0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
QuoteIf 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.Still waiting. I'll make it easier. Can you find 5?
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.
Here is the solution. We need to cut back on public spending so that taxes can be cut. This needs to be a gradual process. By doing it gradually we can take up the unemployed public sector workers in the then thriving private sector. We need to stop borrowing money and start to live within our means. We need to get the National Debt paid off. We need to harden up and accept a lower standard of living for the sake of future generations' tax bills. Simple really and I didn't need to read it in a book written by a crank economist.
QuoteYou 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?Your answer was based on NAIRU and an unemployment rate of 1.5m. You have not answered this question properly. You'll be pleased to know that I've now given up on getting a proper answer as there's only so many times I'm prepared to ask.
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?
QuoteYou 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.I wish you'd stop banging on about the war. In case you hadn't noticed the world has completely changed since then.
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.
I can't find them, but being the kind of person I am, I don`t want you to make me look foolish, I seem to be good at doing that myself, without further input from you, I bet my parents regret the day they put me straight on the Cow & Gate
In what ways have the basic mechanics changed such that the Keynesian approach (which worked so spectacularly well back then) no longer applies. Not good enough to say things have changed. In what way have they changed?And if they have changed, why is it that the mistakes that produced catastrophe all over the world in the 1930s caused catastrophe in Japan in the 90s. And are causing catastrophe in Spain right now? How have things changed mjdgreg?
Here's the question mjdgreg. How do you get the private sector thriving. I want to see a thriving private sector. We need a thriving private sector. But you don't get it from the current situation if no-one is spending. Not possible, because who is the private sector going to sell to in order for it to thrive?
QuoteI can't find them, but being the kind of person I am, I don`t want you to make me look foolish, I seem to be good at doing that myself, without further input from you, I bet my parents regret the day they put me straight on the Cow & GateYou're obviously struggling so I'll make it even easier. Can you find 2?
And, by the way, where are those examples of countries in debt and recession getting up and running by cutting debt and raising interest rates? One will do. Any one. Just one. Unless Mickonomics says that the whole of economic history counts for nothing and we will make it up on the hoof.
Lovely. There's one in this very thread.In post 37, you said, "Giving the BoE full control of interest rates led to monetary policy being too relaxed in the run up to the financial crash." (my emphasis).In post 40, barely an hour and a half later, you said "He (i.e. Brown) would never have left the BoE FULLY in charge of interest rates without sticking his oar in."A complete contradiction there in the space of 4 posts.The other contradiction is your insistence that you are not MadMick, when you are in fact mjdgreg
QuoteIn what ways have the basic mechanics changed such that the Keynesian approach (which worked so spectacularly well back then) no longer applies. Not good enough to say things have changed. In what way have they changed?And if they have changed, why is it that the mistakes that produced catastrophe all over the world in the 1930s caused catastrophe in Japan in the 90s. And are causing catastrophe in Spain right now? How have things changed mjdgreg?I refer you to Jim Callaghan who I quoted earlier on in the thread. You must try reading my posts properly. Another factor affecting Japan and Spain and many other countries now that did not affect countries back then is the massive inflation in house prices. Property booms caused a lot of the problems in Spain and Japan (and the UK amongst others). Modern technology has made the world far more inter-dependent so what happens in one country now has much more of an impact in other countries.I could go on but I'm sure by now you are getting my drift. So I'd appreciate it if you could stop going back so far in history to try and justify your outlandish views.
QuoteLovely. There's one in this very thread.In post 37, you said, "Giving the BoE full control of interest rates led to monetary policy being too relaxed in the run up to the financial crash." (my emphasis).In post 40, barely an hour and a half later, you said "He (i.e. Brown) would never have left the BoE FULLY in charge of interest rates without sticking his oar in."A complete contradiction there in the space of 4 posts.The other contradiction is your insistence that you are not MadMick, when you are in fact mjdgreg.Context Billy, context.
