|
WhereamI
6,415 posts
87 months
|
TheHeretic said: WhereamI said: It's going to take a whole lot longer than 2 years to sort this mess out.
You still haven't answered the question (no surprise there) as to what you would propose that we do? Why would joining the Euro help us? Because no matter how badly they would be doing, they can average out the reduction in economy across them all, thus making it not as bad? Ah, right, got it. So we don't see the individual 6.2% decline in GDP in one quarter from one country, instead we see the 0.2% decline across the Euro zone as a whole. One thing many people don't seem to realise is that the UK GDP figure published is not a measure, it's a survey. It's a bit like an opinion poll, the ONS ask a smallish set of organisations what happened in the previous quarter and then extrapolate the result out to the economy as a whole. That's why amongst economists at the moment there is liitle faith in it because the absolute figures such as employment, unemployment and tax receipts are all showing positive things, it is only the GDP figures that aren't and of all the indicators that's the one that has the biggest margin of error in it's means of calculation.
|
|
|
Wombat3
5,205 posts
76 months
|
WhereamI said: TheHeretic said: WhereamI said: It's going to take a whole lot longer than 2 years to sort this mess out.
You still haven't answered the question (no surprise there) as to what you would propose that we do? Why would joining the Euro help us? Because no matter how badly they would be doing, they can average out the reduction in economy across them all, thus making it not as bad? Ah, right, got it. So we don't see the individual 6.2% decline in GDP in one quarter from one country, instead we see the 0.2% decline across the Euro zone as a whole. One thing many people don't seem to realise is that the UK GDP figure published is not a measure, it's a survey. It's a bit like an opinion poll, the ONS ask a smallish set of organisations what happened in the previous quarter and then extrapolate the result out to the economy as a whole. That's why amongst economists at the moment there is liitle faith in it because the absolute figures such as employment, unemployment and tax receipts are all showing positive things, it is only the GDP figures that aren't and of all the indicators that's the one that has the biggest margin of error in it's means of calculation. Spot on. The BoE said yesterday that they are trying to figure what exactly is going on & that they don't actually know beccause the figures are contradicting each other (but it suggests that the doom & gloom merchants may not be altogether correct). Some other minor details: Everyone looks at growth/no growth as an absolute measure of success or failure & its not. It apparently does not occur to some simple minded Comrades that -0.2% might actually be "doing bloody well" against the context of the global economic state. +/- we are neither growing nor contracting - we are bumping along the bottom and will continue to do so for a while yet. Meanwhile underlying changes are taking place in the structure of the economy to fix the mess the idiot Broon left. To manage to pretty much hold GDP at its current levels while we do that is arguably very good indeed. Oh, they say, but the EZ is doing better - yeh, right. The EZ is breaking every known rule in the book just to keep itself from disappearing down the plug hole. Why would you believe any of their figures? Meanwhile the French are creating massive structural economic problems for themselves by reducing the retirement age & Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece & Ireland etc are technically bankrupt several times over. Those are all big markets for the Germans who have done very well indeed out of the EZ thanks to the relatively weak currency. But that party is now over for them too. The other myth is that the Germans can bail out the EZ - they can't , they don;t have enough money, nowhere near enough. "More public spending will fix it" they say. Will it b  ks. It will create some short term activity & a false mini-boom which can not be sustained. It doesn't work because governments are fundamentally inefficient when it comes to spending money - too much of it gets wasted in the process & so any possible structural economic benefit from public spending is pretty much erroded before you even start - its like a very inefficient motor - you get less energy out than you put in. And, as above, it is indeed going to take much more than 2 years to sort the mess out. Those clamouring for a change of policy towards public spending now are like children in the back seat - "are we there yet?". No we are bloody not, so shut up & stay out the way while people who understand what needs to be done get on & do it.
