tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post190213045725951717..comments2024-03-19T05:54:16.651+00:00Comments on mainly macro: Oh what a lucky manMainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-53145513110015442002015-05-15T21:02:05.142+00:002015-05-15T21:02:05.142+00:00Are you serious. That is pop - history. Are you serious. That is pop - history. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-36178813509387557752015-05-12T08:14:54.532+00:002015-05-12T08:14:54.532+00:00Max Hastings is a superb military historian.Max Hastings is a superb military historian.Bob Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10423535654886650734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-55941749854007154772015-05-12T08:12:39.694+00:002015-05-12T08:12:39.694+00:00Oh I quite agree, but you make an assumption when ...Oh I quite agree, but you make an assumption when you say that 63% supported less right wing economic platforms; they supported parties with such a platform but you seem to assume that that aspect was uppermost in their decision; it may have been but I don't know that.<br /><br />I agree with the voting system but, let's face it, almost any voting system is the last point of wresting power from TPTB; the history of these matters is a long one starting with slavery, through feudalism et al to the present.Bob Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10423535654886650734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-58752167405928696562015-05-12T00:46:26.104+00:002015-05-12T00:46:26.104+00:00Bad economic ideas may or may not resonate with vo...Bad economic ideas may or may not resonate with voters. In case you are unaware, Cameron won a "majority" on less than 37% of the vote. So the 63% super-majority supported different, less-right-wing, economic platforms.<br /><br />The only reliable information that can be gleaned from an analysis of this election outcome, is that it is utterly foolish to have an arbitrary election system that does not ensure an actual majority of voters are represented in government -- which is how democracy is done in the developed world.<br /><br />The UK and Canada are really anti-democracies: they dole out absolute power to MINORITY parties, excluding the actual majority from government. People who favor an upside-down voting system have no right to complain when the randomness does not favor their party. They make their bed. Lie in it.Ron Wallerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08120060083437508997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-37591747468455975182015-05-12T00:31:33.043+00:002015-05-12T00:31:33.043+00:00The UK and Canada are aristocracies that look down...The UK and Canada are aristocracies that look down on democracy. When conservative elitists win absolute corrupt power on 37% of the vote, liberal elitists cry in their beer wishing they had been that lucky. <br /><br />Democratic countries don't have to worry about luck. Their election results are not arbitrary. They ensure the various branches of elected government represent an actual majority of voters.<br /><br />So keep suppressing democracy. The randomness will favor your right-of-center "Labor" party eventually.Ron Wallerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08120060083437508997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-23673278035148076682015-05-11T13:55:25.786+00:002015-05-11T13:55:25.786+00:00I love this blog. It makes me feel Labour will be ...I love this blog. It makes me feel Labour will be out of power for another 10 years.<br /><br />You claim you know that in 2010 the government continuing to spend more would have led to a larger economy today. Fine. But you claim you also know this is the case today, 7 years after the financial crash. In other words our deficit of 4% of GDP or whatever it is is still not big enough.<br /><br />You claim that the nature of government spending doesn't matter. More benefits, more wasteful infrastructure projects (cf the lovely new roads in Spain!). Centralised Labour style spending good, personal spending using e.g. school vouchers bad.<br /><br />The sad thing is there are real issues out there. QE is indeed shameful; print money and send it to people or use it for a specific project like fibre to all (maybe); the asset owners of England probably did indeed determine the election but you won't get them to vote for you by promising to borrow, tax and spend. How do we fund a smaller higher education sector free of charge again as a social good? (clue - get rid of rubbish courses). <br /><br />Noone is saying the Conservatives have these answers. But they had more answers than Labour and people voted. They are not controlled by anybody, otherwise 15% would not have voted by UKIP which was not supported by any media or newspaper (except the Express, if you count that one).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-945612690264154722015-05-11T11:33:29.187+00:002015-05-11T11:33:29.187+00:00"They spurned the huge lie at the heart of La..."They spurned the huge lie at the heart of Labour policy — that a government can spend its way out of bankruptcy."<br /><br />Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3074158/I-feared-worst-Thank-God-good-sense-British-people-writes-MAX-HASTINGS.html#ixzz3ZpR2JiU8 <br /><br />That is from a very respected commentator - FT columnist and former Telegraph Editor. Can't you or someone with even basic economics (EC110 will do) give these guys a few lessons or sort them out on the media before an election?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-84436059113074844722015-05-11T09:40:00.873+00:002015-05-11T09:40:00.873+00:00XYZ -