QuoteAnd, by the way, where are those examples of countries in debt and recession getting up and running by cutting debt and raising interest rates? One will do. Any one. Just one. Unless Mickonomics says that the whole of economic history counts for nothing and we will make it up on the hoof.Why you keep asking me for an answer to these types of question is a mystery to me. I've never said that a country can get up and running by cutting debt and raising interest rates as the only way to achieve growth. It can be part of the solution depending on a country's situation. I don't know why you infer that I have. If you read some of my more recent posts (and some of my old ones) you will see that what I advocate is CUTTING TAXES and cutting spending as the broad solution. Obviously there are many other factors that go into the strategy but these are the fundamental basics of where you start from. I believe in cutting taxes and reducing spending to a sensible level. You believe in taking even more tax off people and in spending and borrowing money we haven't got. You want us to keep living beyond our means and pass the bill on to future generations. I don't think that's fair and is downright immoral.
QuoteI can't find them, but being the kind of person I am, I don`t want you to make me look foolish, I seem to be good at doing that myself, without further input from you, I bet my parents regret the day they put me straight on the Cow & GateI`m obviously struggling BST has made me look a right tool!
In any case, you've told me remorselessly that you can't take lessons even from 20 years ago. How can you base an argument on a speech from 36 years ago? Contradiction No.3.
QuoteIn any case, you've told me remorselessly that you can't take lessons even from 20 years ago. How can you base an argument on a speech from 36 years ago? Contradiction No.3.I haven't ever said that you can't take lessons even from 20 years ago. your so full of contradictions it's untrue. I use the Jim Callaghan quote just to highlight what a joke the party were even back then and because he was Prime Minister of the party you love. This was only part of my argument. Of course we can learn the lessons from history, but banging on about the war all the time is ridiculous. Context Billy, context.
I haven't ever said that you can't take lessons even from 20 years ago. your so full of contradictions it's untrue.
Quote from: mjdgreg on July 12, 2012, 12:43:02 amMeantime, if the Govt has given tax cuts and the economy doesn't grow, what do you think happens to Govt debt? Think about it for a moment.I agree with this but then remember the flip side and the flaw in Ed Balls' argument, his proposed VAT cut has an even bigger reduction in revenue and requires a bigger growth in the economy, it wouldn't work.
Meantime, if the Govt has given tax cuts and the economy doesn't grow, what do you think happens to Govt debt? Think about it for a moment.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on July 12, 2012, 09:24:44 amQuote from: mjdgreg on July 12, 2012, 12:43:02 amMeantime, if the Govt has given tax cuts and the economy doesn't grow, what do you think happens to Govt debt? Think about it for a moment.I agree with this but then remember the flip side and the flaw in Ed Balls' argument, his proposed VAT cut has an even bigger reduction in revenue and requires a bigger growth in the economy, it wouldn't work.BFYP.There's a reason why VAT is a particularly powerful tool for adjusting demand. It's because it changes the price of things.Cutting income tax, or NI contributions would put money into people's pockets or companies' accounts. But they are then unliekly to spend that money.Psychologically, if the tax cut instead comes out as a reduction in price, people are more likely to buy goods and companies are more likely to buy items and services from each other. My own company last year put on hold the purchase of a major item of equipment because the VAT rise from 15-20% made it uneconomical for us to buy it.If there is one tax that should be cut, it is VAT, because doing so will spur economic activity and therefore growth. There is nothing at all that is more important at the moment than getting economic growth going. Nothing. Every other economic decision must be subordinated to that, otherwise, the attempts to cut the debt will be self-defeating.
Ping!Have a look at post 47 in this very thread.I quote..."Banging on about the years after the war and Japan 20 years ago is not relevant to today's circumstances. The financial world has completely changed since then."
Interesting...that's three posts that have been deleted on posting in the last 2 days
QuoteInteresting...that's three posts that have been deleted on posting in the last 2 daysMaybe the moderators have come round to my way of thinking and have started deleting your posts because they now realise that you are spouting rubbish!
You'll be pleased to know I've got one almighty contradiction that you are guilty of which I'll be airing in the near future. There are many more contradictions I could point out but I'm sure the readers have already spotted them.
Bring it on mjdgreg. I never said I was perfect. If I've contradicted myself, then I will apologise and explain where the error is.
Faced down once again. I trust that poker's not your gambling speciality?
QuoteFaced down once again. I trust that poker's not your gambling speciality? You're asking for it. I refuse to rise to the bait because deep down I know you mean well, you are just misguided. Please don't make me do it or you may never be able to show your face around here again