|
|
|
Edinburger
2,509 posts
38 months
|
WhereamI said: ViperPict said: There's only so long Mr 110% can keep keeping blaming the inherited debt. Especially since the economy is getting worse after > 2 years of their measures to try and improve it... It's going to take a whole lot longer than 2 years to sort this mess out. You still haven't answered the question (no surprise there) as to what you would propose that we do? Why would joining the Euro help us? Let's be under no illusions here - this and the financial mess quoted earlier today is the result of previous Conservative, Labour and now Conb/Lib Dem governments. They ALL made mistakes. And then there's the gloabal and European economic issues on top of all that. It is no secret that the UK economy is currently in the second or third WORSTt state of all global economies. It's an absolute mess. Now it seems to me that a thread about Scottish independence is being hijacked by a few posters with strong economic backgrounds and if you behaved this way - that is the tone and content of some of your posts - at work you'd be pulled up for bullying. Try to be more pragmatic. No one currently knows the details of the economic argument for or against an independent Scotland. No one knows tha share of UK debt we'd take, and the impact to Scottish and rUK economics. At the moment, it's all guesswork.
|
|
|
Edinburger
2,509 posts
38 months
|
davepoth said: ViperPict said: Again, go to Aberdeen and proclaim the ring road's a waste to money!  There's a difference between reducing congestion and improving the economy, interestingly. The particular road that will be bypassed doesn't carry any through traffic - it all ends or begins in the immediate area of Aberdeen on the north south route because there are no major towns to the north. That suggests that the congestion is caused by people making reasonably short (ten mile or less) journeys within Aberdeen on their way to or from work. http://euscorecard.inrix.com/scorecard_eu/UK/pdf%5...So as I said, the idea of a tram or other rapid transit system seems to make a fair bit of sense. One line running North - South through the centre along the A956 (which looks to be plenty wide enough for it) with the terminii at the junctions with the A90, and then run another route up to the Airport along the railway line. Big park and rides could be built out of town and then nobody would have any real need to drive. Interesting post to make on a car website - build a tram line rather than a road! I don't know how reliable that source of data is, but I'm in Aberdeen a few times each months and my view is that the bypass is essential. I was once told by a local that the bridge on the A90 entering Aberdeen opposite the Asda store (not sure what it's called, sorry) is the busiest stretch of road in the UK. It sometimes feels like it!
|
|
|
thinfourth2
23,956 posts
74 months
|
davepoth said: ViperPict said: Again, go to Aberdeen and proclaim the ring road's a waste to money! There's a difference between reducing congestion and improving the economy, interestingly. The particular road that will be bypassed doesn't carry any through traffic - it all ends or begins in the immediate area of Aberdeen on the north south route because there are no major towns to the north. That suggests that the congestion is caused by people making reasonably short (ten mile or less) journeys within Aberdeen on their way to or from work. http://euscorecard.inrix.com/scorecard_eu/UK/pdf%5...So as I said, the idea of a tram or other rapid transit system seems to make a fair bit of sense. One line running North - South through the centre along the A956 (which looks to be plenty wide enough for it) with the terminii at the junctions with the A90, and then run another route up to the Airport along the railway line. Big park and rides could be built out of town and then nobody would have any real need to drive. I can tell you've never been to aberdeen Mk2 How do you get a half height on a tram?
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
WhereamI
6,415 posts
87 months
|
Edinburger said: Let's be under no illusions here - this and the financial mess quoted earlier today is the result of previous Conservative, Labour and now Conb/Lib Dem governments. They ALL made mistakes. And then there's the gloabal and European economic issues on top of all that. Whilst it is certainly true that all governments make mistakes when we have had a single party in power for 13 years the blame has to be placed there. Edinburger said: It is no secret that the UK economy is currently in the second or third WORSTt state of all global economies. It's an absolute mess. That is complete nonsense, no economist would agree with that analysis. There are only 12 countries with an AAA rating and stable outlook and the UK is one of them (source: S&P). A major reason for that is that whilst we undoubtedly have problems the structural issues are being addressed and we have control of the major economic levers because we have our own currency. It is hard to overestimate the importance of that. And that is what Scotland would be throwing away. But whatever the UK situation, where is the argument that Scotland would be better off economically outside the UK? There are plenty of reasons, many aired here, why it wouldn't be better off and nothing to date on the positive side. Edinburger said: Now it seems to me that a thread about Scottish independence is being hijacked by a few posters with strong economic backgrounds and if you behaved this way - that is the tone and content of some of your posts - at work you'd be pulled up for bullying. Try to be more pragmatic. So are the economists amongst us supposed to say 'there, there, it'll be all right' just because not everyone understands the detail? Edinburger said: No one currently knows the details of the economic argument for or against an independent Scotland. No one knows tha share of UK debt we'd take, and the impact to Scottish and rUK economics. At the moment, it's all guesswork. We can be pretty sure of the share of UK debt, it's not going to be anything other than the per capita share. We don't know things like what currency Scotland will use but it's easy to analyse the options - a new one, GBP, EUR or the very outside chance that it would be USD or another. So what would you have us do? From an economic perspective there are all sorts of issues, most of which have been raised in this thread without answer, although VP thinks it's vulgar to base any decision on money that's one of the big factors for many people.
