Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Innovindil]

Mimimimimimimi if my labour government had just had more time and more of others people's money,  we'd be massive by now. 

 

No matter how many times you spout this artificial growth, borrow til you're broke, everything should be free claptrap I'm still not going to buy it. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

The level of debt has absolutely nothing to do with recession. Tory voters might love conflating the two but they are entirely seperate things. The UK had a huge stimulus package - QE - that was meant to filter into the real economy but didn't as banks simply used it to bolster their positions and it has simply led to stock markets at record levels whilst real economies have been stagnant for almost a decade (whilst overall figures show growth for the uk as a whole only London and the South east have regional gdps greater than in 2007). In the last year of the last labour government there was significant growth but Tory austerity reduced this and stopped the country finding its way out of depression years ago. It is because the Tories have starved the regions of growth than the deficit all you right wingers are so worried about still exists. 

 

I've shown these graphs before but the debt interest levels are pretty average for the uk historically, even now. Debt has increased significantly under this government but only because the financial crisis devastated tax income. The deficit of the brown government was nothing compared to the drop off of revenue and has absolutely no effect on policy differences between the uk and germany. The potential for utilising debt for growth has been undermined by cuts across the board because our government is very right wing by European standards. Tory supporters really need to learn to think for yourself and challenge what the government has been saying. 

 

 

 

 

All of that point is one opinion no facts, more opinion is the high tax of the Labour government was likely to drive the tax receipts and economy on a downward spiral anyway due to their punishing corporate taxes. They had a temporary boost after 2008 by splurging a load of money they didn't have, was that sustainable? I personally doubt it. You can not long term keep spending money that you simply do not have, under Labour the deficit would have been far higher and growing, as a result taxes would have had to have risen more, the more you tax a economy the less disposable income individuals and companies have to spend and invest. I do not think that there has been significant growth outside the South East for a long long time, this is a failure of successive governments and no government has any plan to change this especially Corbyn. All these Labour areas in the north that Labour has never ever done anything for even when it was in government are starting to shift away, all Labour have done unfortunately is create areas of unskilled jobless immigration in Northern cities, it many ways with this failure its unsurprising when they turn to far right parties.

 

We are perfectly capable of thinking for ourselves. Perhaps Labour supporters should stop believing the Guardian and Owen Jones? who knows? Obviously there is a fundamental difference of opinion, sadly its all opinion. Which system works best?, who knows? there is no perfect system.

 

I am yet to see an instance where spending large amounts of money that we don't have works or is proven to work. We were running a deficit 4-6% of GDP, I believe only Greece were higher. Make no mistake without the intervention of the coalition this country would now be bankrupt we would have a lot less public services than we do now, remember the famous note left by Labour? We now have a country which has high employment, a falling deficit, and reasonable growth. Had it not been for Brexit I think we would have had a number of years of good growth and I hoped that the Northern Powerhouse plans would have began to shift some wealth further north.

Edited 27 June 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Kopfkino]

44 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The level of debt has absolutely nothing to do with recession. Tory voters might love conflating the two but they are entirely seperate things. The UK had a huge stimulus package - QE - that was meant to filter into the real economy but didn't as banks simply used it to bolster their positions and it has simply led to stock markets at record levels whilst real economies have been stagnant for almost a decade (whilst overall figures show growth for the uk as a whole only London and the South east have regional gdps greater than in 2007). In the last year of the last labour government there was significant growth but Tory austerity reduced this and stopped the country finding its way out of depression years ago. It is because the Tories have starved the regions of growth than the deficit all you right wingers are so worried about still exists. 

 

I've shown these graphs before but the debt interest levels are pretty average for the uk historically, even now. Debt has increased significantly under this government but only because the financial crisis devastated tax income. The deficit of the brown government was nothing compared to the drop off of revenue and has absolutely no effect on policy differences between the uk and germany. The potential for utilising debt for growth has been undermined by cuts across the board because our government is very right wing by European standards. Tory supporters really need to learn to think for yourself and challenge what the government has been saying. 

 

 

 

 

That's not quite true about QE, is it? There may have been an element of that (a key function as it happens) but it is widely thought that the reason the UK and US bounced back quicker than the Eurozone was because of QE, and now the ECB has engaged in QE the Eurozone is picking up again.

