2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Dr The Singh]

No disagreement there. Knowledge is power.

But, as I said, trusting the people acquiring the knowledge is as important as actually having it in the first place. Climate change is such a politicised issue that even if you come up with definitive predictions, they might well not be believed by a good chunk of the population. Take the whole anti-vaccine fiasco, and that was because of one doctor, a BS report, and the Daily Fail.

Absolutely, I have a masters in chemistry, and many of my former classmates are researchers at some top uni's. The fact that the money in terms of research grants are in proving climate change, a good mate of mine, is actively encouraged to take money for research to prove those theories to be true. He however is a sceptic but due to monies and his position has followed and proved the status quo

[MooseBreath]

Well considering the contributions made to National Insurance, that prioritisation decision is made for us thankfully and should remain so. Your point has no real correlation.

There's nothing stopping anyone from giving more of their money to people in need if that's where they truly believe the priority should be.

[Dr The Singh]

I wonder what Labour connection this lad has...

The 2016 election is still 19 mind-numbing, soul-killing months away. There is, however, another important election in just six weeks, as Britain goes to the polls. And many of the same issues are on the table.

Unfortunately, economic discourse in Britain is dominated by a misleading fixation on budget deficits. Worse, this bogus narrative has infected supposedly objective reporting; media organizations routinely present as fact propositions that are contentious if not just plain wrong.

Needless to say, Britain isn’t the only place where things like this happen. A few years ago, at the height of our own deficit fetishism, the American news media showed some of the same vices. Allegedly factual articles would declare that debt fears were driving up interest rates with zero evidence to support such claims. Reporters would drop all pretense of neutrality and cheer on proposals for entitlement cuts.

In the United States, however, we seem to have gotten past that. Britain hasn’t.

The narrative I’m talking about goes like this: In the years before the financial crisis, the British government borrowed irresponsibly, so that the country was living far beyond its means. As a result, by 2010 Britain was at imminent risk of a Greek-style crisis; austerity policies, slashing spending in particular, were essential. And this turn to austerity is vindicated by Britain’s low borrowing costs, coupled with the fact that the economy, after several rough years, is now growing quite quickly.

Simon Wren-Lewis of Oxford University has dubbed this narrative “mediamacro.” As his coinage suggests, this is what you hear all the time on TV and read in British newspapers, presented not as the view of one side of the political debate but as simple fact.

Yet none of it is true.

Was the Labour government that ruled Britain before the crisis profligate? Nobody thought so at the time. In 2007, government debt as a percentage of G.D.P. was close to its lowest level in a century (and well below the level in the United States), while the budget deficit was quite small. The only way to make those numbers look bad is to claim that the British economy in 2007 was operating far above capacity, inflating tax receipts. But if that had been true, Britain should have been experiencing high inflation, which it wasn’t.

Still, wasn’t Britain at risk of a Greek-style crisis, in which investors could lose confidence in its bonds and send interest rates soaring? There’s no reason to think so. Unlike Greece, Britain has retained its own currency and borrows in that currency — and no country fitting this description has experienced that kind of crisis. Consider the case of Japan, which has far bigger debt and deficits than Britain ever did yet can currently borrow long-term at an interest rate of just 0.32 percent.

Which brings me to claims that austerity has been vindicated. Yes, British interest rates have stayed low. So have almost everyone else’s. For example, French borrowing costs are at their lowest level in history. Even debt-crisis countries like Italy and Spain can borrow at lower rates than Britain pays.

What about growth? When the current British government came to power in 2010, it imposed harsh austerity — and the British economy, which had been recovering from the 2008 slump, soon began slumping again. In response, Prime Minister David Cameron’s government backed off, putting plans for further austerity on hold (but without admitting that it was doing any such thing). And growth resumed.

If this counts as a policy success, why not try repeatedly hitting yourself in the face for a few minutes? After all, it will feel great when you stop.