Well, if you look at the age profile of vot...XYZ -<br /><br />Well, if you look at the age profile of voters - the only age group where there is a solid Tory majority is in the over-60s. And given that these people turn out it's even more exaggerated; so it's perfectly possible for a group of under-45s to barely know anyone who actually went out and voted Tory, because only something like 15% of the 18-45 age group do - and then they would, I suspect, move in different social circles.<br /><br />For all the talk of competence, policies, SNP scaremongering, etc.. the real story is that a bloc of pensioners, the only large group to have had consistent above-inflation income growth in the last 5 years, went out and voted themselves a pay rise.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02729454651003425550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-31923984786554547892015-05-11T08:24:54.293+00:002015-05-11T08:24:54.293+00:00Wise words.Wise words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-86621211078767860932015-05-10T14:31:44.524+00:002015-05-10T14:31:44.524+00:00"I’ve not come across a single non-City, non-..."I’ve not come across a single non-City, non-partisan economist who does not concur with the view that the performance of the coalition has been pretty poor (or simply terrible), yet polls repeatedly show that people believe managing the economy is the Conservatives’ strength."<br /><br />This reminds me of many of the posts I've seen on facebook to the effect that: "I can't believe the Tories won. All my friends voted Labour or Green". Firstly, why should City economists' views simply be dismissed as irrelevant? Is it not just possible that people who work for a living in the private sector might know more about the economy and economic management than those in Oxbridge ivory towers? Secondly, just because somebody is partisan does not mean they are wrong. Thirdly, Labour has hardly come across as competent or coherent on economic matters (energy price freeze? Miliband on Question Time?).<br /><br />Imho Labour failed to present a coherent or even slightly credible alternative and got exactly what they deserved.XYZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-30664882690908907022015-05-10T13:56:42.396+00:002015-05-10T13:56:42.396+00:00Well I think some things have to be explained clea...Well I think some things have to be explained clearly whilst they have to be disingenuous about others; the fact that the election may have been won on scare stories does not mean that the ability to explain things is not a core skill.<br /><br />In any case you assume that the economic question you mention was a clincher; it may have been but "It's the economy stupid" has never struck me as a completely convincing explanation of everything and that would go for this election as well as the majority of others.Bob Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10423535654886650734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-62028028610743522012015-05-10T12:04:13.996+00:002015-05-10T12:04:13.996+00:00Great post. I have disagreements with you in the p...Great post. I have disagreements with you in the past (for example I believe micro should be kept out of macro) - but in this I am totally in agreement, and have not seen it better put.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-71633338428930198742015-05-10T07:59:27.996+00:002015-05-10T07:59:27.996+00:00"If you explaining you are losing" is tr..."If you explaining you are losing" is true and it is important for political parties to remember.<br /><br />People are not convinced by complicated explanations, they need everything explained in simple stories that they can understand. The Conservatives have spent five years not explaining anything, but telling a story about a spendthrift Labour party that wrecked the economy; and about a mess that they have cleared up.<br /><br /> Labour should not have tried to explain - they should have spent the last five years giving the public a different narrative, a believable story, a more accurate version of history, which contained the simple truth of a government before 2008 that was not overspending at all, but was improving their lives - when it was hit by a global crash that nobody expected.<br /><br />Miliband and Balls did not give the people this story, instead they allowed the Conservative story to go unanswered, until virtually everyone accepted it as the truth. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-25506025828562920252015-05-09T17:51:33.381+00:002015-05-09T17:51:33.381+00:00why should wealthy people not be well enough educa...why should wealthy people not be well enough educated about the economy to want a slow economy; they own a disproportionate share? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00040408582097904554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-59829332659495973982015-05-09T17:40:34.921+00:002015-05-09T17:40:34.921+00:00most of the time the people are right; sometimes t...most of the time the people are right; sometimes they are wrong. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00040408582097904554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-11901970643870539682015-05-09T17:35:33.086+00:002015-05-09T17:35:33.086+00:00Brits; you gave the lunatics the keys to the asylu...Brits; you gave the lunatics the keys to the asylum for the next 5 years, and you will have to deal with the consequences. Cameron got a majority of the seats; why should he not act as if he has a mandate; I certainly see his win as a mandate. Good luck with all of that. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00040408582097904554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-78251627777609525342015-05-09T17:30:32.837+00:002015-05-09T17:30:32.837+00:00Property is more than 'land and buildings.'...Property is more than 'land and buildings.' Why is your income not seen as property?Randomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445772572707818311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-39382272548375256112015-05-09T16:43:57.769+00:002015-05-09T16:43:57.769+00:00Few business leaders vote for supply side reforms,...Few business leaders vote for supply side reforms, rather they vote for maintaining the status quo. Tory supply side policy favours larger firms and oligopolies over new entrants. The sad reality is that Labour would have done more for the real supply side than the Tories will - even though Labour don't have a supply side strategy.Metatonenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-54872784761830657452015-05-09T14:33:07.198+00:002015-05-09T14:33:07.198+00:00This election was won not by explanation, but by s...This election was won not by explanation, but by scare stories. The late swing in voting was based on fear of an SNP dependent Labour Government, and fear of the pain of the recession returning. If they had explained that their "long term financial plan" was based on a bad economics and had lengthened the painful period of recession do you really think they would have been elected?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-17064186148920500392015-05-09T12:22:45.411+00:002015-05-09T12:22:45.411+00:00«A huge class of rentiers»
