Liz Truss Prime Minister

[Elysium]

isaldiri said:

Elysium said:

Perhaps, but looking back did Truss actually do any real damage? It seems to me that at most she simply accelerated what was happening globally.

Well, truss didn't do ny real damage because she was turfed out not a moment too soon before she might have. As it is, she did cause the UK gilt yields to be priced with an "idiot's premium" for a good while as the spread vs other major economies had grown substantially as no one lending to the UK was quite as sure as previously that another loon might not come to power. Paying more for borrowing isn't generally thought to be a good thing.

It’s difficult to argue against the idea that she might have done real harm if she hadn’t been removed. Not least because we will never know.

We did get ahead of other economies, but in the end I think the unavoidable impact of inflationary pandemic policies has brought the global markets to broadly the same place.

It depends on your time horizon.

[Elysium]

bhstewie said:

If you believe in free markets you have to believe what they tell you.

You can't take the credit when markets do well and claim it's all a plot by your enemies when markets tell you they hate what you did.

Truss blames the media and the apparatus of state that talked her down. Not the markets that simply did what they normally do.

[Blue62]

Elysium said:

Perhaps, but looking back did Truss actually do any real damage? It seems to me that at most she simply accelerated what was happening globally.

We were perfectly happy with unfunded borrowing during the pandemic and I am old enough to remember Corbyn wanted to build out of recession as a contrast to Tory austerity. Suddenly, after years of pandemic largesse and ‘money no object’ support for Ukraine, there was an altogether unrealistic expectation that Truss would balance the books.

What is clear is that the media conflated the chaos Truss caused with the rebasing of markets across the globe, for example in this Guardian article where they blame her for increases in mortgage costs:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/20/t...

I know it’s politics, but the media do not have to play along so readily. Snowdens article, which I agree with, is one of the few that provides a little more nuance.

The two key economists at the centre of the Truss strategy (Lyons and Jessop) openly admit that damage was done to the economy, they don't blame the strategy, they blame Truss and Kwarteng, but if you think she didn't do any 'actual' damage to the UK economy you'll find very few 'actual' economists who would agree with you. You've openly admitted she caused chaos, but seemingly chaos doesn't do 'actual' damage?

I agree on some of what you say about the media, more often than not we are told that Labour and its policies will wreak havoc, but the reality is somewhat different when in office, in fact it's hard to spot the difference. I don't agree that they play along, they're in the business of grabbing attention and often journalists will cover a number of bases, if you want serious comment don't read the papers. You do seem rather preoccupied with the pandemic and its aftermath, but Truss's strategy to borrow to fund a massive tax giveaway, without reference to any objective modelling, was always going to spook the markets, pandemic or not, media or not.

I would though make the point that I think Truss is right about the OBR. Their view is that it is impossible for investment to boost output 'because factors beyond our control will always reduce any positive effects to zero within five years.' They regard the 'long term' as beyond their scope, so what possible service and function do they serve in an economy looking to kick start growth? I think we need to accept that UK fiscal policymaking is trapped in an orthodox framework that has failed, the OBR must be restructured to play a more constructive role, possibly being obliged to model a range of outcomes would be a start. Who knows, Truss may even have chosen to listen to them?

[Mrr T]

Elysium said:

bhstewie said:

If you believe in free markets you have to believe what they tell you.

You can't take the credit when markets do well and claim it's all a plot by your enemies when markets tell you they hate what you did.

Truss blames the media and the apparatus of state that talked her down. Not the markets that simply did what they normally do.

I wonder what deep state apparatus that was. The fact is the media coverage was about the falling markets. A fall her chancellor had caused by announcing that this was the start of a series of unfunded tax cuts.

[isaldiri]

Elysium said:

It’s difficult to argue against the idea that she might have done real harm if she hadn’t been removed. Not least because we will never know.

We did get ahead of other economies, but in the end I think the unavoidable impact of inflationary pandemic policies has brought the global markets to broadly the same place.

It depends on your time horizon.

I would say we do know what happens when a government that is perceived as fiscally incompetent loses confidence in the markets and there is a proper run on the currency and government bonds. That tends to end badly and it was a hell of a lot closer to that point on the monday after the mini budget and Kwarteng's insane sunday interviews.