Given all this, you might wonder how mediamacro gained such a hold on British discourse. Don’t blame economists. As Mr. Wren-Lewis points out, very few British academics (as opposed to economists employed by the financial industry) accept the proposition that austerity has been vindicated. This media orthodoxy has become entrenched despite, not because of, what serious economists had to say.

Still, you can say the same of Bowles-Simpsonism in the United States, and we know how that doctrine temporarily came to hold so much sway. It was all about posturing, about influential people believing that pontificating about the need to make sacrifices — or, actually, for other people to make sacrifices — is how you sound wise and serious. Hence the preference for a narrative prioritizing tough talk about deficits, not hard thinking about job creation.

As I said, in the United States we have mainly gotten past that, for a variety of reasons — among them, I suspect, the rise of analytical journalism, in places like The Times’s The Upshot. But Britain hasn’t; an election that should be about real problems will, all too likely, be dominated by mediamacro fantasies.

US politics and people in there thinking is way more fooked then UK, I would not take anything from those coonts. Spherical buddy, I don't know what you read, but you aswell get political knowledge from page 3 or babestation,

[sphericalfox]

US politics and people in there thinking is way more fooked then UK, I would not take anything from those coonts. Spherical buddy, I don't know what you read, but you aswell get political knowledge from page 3 or babestation,

 

 

You're right, he does sound like a thicko who doesn't know his arse from his elbow. Stupid Yanks! 

 

 

'Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as an Op-Ed columnist and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from M.I.T. in 1977. He has taught at Yale, M.I.T. and Stanford. At M.I.T. he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

 

Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 27 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the “new trade theory,” a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal. Mr. Krugman’s current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

 

At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.

 

In 2008, Mr. Krugman received the Nobel Prize in Economics.'

[Buce]

You've totally missed the point of what he meant.

Those countries have similar employment and GDP levels so you could have a freedom of movement policy without mass movement of unskilled workers causing harm to the poorest in British society.

I'd actually be ok with extending that to Canada, New Zealand and Australia as well (yes even the black ones shock!!)

What you don't do as a developed wealthy nation is go into it with countries where the minimum wage is below 40p.

What gives us the right to rape these countries of their talent as well?

Yeah, I'm well aware of what he meant, Matt. Just as he's aware of the sub-text of his rhetoric which is aimed at the racist knuckle-draggers that form a large portion of his support.

[Buce]

That's not about race, it's about parity, contribution or wealth if you like. He doesn't think we should be subsidising weaker countries and I agree.

You keep telling yourself that, mate.

[Dr The Singh]

You're right, he does sound like a thicko who doesn't know his arse from his elbow. Stupid Yanks!

'Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as an Op-Ed columnist and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from M.I.T. in 1977. He has taught at Yale, M.I.T. and Stanford. At M.I.T. he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 27 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the “new trade theory,” a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal. Mr. Krugman’s current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.

In 2008, Mr. Krugman received the Nobel Prize in Economics.'

Yeah, but does he have a o level in religious studies and hone economics??? I rest my case....

[Guest]

 

 

I'm not sure what Farage is calling for, anyway.

 

 

 

Foreigners out - but not sure how far back in our ancestry he wants to go to claim foreigners. Does he want Indian's born in England out too? 

 

I don't think your average racist sees East Europeans as being properly white. It was noticeable in Thursday's debate that Farage was ok with the original EU members - he even name-checked them: Holland, Germany etc -, his problem was with the former communist countries.

 

Racists, moose, Matt, Farage class romanians, Eastern europeans and blacks as foreigners to get rid off - though maybe some black american film stars are okay.

 

Racism is not about colour only anymore.

[Guest]

I'm hoping that UKIP supporters divide the righty votes and reduce the number of Cons in the next govt.

 

Can Farage have an NHS operation to reduce the width of his mouth?

[MooseBreath]

I wonder what Labour connection this lad has...

The 2016 election is still 19 mind-numbing, soul-killing months away. There is, however, another important election in just six weeks, as Britain goes to the polls. And many of the same issues are on the table.

