Guest Kopfkino Posted 3 September 2017 Posted 3 September 2017 Just sharing this as its probably one of the best things I've read in a long time. I suspect many from all sides might actually see the merits in what is being said (for different reasons) despite it being from the Mises Institute. https://mises.org/blog/want-grow-economy-stop-listening-clueless-economists
Alf Bentley Posted 3 September 2017 Posted 3 September 2017 15 minutes ago, Webbo said: Do I post articles out of the Mail? If I did would it get a fair hearing or would it be Daily Fail? We all know what the Guardian thinks and that article is an opinion piece based on nothing but the authors prejudice, telling bitter remainers what they want to hear. That would be a fair analysis of many Guardian articles on Brexit - mirrored by prejudiced articles on the other side in the pro-Brexit press. It's not a fair analysis of that particular article. The article doesn't even discuss substantive Brexit issues. It just looks at how the Brexit process is viewed very differently in the EU - and how this, and the EU's core motives, are being misunderstood in the UK. It is an opinion piece and the writer has her prejudices, as we all do. But, as a leading French journalist, she's in a good position to describe how the EU views Brexit - and it might help us to get a better deal if we understood that better. 2
Carl the Llama Posted 3 September 2017 Posted 3 September 2017 11 minutes ago, KingGTF said: Just sharing this as its probably one of the best things I've read in a long time. I suspect many from all sides might actually see the merits in what is being said (for different reasons) despite it being from the Mises Institute. https://mises.org/blog/want-grow-economy-stop-listening-clueless-economists I fully agree that economics as a field is generally given more importance than it deserves by some, but it's also far too unfairly maligned by others (including this guy it seems). It should be obvious that there is a use for us on a policy-making level to have some professionals dedicated to studying the ebb and flow of the economy and the factors that contribute to it. I can't really delve too much into it though because the way the author talks about GDP in the early paragraphs has me utterly confused to the point where I have no idea what he's trying to say or what he even understands it to mean, which is a problem because it's central to his argument later on.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 19 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: I fully agree that economics as a field is generally given more importance than it deserves by some, but it's also far too unfairly maligned by others (including this guy it seems). It should be obvious that there is a use for us on a policy-making level to have some professionals dedicated to studying the ebb and flow of the economy and the factors that contribute to it. I can't really delve too much into it though because the way the author talks about GDP in the early paragraphs has me utterly confused to the point where I have no idea what he's trying to say or what he even understands it to mean, which is a problem because it's central to his argument later on. Of course there's a role for economists to act as a proxy for information; making statistical quagmires accessible and using their models to critique policy prescription. They also have a role in bridging economics to other disciplines such as philosophy. Rather than maligning economists, he is simply saying that he believes, whilst economists admit they have a problem, they have been blind to policy being their problem. Maybe he is a bit strong in his wording but ultimately I see it as him encouraging economists to admit they don't really have the answers and to pause. I'm unsure where your confusion lies. Maybe he's a bit waffly in making the point. But the point he makes is that GDP as a measure isn't necessarily useful, certainly not on its own. And so flailing around being concerned about lower GDP growth and targeting is also possibly not particularly useful. The stat that 90% of Silicon Valley start-ups fail, on its own, might make you think that Silicon Valley is itself a failure. It clearly isn't (its benefits stretch far beyond effects on GDP) but that stat might make us target a way to bring that 90% down to make it seem less of a failure when that, in all likelihood would be counter-productive. Wars can have a huge positive effect on GDP figures. in the same way that huge barriers to entry would bring that 90% down, but clearly war would not be a desirable policy prescription. It would, however be desirable to economists in search of growth. Silicon Valley prospers because of 'experimentation, realization of information (good and bad) through experimentation, and the release of precious resources back into the marketplace when experiments fail'. Trying to prescribe fixes for GDP growth may have the effect of smothering both growth and the wider benefits that can come from being allowed to fail (I'm thinking the effects of parents smothering their children). An area with high economic growth is able to achieve that because it makes mistakes which transmits information for future use. Therefore, economists making policy and arguably not allowing the economy to do that, are creating problems for the problem they are trying to solve. I probably haven't made that any clearer.