And again, the Truss blowup cause gilt yields which had already climbed earlier in the year rise before (broadly in line with everyone else) even more substantially relative to other major currencies and that added risk premium of potential government idiocy has more or less remained embedded in gilt pricing because....once bitten twice shy. It's reduced substantially once she purged Kwarteng and has narrowed even more since but it's still present. That's unnecessary long term economic cost right there as a direct consequence of her actions.

[bitchstewie]

Elysium said:

Truss blames the media and the apparatus of state that talked her down. Not the markets that simply did what they normally do.

Oh yes the deep state and the "anti-growth coalition" wasn't it?

Sounds legit.

[Elysium]

Blue62 said:

Elysium said:

Perhaps, but looking back did Truss actually do any real damage? It seems to me that at most she simply accelerated what was happening globally.

We were perfectly happy with unfunded borrowing during the pandemic and I am old enough to remember Corbyn wanted to build out of recession as a contrast to Tory austerity. Suddenly, after years of pandemic largesse and ‘money no object’ support for Ukraine, there was an altogether unrealistic expectation that Truss would balance the books.

What is clear is that the media conflated the chaos Truss caused with the rebasing of markets across the globe, for example in this Guardian article where they blame her for increases in mortgage costs:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/20/t...

I know it’s politics, but the media do not have to play along so readily. Snowdens article, which I agree with, is one of the few that provides a little more nuance.

The two key economists at the centre of the Truss strategy (Lyons and Jessop) openly admit that damage was done to the economy, they don't blame the strategy, they blame Truss and Kwarteng, but if you think she didn't do any 'actual' damage to the UK economy you'll find very few 'actual' economists who would agree with you. You've openly admitted she caused chaos, but seemingly chaos doesn't do 'actual' damage?

I agree on some of what you say about the media, more often than not we are told that Labour and its policies will wreak havoc, but the reality is somewhat different when in office, in fact it's hard to spot the difference. I don't agree that they play along, they're in the business of grabbing attention and often journalists will cover a number of bases, if you want serious comment don't read the papers. You do seem rather preoccupied with the pandemic and its aftermath, but Truss's strategy to borrow to fund a massive tax giveaway, without reference to any objective modelling, was always going to spook the markets, pandemic or not, media or not.

I would though make the point that I think Truss is right about the OBR. Their view is that it is impossible for investment to boost output 'because factors beyond our control will always reduce any positive effects to zero within five years.' They regard the 'long term' as beyond their scope, so what possible service and function do they serve in an economy looking to kick start growth? I think we need to accept that UK fiscal policymaking is trapped in an orthodox framework that has failed, the OBR must be restructured to play a more constructive role, possibly being obliged to model a range of outcomes would be a start. Who knows, Truss may even have chosen to listen to them?

If you have any links to articles that demonstrate lasting damage caused by Truss I would be genuinely interested to read them.

The relevance of the pandemic is that it triggered massive borrowing which was used to stimulate an economy where access to goods and services was restricted by regulation. That seems to me to be a recipe for inflation, which is of course what is creating issues now.

The irony for me is that we are wiling to blame Truss for the inflationary impact of her smaller scale policies, whilst quietly ignoring the much bigger global action that is the root cause.

And I agree on the OBR, which displays the thinking that some conservatives described as ‘anti growth’.

I am not an economist, but it always strikes me that economists pretend to understand a given situation, when the truth is that there are always unpredictable variables that change as we progress long term. The model of capitalism that led us here is not necessarily going to determine what happens as we navigate what is going to be a very turbulent next decade.

[Blue62]

Elysium said:

If you have any links to articles that demonstrate lasting damage caused by Truss I would be genuinely interested to read them.

The relevance of the pandemic is that it triggered massive borrowing which was used to stimulate an economy where access to goods and services was restricted by regulation. That seems to me to be a recipe for inflation, which is of course what is creating issues now.

The irony for me is that we are wiling to blame Truss for the inflationary impact of her smaller scale policies, whilst quietly ignoring the much bigger global action that is the root cause.

And I agree on the OBR, which displays the thinking that some conservatives described as ‘anti growth’.