Unfortunately, economic discourse in Britain is dominated by a misleading fixation on budget deficits. Worse, this bogus narrative has infected supposedly objective reporting; media organizations routinely present as fact propositions that are contentious if not just plain wrong.

Needless to say, Britain isn’t the only place where things like this happen. A few years ago, at the height of our own deficit fetishism, the American news media showed some of the same vices. Allegedly factual articles would declare that debt fears were driving up interest rates with zero evidence to support such claims. Reporters would drop all pretense of neutrality and cheer on proposals for entitlement cuts.

In the United States, however, we seem to have gotten past that. Britain hasn’t.

The narrative I’m talking about goes like this: In the years before the financial crisis, the British government borrowed irresponsibly, so that the country was living far beyond its means. As a result, by 2010 Britain was at imminent risk of a Greek-style crisis; austerity policies, slashing spending in particular, were essential. And this turn to austerity is vindicated by Britain’s low borrowing costs, coupled with the fact that the economy, after several rough years, is now growing quite quickly.

Simon Wren-Lewis of Oxford University has dubbed this narrative “mediamacro.” As his coinage suggests, this is what you hear all the time on TV and read in British newspapers, presented not as the view of one side of the political debate but as simple fact.

Yet none of it is true.

Was the Labour government that ruled Britain before the crisis profligate? Nobody thought so at the time. In 2007, government debt as a percentage of G.D.P. was close to its lowest level in a century (and well below the level in the United States), while the budget deficit was quite small. The only way to make those numbers look bad is to claim that the British economy in 2007 was operating far above capacity, inflating tax receipts. But if that had been true, Britain should have been experiencing high inflation, which it wasn’t.

Still, wasn’t Britain at risk of a Greek-style crisis, in which investors could lose confidence in its bonds and send interest rates soaring? There’s no reason to think so. Unlike Greece, Britain has retained its own currency and borrows in that currency — and no country fitting this description has experienced that kind of crisis. Consider the case of Japan, which has far bigger debt and deficits than Britain ever did yet can currently borrow long-term at an interest rate of just 0.32 percent.

Which brings me to claims that austerity has been vindicated. Yes, British interest rates have stayed low. So have almost everyone else’s. For example, French borrowing costs are at their lowest level in history. Even debt-crisis countries like Italy and Spain can borrow at lower rates than Britain pays.

What about growth? When the current British government came to power in 2010, it imposed harsh austerity — and the British economy, which had been recovering from the 2008 slump, soon began slumping again. In response, Prime Minister David Cameron’s government backed off, putting plans for further austerity on hold (but without admitting that it was doing any such thing). And growth resumed.

If this counts as a policy success, why not try repeatedly hitting yourself in the face for a few minutes? After all, it will feel great when you stop.

Given all this, you might wonder how mediamacro gained such a hold on British discourse. Don’t blame economists. As Mr. Wren-Lewis points out, very few British academics (as opposed to economists employed by the financial industry) accept the proposition that austerity has been vindicated. This media orthodoxy has become entrenched despite, not because of, what serious economists had to say.

Still, you can say the same of Bowles-Simpsonism in the United States, and we know how that doctrine temporarily came to hold so much sway. It was all about posturing, about influential people believing that pontificating about the need to make sacrifices — or, actually, for other people to make sacrifices — is how you sound wise and serious. Hence the preference for a narrative prioritizing tough talk about deficits, not hard thinking about job creation.

As I said, in the United States we have mainly gotten past that, for a variety of reasons — among them, I suspect, the rise of analytical journalism, in places like The Times’s The Upshot. But Britain hasn’t; an election that should be about real problems will, all too likely, be dominated by mediamacro fantasies.

So he thinks that massive debt is fine because it happened in Japan and their interests rates are low? Does he know Japan has experienced two decades and counting of stagnation? What a ridiculous point.

He thinks growth resumed because cuts were stopped, not because they were reversed. That's fine, then, we'll just cut to where we need to cut and then when we stop growth will resume. Fantastic. If only it were that simple.