 

I don't know where you get this notion that only London and the South East have higher regional GDP. For a start regional figures are shown as GVA and not GDP. Secondly, GVA figures are only available in nominal terms which show that all regions have higher GVA than 2007 and I quote "Using current methods of producing regional GVA data, it is not conceptually possible to deflate the regional GVA data to provide an accurate estimate of the real change of output in each region/country." I'm not going to argue that London and the South east have fared better (though most recent figures suggest the North doing better) but it's a long-run trend - London did better than other regions of the country in the years prior to the crisis.

 

2009 saw a 4.3% contraction in the economy. But I'll give you the last 4 full quarters of the Labour government, that was only a 2.7% contraction. So I'll give you their last full quarter 2010 Q1 compared to 2009 Q1 which gives us 0.8% growth. But then comparing the Conservatives first full quarter, 2010 Q3, to a year later, 2011 Q3, gives us growth of 1.2%. First 4 full quarters 2% growth. So yeah I see what you mean about Labour providing significant growth before the Conservatives reduced this and destroyed the economy to the extent it somehow became a depression in your eyes. Now I'll admit 2012 was less than ideal but following that we've done okay compared to most and not far off trend growth rate.

 

Okay the financial crisis did indeed lead the government to get less than it had forecast to receive in 2007. The drop off of nominal revenue wasn't actually that great. But then the tax burden is now at it's highest since the early Thatcher days. It's all not too relevant. The point is, the UK would have been better placed to absorb the crisis and provide stimulus if it didn't start from a poor position with regard to a higher than necessary deficit. 

 

As for your graph, the sole reason that interest-gdp is low is because of low interest rates. Interest rates will rise and the debt won't miraculously disappear unless we start paying it off. Interest-gdp will rise in the long term and all you are doing is taxing the future quite significantly and then you'll want the government to borrow to pay for our failing public services etc because tax receipts won't cover it. I will agree interest payments aren't the problem, government spending is the problem.

 

As for telling Conservative supporters to think for themselves, you're the person that 90% of the time shoves a guardian article at us and says look I'm right.

[leicsmac]

All this economics talk (which is pretty illuminating btw, thanks to all concerned) and I'm just sitting here thinking "holy shit, we're utterly obsessed with money as individuals and nations, aren't we?"

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

All this economics talk (which is pretty illuminating btw, thanks to all concerned) and I'm just sitting here thinking "holy shit, we're utterly obsessed with money as individuals and nations, aren't we?"

Well yeah, if you look at Venezuela or Greece you can see why.

 

It's not "money" we are bothered about - it's avoiding the sort of destruction and poverty mismanagement of it can inflict on a nation and it's people. 

[davieG]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

All this economics talk (which is pretty illuminating btw, thanks to all concerned) and I'm just sitting here thinking "holy shit, we're utterly obsessed with money as individuals and nations, aren't we?"

It'll cost you to get my views.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

Well yeah, if you look at Venezuela or Greece you can see why.

 

It's not "money" we are bothered about - it's avoiding the sort of destruction and poverty mismanagement of it can inflict on a nation and it's people. 

 

Of course it's "money" you're bothered about - as you say, the mismanagement and fighting over it leads to a good portion of all the misery on the planet, simply because people think it's so important.

 

11 minutes ago, davieG said:

It'll cost you to get my views.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

It's not "money" we are bothered about - it's avoiding the sort of destruction and poverty mismanagement of it can inflict on a nation and it's people. 

 

So you're turning against Brexit, then? 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

All this economics talk (which is pretty illuminating btw, thanks to all concerned) and I'm just sitting here thinking "holy shit, we're utterly obsessed with money as individuals and nations, aren't we?"

 

Too many people are....though many are not.

It's possible to have a stimulating, satisfying life on very little money - but your chances are a lot better if you have a decent wad - provided you're not obsessed with material wealth or a workaholic.

 

And if you don't make money as a nation, you don't have it to distribute in the socialist utopia that we all want to build so as to create a fair, harmonious society of opportunity for all. 

 

As you may have noticed, I've always been a bit obsessed with trying to understand economic stuff - because if a government cannot oversee a prosperous economy, it severely limits what it can do socially.

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Ooooooh Je-re-my Corrrrbyn

[Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Too many people are....though many are not.

It's possible to have a stimulating, satisfying life on very little money - but your chances are a lot better if you have a decent wad - provided you're not obsessed with material wealth or a workaholic.

 

And if you don't make money as a nation, you don't have it to distribute in the socialist utopia that we all want to build so as to create a fair, harmonious society of opportunity for all. 