Carl the Llama Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 Quote It’s also worth pointing out that Silicon Valley dynamism is likely not being captured by GDP, and other dopey numbers that central bankers follow. To understand the previous point, readers might consider how the 19th century introduction of coal as a source of fuel multiplied the productivity of workers twenty times over. And this was coal. Imagine what technological advances like the computer, internet, smartphone, and the GPS that is standard in modern smartphones have meant for individual productivity. Yet the economists in Jackson Hole were busy self-flagellating about sub-2% GDP. Ok, but GDP is backwards. It rises when governments take our wealth and consume it, it falls when our productivity rates voluminous imports and foreign investment, and it rises when governments bail out sub-optimal producers like General Motors. GDP isn’t just backwards and wrong, it plainly can’t factor our enormous surges in productivity that spring from technological advancement. In short, the slow-growth laments of economists are the equivalent of one judging the quality of play in the NFL by solely watching games played by the New York Jets; the Jets the non-dynamic equivalent of the banks that central bankers still think relevant to economic progress. I was taught that GDP=C+I+G+X where C=consumption, I=investment, G=gov't spending, X=net exports. Failed Silicon Valley projects don't negligibly affect the final figure as he claims because the money sunk into those ventures will have been spent on machines, office space, wages etc. meaning it still gets reflected in either I or C or possibly even X. If the rapid cash flow in that one single area of the country is not boosting GDP as much as he believes it should then I'd suggest it's more down to other, more stagnant regions cancelling out the beneficial effects, essentially he could learn from his own NFL analogy. But then it's late and I'm tired so I could be massively missing the point somewhere.
Strokes Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 9 hours ago, Carl the Llama said: I'm only saying I don't want to fund it, I'm actually asking for you to copy it on here. It's full shit, it's begging for money and I don't want to help it any further.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 (edited) My view is although I originally voted remain the EU are doing themselves no favours, the UK has offered some fair propositions on a range of areas but the EU is failing to negotiate at all, it is their way or the highway. You have to be willing to negotiate, they are not they have show absolutely no flexibility, this is the exact reason we are in this position, if they had shown some flexibility to Cameron's proposals, and managed to get a grip on the millions of jihadi men walking across Europe posing as refugees then we would not be in this position, they need to look closer to home. Let look at the facts: - The UK has said it will meet its obligations, and it will pay what it considers a fair payment, the EU wants us to pay what they say - The UK has suggested a potential solutions for the Ireland border, the EU has rubbished it and not suggested improvements, alternatives, its vision. - The UK has made a fair offer for EU citizens living in the UK, the EU has rubbished it and demands that the European Court must remain the most supreme court protecting those citizens, the EU will not negotiate on this, despite the UK courts being one of the oldest and most trusted justice systems in the world. -The UK wants to discus trade and has made suggestions the EU wont even look at them until its demands have been met. Constant leaks and tweets by the likes of Junker, Verhofstadt, now Barnier saying they are going to 'make an example' and 'teach us a lesson', its like a school playground. Their attitude I think will turning more people against them. I am growing more into the position of telling them to go **** themselves, come out now with no deal, whack a massive import duty on all European goods, strike free trade deals with the US, Canada, Australia, India, China, Brazil. Use the money saved to pump into UK based business to cover the costs of tariffs to EU, invest in training, R&D and bring goods manufacture back here, invest in farming techniques to grow more at home. If the EU are not willing to negotiate then why bother wasting any more time lets get on with it. Edited 4 September 2017 by Foxin_mad
Buce Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said: My view is although I originally voted remain the EU are doing themselves no favours, the UK has offered some fair propositions on a range of areas but the EU is failing to negotiate at all, it is their way or the highway. You have to be willing to negotiate, they are not they have show absolutely no flexibility, this is the exact reason we are in this position, if they had shown some flexibility to Cameron's proposals, and managed to get a grip on the millions of jihadi men walking across Europe posing as refugees when would not be in this position, they need to look closer to home. Let look at the facts: - The UK has said it will meet its obligations, and it will pay what it considers a fair payment, the EU wants us to pay what they say - The UK has suggested a potential solutions for the Ireland border, the EU has rubbished it and not suggested improvements, alternatives, its vision. - The UK has made a fair offer for EU citizens living in the UK, the EU has rubbished it and demands that the European Court must remain the most supreme court protecting those citizens, the EU will not negotiate on this, despite the UK courts being one of the oldest and most trusted justice systems in the world. -The UK wants to discus trade and has made suggestions the EU wont even look at them until its demands have been met. Constant leaks and tweets by the likes of Junker, Verhofstadt, now Barnier saying they are going to 'make an example' and 'teach us a lesson', its like a school playground. Their attitude I think will turning more people against them. I am growing more into the position of telling them to go **** themselves, come out now with no deal, whack a massive import duty on all European goods, strike free trade deals with the US, Canada, Australia, India, China, Brazil. Use the money saved to pump into UK based business to cover the costs of tariffs to EU, invest in training, R&D and bring goods manufacture back here, invest in farming techniques to grow more at home. If the EU are not willing to negotiate them why bother wasting any more time lets get on with it. And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.