He thinks that we don't talk about job creation in the UK? Obviously he hasn't been paying much attention as that's one of the key points of this election.

Also laughed at him implying that only academic economists are "serious". Wonder if that's because he is an academic? Maybe he's bitter because he no for-profit company see enough value in his analysis to pay him properly for it, so he hides behind the whimsical poncy world of academia.

[MooseBreath]

Racists, moose, Matt, Farage class romanians, Eastern europeans and blacks as foreigners to get rid off - though maybe some black american film stars are okay.

Racism is not about colour only anymore.

Can you go 24hrs without accusing people of being racist? Seriously what is your problem? You're a very weird person, Fif.

[Guest]

Can you go 24hrs without accusing people of being racist? Seriously what is your problem? You're a very weird person, Fif.

 

I don't think you understand the use of commas for a list. I separated you from the racists whether I think you are one or not. Please don't make false accusations. 

[Alf Bentley]

Farage didn't start the furore. He made a perfectly legitimate point regarding the prioritisation of government spending. Never mind a furore that's one of the most fundamental questions any government needs to address. 

As for the solution, I imagine farage's solution would be to reduce the number of immigrants. If there are specific countries from which we are receiving a high number of people with HIV, test everyone from that country or just outright ban them. We do still have some border control after all, there's nothing immoral about using it to help prevent the spread and cost of treatment of HIV.

 

Can't believe what I'm reading here. The race card pulled out?

Yet again some of the left hear immigration and in their own mind hear 'black people' - I really thought we'd got beyond this, Farage is correct to bring it up, it certainly should at least be debated whether it's correct the British taxpayer should be funding foreign nationals with HIV to the tune of over a billion pounds a year.

That long post mentioning Mo Farah just looked like an attempt to tie the argument up in knots to try and make it look like we can't do anything, the legal equivalent of drowning a case in paperwork, of course you can do things, you put procedure in place like the US and Australia do, we put procedures for screening in place just a few months ago from countries with high Ebola rates - did you miss that? Even in Britain in 2015 I really hope we don't have an attitude of 'If something is hard to do then we may as well do nothing or not even try'.

 

 

Prioritising spending on UK citizens/residents is a perfectly legitimate point. Cutting the foreign aid budget to do that is perfectly legitimate. I don't agree with it, as I think we can afford 0.7% of GDP and engaging with aid/development can reduce future flows of migrants/refugees - but it's a legitimate policy.

 

Raising a scare about thousands of Africans arriving as health tourists purely to get free NHS care without researching the facts and without offering a practical solution is NOT legitimate. It took me 1 minute on Google to find that article in which Public Health England (govt agency) states that HIV rates among Africans in the UK are lower than in Africa and a House of Commons investigation found that most only went to the NHS after they'd been here for years. Either Farage didn't do his research, or he'll disprove that research - or he doesn't give a shit about the truth as all he wants is to irresponsibly use it as a "dog whistle" issue to attract votes from people worried about being swamped by people from alien cultures.

 

I don't see Farage as an active racist, just a reactionary Little Englander populist opportunistically grubbing for votes. Most of us are uneasy with people from different cultures until we get to know them. I grew up in East Kent, one of UKIP's heartlands, and it's very white. In my year at school there were 2 Asian lads, named Chris and Harold (seriously!  ); in my village, there was 1 much younger adopted black girl; when we drove through London on holiday, it was a novelty as kids for us to look out for those exotic Sikh blokes in their turbans. When I lived in London in my 20s, I was more nervous around groups of black blokes than white blokes - even though the one time I got a good kicking, it was a group of white lads who jumped me. Distorting the facts to fan such fears and win votes is despicable.