I am not an economist, but it always strikes me that economists pretend to understand a given situation, when the truth is that there are always unpredictable variables that change as we progress long term. The model of capitalism that led us here is not necessarily going to determine what happens as we navigate what is going to be a very turbulent next decade.

Gilt pricing is the obvious example, you admitted she caused chaos which she did, you really don’t think her actions set us back further?

There’s no end of stuff out there about her time in office, as for ‘lasting damage’ that’s an obvious one but difficult to quantify. One could argue that the very serious, sharp short term fall has had lasting consequences across the economy (as demonstrated), before you even get into the business of opportunity costs.

I’m not an Economist either, I jumped from Economics to Law as a student after the first year, but I know enough to know it’s not an exact science, but that doesn’t mean it’s without merit. In fact it touches on pretty much everything. If Truss had the wit to listen maybe her bold plan would’ve worked.

[Elysium]

Blue62 said:

Gilt pricing is the obvious example, you admitted she caused chaos which she did, you really don’t think her actions set us back further?

There’s no end of stuff out there about her time in office, as for ‘lasting damage’ that’s an obvious one but difficult to quantify. One could argue that the very serious, sharp short term fall has had lasting consequences across the economy (as demonstrated), before you even get into the business of opportunity costs.

I’m not an Economist either, I jumped from Economics to Law as a student after the first year, but I know enough to know it’s not an exact science, but that doesn’t mean it’s without merit. In fact it touches on pretty much everything. If Truss had the wit to listen maybe her bold plan would’ve worked.

When I look at graphs for UK gilts and US treasury bonds I see much the same pattern. That’s also reflected in the global markets as you get into similar long term low yield investments like real estate.

I can see that Truss cost us some money in the short term, but I remain of the view that her impact was pretty superficial.

I agree with your last point by the way. I also suspect that this is what the ‘deep state’ comments relate to. Truss at least had some ideas, whereas Sunak has none. If she had listened to people around her and been less strident I think the story could have been different.

I am sure Truss sees those people as enemies that wanted to frustrate her vision. They probably see her as foolish and pig-headed .

[WindyCommon]

Elysium said:

…

I am sure Truss sees those people as enemies that wanted to frustrate her vision. They probably see her as foolish and pig-headed .

Both could be correct.

[smn159]

Elysium said:

bhstewie said:

If you believe in free markets you have to believe what they tell you.

You can't take the credit when markets do well and claim it's all a plot by your enemies when markets tell you they hate what you did.

Truss blames the media and the apparatus of state that talked her down. Not the markets that simply did what they normally do.

Really? I seem to remember that she reversed most of it herself, sacked Kwarteng herself, then had darling of the right Braverman declare that she didn't know what she was doing, before having most Conservative MPs submit letters of no confidence in her.

Was that all the fault of the media then? Do these people not have minds of their own?

[James6112]

Elysium said:

isaldiri said:

Elysium said:

Perhaps, but looking back did Truss actually do any real damage? It seems to me that at most she simply accelerated what was happening globally.

Well, truss didn't do ny real damage because she was turfed out not a moment too soon before she might have. As it is, she did cause the UK gilt yields to be priced with an "idiot's premium" for a good while as the spread vs other major economies had grown substantially as no one lending to the UK was quite as sure as previously that another loon might not come to power. Paying more for borrowing isn't generally thought to be a good thing.

It’s difficult to argue against the idea that she might have done real harm if she hadn’t been removed. Not least because we will never know.

We did get ahead of other economies, but in the end I think the unavoidable impact of inflationary pandemic policies has brought the global markets to broadly the same place.

It depends on your time horizon.

You’re obsessed by the pandemic.
It’s history.
Give it a break, for your sanity, if it’s not too late..

[Elysium]

James6112 said:

Elysium said:

isaldiri said:

Elysium said:

Perhaps, but looking back did Truss actually do any real damage? It seems to me that at most she simply accelerated what was happening globally.

Well, truss didn't do ny real damage because she was turfed out not a moment too soon before she might have. As it is, she did cause the UK gilt yields to be priced with an "idiot's premium" for a good while as the spread vs other major economies had grown substantially as no one lending to the UK was quite as sure as previously that another loon might not come to power. Paying more for borrowing isn't generally thought to be a good thing.