Strokes Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 25 minutes ago, Buce said: And you wonder why people don't take you seriously. I've told you a billion times, don't exaggerate. 1
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 22 hours ago, Alf Bentley said: It's true that some Brexiteers on here recognised that it would not be easy, but there were plenty - and senior politicians, not just FT posters - who did give the impression that it would be easy. This is still on the Vote Leave web site, along with the £350m for the NHS policy, the claim that Turkey was about to join the EU and that the Euro was collapsing: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing.html "After we Vote Leave, we will immediately be able to start negotiating new trade deals which could enter into force straight after the UK leaves the EU. As a member of the EU, we are forbidden from striking our own trade deals. It will be possible to strike these agreements quickly. Oxford Economics has said that ‘an analysis of regional trade deals conducted over the past 20 years found an average duration of 28 months’. I also remember claims that the UK was in a strong negotiating position as: - The EU countries would end up divided and fighting among themselves (seems to be us doing that) - The EU has a trade surplus with the UK (never mind that we depend on the EU for a much higher proportion of our trade and have fewer alternative options than they do) - German car makers would force the EU to do a generous deal to protect German car exports - Likewise, the Italians wouldn't want to lose their Prosecco exports or the Spanish their British tourists I'm sure that the EU will make some compromises and do a deal if at all possible. They would suffer some damage from a Hard Brexit - though nowhere near as much as we would. But we'll have to make more compromises as we're smaller and in the weaker negotiating position - and they seem to have secured a united position to protect the future existence and prosperity of the EU. We'd do well to make a few compromises on the "divorce payment", status of EU nationals in UK & Irish border, as that would greatly improve our chances of a compromise on a transitional period and future trade agreement.....without which we're heading for utter disaster. Seriously, Matt, have a read of that Natalie Nougayrède article for which I posted a link - and some of the comments in response from people living on the continent (ignoring the idiots on both sides). Some stuff in The Guardian is biased or poor quality, I agree. But some isn't. I have just the read the article, I missed it first time around, ironic I've read it this morning and it plays on the narrative that there is no intention to punish Great Britain yet just last night Michel Barnier has effectively said we need to be "educated" and "taught what leaving the EU means" ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/michel-barnier-david-davis-brexit-educational-teach-uk-leaving-single-market-negotiations-a7927336.html ), she might be a good journalist but some of the European writers are clearly viewing the politicians inside the organisation through some very rose tinted glasses. Had David Davis used this sort of rhetoric he would be being slaughtered in the pro-remain press here. It's a personal opinion of course but I'm starting to wonder if we have an even stronger hand than I think, the absolute obsession over the divorce bill shows just how worried they are about losing the money we put into it and we should absolutely stand firm, we shouldn't shell out billions until we know for certain we aren't going to be shafted. If people are worried that a bad negotiation will turn people against Europeans (I doubt this and the hate crime figures have to be taken with a pinch of salt given the way they are now recorded) then maybe they should also try and put a bit more pressure on the people on the other side ahead own their own, @Foxin_mad isn't the first remain voter I've spoken to or heard from over the last few weeks who are starting to get very pissed off with the attitude of the EU negotiators, the leaks coming out and the constant sniping from people supposed to be involved in a serious negotiation rather than a propaganda war.
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 (edited) As for this tit.... Just look at that, can you imagine being in that much of your own World you write to the BBC to remove someone like Andrew Neil but don't bat an eyelid at a presenter like James O'Brien? Probably the one person on the BBC who is capable (and wanting to do so) of holding the remain side up to some sort of scrutiny and that means he should be removed from his job? The result of this referendum is sending some previously normal figures insane. Edited 4 September 2017 by MattP
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 The plotting seems to have ended now on the Tory backbenches, for the first time I actually think this government will survive it's full term. Brexit completed in 2019 with maybe an 18-24 month transitional period, if it goes well great, if he goes tits up May takes the blame and resigns, new leader for the 2022 election. It's incredible she's managed to get through all this virtually unscathed.
Guest Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 39 minutes ago, MattP said: As for this tit.... Just look at that, can you imagine being in that much of your own World you write to the BBC to remove someone like Andrew Neil but don't bat an eyelid at a presenter like James O'Brien? Probably the one person on the BBC who is capable (and wanting to do so) of holding the remain side up to some sort of scrutiny and that means he should be removed from his job? The result of this referendum is sending some previously normal figures insane. I don't actually disagree with you for a change! 12 minutes ago, MattP said: The plotting seems to have ended now on the Tory backbenches, for the first time I actually think this government will survive it's full term. Brexit completed in 2019 with maybe an 18-24 month transitional period, if it goes well great, if he goes tits up May takes the blame and resigns, new leader for the 2022 election. It's incredible she's managed to get through all this virtually unscathed. You'll find out soon enough whether amendments get voted into the upcoming brexit votes. Think you may be a little premature.