 

As you may have noticed, I've always been a bit obsessed with trying to understand economic stuff - because if a government cannot oversee a prosperous economy, it severely limits what it can do socially.

 

 

Good stuff Alf, we'll get you to Friedman levels of economic thinking in no time. “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

[Webbo]

7 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

 

"Webbo's Groundsman Services - Our Mission is to move the goalposts"

 

How did it happen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2008

 

"The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the global financial crisis and the 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to have been the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It began in 2007 with a crisis in the subprime mortgage market in the US, and developed into a full-blown international banking crisis with the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008. Excessive risk-taking by banks such as Lehman Brothers helped to magnify the financial impact globally. Massive bail-outs of financial institutions and other palliative monetary and fiscal policies were employed to prevent a possible collapse of the world financial system. The crisis was nonetheless followed by a global economic downturn, the Great Recession. The European debt crisis, a crisis in the banking system of the European countries using the euro, followed later".

I seem to remember wiki wasn't considered a reliable source not so long ago.

[Alf Bentley]

Just now, Webbo said:

I seem to remember wiki wasn't considered a reliable source not so long ago.

 

It wasn't a few years back, but is pretty reliable on most major issues these days, I find.

 

It can still be dodgy on more obscure topics - either inadequate info or slanted by people with an axe to grind.

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

All this economics talk (which is pretty illuminating btw, thanks to all concerned) and I'm just sitting here thinking "holy shit, we're utterly obsessed with money as individuals and nations, aren't we?"

Try buying stuff with only good intentions.

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

Good stuff Alf, we'll get you to Friedman levels of economic thinking in no time. “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

 

 

You might be waiting a while to turn me onto Friedman and monetarist economics. I'm all in favour of freedom, though and am not a fan of too much state centralism of any kind. I like the idea of power and freedom being devolved, whether to individuals, communities, small businesses, councils, whatever.....just with the wise hand of the state intervening to ensure that it doesn't lead to too much inequality. 

 

A society that allows unrestricted freedom among people who are grossly unequal in wealth, opportunity or ability will get a progressively more unequal and more unhappy society.

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Too many people are....though many are not.

It's possible to have a stimulating, satisfying life on very little money - but your chances are a lot better if you have a decent wad - provided you're not obsessed with material wealth or a workaholic.

 

And if you don't make money as a nation, you don't have it to distribute in the socialist utopia that we all want to build so as to create a fair, harmonious society of opportunity for all. 

 

As you may have noticed, I've always been a bit obsessed with trying to understand economic stuff - because if a government cannot oversee a prosperous economy, it severely limits what it can do socially.

 

Yeah, that's true. Under the current climate of belief money is very important. That's why the whole science of economics exists of course - a science designed to explain and monitor that belief in order to prevent complete chaos.

 

My point is, as the current environment for manufacturing and distribution of essentials becomes more and more automated and efficient...that it's only that fervent belief that keeps it that way. The idea that somehow life is a competition, and money is the scoreboard.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Try buying stuff with only good intentions.

As above, as things are now of course material gain is important. Not so important to the crippled guy who just wants the use of his legs back or the guy on his deathbed desperately thinking that he should have spoken more to his family...but important to most others.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

You might be waiting a while to turn me onto Friedman and monetarist economics. I'm all in favour of freedom, though and am not a fan of too much state centralism of any kind. I like the idea of power and freedom being devolved, whether to individuals, communities, small businesses, councils, whatever.....just with the wise hand of the state intervening to ensure that it doesn't lead to too much inequality. 

 

A society that allows unrestricted freedom among people who are grossly unequal in wealth, opportunity or ability will get a progressively more unequal and more unhappy society.

 

This. It's funny how various folks put across certain bad things as "simply human nature" while overlooking this - one of the purest examples of "human nature" in action.

[Kopfkino]

23 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

You might be waiting a while to turn me onto Friedman and monetarist economics. I'm all in favour of freedom, though and am not a fan of too much state centralism of any kind. I like the idea of power and freedom being devolved, whether to individuals, communities, small businesses, councils, whatever.....just with the wise hand of the state intervening to ensure that it doesn't lead to too much inequality. 

 

A society that allows unrestricted freedom among people who are grossly unequal in wealth, opportunity or ability will get a progressively more unequal and more unhappy society.