The problem with that ...«A huge class of rentiers»<br /><br />The problem with that huge class of rentiers is that they are the most precious swing voters in marginals in UK politics, because they are more or less whoever bought property in the South East in the 1970s-1990s on 5-10% deposit, plus their heirs, plus nearly the the entire finance sector.<br /><br />For the "conservatory building classes" who have just given the laurels of victory to George Osborne (the real winner of the election, not lucky David Cameron) the story is the usual: "blow you Jack, I am allright",<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-15646178019395311172015-05-09T12:07:13.745+00:002015-05-09T12:07:13.745+00:00«Debt and deficits were low, and at the time every...«Debt and deficits were low, and at the time everyone expected them to stay that way; big deficits only arose as a result of the crisis. The crisis, which was a global phenomenon, was driven by runaway banks and private debt, not government deficits.»<br /><br />Sure, but "the "runaway banks" were created by governments and that "private debt" crisis was also created by governments: various "anglo-american" governments chose (to sidestep punishment by the "bond markets") what Colin Crouch calls "privatized keynesianism" and adopted very loose credit policies based on every increasing leverage ratios in the financial sector.<br /><br />Because without ballooning leverage ratios ("runaway banks") it takes every more capital to have ballooning credit pushing up asset prices ("private debt").<br /><br />What so many governments have done was PFI (Private Finance Initiative) on a macro scale, where demand was boosted by private debt which was conveniently however in practice government originated even if the public accounts did not show that.<br /><br />The "big deficits only arose as a result of the crisis" happened because the macro-level PFI spiral suddenly stopped working and what were "technically" private losses became in significant part public losses.<br /><br />That's the pretty huge flaw in SimonWL's argument that Labour was not fiscally profligate: sure Labour weren't, in official accounting terms, but Labour just like the Conservatives before and after them was running an extremely profligate credit policy that was all about creating "private debt" and "runaway banks" and then bailing them out.<br /><br />Usual quote:<br /><br />www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/oliver-huitson/thatcher-black-gold-or-red-bricks<br />«Under Thatcher, this exploded to over £250bn across her premiership – a staggering 104% of GDP growth. ... But Blair did his homework and let loose – as did Thatcher – a wave of cheap credit, financial deregulation, house price inflation and an equity withdrawal-led consumption boom. Withdrawals under Blair’s leadership totalled around £365bn, that’s a full 103% of GDP growth over the same period,»<br /><br />That is a policy of private yet government sponsored borrow-and-spend, instead of a more honest opebnly public borrow-and-spend.<br /><br />The big long term problem is that for the past several decades borrow-and-spend, whether overtly public or disguised as private, seems to have been utterly indispensable to maintain public demand at a sufficient level. JK Galbraith would have pointed out at the cause as ever higher inequality I guess.<br /><br />But whatever the cause some commenters have pointed out that the rate between growth of debt (private plus public) and growth of GDP has become very high indeed...Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-77561181746444081882015-05-09T11:39:05.572+00:002015-05-09T11:39:05.572+00:00The lesson learned by governments around the world...The lesson learned by governments around the world is that voters long property will always vote for extremely loose credit policy even if it is coupled with tigh fiscal policy.<br /><br />What voters long property want is tax-free effort-free capital gains at the expense of everybody who is poorer than them, and delivering that matters the most.Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-50137158204631489202015-05-09T11:38:36.080+00:002015-05-09T11:38:36.080+00:00Actually I don't think it's a laudable aim...Actually I don't think it's a laudable aim at all but a core skill. After all when you dig into a lot of issues such as changes to the welfare state these are quite difficult ideas to communicate. Getting elected and "simplifying" the message - if I may be excused a little patronising - are not, to my mind mutually exclusive but essential con commitants.Bob Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10423535654886650734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-15078752279125264802015-05-09T10:38:23.783+00:002015-05-09T10:38:23.783+00:00" it is surely one job of politicians to comm..." it is surely one job of politicians to communicate ideas simply in a way that resonates with the electorate"<br /><br />Well, that might be a laudable theoretical aim, but surely we have just seen that the sole job of politicians is to get elected, and to keep on getting elected. Being elected means they can push the ideology of their party onto an electorate pacified once every 5 years by the opportunity to say 'no'. Being elected means they can look after the special interests who funded their campaign. Being elected does NOT mean explaining anything clearly, I mean the worst thing for a politician is surely a voter who knows what he is talking about.<br /><br />(Apologies for the double posting, please delete the other copy of this comment, below)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-1129083620955887672015-05-09T10:36:29.630+00:002015-05-09T10:36:29.630+00:00" it is surely one job of politicians to comm..." it is surely one job of politicians to communicate ideas simply in a way that resonates with the electorate"<br /><br />Well, that might be a laudable theoretical aim, but surely we have just seen that the sole job of politicians is to get elected, and to keep on getting elected. Being elected means they can push the ideology of their party onto an electorate pacified once every 5 years by the opportunity to say 'no'. Being elected means they can look after the special interests who funded their campaign. Being elected does NOT mean explaining anything clearly, I mean the worst thing for a politician is surely a voter who knows what he is talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com