Alf Bentley Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 48 minutes ago, MattP said: If people are worried that a bad negotiation will turn people against Europeans (I doubt this and the hate crime figures have to be taken with a pinch of salt given the way they are now recorded) then maybe they should also try and put a bit more pressure on the people on the other side ahead own their own, I'm not suggesting there's a serious problem now. Just that there might be in 12-18 months time, if the negotiations go badly, there's no deal or a crap deal and the economy is suffering serious problems. Of course, none of that might happen. There might be a decent deal and the economy might be fine (though I'm pessimistic about that, as you know). Or if things do turn bad, people might turn on the British government or Leave politicians (I can hope!). It'd be even harder to pressurise the EU than it would to pressurise the UK Govt (even millions on the street couldn't pressurise Blair over Iraq), so I'm not sure how we'd manage that. I'm aware that could be seen as an argument for Brexit, but I'd prefer to see it as an argument for an EU that connects better with grass-roots society....not an easy task, mind.
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 10 minutes ago, toddybad said: I don't actually disagree with you for a change! You'll find out soon enough whether amendments get voted into the upcoming brexit votes. Think you may be a little premature. I've been trying to do a bit of the Maths on this morning, I do think the government might just be OK. I fully expect Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke to defy the whip, but I can't see that many other Tory backbenchers who will. I'm not trying to to say it was a good result, it wasn't, but one thing that did happen that wasn't so bad for the Tories was losing Remain seats where the MP was also strongly pro-Remain, for a vote like this it actually makes no difference as they would probably have voted against the bill anyway. Labour MP's are even more interesting, Kate Hoey will probable vote with the government, Caroline Flint said yesterday on Marr she will "do nothing" that could be seen as blocking Brexit, Dennis Skinner and John Mann are on record as saying we have to leave the single market, I'd expect a few more to abstain, certainly the ones in heavy leave constituencies. If they don't have the numbers to get the Great Repeal Bill through then they are in trouble, but I think they do.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 10 hours ago, Carl the Llama said: I was taught that GDP=C+I+G+X where C=consumption, I=investment, G=gov't spending, X=net exports. Failed Silicon Valley projects don't negligibly affect the final figure as he claims because the money sunk into those ventures will have been spent on machines, office space, wages etc. meaning it still gets reflected in either I or C or possibly even X. If the rapid cash flow in that one single area of the country is not boosting GDP as much as he believes it should then I'd suggest it's more down to other, more stagnant regions cancelling out the beneficial effects, essentially he could learn from his own NFL analogy. But then it's late and I'm tired so I could be massively missing the point somewhere. Yeah missing the point I think. I think the point lies in the fact that Silicon Valley has little interest in its GDP growth figures, is largely free from government regulations, has low influence from the Fed because bank funding isn't so common (the author is attacking central bankers); but yet it has had GDP growth of over 7% in the last few years. He is not concerned for Silicon Valley's representation in GDP figures, in fact his point is that GDP as a stat can never properly represent its progress because it doesn't capture, for example, the productivity increases that arise from its output. The 90% figure was not anything to do with GDP aside from the fact that trying to get that down would not be beneficial, suggesting that using policy to get GDP growth might be similarly not beneficial. And also the fact you have to let things fail to improve and create growth, suggesting low-GDP growth is bad and trying to smother it may well be inhibiting that in the economy. He criticises the obsession around GDP targeting as foolish because of the consequences that can arise from just trying to increase GDP. War increases GDP but has an all-round negative effect on other economic measures and society as a whole. But economists wanting GDP growth would think it good. Economic growth isn't just GDP growth. Targeting GDP growth so heavily is obstructing GDP growth. The 'economy' doesn't exist as anything other than a collection of people. People have wants and to satisfy wants you must first supply. The barrier to supply is policy. So creating policy to solve this low-growth problem may well be contributing to the problem. And policy
leicsmac Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 13 hours ago, Carl the Llama said: I fully agree that economics as a field is generally given more importance than it deserves by some, but it's also far too unfairly maligned by others (including this guy it seems). It should be obvious that there is a use for us on a policy-making level to have some professionals dedicated to studying the ebb and flow of the economy and the factors that contribute to it. I can't really delve too much into it though because the way the author talks about GDP in the early paragraphs has me utterly confused to the point where I have no idea what he's trying to say or what he even understands it to mean, which is a problem because it's central to his argument later on. My view on economics (micro or macro) is like pretty much like any other field regarding money and people. It's often considered to be the be all and end all...right up to something happening that proves it isn't.
