Well done Gideon

[BillyStubbsTears]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21554311

If the whole economic disaster wasn't such a historic tragedy that will screw us up for decades, it would be hilarious.

You start by deciding that THE most important thing is to retain our AAA status (it wasn't).

You design a policy of cuts to ensure this happens (it couldn't).

You cripple the economy and produce zero growth in three years (as you were told it would).

You lose the AAA rating (because you have no growth).

You then say this proves that you are on the right track and must continue doing what you have been doing.

What an Almighty disaster. But what do you expect when you put a weasley little failed journalist and middling History graduate in charge of the f**king economy?

[Filo]

Was just about to post the same

Did n`t he once say judge him on his performance?


Well Gideon, pack your bags and f**k off!  You`ve failed and screwed us all!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Amen Fili

And while he's f**king off, he can take the Assistant Editor of the Financial Times with him. She's just been on the news saying "At the time of the last Election, we thought markets losing confidence in our debt was the key thing. We've come to realise that lack of growth is the crucial problem."

We've come to f**king well realise!?!

As if no f**ker was saying that 3 years ago.

It is economically illiterate f**kwits like her and Gideon who will have head-shaking books written about them in future years. Economic historians will look back and ask how these Kitsons ever got remotely close to bring influential when they know the square root of f**k all about what the key issues of the debt crisis are.

Kitsons, the lot of them.

[Filo]

Cameron must be now thinking what Tories think in a crisis, he`s got to knife his mate in the back to try and save his own skin, he must realise that he can`t go to another general election with this idiot in charge of the Country`s finances, but it`s too late for him now, there`s no chance of this lot getting re elected, lets just hope we have n`t gone over the cliff edge by then!

[Dagenham Rover]

Amen Fili

And while he's f***ing off, he can take the Assistant Editor of the Financial Times with him. She's just been on the news saying "At the time of the last Election, we thought markets losing confidence in our debt was the key thing. We've come to realise that lack of growth is the crucial problem."

Alle bloody luyah   Now where have I heard someone telling these people that ......................but will it change????

[RedJ]

I'm just waiting to see who defends this and what pathetic excuses exactly they'll use..

Of course, it's all Labour's fault, isn't it?

Oh, and the wrong type of, er, sunshine?

[Dagenham Rover]

I'm just waiting to see who defends this and what pathetic excuses exactly they'll use..Of course, it's all Labour's fault, isn't it?

Oh, and the wrong type of, er, sunshine?

    

[Filo]

I'm just waiting to see who defends this and what pathetic excuses exactly they'll use..

Of course, it's all Labour's fault, isn't it?

Oh, and the wrong type of, er, sunshine?

It`ll be the near miss asteroid or the meteor that came down in Russia!

[RedJ]

I'm just waiting to see who defends this and what pathetic excuses exactly they'll use..

Of course, it's all Labour's fault, isn't it?

Oh, and the wrong type of, er, sunshine?

It`ll be the near miss asteroid or the meteor that came down in Russia!

Never know, could be all this horsemeat f**king up growth.

Processed meat's took quite a hit apparently, that's got to be it. Yeah that'll hold up..

[Filo]

A quote from Gideon when he was shadow Chancellor

"It's now clear that Britain's economic reputation is on the line at the next general election, another reason for bringing the date forward and having that election now," said the shadow chancellor, George Osborne. "For the first time since these ratings began in 1978, the outlook for British debt has been downgraded from stable to negative."

Well Gideon, have a word with Dave and call the election!

[RedJ]

Is Mick still about or has the banhammer been wielded? I'd have loved to have seen his response to this.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Cameron must be now thinking what Tories think in a crisis, he`s got to knife his mate in the back to try and save his own skin, he must realise that he can`t go to another general election with this idiot in charge of the Country`s finances, but it`s too late for him now, there`s no chance of this lot getting re elected, lets just hope we have n`t gone over the cliff edge by then!

But who would you want to replace him? Gove? Hunt? Hague is the best of a bad bunch for the job but he's clever enough to know not to take it if he wants to keep his reputation.