|
|
|
mcdjl
1,638 posts
65 months
|
Regards to Aberdeen: how much of the traffic is trying to get into Aberdeen, rather than past it? I mentioned Derby last night as comparable: a new ring road in Derby would make sod all difference to the traffic jams as its people trying to get into it that cause problems. Would the same happen in Aberdeen? It seems to me as though some problems must be getting over a bridge that was built too small and is now surrounded by places people want to go- Robert Gordon Uni/ Altens industrial park/Asda. If everyone still wants to go to these places the same problems will always occur...somewhere. Also is this something that will happen/is being planned anyway, but just lower on the list of priorities than things like trams in Edinburgh (not claiming the priorities are right)or the dualling of the A9?- which kind of looks like an Aberdeen bypass
|
|
|
davepoth
20,193 posts
69 months
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,597 posts
107 months
|
|
|
TheHeretic
69,452 posts
125 months
|
ViperPict said: Bloody hell... The fear they have of Tories in that article is reminiscent of your very own fear. "The Stupid party"? Sorry, are we to take this article seriously? I'll believe it when I see it. No matter what it calls itself, it will still be a 'Tory' party, and suddenly changing from a lifetime of labour voting, to a Scottish Tory party ain't gonna happen. Like the "stupid party" an electorate who is too stupid to vote for right wing policies, but won't because of a long resigned Prime minister from 20 years ago shows a stupid electorate. Never mind a stupid party.
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,597 posts
107 months
|
TheHeretic said: ViperPict said: Bloody hell... The fear they have of Tories in that article is reminiscent of your very own fear. "The Stupid party"? Sorry, are we to take this article seriously? I'll believe it when I see it. No matter what it calls itself, it will still be a 'Tory' party, and suddenly changing from a lifetime of labour voting, to a Scottish Tory party ain't gonna happen. Like the "stupid party" an electorate who is too stupid to vote for right wing policies, but won't because of a long resigned Prime minister from 20 years ago shows a stupid electorate. Never mind a stupid party. Ooh, that hit a raw nerve with you, didn't it? Good journalism to get an emotional reaction like that! You are clearly not aware of general public feeling towards the Tories in Scotland (the Scottish PHers are not a representative demographic BTW!). I am fairly tame in my dislike of the Tories compared to some. But the point is, there is clearly the feeling that a new right of centre party that is divorced from Tory Central in Westminster would be a viable (and preferable) option in Scotland.
|
|
|
TheHeretic
69,452 posts
125 months
|
ViperPict said: Ooh, that hit a raw nerve with you, didn't it? Good journalism to get an emotional reaction like that!
You are clearly not aware of general public feeling towards the Tories in Scotland (the Scottish PHers are not a representative demographic BTW!). I am fairly tame in my dislike of the Tories compared to some.