Guest Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 51 minutes ago, KingGTF said: Yeah missing the point I think. I think the point lies in the fact that Silicon Valley has little interest in its GDP growth figures, is largely free from government regulations, has low influence from the Fed because bank funding isn't so common (the author is attacking central bankers); but yet it has had GDP growth of over 7% in the last few years. He is not concerned for Silicon Valley's representation in GDP figures, in fact his point is that GDP as a stat can never properly represent its progress because it doesn't capture, for example, the productivity increases that arise from its output. The 90% figure was not anything to do with GDP aside from the fact that trying to get that down would not be beneficial, suggesting that using policy to get GDP growth might be similarly not beneficial. And also the fact you have to let things fail to improve and create growth, suggesting low-GDP growth is bad and trying to smother it may well be inhibiting that in the economy. He criticises the obsession around GDP targeting as foolish because of the consequences that can arise from just trying to increase GDP. War increases GDP but has an all-round negative effect on other economic measures and society as a whole. But economists wanting GDP growth would think it good. Economic growth isn't just GDP growth. Targeting GDP growth so heavily is obstructing GDP growth. The 'economy' doesn't exist as anything other than a collection of people. People have wants and to satisfy wants you must first supply. The barrier to supply is policy. So creating policy to solve this low-growth problem may well be contributing to the problem. And policy This is the reason i vote to the left. The economy is just a means to and end. The real question is about what society is and what a nations wealth can do for its people.
Guest Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 1 hour ago, MattP said: I've been trying to do a bit of the Maths on this morning, I do think the government might just be OK. I fully expect Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke to defy the whip, but I can't see that many other Tory backbenchers who will. I'm not trying to to say it was a good result, it wasn't, but one thing that did happen that wasn't so bad for the Tories was losing Remain seats where the MP was also strongly pro-Remain, for a vote like this it actually makes no difference as they would probably have voted against the bill anyway. Labour MP's are even more interesting, Kate Hoey will probable vote with the government, Caroline Flint said yesterday on Marr she will "do nothing" that could be seen as blocking Brexit, Dennis Skinner and John Mann are on record as saying we have to leave the single market, I'd expect a few more to abstain, certainly the ones in heavy leave constituencies. If they don't have the numbers to get the Great Repeal Bill through then they are in trouble, but I think they do. There's no prospect of it not beingpassed as both parties support brexit. I'd have thought amendments to increase parlimentary oversight might get voted in though. As they should.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 20 minutes ago, toddybad said: This is the reason i vote to the left. The economy is just a means to and end. The real question is about what society is and what a nations wealth can do for its people. It is why I suggested people across the spectrum might agree with his writing but in different ways. Those on the right may enjoy the slant of less intervention and freedom, those on the left would enjoy the idea that there's more to it all than just bottom line GDP growth.
Buce Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 Tory MEP 'ashamed to be British': https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/04/angry-pro-eu-tory-mep-gets-irish-passport-in-brexit-protest
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 1 hour ago, toddybad said: There's no prospect of it not beingpassed as both parties support brexit. I'd have thought amendments to increase parlimentary oversight might get voted in though. As they should. Even amendments being passed would be seen a defeat on this in my opinion, in reality it's a pretty basic bill, just bringing EU law into Britain so we can then let parliament decide on what they want to get rid off. The only controversial thing should be the (brilliantly named) Henry VIII clauses, "a minor detail" according to certain politics and "sweeping powers" according to others.
Strokes Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 1 hour ago, Buce said: Tory MEP 'ashamed to be British': https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/04/angry-pro-eu-tory-mep-gets-irish-passport-in-brexit-protest I'm sure he isn't alone in his thinking, I bet there are loads of people who are ashamed he is British. i still won't click that link btw.
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 1 minute ago, Strokes said: I'm sure he isn't alone in his thinking, I bet there are loads of people who are ashamed he is British. i still won't click that link btw. He really would be no loss, he was on the Daily Politics a couple of years ago, spent the whole half hour calling Suzanne Evans racist and just raving about the EU, why he was in the Tories I have no idea, people like him were born to be in the Liberal Democrats. He'll probably try and get on the gravy train in Ireland now with his new passport.
Buce Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 2 minutes ago, Strokes said: I'm sure he isn't alone in his thinking, I bet there are loads of people who are ashamed he is British. i still won't click that link btw. Ah, the Brexit three wise monkeys approach. Got it.
Recommended Posts