Actually the only man in the current government fit for the job is Cable but I can't see Cameron giving that high a job to a LibDem. So much for working together for the good of the country, party comes first!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I'll say the same thing I always say, the modern world is so reliant on vast swathes of countries it's perhaps a minefield for any chancellor as they can only affect their own country.  Internally we're doing ok it's the problems abroad that are the biggest issue and will continue to be.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

Aye. And Austerity Über Alles has been the policy in Europe too.

So, when you hear Gideon telling us that we are f**ked because Europe is f**ked, what conclusion do you draw?

[BobG]

I was in the car with Alex when I heard this news. Alex got quite, well, worried tbh. He thought I was having a heart attack. And when I reassured him, he asked me why I was swearing so 'damn much'?!

I really don't understand how this, or indeed any, country, can find itself in the position where f u c k wits like Reagan, Thatcher, Bush 1, Bush 2 and Cameron are in power? I mean, what fatheads would actually fall for such a horrendous stupidity as that? Forget the politics - I'm talking about capability and capacity to set a plan to manage a country even half way effectively.

If I ever develop a long term, irreversible, illness I've always thought I would do this country a really, really, really big favour. I thought I'd lost the opportunity a couple of decades ago now - but it's come back hasn't it?

Cheers

BobG

[Sammy Chung was King]

We've gone from a pretty much self reliant country,to a country that relies on everybody else,the mines were closed,the steel industry practically broken up,instead of making our own things,we import from China and make them stronger and stronger,while we get weaker by the day.

[jonrover]

Cameron must be now thinking what Tories think in a crisis, he`s got to knife his mate in the back to try and save his own skin, he must realise that he can`t go to another general election with this idiot in charge of the Country`s finances, but it`s too late for him now, there`s no chance of this lot getting re elected, lets just hope we have n`t gone over the cliff edge by then!

But who would you want to replace him? Gove? Hunt? Hague is the best of a bad bunch for the job but he's clever enough to know not to take it if he wants to keep his reputation.

Actually the only man in the current government fit for the job is Cable but I can't see Cameron giving that high a job to a LibDem. So much for working together for the good of the country, party comes first!

Out of the entire coalition, there be only one man capable...Dr Cable...the man who should have got the gig in the first place.

[Savvy]

Interesting to note how the 4G fiasco appears to have gone under the radar (excuse the pun!!) of most.

The government were expecting to raise 3.5 billion from the sale of licenses for the 4G network via an auction. The auction apparently raised 2.5 billion, a margin of error of 1 billion pounds!!!! WTF!!!! Anyone who has ever had anything to do with a budget will know that its standard practice to allow for a margin of error of +/- 10%, but A billion pounds on a 3.5 billion initiative to raise cash?

Got the smell of brown envelopes and things that move in the night for me!!!!

As for the auction, why did the government not say, we have X number of licenses, we wish to raise 3.5 billion, divide one by the other, and thats the price that is required to have a license granted! Pay it or do one!!!! Or would that be too simplistic a solution?

[RedJ]

Interesting to note how the 4G fiasco appears to have gone under the radar (excuse the pun!!) of most.

The government were expecting to raise 3.5 billion from the sale of licenses for the 4G network via an auction. The auction apparently raised 2.5 billion, a margin of error of 1 billion pounds!!!! WTF!!!! Anyone who has ever had anything to do with a budget will know that its standard practice to allow for a margin of error of +/- 10%, but A billion pounds on a 3.5 billion initiative to raise cash?

Got the smell of brown envelopes and things that move in the night for me!!!!

As for the auction, why did the government not say, we have X number of licenses, we wish to raise 3.5 billion, divide one by the other, and thats the price that is required to have a license granted! Pay it or do one!!!! Or would that be too simplistic a solution?

Why would Dave do anything that made any sense whatsoever?

[wilts rover]

Interesting to note how the 4G fiasco appears to have gone under the radar (excuse the pun!!) of most.

The government were expecting to raise 3.5 billion from the sale of licenses for the 4G network via an auction. The auction apparently raised 2.5 billion, a margin of error of 1 billion pounds!!!! WTF!!!! Anyone who has ever had anything to do with a budget will know that its standard practice to allow for a margin of error of +/- 10%, but A billion pounds on a 3.5 billion initiative to raise cash?

Got the smell of brown envelopes and things that move in the night for me!!!!

