Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
jjlynn27 said:
That is all perfectly fine for her to be an MP and 'represent the people'. I do think that *Sh* Minister for education should have, at least, a decent degree.
On a similar theme, one might think that the Attorney General ought to be a reasonably heavyweight lawyer, what with their job being to advise the Govt and all.The previous Shadow AG, Karl Turner:
Born in Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, Turner was educated at Bransholme High School from 1984 to 1987, and left school at the age of 16.[3] From 1987 to 1989, he attended HCC Training to study Business Administration.[4] Later, Turner became a self-employed antiques dealer.[5] He returned to education in the late 1990s to study A-levels at Hull College, before he graduated with a law degree as a mature student from the University of Hull in 2004.[3] He became a barrister in 2005 after passing the Bar Vocational Course at Northumbria University and went on to practise criminal law for the Max Gold Partnership in Hull.
Elected to Parliament in 2010. Just the sort of fellow you'd want advising on whether it was legal to go to war in some far flung land.
Greg66 said:
On a similar theme, one might think that the Attorney General ought to be a reasonably heavyweight lawyer, what with their job being to advise the Govt and all.
The previous Shadow AG, Karl Turner:
Born in Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, Turner was educated at Bransholme High School from 1984 to 1987, and left school at the age of 16.[3] From 1987 to 1989, he attended HCC Training to study Business Administration.[4] Later, Turner became a self-employed antiques dealer.[5] He returned to education in the late 1990s to study A-levels at Hull College, before he graduated with a law degree as a mature student from the University of Hull in 2004.[3] He became a barrister in 2005 after passing the Bar Vocational Course at Northumbria University and went on to practise criminal law for the Max Gold Partnership in Hull.
Elected to Parliament in 2010. Just the sort of fellow you'd want advising on whether it was legal to go to war in some far flung land.
Current AG is a criminal law barrister. Is that any better?The previous Shadow AG, Karl Turner:
Born in Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, Turner was educated at Bransholme High School from 1984 to 1987, and left school at the age of 16.[3] From 1987 to 1989, he attended HCC Training to study Business Administration.[4] Later, Turner became a self-employed antiques dealer.[5] He returned to education in the late 1990s to study A-levels at Hull College, before he graduated with a law degree as a mature student from the University of Hull in 2004.[3] He became a barrister in 2005 after passing the Bar Vocational Course at Northumbria University and went on to practise criminal law for the Max Gold Partnership in Hull.
Elected to Parliament in 2010. Just the sort of fellow you'd want advising on whether it was legal to go to war in some far flung land.
In 2010 the opening deficit was £158billion with debt £800b(?).
The labour and socialists say oh you’ve more than doubled the national debt with austerity.
The thing is WOULD hard investment and no austerity have worked?
So take Year 1 though to year 7 zero austerity so let’s assume that the deficit stays at £158b per year so £1,099billion more debt taking us to £1,900billon of debt.
Next take the “investment” they wanted to do - let’s say this is what big bad hard so guess £400billion? So we’re up to £2,300billion.
Now on the flip side they should/might get more tax take due to the investment - so they would need to be bringing in more than £500billion in those same 7 years to match what we have now.
That’s a big extra tax take but possible?
How large would you like the debt to gdp to be.
The labour and socialists say oh you’ve more than doubled the national debt with austerity.
The thing is WOULD hard investment and no austerity have worked?
So take Year 1 though to year 7 zero austerity so let’s assume that the deficit stays at £158b per year so £1,099billion more debt taking us to £1,900billon of debt.
Next take the “investment” they wanted to do - let’s say this is what big bad hard so guess £400billion? So we’re up to £2,300billion.
Now on the flip side they should/might get more tax take due to the investment - so they would need to be bringing in more than £500billion in those same 7 years to match what we have now.
That’s a big extra tax take but possible?
How large would you like the debt to gdp to be.
It's nothing short of wreckless, and they wouldn't have anywhere near the tax take we have now. The rich would be taxed more even if it didn't actually result in a gain, just so they could go back to their core voters and say "yeah we showed em".
I'm glad that
is getting on in years, it won't be long before he retires.
I'm glad that
is getting on in years, it won't be long before he retires.dazwalsh said:
It's nothing short of wreckless, and they wouldn't have anywhere near the tax take we have now. The rich would be taxed more even if it didn't actually result in a gain, just so they could go back to their core voters and say "yeah we showed em".
