0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
Given that the coalition have only reduced public spending by 0.8% how do you explain your comment 'It worked and would have continued to work had Gideon not pulled it.' Seems to me that according to you, unemployment should be falling, not rising because we are still spending lots of money just as you and Mr Keynes would want us to. Why do you think George has 'pulled it'?
Why won't Krugman have a debate with Schiff?
Why did unemployment rise from 2005 under Labour when the true rate was over 2.5m making your original answer based on 1.5m invalid?
Do you accept that the BoE is politically influenced?
Why do you say the Keynes school of thought has been missing for a generation when the world's biggest economy is controlled by Ben Bernanke who is a massive Keynes follower?
Why do you think people should spend to get us out of the mess we're in when most of them are in debt, have seen their houses fall in value (and they are going to keep falling), wages being frozen/cut and standard of living falling? Why don't you think it is right for them to get their debts under control before they start spending again? What is wrong about living within your means?
What would happen if the government found that no-one was daft enough to lend them any more money because we've reached the point when there are serious doubts about us having the ability to pay it back? What would Mr Keynes do then?
Do you think Gordon was correct to bail out the banks?
Bugger. Just written out a detailed reply to every one of your questions and the site has swallowed it up and not processed it. Not got time to do it again. Suffice to say that most of your questions have thorough answers on this very thread.
QuoteBugger. Just written out a detailed reply to every one of your questions and the site has swallowed it up and not processed it. Not got time to do it again. Suffice to say that most of your questions have thorough answers on this very thread.Pull the other one. As soon as I start asking you to answer my questions you come up with some cock and bull story because you can't answer them. I'll leave the readers to make of that what they will.
I think the readers sussed long ago that you are a Troll, almost every post you make condradicts a previous post you've made!
The answers to everyone but 2 of your Tourette's-like question outburst are in this very thread. Go and read them.
1) I have no idea why Krugman won't debate with Schiff. Do you think I'm his PA? I also have no interest in a debate. I can read what each of them writes and make up my mind without seeing them in the flesh.
Any more scattergun questions? That's every one that you have fired off answered in depth.
QuoteWhy did unemployment rise from 2005 under Labour when the true rate was over 2.5m making your original answer based on 1.5m invalid?Still waiting for an answer not based on an unemployment figure of 1.5m.
QuoteAny more scattergun questions? That's every one that you have fired off answered in depth.I need answers to all my other questions before I fire off any more at you. Answered in depth. Don't make me laugh. It's like pulling teeth getting answers off you. I bet you failed all your exams at school because you didn't read the questions properly and gave answers that were nothing to do with the question (that's if you tried to answer the question in the first place).
1) Was Brown right to bail out the banks?Yes. Comprehensively. We would have been in the Depression to end all Depressions had he not. Total and utter meltdown.
QuoteWhat would happen if the government found that no-one was daft enough to lend them any more money because we've reached the point when there are serious doubts about us having the ability to pay it back? What would Mr Keynes do then?Have you ever heard of 'worse-case scenario'? It would appear not, given your complacent answer. I'm sure we'll all sleep easier in our beds now that you have told us that the bond markets are never going to turn on us. Unbelievable.
Quote1) Was Brown right to bail out the banks?Yes. Comprehensively. We would have been in the Depression to end all Depressions had he not. Total and utter meltdown.So you think it was right that the banks could gamble recklessly knowing that they would always be bailed out. Not my idea of capitalism. Then again I'm not a leftie.
You were asking why the figure rose. I explained why it rose. It didn't matter whether the initial figure was 1.5, 1.5 million or 1.5 billion. I explained why it rose. Do you not even understand your own questions?
Oh for f***s sake Mick, engage your brain. If the HEADLINE rate of unemployment was 1.5m, and inflation started to rise then 1.5m was the headline rate corresponding to NAIRU. Whatever you claim the "real" rate was. That real rate would have been the "real" NAIRU rate. It is simply a matter of definition of unemployment. It doesn't alter the argument about how and why the rise happened.There is no contradiction. Just another failure on your part to follow simple logic.Is that so hard to understand?
Come on then. I've been inviting you for weeks to tell us exactly what the mechanisms are whereby the alternative approach (cutting debt) will work. And to give us examples of cases where it has worked. I'll stop throwing insults if you give us some facts.
Oh for f***s sake Mick, engage your brain. If the HEADLINE rate of unemployment was 1.5m, and inflation started to rise then 1.5m was the headline rate corresponding to NAIRU. Whatever you claim the "real" rate was. That real rate would have been the "real" NAIRU rate.Is that so hard to understand?
You are perfectly at liberty to disagree with me. But if you are going to do, you ought to do us the courtesy of explaining what YOU think happened to sort out our debt problem after the War.
If that's the case then I challenge you to find 10 examples out of the 100's that I've posted. I'm not holding my breath.