As for the auction, why did the government not say, we have X number of licenses, we wish to raise 3.5 billion, divide one by the other, and thats the price that is required to have a license granted! Pay it or do one!!!! Or would that be too simplistic a solution?

Because in that instance you risk loosing £3.5 billion and raising absolutely zero. It was a commercial auction, the companies who were bidding knew how much the licence was worth to them - and weren't about to pay any more. The problem was the goverment over=estimated 4G - as they did 3G too if memory serves me right so rather than looking at it as £2.5 billion gained we are now looking at it as £1 billion lost.

[Savvy]

According to the report I listened to on Radio 5 live, the 3G auction raised 22.5 billion which was in excess of what had been expected.

Insofar as the 4G "auction" the government commissioned a working party to assess the amount that would be raised. The amount actually raised was far below what was stated could have been raised, so if the chancellor has been left red faced for announcing it and indeed plumbing that figure into the governments budget figures they know who to turn to.

As far as the money gained rather than money lost scenario, come off it, it todays competitive telecommunications market, do you seriously think that anyone of them would cut the others throat to gain a competitive advantage over the others!!!!  Like I say, any hard nosed government would have said, you want a license, this is what it cost's take it or leave it.......don't see many taking the leave it option!!!!!!

[BillyStubbsTears]

The £3.5bn figure came from an estimate by the Office for Budget Responsibility in the Autumn Statement.

Two observations.
1) That estimate by the OBR was used by Gideon to claim that he was reducing the deficit this year. Without it, he would have been forced to admit that his defect reduction policy had failed. With it, he was able to pull a fast one and completely wrong-foot Ed Balls. Typical of Gideon to play a smart-arse trick like this then look a fool when the actual numbers end up not stacking up.

2) The OBR have been wrong on pretty much EVERY prediction they have made. They were set up by Gideon and Danny Alexander as a political ploy, claiming that Labour had always massaged the figures. They wanted to show that they were going to use a wonderful independent body to do budgetary predictions free from Treasury influence.

But the OBR has got every call wrong. They have spent 30 months making wildly over-optimistic claims about what growth was coming in the economy. They have consistently under estimated inflation. And then they got the 4G income out by 40%. They are an utter waste of space, and compared to them, the predictions that the Treasury civil servants made under Brown and Darling were near-perfect.

And now the OBR claims that our perma-slump is nothing to do with the spending cuts that Osborne initiated in 2010. In fact they say that it is due to everything EXCEPT the cuts. Given their record, I know what my take is.

(PS. The OBR is headed by an economist who was at Cambridge at the same time as Clegg. They obviously turned out some f**king stars that year...)

[RedJ]

Am I right in thinking that the OBR is a quango? I thought they were meant to be shutting them down and not opening up pointless ones.

So we've sacrificed things like the UK Film Council that made money for something utterly pointless full of people ludicrously thick or optimistic.

[BillyStubbsTears]

RedJ

I guess it is a Quango.

In fairness, I understand why the OBR get it so wrong. They are using ideas and models that simply do not apply to the exceptional current circumstances. This is PRECISELY what happened in the 1930s, when the Givernment stuck to policies and theories that they thought were we established, but turned out to be hopeless in the particular circumstances of the Great Depression.  The term "The Treasury View" became a nasty insult among post-War economists, meaning a fixed view of the world that refuses to be budged by evidence, which was what the Treasury had in the 30s, leading directly to the horror of the Depression.

That's exactly what we are going through again. The Treasury and the OBR are applying incorrect analysis to the problem, so they are getting incorrect predictions. Where they have no excuse is that many, many eminent economists are screaming this at them, but they are too pig-headed to change their ideas. They are convinced that they are correct, even though every new set of data shows just how wrong they are.

In 30 years time, these people will be mercilessly torn apart by historians writing about the ignorance and arrogance that prolonged this stupid mini-Depression of ours. Totally avoidable if we had had different people in charge.

[Savvy]

Bit of a sweeping statement there Billy, how do you know what ideas and models that they are using?

[RedJ]

Bit of a sweeping statement there Billy, how do you know what ideas and models that they are using?

God knows, cos even they don't, it would seem.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bit of a sweeping statement there Billy, how do you know what ideas and models that they are using?

