Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2

[Luther Blissett]

Dr Jekyll said:

It's relevant because sidicks accused me of saying I was prevented by external force, which was not what I said.

I am simply pointing out the simple fact that if the govt borrows money there is less money for private investment.

Actually all you are pointing out is if YOU decide to put your money in govt bonds there is less money for YOU to put in private investment.

[Dr Jekyll]

Luther Blissett said:

Dr Jekyll said:

It's relevant because sidicks accused me of saying I was prevented by external force, which was not what I said.

I am simply pointing out the simple fact that if the govt borrows money there is less money for private investment.

Actually all you are pointing out is if YOU decide to put your money in govt bonds there is less money for YOU to put in private investment.

No, I'm pointing out that if ANYONE puts money into govt bonds there is less for THEM to put into private investment.

[Luther Blissett]

Dr Jekyll said:

No, I'm pointing out that if ANYONE puts money into govt bonds there is less for THEM to put into private investment.

And blaming the govt for the choices of private individuals. I'm not sure how this advances the debate in any meaningful sense.

[sidicks]

Dr Jekyll said:

No, I'm pointing out that if ANYONE puts money into govt bonds there is less for THEM to put into private investment.

Which is a) obvious and b) irrelevant (i.e. nothing to do with 'crowding out', which was the topic under discussion).

If you spend money on custard creams then there is less for you to put into private investment. That's not relevant either.

[Dr Jekyll]

Luther Blissett said:

Dr Jekyll said:

No, I'm pointing out that if ANYONE puts money into govt bonds there is less for THEM to put into private investment.

And blaming the govt for the choices of private individuals. I'm not sure how this advances the debate in any meaningful sense.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. Just pointing out that certain acts have consequences.

[Dr Jekyll]

sidicks said:

Dr Jekyll said:

No, I'm pointing out that if ANYONE puts money into govt bonds there is less for THEM to put into private investment.

Which is a) obvious and b) irrelevant (i.e. nothing to do with 'crowding out', which was the topic under discussion).

If you spend money on custard creams then there is less for you to put into private investment. That's not relevant either.

Not obvious to edh, which is why I made the point.

edh said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Government borrowing was increased, thereby leaving less money for the private sector to borrow.

Makes no sense and ignores the demand side.

Is there a defined stock of money available per year?

[Luther Blissett]

Dr Jekyll said:

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. Just pointing out that certain acts have consequences.

Fascinating stuff. Next time invest in your mate's internet company and leave the bond buying to the financial institutions that can create money out of thin air. Problem solved. They're even offering to do it at below inflation.

[Lance Catamaran]

Comrades, the counter-revolutionaries will be rooted out

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/m...

[Tankrizzo]

Bit rich of Momentum calling to lay off personal attacks and harassment ain't it?

This is of course the same Momentum who indulge in full-on class war:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_2u92HwyII

[edh]

sidicks said:

Dr Jekyll said:

But me choosing to lend money to the govt has the effect that I cannot invest directly in a business. That's what I meant by 'prevent'.

Sure, but that's nothing to do with crowding out.

Yes I'm still waiting for you to explain how this works....

I prefer Keynes....

[edh]

Dr Jekyll said:

sidicks said:

Dr Jekyll said:

No, I'm pointing out that if ANYONE puts money into govt bonds there is less for THEM to put into private investment.

Which is a) obvious and b) irrelevant (i.e. nothing to do with 'crowding out', which was the topic under discussion).

If you spend money on custard creams then there is less for you to put into private investment. That's not relevant either.

Not obvious to edh, which is why I made the point.

edh said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Government borrowing was increased, thereby leaving less money for the private sector to borrow.

Makes no sense and ignores the demand side.

Is there a defined stock of money available per year?

Sorry I didn't realise you were making a completely irrelevant statement... I was assuming you were attempting to address this expansionary fiscal contraction hypothesis.

[sidicks]

edh said:

Yes I'm still waiting for you to explain how this works....

