This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 21 Apr 17 11.50am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
I agree on the QE and the infrastructure issues. The personal debt and the country's growth built around consumer spending we were supposed to have learned from in 2008. Shame. How long is the Psul Krugman piece? The problem is that when add Balls was lecturing us all on raising govt spending there was no global demand. The timing has to be right. The IS increased their's. Hasn't it been/isn't it showing to be a short term gain overshadowed by a longer term bigger loss? It's a book. Not a particularly long one, but it's not an article. You don't need global demand to invest in UK infrastructure, training, education and healthcare. The US is now going down a different path. Trump released half a budget drawn on the back of a napkin the other day which has swingeing cuts to many government departments. [Link]
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Kermit8 Hevon 21 Apr 17 11.50am | |
---|---|
Blimey, if Davenotamonkey and Cambridge go at it it will make War and Peace seem like a vignette and Jaime's posts brevity ridden.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
steeleye20 Croydon 21 Apr 17 11.51am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
What nonsense. You have no argument.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 21 Apr 17 11.54am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
What does that mean?
There is no economic rationale behind austerity so it can only be ideology or incompetence.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 21 Apr 17 11.56am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by steeleye20
You have no argument. I'm also not prepared to argue that fairies don't exist or that horoscopes are not real.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
steeleye20 Croydon 21 Apr 17 11.56am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
There is no economic rationale behind austerity so it can only be ideology or incompetence. I'll put that fiver in the post CE
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 21 Apr 17 11.59am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
There is no economic rationale behind austerity so it can only be ideology or incompetence. So they do it because they hate poor people and you know more about the economy than the Chancellor and his aides? Are you sure you want to go with that?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Rudi Hedman Caterham 21 Apr 17 11.59am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
It's a book. Not a particularly long one, but it's not an article. You don't need global demand to invest in UK infrastructure, training, education and healthcare. The US is now going down a different path. Trump released half a budget drawn on the back of a napkin the other day which has swingeing cuts to many government departments. [Link] I agree on the training and education but those won't have a multiplier effect for years, and when you've been mismanaged into a situation whereby you struggle to afford years, we go round in circles. Red, blue, red, blue, something else Clegg was right about on ITVs 2010 debate. Healthcare won't accelerate growth very much.
COYP |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
steeleye20 Croydon 21 Apr 17 12.03pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I'm also not prepared to argue that fairies don't exist or that horoscopes are not real. Pull yourself together man you are supposed to change the subject to mass immigration. You are not Cantona are you? The seagulls the fairies the horoscopes.............. Only 5.65 weeks to go.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 21 Apr 17 12.03pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Blimey, if Davenotamonkey and Cambridge go at it it will make War and Peace seem like a vignette and Jaime's posts brevity ridden.
Ha glad you're enjoying it! I admit I like the debate. It's also given me a chance to read some interesting articles from different perspectives. FYI I used to be a conservative party member back in 2005 when I turned 18 but since studying economics at university and entering the world of work and generally reading more about politics and economics I have gradually changed my opinion to be much more closely aligned with socialist principles and new Keynesian economic thinking. I find it to be much more holistic, realistic and takes into account market inefficiencies and the irrationality of people as economic agents. I would implore everyone reading this thread to read Stiglitz's articles on inequality. I have dug out this opinion piece by Krugman which was written prior to the last election about austerity [Link] It's excellent.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 21 Apr 17 12.13pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Pull yourself together man you are supposed to change the subject to mass immigration. You are not Cantona are you? The seagulls the fairies the horoscopes.............. Only 5.65 weeks to go. The subject is always mass immigration. It is the major factor in today's politics.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 21 Apr 17 12.18pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
What does that mean? I think most parties when they get elected are more interested in their own voters, and maintaining their hold over swing voters, than in either their core or non-voters. I don't think the Conservatives are notably evil, just as self interested as the Labour party were in retaining the swing votes. Cameron's conservative party weren't too radical or different from Blair's Labour party. And that's the problem, politics and government is more about 'popularity' than actually engaging in direct social issues, and change. Both had a hard on crime approach that was contradictory to all evidence from criminal justice and rehabilitation research - because it played well in the media and with voters. Likely, the Conservatives, like labour, direct policy and spending towards programs that will get good coverage and keep them in power, even if they're not reasonably sound in terms of results. Welfare is the classic example, neither side has ever really managed to make a marked difference in welfare, because neither side is willing to make very tough decisions and implement programs aimed at resolving things like long term unemployment, poverty etc because these are a) long term projects b) very expensive c) unpopular with middle of the roads voters d) would likely require taxation rises.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.