I read what they say Savvy. I read a lot about it. It is truly fascinating to see just how poor a science economics is. Shot through with arrogance, politically slanted viewpoints and unsubstantiated opinions. I'd be in my element as an economist...

Seriously, the big thing about the OBR is that they are firmly on the side if the debate that insists that fiscal multipliers are small, and that therefore the fiscal consolidation that we and Europe have undergone cannot be the reason for our woeful economic performance over the last 3 years since Austerity-mania took over. They base that belief on the (well established) record that fiscal multipliers are small in robust economies. But they stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to to growing weight of theoretical and empirical arguments showing that fiscal multipliers are far larger than they believe in depressed economies, and that as a result, Austerity in depressed economies will inevitably lead to a perma-slump.

Exactly the same argument is voiced aggressively by Oli Rehn, deputy head of the European Commission, who is obsessively determined to show that Austerity and only Austerity will work for Europe, and who considers 25% unemployment across the Med to be just an unfortunate side effect. He displayed breathtaking arrogance last week in a report where he complained that people criticising his policies were being "unhelpful". In other words, "We know what we are doing and how dare you publish arguments or empirical facts that contradict us." Quite unbelievable!

Read Simon Wren-Lewis (professor of economics at Oxford), Martin Wolf (financial commentator at the Financial Times) Paul deGrauwe at the European Commussion or Jonathan Portes (head of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research and ex economist at the Treasury under Ken Clarke when we came steaming out of the last recession in excellent shape) for some pretty devastating take-downs of the ideas that the OBR and Rehn are wedded to.

[Savvy]

Lol! Have to say after the law of diminishing marginal returns most economics goes above my head!  Have to agree regarding economics being a combination of "schools of thought" and "conjecture" which some how allow politicians to justify their own positions on any given subject!

This article provides an illustration of what I was getting at in my original point:
Nota bene the graph on the right hand side entitled who paid what!!!!!  Not even going to get started on the wide spread between who paid what, and if greater competition was truly at the heart of the decision process, why did the chinkies get knocked back?

 Like I said at the outset, 4 licenses divided by 3.5 billion, who wants them boys, are you in or are you out, then we'd have seen a scramble, I've every confidence!!!!  But as I stated previously is this too simplistic?

Of course one other option would have been to get all the interested parties at the set rate I mentioned, and then if there were more than 4, get Ofcom to do what they are mandated to do in the first place and make sure the four selected offer the best all round deal for the consumer, or again would that be too simplistic?
http://news.sky.com/story/1054455/new-4g-phone-operators-announced-by-ofcom

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy.

The thing about economics is though that, in the long run, it IS subject to the rigour of the Scientific Method. So, if Economist A holds to a certain theory that makes certain predictions and those predictions turn out to be wrong in the short term, he can claim that there are special circumstances that affect his predictions. But if the predictions keep being wrong, year after year, then there is no conclusion to draw other than that the theory is wrong and should be binned.

What has happened since the Great Crash is that there have been two conflicting schools of economic thought.

One said that this was a special collapse, the like of which we hadn't seen for a lifetime. And that it was crucial to go back to the 1930s for lessons about what to do. Specifically, we must make sure that we didn't throttle off demand in the economy by cutting back Govt spending while the private sector was on its death bed.

The other one said that the debt situation was terrifying and that what we needed to do was to get debt down immediately. Doing that would give business confidence that Govt was serious and that would mean that the private sector would thrive.

In 2008-10, the first school of thought held sway. Huge Govt stimulus was used to stop economies worldwide falling off the cliff. But in 2010, in America to some extent, UK very much and especially in the EU, the second school won the argument. Jean-Claude Juncker of the ECB said that is was essential to pull back Govt spending and that by doing so we would see private sector confidence bloom. Georege Osborne said pretty much exactly the same.

The result has been three years of feeble or no growth in Europe and the UK. America didn't pull the plug quite as sharply so they haven't suffered as badly, but their emergence from recession has slowed.

I could understand 6, 12, 18 months of the second plan not yielding rewards. After 36 months, it starts to look like the whole intellectual basis of that plan is bullshit.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Also, outwith of the National Debt, in the outside world of the private sector the immediate effect of the credit crunch was exactly the sort of contraction of the money supply that Thatcher was trying to achieve in the first half of her first term...!