You're not too far off, you've just gotta realise that "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

 

One might argue that a lack of freedom is exactly the cause of the gross inequality of wealth and opportunity (not sure what anyone can do about ability unless you want Messi to give his salary to Cov's players cos they're a bit shit). One might also then make the connection that the 'wise hand of the state' may be exactly what created that problem in the first place so why could it ever solve it? I wouldn't ague it on a football forum though 

[Webbo]

44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

 

As above, as things are now of course material gain is important. Not so important to the crippled guy who just wants the use of his legs back or the guy on his deathbed desperately thinking that he should have spoken more to his family...but important to most others.

You've got to pay the doctor who's going to fix the guy's legs with something.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You've got to pay the doctor who's going to fix the guy's legs with something.

Not if he can already get all the essentials and at least most of the luxuries he needs already without it. (Assuming he can actually fix the guys legs notwithstanding, and I'm still pretty sure the dying guy doesn't really care much about money - point was that there are sometimes more important things.)

 

But, as I said. enough people believe in that system for the time being that it is what we have, and so it goes. But belief is all it is.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

All this economics talk (which is pretty illuminating btw, thanks to all concerned) and I'm just sitting here thinking "holy shit, we're utterly obsessed with money as individuals and nations, aren't we?"

Good point. 

Thing is, until Thatcher the main parties had actually all supported nationalised services for people for decades. It reached its end point and was overtaken. Thatcher brought about a society doesn't exist neo-liberal economics which both the main parties have supported for 35 years. Now labour offer something new and soon we'll find out if the growth of support for left wing policies signifies something bigger and actually a change in the view of economics. It's pretty clear to me that the current system doesn't work and it is about time there was a change of this significance. The uk hasn't really had a socialist government since the 1930s so perhaps a people first, money second approach is the new system shift. I guess we'll find out one way or another in the next few years. 

[Guest MattP]

It would be farcical still but the way Boris savaged Corbyn at the dispatch box today was great, he did it in a way that May could never dream of, amusing and incisive like.

 

I still don't think he could be a great PM but he'd be a far better option than the current one. 

Edited 27 June 2017 by MattP

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

It would be farcical still but the way Boris savaged Corbyn at the dispatch box today was great, he did it in a way that May could never dream of, amusing and incisive like.

 

I still don't think he could be a great PM but he'd be a far better option than the current one. 

The public see him as a joke. It wouldn't be sensible for the Tories. 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The public see him as a joke. It wouldn't be sensible for the Tories. 

You have a very short memory.

 

Labour treated him as a joke in the London mayoral contest and he won a Labour city twice. (He wouldn't now after the EU ref, but across the nation who knows)

 

Any political prediction should be made with humility.  

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, KingGTF said:

You're not too far off, you've just gotta realise that "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

 

One might argue that a lack of freedom is exactly the cause of the gross inequality of wealth and opportunity (not sure what anyone can do about ability unless you want Messi to give his salary to Cov's players cos they're a bit shit). One might also then make the connection that the 'wise hand of the state' may be exactly what created that problem in the first place so why could it ever solve it? I wouldn't ague it on a football forum though 

 

You're not too far off. You've just gotta realise that underlying most arguments ideologically obsessed with the free market is a lack of belief in humanity itself.

 

Might one really argue that a lack of freedom explains why the Duke of Westminster and a person brought up in poverty have grossly unequal wealth and opportunity? Surely other factors are at play - such as inherited wealth or lack thereof?

 

No, I wouldn't want Messi to give his salary to Cov players. But slightly more redistribution of wealth within football would be a good thing. Complete freedom whereby the richest clubs get to exercise their freedom to demand all the money and give none to the smaller clubs doesn't seem a good idea....but that is the logic of the unregulated free market. Who wants to see Scunthorpe v. Rochdale? Let them go bust.....or Pompey or Cov.....or maybe Leicester in a few years? There will always be inequality of income based on inequality of ability - or effort. But it's not good for society (football society or wider society) for it to be given free rein so that some end up bathing in champagne while others lie in the gutter.

 

In Scandinavia, the wise hand of the state ensured not equality but greater equality than here - less disparity between the richest and the poorest. Yet living standards there are higher than here, despite our greater worship of the free market. A few years back, a survey showed that the happiest societies were not those that were the richest. They were the societies with decent living standards AND comparatively low levels of inequality. There is a great deal of unhappiness in the USA, Brazil and Mexico - and increasingly in the UK. Is that because those countries have less free market than Germany or Scandinavia? Is the greater inequality in the USA, Brazil and Mexico due to excessive state intervention in those nations, compared to much greater freedom of the market in Germany and Scandinavia......I think not. 

Edited 27 June 2017 by Alf Bentley