 

UKIP do have a policy on this (http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people): " We will ensure that visitors to the UK, and migrants until they have paid NI for five years, have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK, saving the NHS £2bn pa. UKIP will commit to spending £200m of the £2bn saving to end hospital car parking charges in England"

 

So, they're not opting for Matt/Moose-style screening, but Webbo-style insurance. Point taken re. Ebola, but that was a WHO epidemic limited to a few small countries (Sierra Leone, Liberia etc.). HIV is widespread across sub-Saharan Africa, so we'd presumably have to screen everyone arriving from Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, Zimbabwe, South Africa etc - and do so on a permanent basis. That would be a massively expensive and disruptive undertaking, surely? Would we also screen Americans and Russians, as both countries have plenty of infectees? I wonder how long it takes to get screening results (might have to hold all foreigners in detention for days, awaiting results!). Could cause a few diplomatic issues, too.

 

The UKIP/Webbo ( ) insurance option has difficulties, too. Aside from causing delays at borders while immigration staff inspected insurance policies, how would you ensure that people maintained that insurance for 5 years or until they'd paid enough NI? What would stop them cancelling the policy once they were in the country otherwise? What would happen if someone no longer had valid insurance and developed HIV? They'd presumably be deported to their home country (with or without any kids?). Of course, there's then every chance that they'd avoid contacting the NHS, but stay on infecting other people - or a black market in HIV drugs might develop to supply such people, perhaps linked to crime.

 

I'm not saying "we can't do anything" because of the complications - but I am saying that any policy has to be properly thought through so as to address those complications. It shouldn't be raised as a half-baked populist scare story to win votes by playing on people's fears. Incidentally, it was the current Tory government that introduced this free treatment in 2012 (!): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9109658/Foreigners-to-be-offered-free-treatment-for-HIV-on-the-NHS.html

 

Time for football!

[Rincewind]

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" Joseph Goebbels

 

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on"
- Winston Churchill

[MooseBreath]

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" Joseph Goebbels

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on"

- Winston Churchill

"I can take care of myself"

- Nigel Pearson

[SMX11]

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" Joseph Goebbels

 

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on"

- Winston Churchill

 

A bit like politicians saying that membership of the EU is vital for 'jobs'.

[Guest]

A bit like politicians saying that membership of the EU is vital for 'jobs'.

 

Don't you think that being a member of the EU is helpful for jobs?

[SMX11]

Don't you think that being a member of the EU is helpful for jobs?

 

I don't think we need to be a member of a supernational political structure to trade. I also think it would be more beneficial for engage in trading relationships from our own standpoint instead of 28 countries.

[The Doctor]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/george-galloway-big-twitter-fight-5458041

 

   

[Guest]

I don't think we need to be a member of a supernational political structure to trade. I also think it would be more beneficial for engage in trading relationships from our own standpoint instead of 28 countries.

 

Do you think that a country like Malta is in a better position than the UK to trade?

 

It's like Tesco being able to squeeze producers better than your local corner shop.

[Webbo]

Do you think that a country like Malta is in a better position than the UK to trade?

 

It's like Tesco being able to squeeze producers better than your local corner shop.

Malta is in the EU.

[SMX11]

Do you think that a country like Malta is in a better position than the UK to trade?

 

It's like Tesco being able to squeeze producers better than your local corner shop.

 

I wasn't talking about Malta I was talking about a country that has been a major trading nation for hundreds of years.

[Guest]

Malta is in the EU.

 

I know. That is the point.

 

I wasn't talking about Malta I was talking about a country that has been a major trading nation for hundreds of years.

 

The point is that the bigger you are the more you demand, the stronger you are. That's economics. The UK would be weaker traders on their own than within the EU. Fact!

[Strokes]

I know. That is the point.

The point is that the bigger you are the more you demand, the stronger you are. That's economics. The UK would be weaker traders on their own than within the EU. Fact!

Its not a fact at all, its not known, as since the EU has existed we have always be a part of it.

[MooseBreath]

The point is that the bigger you are the more you demand, the stronger you are. That's economics. The UK would be weaker traders on their own than within the EU. Fact!

That's not economics at all, that's gibberish. You don't seen to have any idea what you're talking about and if you do, you're awful at articulating it.