over 4 or 5%, only once falling briefly (in 1958). Similar to the previous decade, inflation remained low, below 5% for the 60s, until the last few years of the 60s when it rose. Then came the 70s of course...<br /><br />Whilst is very fair to question the political use and especially timing (for elections) of fiscal policy over the period, and the fluctuations as a result of these 'stop/go approach', I cannot reconcile the narrative in the book describing "low growth" and being unsuccessful in encouraging growth, plus "further/high inflation" to he actual economic data and evidence. Reading the page you provided paints a very bleak picture of the UK economy over the whole period, but now explains you initial comment about the "dismal failure" of policy in the 50s, 60s and 70s. <br />Please don't take my word for it. Here's just one link which provides the relevant economic data for the period:<br />www.socscistaff.bham.ac.uk/backhouse/homepage/aukm/Chapter1.pdf<br />Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453060744510427275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-77482404354226071342014-11-19T21:45:54.232+00:002014-11-19T21:45:54.232+00:00Ok Andreas, if you are talking UK matters here I d...Ok Andreas, if you are talking UK matters here I do not care. You are free to do whatever you want on your pound-island as long as you pay the bills being sent to you by Brussels because you were so successful in working your IS-LM.<br /><br />On the other hand I am really trying hard but just can not come up with a "technological innovation" creating "must haves" that came from the UK in the past 30 years.<br /><br />Let me think, ok the milkman has been driving electric early on but since then all that is left seems to be "financial dangerneering" ...<br /><br />The ugly GermanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-88650001576422264122014-11-19T19:49:40.142+00:002014-11-19T19:49:40.142+00:00Why only triple? Let's go a 100-fold! Debt is ...Why only triple? Let's go a 100-fold! Debt is no problem!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-49842734528216587842014-11-19T19:48:23.814+00:002014-11-19T19:48:23.814+00:00If you have a decline in marketable technological ...If you have a decline in marketable technological innovation, any guesstimation regarding output might be unreliable. The economy will return when a wave of fresh products that everyone must have will hit the shelf.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-22956595968593512342014-11-19T17:04:56.798+00:002014-11-19T17:04:56.798+00:00Simon19 November 2014 08:02
The book is called
E...Simon19 November 2014 08:02<br /><br />The book is called<br /><br />Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia, Band 2<br />ed. by Bernard A. Cook<br /><br />Lawson only seems to be about the Thatcher years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-35747084316796896502014-11-19T17:01:10.771+00:002014-11-19T17:01:10.771+00:00Andreas Paterson19 November 2014 07:2
You said
S...Andreas Paterson19 November 2014 07:2<br /><br />You said<br /><br />So I should forget all my IS-LM equations because of the scary debt monstermonster, no thanks.<br /><br />That's my answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-50572517094634916132014-11-19T16:02:38.556+00:002014-11-19T16:02:38.556+00:00Thanks for the link which I've had a quick rea...Thanks for the link which I've had a quick read over (p.1316). Just to clarify, is each section of this book written by (or excerpts from) the individuals listed in the bibliography at the end of each section (which I note is Nigel Lawson and one other in this section)? Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453060744510427275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-21266037957868453442014-11-19T15:28:12.814+00:002014-11-19T15:28:12.814+00:00IS/LM has nothing to do with what?IS/LM has nothing to do with what?Andreas Patersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06431120459465519240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-36377908294125690792014-11-19T15:10:05.013+00:002014-11-19T15:10:05.013+00:00Andreas Paterson19 November 2014 06:20
IS/LM has ...Andreas Paterson19 November 2014 06:20<br /><br />IS/LM has nothing to do with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com