I'm glad that is getting on in years, it won't be long before he retires.
I wouldn’t count on retirement ditto the hateful McDonnell. I'm glad that
is getting on in years, it won't be long before he retires.Welshbeef said:
In 2010 the opening deficit was £158billion with debt £800b(?).
The labour and socialists say oh you’ve more than doubled the national debt with austerity.
The thing is WOULD hard investment and no austerity have worked?
Or would genuine austerity, IE spending less than income, have worked.The labour and socialists say oh you’ve more than doubled the national debt with austerity.
The thing is WOULD hard investment and no austerity have worked?
Dr Jekyll said:
Or would genuine austerity, IE spending less than income, have worked.
The problem is it is incredible hard to achieve economic growth when spending overall is cut. Fiscal policy dictates if you decrease the supply of money, then there is a contraction. Banks had to raise significant additional reserves, so they lent less. BoE ordered up some QE to mitigate, lots of evidence the banks effectively used QE to salvage some seriously battered balance sheets, but didn't actually lend to the "real" economy.
When Govt departments then take hits of 10%-25% - eg Defence - it then lands as lower economic output.
So yes - if you look at the Greek economy, essentially their task was to run a current account surplus of close to 4% of GDP - by slashing spending. But the effect was a near 20% contraction in the size of the economy.
The UK has achieved economic growth overall, but we have not invested sufficiently in innovation leading to productivity gains, which create additional new wealth and rising wage growth.
Mass economic migration to the UK started in around 2004, it is an interesting data point that real wages have not improved much since then.
edh said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Or would genuine austerity, IE spending less than income, have worked.
Nosee Multiplier effect...
"Expansionary fiscal contraction" was a ridiculous concept from the start.
Yes, it's become McDonnell's lovely soundbite - but little to show he actually understands it, or cam actually demonstrate his ideas will utilise it effectively...
Multiplier effect
It seems at a brief glance to be related to the 'bootstrap principle'. What if much of the new spending by the masses is on imports?
It seems at a brief glance to be related to the 'bootstrap principle'. What if much of the new spending by the masses is on imports?
motco said:
Multiplier effect
It seems at a brief glance to be related to the 'bootstrap principle'. What if much of the new spending by the masses is on imports?
Oh, I know what it is. I'm just wondering if those spouting it as banal rhetoric understand it - especially as for years the same people have been saying 'trickle down' doesn't work, yet now it seems to as long as the spending at the top is government rather than rich people!It seems at a brief glance to be related to the 'bootstrap principle'. What if much of the new spending by the masses is on imports?
Sway said:
motco said:
Multiplier effect
It seems at a brief glance to be related to the 'bootstrap principle'. What if much of the new spending by the masses is on imports?
Oh, I know what it is. I'm just wondering if those spouting it as banal rhetoric understand it - especially as for years the same people have been saying 'trickle down' doesn't work, yet now it seems to as long as the spending at the top is government rather than rich people!It seems at a brief glance to be related to the 'bootstrap principle'. What if much of the new spending by the masses is on imports?
There is certainly a multiplier effect, but that isn't necessarily an argument for deficit spending. For one thing govt spending tends to displace private sector spending, so overall spending is just diverted to politically attractive projects. The other issue is that as Keynes recognised but neo Keynesians ignore, there is a limit to how much the govt can safely borrow. Keynes whole argument was that you reduce spending in the good times to have a surplus for the bad. Now that various govts have contrived to build up a deficit even in the good times calling a bigger deficit when the economy is sluggish is a different matter altogether.
The way out of it that worked well under Reagan was cutting the tax rate. That way you get the extra spending on something vaguely useful and without the same impact on govt finances revenue can actually increase. But of course it's 'the rich' who pay most tax anyway, so they 'benefit' most from tax cuts, so lefties have hissy fits. Inventing the ludicrous notion of 'trickle down' economics in order to be against it.
Keynes was writing about the multiplier effect at a time when the UK economy was much more of a closed system. With globalisation especially in taxation for multinationals and a far higher percentage of imports, it will have far less impact.
Expansion in the money supply should lead to greater investment and an increase in tax revenue over time, but that has not happened recently (see QE)
Gargamel said:
Keynes was writing about the multiplier effect at a time when the UK economy was much more of a closed system. With globalisation especially in taxation for multinationals and a far higher percentage of imports, it will have far less impact.