But the point is, there is clearly the feeling that a new right of centre party that is divorced from Tory Central in Westminster would be a viable (and preferable) option in Scotland. A raw nerve? How do you come to that conclusion? Let's examine your response. Good journalism to get a reaction like that... My disbelief at the daft nature of the article? You realise the difference between me thinking it is a good article, and not? The public feeling towards the Tories... Well, shiver me timbers, that is exactly what I was talking about, (and myself and others have said previously). The Scottish have an issue with the Tories, and have voted labour for so many decades. This is the 'fear' I mentioned. So you admit I am right in this regard? Great. What is the fear of the Tories, and why do you think a right wing party would not suffer the same fear? Your own posts about Thatcher have shown us that your irrational, and presumably the other daft Scots, hatred of the Tories are purely irrational. She left office over 20 years ago, but still the feelings are strong. That is utterly daft. Is Scottish people are going to take independence seriously, they will have to vote according to the politics. Unfortunately, history, (and what you have said), shows that politics is not even an issue. Hatred of the Tories is the issue, hence historical voting patterns, (by a huge margin). So, what makes you think that a Tory party, in all but name, would aufpddenly make people start voting according to policy, rather than because of childish irrationality? This has been talked about so much in this thread it feels very much like old ground. What makes you think voting will change?
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,597 posts
107 months
|
TheHeretic said: ViperPict said: Ooh, that hit a raw nerve with you, didn't it? Good journalism to get an emotional reaction like that!
You are clearly not aware of general public feeling towards the Tories in Scotland (the Scottish PHers are not a representative demographic BTW!). I am fairly tame in my dislike of the Tories compared to some.
But the point is, there is clearly the feeling that a new right of centre party that is divorced from Tory Central in Westminster would be a viable (and preferable) option in Scotland. A raw nerve? How do you come to that conclusion? Let's examine your response. Good journalism to get a reaction like that... My disbelief at the daft nature of the article? You realise the difference between me thinking it is a good article, and not? The public feeling towards the Tories... Well, shiver me timbers, that is exactly what I was talking about, (and myself and others have said previously). The Scottish have an issue with the Tories, and have voted labour for so many decades. This is the 'fear' I mentioned. So you admit I am right in this regard? Great. What is the fear of the Tories, and why do you think a right wing party would not suffer the same fear? Your own posts about Thatcher have shown us that your irrational, and presumably the other daft Scots, hatred of the Tories are purely irrational. She left office over 20 years ago, but still the feelings are strong. That is utterly daft. Is Scottish people are going to take independence seriously, they will have to vote according to the politics. Unfortunately, history, (and what you have said), shows that politics is not even an issue. Hatred of the Tories is the issue, hence historical voting patterns, (by a huge margin). So, what makes you think that a Tory party, in all but name, would aufpddenly make people start voting according to policy, rather than because of childish irrationality? This has been talked about so much in this thread it feels very much like old ground. What makes you think voting will change? Well, that's just your opinion. Noted but clearly without any local knowledge of the issue, hence somewhat limited in credibility...
|
|
|
TheHeretic
69,452 posts
125 months
|
ViperPict said: Well, that's just your opinion. Noted but clearly without any local knowledge of the issue, hence somewhat limited in credibility... Sorry, but where is the lost. Redinility? The article, AND yourself have talked about the historical hatred of the Tories, so where is the lost credibility? Again you failed to answer the salient questions, but again you surprise me not a jot.
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,597 posts
107 months
|
TheHeretic said: ViperPict said: Well, that's just your opinion. Noted but clearly without any local knowledge of the issue, hence somewhat limited in credibility... Sorry, but where is the lost. Redinility? The article, AND yourself have talked about the historical hatred of the Tories, so where is the lost credibility? Again you failed to answer the salient questions, but again you surprise me not a jot. Because I have answered that question before and you're doing your ususal infantile trick of ignmoring that as it's not the answer you want! And please do a f king spelling and grammar check before posting - some of your posts are nigh on unreadable.
|
|
|
davepoth
20,193 posts
69 months
|
ViperPict said: Because I have answered that question before and you're doing your ususal infantile trick of ignmoring that as it's not the answer you want! And please do a f king spelling and grammar check before posting - some of your posts are nigh on unreadable. Obvious spelling fail is obvious.
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,597 posts
107 months
|
davepoth said: ViperPict said: Because I have answered that question before and you're doing your ususal infantile trick of ignmoring that as it's not the answer you want! And please do a f king spelling and grammar check before posting - some of your posts are nigh on unreadable. Obvious spelling fail is obvious. Oops! But it was still understandable!
|
|
|
Justayellowbadge
29,850 posts
112 months
|
|