It’s difficult to argue against the idea that she might have done real harm if she hadn’t been removed. Not least because we will never know.

We did get ahead of other economies, but in the end I think the unavoidable impact of inflationary pandemic policies has brought the global markets to broadly the same place.

It depends on your time horizon.

You’re obsessed by the pandemic.
It’s history.
Give it a break, for your sanity, if it’s not too late..

The fact that you were triggered by my post suggests it is you that has the issue.

It is not healthy to ignore recent history.

[Boringvolvodriver]

James6112 said:

Elysium said:

isaldiri said:

Elysium said:

Perhaps, but looking back did Truss actually do any real damage? It seems to me that at most she simply accelerated what was happening globally.

Well, truss didn't do ny real damage because she was turfed out not a moment too soon before she might have. As it is, she did cause the UK gilt yields to be priced with an "idiot's premium" for a good while as the spread vs other major economies had grown substantially as no one lending to the UK was quite as sure as previously that another loon might not come to power. Paying more for borrowing isn't generally thought to be a good thing.

It’s difficult to argue against the idea that she might have done real harm if she hadn’t been removed. Not least because we will never know.

We did get ahead of other economies, but in the end I think the unavoidable impact of inflationary pandemic policies has brought the global markets to broadly the same place.

It depends on your time horizon.

You’re obsessed by the pandemic.
It’s history.
Give it a break, for your sanity, if it’s not too late..

Surely even you must be able to work out that the amount of money that was spent on the pandemic in various forms has had an effect on economies world wide. Where do you think all the furlough money came from, all the money spent on PPE (of which large amounts were not fit for purpose) and the Covid loans that were written off?

Hell, even the government keep blaming Covid expenses for why the country is in a mess.

It must be nice living in your cozy little world where everything is fine and can be ignored because James6112 is OK.

[julian987R]

smn159 said:

Really? I seem to remember that she reversed most of it herself, sacked Kwarteng herself, then had darling of the right Braverman declare that she didn't know what she was doing, before having most Conservative MPs submit letters of no confidence in her.

Was that all the fault of the media then? Do these people not have minds of their own?

Completely the fault of the MSM. They have been infiltrated by metropolitan commies that have been engineering Labour into No 10 through insane levels of biassed opinion pieces and reporting.

[Boringvolvodriver]

julian987R said:

smn159 said:

Really? I seem to remember that she reversed most of it herself, sacked Kwarteng herself, then had darling of the right Braverman declare that she didn't know what she was doing, before having most Conservative MPs submit letters of no confidence in her.

Was that all the fault of the media then? Do these people not have minds of their own?

Completely the fault of the MSM. They have been infiltrated by metropolitan commies that have been engineering Labour into No 10 through insane levels of biassed opinion pieces and reporting.

You are forgetting the Tofu eating Guardian reading wokerati and the lefty lawyers……….

[julian987R]

Boringvolvodriver said:

You are forgetting the Tofu eating Guardian reading wokerati and the lefty lawyers……….

you know it!

[NRS]

You said the other day that they’re pretty much more conservative than the conservatives. Why would there be so much leftie infiltration if so? It’s basically the same party according to you?

[smn159]

julian987R said:

smn159 said:

Really? I seem to remember that she reversed most of it herself, sacked Kwarteng herself, then had darling of the right Braverman declare that she didn't know what she was doing, before having most Conservative MPs submit letters of no confidence in her.

Was that all the fault of the media then? Do these people not have minds of their own?

Completely the fault of the MSM. They have been infiltrated by metropolitan commies that have been engineering Labour into No 10 through insane levels of biassed opinion pieces and reporting.

Talk me through how the 'At Last - a Real Tory Budget!' media can get the majority of the parliamentary party to submit letters of no confidence.

[nickfrog]

julian987R said:

Completely the fault of the MSM. They have been infiltrated by metropolitan commies that have been engineering Labour into No 10 through insane levels of biassed opinion pieces and reporting.

Sorry but impossible for me to tell whether:

1 - you actually believe what you wrote or...

2 - you don't and it's only provocative attention seeking

Which is it please?