I prefer Keynes....

What do you think Keynes said? Do you think he said that governments can borrow as much as they want, whenever they want, with no adverse consequences?

Are you not able to google “crowding out”?

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 26th November 11:47

[edh]

sidicks said:

edh said:

Yes I'm still waiting for you to explain how this works....

I prefer Keynes....

What do you think Keynes said?

Are you not able to google “crowding out”?

Perhaps we should close this thread and just refer everyone to Google then?

I believe the crowding out theory and application isn't an appropriate response to a large deficit and that a huge contraction in govt spending would have been a disaster. That's where this started.

I gave you my explanation as you asked, (I didn't say "just Google it"). You don't extend that same courtesy.

[sidicks]

edh said:

Perhaps we should close this thread and just refer everyone to Google then?

I believe the crowding out theory and application isn't an appropriate response to a large deficit and that a huge contraction in govt spending would have been a disaster. That's where this started.

I agree - that’s why there wasn’t a huge contraction in spending - spending actually increased.

edh said:

I gave you my explanation as you asked, (I didn't say "just Google it"). You don't extend that same courtesy.

Previously, as far as crowding out was concerned, you claimed:

edh said:

No evidence for that just discredited Osborne era dogma

Maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make?

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 26th November 12:13

[drainbrain]

Back in July 2015 I started this thread with the following post:

"I have never heard of this person but it appears that Labour have chosen a completely unelectable radical leftist chap to lead their party. Anyone have any idea why they've done this"?

Quite a lot of water's passed under the bridge since then.

He's proved to be quite a character has this Mr Corbyn. There even appears to be a possibility that he might be our next PM.

What's that to do with some abstruse point - scoring exercise over an element of macro-economic policy you might say?

Well, nothing really.

Pardon the interruption.

As you were....

[edh]

sidicks said:

edh said:

Perhaps we should close this thread and just refer everyone to Google then?

I believe the crowding out theory and application isn't an appropriate response to a large deficit and that a huge contraction in govt spending would have been a disaster. That's where this started.

I gave you my explanation as you asked, (I didn't say "just Google it"). You don't extend that same courtesy.

I agree - that’s why there wasn’t a huge contraction in spending - spending actually increased. What was your point?

it was this..

edh said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Or would genuine austerity, IE spending less than income, have worked.

No

see Multiplier effect...

"Expansionary fiscal contraction" was a ridiculous concept from the start.

[johnxjsc1985]

People are still pissed with Politics in this Country and if you don't vote Conservative Corbyn was the only show in town. Despite his own delusions he did not win the Election even though the consensus is the Conservative conducted a pretty suicidal campaign.
His only approach at present is sit back and pray Brexit fks up so they can reap the benefit of any backlash against the Conservatives.
This man has had decades in Parliament to show himself worthy of being a PM he is nothing more than a irritant backbencher.

[sidicks]

edh said:

it was this..

edh said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Or would genuine austerity, IE spending less than income, have worked.

No

see Multiplier effect...

"Expansionary fiscal contraction" was a ridiculous concept from the start.

I already edited my post above. But I now understand the point you were making. Sorry for the confusion.

[johnxjsc1985]

sidicks said:

I already edited my post above. But I now understand the point you were making. Sorry for the confusion.

how refreshing for someone to actually admit they got it wrong and apologise well done that man.....

[drainbrain]

johnxjsc1985 said:

People are still pissed with Politics in this Country and if you don't vote Conservative Corbyn was the only show in town. Despite his own delusions he did not win the Election even though the consensus is the Conservative conducted a pretty suicidal campaign.
His only approach at present is sit back and pray Brexit fks up so they can reap the benefit of any backlash against the Conservatives.
This man has had decades in Parliament to show himself worthy of being a PM he is nothing more than a irritant backbencher.

You don't think his popularity stems from a groundswell of dissatisfaction with capitalism amongst hardworking have-nots who have an instinct that they'd prefer to live in a 'reformed socialist' state ?