Expansion in the money supply should lead to greater investment and an increase in tax revenue over time, but that has not happened recently (see QE)
Agreed, although I don't think our recent QE programme should really be classed as increasing money supply as really it was to recapitalise the banks to remove some of the systemic risk. Expansion in the money supply should lead to greater investment and an increase in tax revenue over time, but that has not happened recently (see QE)
All very interesting, both practically and theoretically - however as per my original point, this has all the hallmarks of the next rhetoric mantra, after the 'fully costed manifesto' bulls
t. Labour really is relying on ignorance and rhetoric for it's support currently.
Sway said:
motco said:
Multiplier effect
It seems at a brief glance to be related to the 'bootstrap principle'. What if much of the new spending by the masses is on imports?
Oh, I know what it is. I'm just wondering if those spouting it as banal rhetoric understand it - especially as for years the same people have been saying 'trickle down' doesn't work, yet now it seems to as long as the spending at the top is government rather than rich people!It seems at a brief glance to be related to the 'bootstrap principle'. What if much of the new spending by the masses is on imports?
Nothing to do with "trickle down" - which the right have recently claimed "we never said that this was a "thing" anyway.."
My reply was in relation to massive cuts in govt spending, and why that would have been a disaster (even worse than Osbornomics 1.0)
Dr Jekyll said:
..There is certainly a multiplier effect, but that isn't necessarily an argument for deficit spending. For one thing govt spending tends to displace private sector spending,
No evidence for that just discredited Osborne era dogmaDr Jekyll said:
...Now that various govts have contrived to build up a deficit even in the good times calling a bigger deficit when the economy is sluggish is a different matter altogether.
How is it not sensible to borrow for investment & stimulus now (and for the last 7 years)? Even some Tories are calling for it. Please don't use the household finance analogy.[
Dr Jekyll said:
The way out of it that worked well under Reagan was cutting the tax rate....
Borrowing for tax cuts? Targeted tax cuts could work, but when most of the gains are pocketed by higher earners (see where the benefit of personal allowance increases have mainly gone, at huge cost), they are very poor vfm in terms of economic stimulus. Higher earners have a propensity to save, not spend.Dr Jekyll said:
+1
There is certainly a multiplier effect, but that isn't necessarily an argument for deficit spending. For one thing govt spending tends to displace private sector spending, so overall spending is just diverted to politically attractive projects. The other issue is that as Keynes recognised but neo Keynesians ignore, there is a limit to how much the govt can safely borrow. Keynes whole argument was that you reduce spending in the good times to have a surplus for the bad. Now that various govts have contrived to build up a deficit even in the good times calling a bigger deficit when the economy is sluggish is a different matter altogether
+1There is certainly a multiplier effect, but that isn't necessarily an argument for deficit spending. For one thing govt spending tends to displace private sector spending, so overall spending is just diverted to politically attractive projects. The other issue is that as Keynes recognised but neo Keynesians ignore, there is a limit to how much the govt can safely borrow. Keynes whole argument was that you reduce spending in the good times to have a surplus for the bad. Now that various govts have contrived to build up a deficit even in the good times calling a bigger deficit when the economy is sluggish is a different matter altogether
So many "quote" Keynes in the idea of spending your way out of recession but miss that vital first step of not having a monster deficit in the first place so that there is "money in the bank" so to speak to be *able* to spend your way out.
edh said:
No evidence for that just discredited Osborne era dogma
No evidence? You think this was invented by Osborne?edh said:
How is it not sensible to borrow for investment & stimulus now (and for the last 7 years)? Even some Tories are calling for it. Please don't use the household finance analogy.
Borrowing to invest can be sensible - we are still having to borrow to pay the day-to-day bills, that’s idiotic.edh said:
Borrowing for tax cuts? Targeted tax cuts could work, but when most of the gains are pocketed by higher earners (see where the benefit of personal allowance increases have mainly gone, at huge cost), they are very poor vfm in terms of economic stimulus. Higher earners have a propensity to save, not spend.
1. Those that pay most tax will benefit most from tax cuts. That doesn’t necessarily seem unfair.2. High earners don’t get a tax free allowance.
3. What happens to the money that is saved?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff