The Good News Keeps On Coming

[IC1967]

quick favour as a fellow member of the Irish diaspora, Billy isn't talking about himself - he is talking about Ben Bernanke as quoted in his post. If you edit your post quickly now, no-one will know and you wont look as ridiculous as you do arguing against him....

Gotcha! I know Billy isn't an economist (its obvious from the drivel he posts). He's a scientologist.

[MachoMadness]

Every one of Mick's threads in a nutshell:

Mick: "Hey look at me look over here I'm being a prick look how much of a prick I am etc etc"
VSC Users: "f**k off, you prick."
Mick: "Joke's on them! I was only pretending!"

There is no joke here, Mick. Acting like a prick so you can chuckle when you goad people into calling you a prick doesn't make you Doncaster's answer to Chris Morris.

[BillyStubbsTears]

When I was 8 or 9 at school, the rough lads used to corner kids in the playground and say "Are you a bummer tied up?"

If the kid said "yes", they shouted, "ARRRGGHHH! He's a Bummer!"

If the kind said "no", they shouted, "ARRGGGHHH! He's a bummer on the loose."

I'm reminded of those days in threads like this...

[IC1967]

More good news. Unemployment at lowest level since 2009 at 7.4% and is below the rate analysts had expected.

The number of people out of work fell by 99,000 to 2.39 million in the three months to October.

The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in November fell by 36,700 to 1.27 million.

The number of job vacancies is at the highest since 2008.

The vast majority of the rise in the employment total over the last year is accounted for by full time jobs (not part-time jobs as the Labour party would have you believe).

Also, pay excluding bonuses, grew by 0.8% in this quarter showing the cost of living crisis will also soon be a thing of the past.

The number of people aged 16 and over who are in work was at a record high of 30.09 million, up 250,000 compared with the May-to-July period.

The best bit of news was that the percentage of the workforce in the public sector - 18.8% of those in employment, or 5.7 million people - fell to its lowest rate since the current data series began in 1999. It needs to fall much further.

We are seeing the fastest rates of job creation since the late 1990s in recent months, as firms respond to a marked pick up in demand.

So how does Billy and Mr Balls explain this when they said unemployment would rise and their would be a double dip recession unless Plan B was implemented?

[River Don]

IC

I'd suggest they'd explain it by pointing out that plan B was initiated when Osbourne stimulated the economy with his housing boom.

[IC1967]

Possibly. However that is only a small part of the picture. I expect a deafening silence as there is no explanation possible. They've made themselves look a right pair of numpties.

[BillyStubbsTears]

RD

If you have the time, have a look at what the Oxford University macroeconomist Prof Simon Wren-Lewis has to say on the subject. In a nutshell, it's that Osborne abandoned Plan A last year, but, being a shameless politician, is insisting that he didn't.
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/osbornes-plan-b.html?m=1

The key data is in rows 1 and 3 of SWL's post. Basically, Austerity stopped in 2012 (row 1  - the deficit stopped coming down) and the reason for this is that Govt consumption went up (row 3).

Fair play to Osborne. He's a ruthless politician. He read the tea leaves last year and, looking at these numbers, changed to precisely Plan B. But he was never going to admit that. He is excellent at lying through his teeth and he's been doing it for the last year, claiming that the growth has come BECAUSE OF Austerity. As SWL's table shows (using OBR data) growth is coming because Austetity stopped.

The political aim here of course, is for Osborne to do enough to win in 2015. And then start Austerity again. Because Austerity was never about the economics. It couldn't be, because the economics doesn't work. Austerity was always an ideological drive to turn us into a smaller State country. Which is a perfectly fine ideal if that's what you believe in. But then have the courage and honesty to argue for it on its direct merits, not ram it through mendaciously.

And, on the same topic, Krugman, as ever, cuts right to the chase. Reading his final sentence, I guess he's probably had the pleasure of listening to Mick.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2013/12/18/the-three-stooges-do-westminster/?from=krugman

[IC1967]

Amazing. That's the best laugh I've had for ages. Billy now tells us that George has been implementing Plan B for a year and that's why everything in the garden is now rosy. Unbelievable.

Here's what the FT reckons (hardly a right wing paper). They don't seem to believe Billy's drivel. Have a read of this article for a balanced view on Plan A as opposed to Plan B.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03137634-1a13-11e3-93e8-00144feab7de.html#axzz2nryF8gnw

Does anyone seriously believe that George would not have been exposed if what Billy says is true? Are Labour and their many friends in the media incapable of pointing out such an almighty U turn? They must be if you believe Billy.

Why is this the first time that Billy has said Plan B has been on the go for over a year? I'll tell you why. It's the act of a desperate man, who, faced with the overwhelming evidence that Plan A is working has decided that the only possible answer he can come up with is that Plan A is really Plan B. Laughable in the extreme.

If Austerity has been abandoned then why have figures published today shown that the size of the public sector has shrunk to its smallest size since the current data series began in 1999? Why is council funding falling again next year? I could go on.

Trust me Plan A (with minor modifications) is still happening. Plan B is something Ed Balls wishes he'd never mentioned. Funny how he hasn't mentioned it for ages now. He's hoping we'll all forget what he said. So is Billy.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

You're confusing me with a macroeconomic world expert for the second time in a week. It's noty argument. It's Prof Wren-Lewis's

It's also Jonathan Portes's argument from Jan this year.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/2563344

If you read THAT article (which of course you won't, because you never do...) you'll also see that Fraser Nelson (as right wing as they come) was also saying 12 months ago that Austerity had been ditched. (He said that the result would be disastrous, but there you go). Well done to Portes and Nelson for spotting the change of strategy. The rest of us (including Oxford economics profs) could only see this once the figures were published. Last week.

Anyway Mick, let's have a think here. The FACT (fact - look it up on Word Hippo, cos I know you struggle with the concept) is that Govt consumption spending increased sharply last year - far more sharply than had been planned. That's unarguable. It's in the OBR figures that Wren Lewis discusses. So what exactly is that if it isn't ditching Plan A?

So, what has happened since 2010 is this.

2010: Osborne says he will reduce the deficit and this will spur growth. He reduces the deficit. Growth stops.

2011: Osborne says he will continue to reduce the deficit and this time it really will spur growth. He reduces the deficit. The economy flatlines.

2012: Osborne says he will reduce the deficit even more and this really, really will spur growth. He reduces the deficit. Growth doesn't come back.

2013: Osborne says he will reduce the deficit even more than before and this really, truly, scouts honour will spur growth. He increases Govt spending by several percent more than he planned. Growth comes back. Osborne says this vindicates his policies. Mick says this vindicates his policies.

That just about covers it in a nutshell.

[IC1967]

The rest of us (including Oxford economics profs) could only see this once the figures were published. Last week.

Just because he's an Oxford economics prof doesn't mean he isn't a leftie. You must be getting desperate if you're now resorting to quoting that ultra left wing Huffington Post. Most of the 'journalists' (I use that term loosely) can't even spell properly or string a coherent sentence together.

Right, so this information has been out there a week now. Why aren't the Labour party and all their left wing friends shouting about it from the roof tops? Surely if the government had made such a monumental U turn it would be all over the media. This would be the U turn to beat all U turns. Please explain why this isn't the case. Also while you're at it could you please show where the leftie FT has got it wrong as well.

[River Don]

It is a u turn.

Perhaps because this government have made so many u turns it's gone unnoticed.

[IC1967]

If it was a U turn then do you not think Ed Balls would be shouting about it from the roof tops? According to you and Billy, George has adopted the very plan that Ed Balls wanted them to. Why is Balls not crowing and saying I told you so? Why does he never mention Plan B any more? Why have Labour decided to pursue the cost of living agenda instead? I'll tell you why. Because they believe (quite rightly) that they have lost the debate and they want to cut their losses.

It is laughable in the extreme to expect people to believe that George has implemented Plan B and nobody has noticed.

[River Don]

If it was a U turn then do you not think Ed Balls would be shouting about it from the roof tops? According to you and Billy, George has adopted the very plan that Ed Balls wanted them to. Why is Balls not crowing and saying I told you so? Why does he never mention Plan B any more? Why have Labour decided to pursue the cost of living agenda instead? I'll tell you why. Because they believe (quite rightly) that they have lost the debate and they want to cut their losses.

It is laughable in the extreme to expect people to believe that George has implemented Plan B and nobody has noticed.

Well my own hunch, speaking as someone who isn't an out and out Labour supporter is they do not want to draw attention, to what is on the surface is a short term Tory success.

It is worth remembering plenty of Tory supporters and Liberals including Vince Cable are saying this is the wrong sort of growth, mind.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

You don't need to keep showing us your ignorance. We take it as read. You COULD do something about it, by reading up instead of just assuming that anyone who contradicts you is a raving lefty. But you won't.

If you DID read up, you'd find that Wren-Lewis has criticised Brown for running deficits in the good times.

As for your Huffington post comment, do some reading up and have a think about why your comment was stupid and irrelevant.

Go on. Toddle off.

[IC1967]

Right, so this information has been out there a week now. Why aren't the Labour party and all their left wing friends shouting about it from the roof tops? Surely if the government had made such a monumental U turn it would be all over the media. This would be the U turn to beat all U turns. Please explain why this isn't the case. Also while you're at it could you please show where the leftie FT has got it wrong as well.

Billy I'm still waiting for a credible response. Do me a favour and at least answer just a few of the questions I pose for a change. I always do you the courtesy of answering anything you throw at me. Could it be you're lost for words because you and Mr Balls have been rumbled? Cue deafening silence or an attempt to change the subject.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

You don't understand how politics works do you? People aren't interested in the detail. Arguments over points of detail turn into a morass. What people are interested in are simple, easy to digest big picture issues.

So. Onto your question. I assume you are busily researching mine as we speak, to figure out why your comments on that Huffington Post article were so daft.

Labour pushed on the big issue from 2010-2012. That was this: We told you that Austerity would lead to a long term flatlining of the economy. We got Austerity. We got 3 years of virtually zero growth. Just like we told you.

Growth then re-emerges in 2013. It's only retrospectively that we see the underlying reason. That Austerity was put on hold (not MY belief,not some made up lefty plot. Demonstrable from last week's OBR figures).

Meantime, Osborne has played very clever politics. He's kept on insisting that it's full steam ahead on Austerity. He's a very able political operator and he's set the agenda. Without any numbers to contradict him (until last week) it was impossible to contradict him.

So he begins to win the political argument. He says: we told you Austerity would work. We stuck to our word and it HAS worked. It's all lies of course, but that matters not one jot in politics.

So, Labour are on the back foot. They switch their line of attack to a second big, simple picture. Yes the economy is growing, but do YOU feel any better off? Perfectly reasonable question. Perfectly reasonable political manoeuvre.

When the OBR figures came out last week, it's too late. In the public mind, Osborne has win the political argument. Meanwhile. Labour has got significant traction on the living standards issue. So why should Labour drag up what will be seen as a tired argument again?

It's the difference between wanting to win an argument because truth matters, and being politically savvy enough to know when you're not going to win, regardless of the truth.

[IC1967]

Well my own hunch, speaking as someone who isn't an out and out Labour supporter is they do not want to draw attention, to what is on the surface is a short term Tory success.

It is worth remembering plenty of Tory supporters and Liberals including Vince Cable are saying this is the wrong sort of growth, mind.

I can see your point. However I am totally staggered that if it is true that Plan B has been implemented, Mr Balls would not feel the need to point this out and claim a lot of political kudos. He's had the OBR figures a week now and we've heard nothing from him. Totally amazing. There could be another reason though why he's keeping his mouth shut. Plan B hasn't been implemented! Thats my view and it doesn't sit well with the likes of Billy because it doesn't fit with what they've been saying for the last few years. I accept that there have been some minor modifications to Plan A but there is no way that could be described as a complete shift to Plan B. Balls has lost the argument and he knows it. That's why he never mentions Plan B any more. Unfortunately for him, the public have long memories.

I too have reservations about the type of growth we are experiencing. It's too much like the 'growth' (I use that term loosely) we used to get with Labour. It's too much debt fuelled consumer led for my liking.

[IC1967]

Thats a very poor answer Billy. If it could be proved that Balls was right all along and that George has implemented Plan B that would be a political earthquake off the Richter Scale and you and everyone else knows it. Why hasn't this earthquake happened? It's very simple. Plan B has not been implemented.

Don't forget, we're waiting for you to show us where the FT got it wrong on their verdict on Plan A v Plan B.

Another question. Please try harder and give us a better answer or just admit you were just plain wrong. If Plan B has been implemented then why is the proportion of workers in the public sector falling and at it's lowest level since 1999?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/million-public-sector-jobs-disappeared-2368521

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

I'll let Prof Wren-Lewis do the take-down of the FT. Not that it'll be good enough for you, but it'll do for anyone with an open mind.

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/austerity-growth-and-being-economical.html

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/osbornes-plan-b.html

By the way. Wren-Lewis is in a profession where being correct and searching for the truth DOES matter. Because you get found out if you're wrong, and you're not able to use the dark arts of political spin to get out of it. So he doesn't care about what is politically helpful. He cares about what is true and what is false or ignorant.

[IC1967]

You claim that George has abandoned Plan A and switched to Balls Plan B. You then seek to prove this by providing links to a leftie economist in the hope that none of us will read his ramblings. As an expert in this field I am aware of Prof Wren-Lewis. The best he can come up with is the following:

Plan A was temporarily abandoned. Austerity stalled. Was that important in boosting the recovery that followed in 2013? We cannot know for sure

Plan A being modified and 'Plan A was temporarily abandoned' could be construed to have a similar meaning. I've already said Plan A has been modified. 'Plan A was temporarily abandoned' does not mean as you imply that George is now following Plan B. The key word in that phrase is 'temporary'. So even if we accept what the Prof is saying then you cannot claim that Plan A has been abandoned permanently and that George is now following Plan B and that is why things are turning around.

The Prof also says 'Austerity stalled. Was that important in boosting the recovery that followed in 2013? We cannot know for sure.' So unlike you, even he is not claiming that the improvement in the economy is down to this alleged U turn. You on the other hand claim all the improvement in the economy is totally down to Plan B. The Prof is open-minded enough to acknowledge that the previous years of Austerity could well have something to do with the recovery.

So the reason Balls does not go around saying that George is implementing Plan B is because even when referring to the Prof, he can't back up the argument. The best he could say is that Plan A was temporarily put on hold. A completely different thing as you well know.

So just admit you've been caught bang to rights and Plan A is still George's policy. Plan B is dead. Long live Plan A.

[IC1967]

Another question. Please try harder and give us a better answer or just admit you were just plain wrong. If Plan B has been implemented then why is the proportion of workers in the public sector falling and at it's lowest level since 1999?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/million-public-sector-jobs-disappeared-2368521

Still waiting.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Phew...the same old treadmill.

You will take whatever information you need to support your pre-conceived ideas and you will admit nothing else into your head. You will decide what you think other people think and you will ignore any evidence to the contrary.

A little example. You have convinced yourself that I believe that Osborne has totally rejected Austerity and been converted to what Keynesian analysts have been saying since 2010. You totally ignore the fact that just up the page I wrote:
"As SWL's table shows (using OBR data) growth is coming because Austetity stopped.

The political aim here of course, is for Osborne to do enough to win in 2015. And then start Austerity again. Because Austerity was never about the economics. It couldn't be, because the economics doesn't work. Austerity was always an ideological drive to turn us into a smaller State country. "

And you also convinced yourself that Plan A HASN'T been abandoned.

Now. Go and have a look at that Table that Wren-Lewis posts (from OBR data, so it doesn't matter if he's a raving pinko or what he is - we are talking about FACTS here, not opinions). Tell me if you see a temporary cessation of Austerity, which a) wasn't planned originally and b) co-incides exactly with the increase in growth.


A further point. You say "The Prof is open-minded enough to acknowledge that the previous years of Austerity could well have something to do with the recovery." Well, you clearly AREN'T familiar with his opinions, because it is claims like that that he has spent the last couple of years tearing his hair out over.

Let me give you some quotes from him:
February 2012:
"My prediction is that some people will say that growth shows those Keynesian prophets of doom were all wrong. Look, the patient has recovered just fine without the need for any fiscal stimulus medicine. If people do say this, they will be wrong on two counts. " (I'll stop there Mick, although you're welcome to read the two counts that people would be wrong on for yourself http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/when-growth-returns-prediction.html)

How right he was about that...

Sept 2013: "the argument that positive growth proves critics of austerity wrong continues to annoy me...the amazing thing is how the idea that the emergence of growth after years of stagnation proves austerity was just fine could gain a moments traction. Do not get me wrong. There are some arguments in favour of austerity that should be seriously debated. But this is not one of them. Instead the argument is just silly. So how can people get away with making it?"
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/austerity-growth-and-being-economical.html

As for why no-one has trumpeted it in the media:
Dec 2013: " will see if the myth that Osborne stuck to Plan A survives, and we really do have to live with a post-truth media. "

[BillyStubbsTears]

Another question. Please try harder and give us a better answer or just admit you were just plain wrong. If Plan B has been implemented then why is the proportion of workers in the public sector falling and at it's lowest level since 1999?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/million-public-sector-jobs-disappeared-2368521

Still waiting.

There are some questions so spectacularly stupid that you assume the questioner is simply asking them to demonstrate their own spectacular stupidity. But it appears that you actually wanted an answer to this one. Here we go again.

The number of people employed by Govt has no direct correlation with Govt spending.

Consider.
1) Govt sacks 100,000 civil servants, and gives Govt-funded contracts to private sector companies to do the same work. That reduces the number of Govt employees, increases the number of private sector employees, but does not in itself do anything to change Govt expenditure. It MAY reduce Govt expenditure if the private company is highly efficient. Alternatively, if the private company is highly inefficient and/or corrupt (think Serco charging for tagging dead people...), it may even increase Govt expenditure.

2) Govt decides to stimulate the economy by placing more private sector contracts. That increases the private sector employment levels and simultaneously increases Govt expenditure.

A tiny example
 http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/schoolscapital/priority-school-building-programme  ...which came on stream this year, 3 years after Gove stopped the schools rebuilding programme...


Others include HS2,  increased road spending and of course, the subsidy for the housing bubble that we are now in.

Simple enough for you?

[IC1967]

A little example. You have convinced yourself that I believe that Osborne has totally rejected Austerity and been converted to what Keynesian analysts have been saying since 2010. You totally ignore the fact that just up the page I wrote:
"As SWL's table shows (using OBR data) growth is coming because Austetity stopped.

The political aim here of course, is for Osborne to do enough to win in 2015. And then start Austerity again. Because Austerity was never about the economics. It couldn't be, because the economics doesn't work. Austerity was always an ideological drive to turn us into a smaller State country. "

I'm confused. You're saying that you don't believe he has abandoned Plan A? You then say that he has and will introduce it again after the 2015 election. A bit contradictory if you don't mind me saying.

And you also convinced yourself that Plan A HASN'T been abandoned.

Correct. At best (if we believe your Prof which I don't) it was temporarily suspended but is now back in full force.

Now. Go and have a look at that Table that Wren-Lewis posts (from OBR data, so it doesn't matter if he's a raving pinko or what he is - we are talking about FACTS here, not opinions). Tell me if you see a temporary cessation of Austerity, which a) wasn't planned originally and b) co-incides exactly with the increase in growth.

No I don't see a temporary cessation of Austerity, which a) wasn't planned originally and b) co-incides exactly with the increase in growth. I see George introducing a bit of flexibility into plan A.

A further point. You say "The Prof is open-minded enough to acknowledge that the previous years of Austerity could well have something to do with the recovery." Well, you clearly AREN'T familiar with his opinions, because it is claims like that that he has spent the last couple of years tearing his hair out over.

He said 'Plan A was temporarily abandoned. Austerity stalled. Was that important in boosting the recovery that followed in 2013? We cannot know for sure.' By inference he is not saying what you are saying. He implies that maybe Austerity had something to do with it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I give up Mick

You have a peculiar way of ignoring anything anyone actually says and instead answering what you convince yourself that they say. I haven't got time in my life to continue discussing with a person who is incapable of even reading what is set out in front of him. If that convinces you that you are correct, then I'm very happy for you.

Merry Xmas.

[River Don]

The growth figures look good but...

UK current account defect balloons to highest level since 1989.

Retailers experiencing disappointing Christmas sales performance.

The good news just keeps on coming.

I wonder what sort of a recovery is this?

[IC1967]

The growth figures look good but...

UK current account defect balloons to highest level since 1989.

Retailers experiencing disappointing Christmas sales performance.

The good news just keeps on coming.

I wonder what sort of a recovery is this?

It's the sort of recovery that Billy and Labour love. Debt fuelled. At least the Tories are shrinking the state and have a commitment to reduce spending long-term. They are the lesser of the two evils.

[BillyStubbsTears]

RD.

There is basically just two things that governs whether a country gets richer or poorer and thereby, whether a recovery is of any real benefit to the country:

1) How many people are economically active.
2) How productive they are.

Of course, it's good news that unemployment is coming down (finally - after the longest spell of >2.5M unemployment in our history) and that more people are working. But what about productivity?

Here's the most frightening set of data of the lot. 



Something has gone fundamentally wrong with the UK economy and whatever the merits of the recovery, it is not being put right. We have had a more or less constant increase in productivity for more than 50 years. Under MacMillan, Home, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown our productivity rose. Through Butskellism, the Barber Boom, Stagflation, Monetarism, the Lawson Boom, the ERM disaster, and the Great Moderation, productivity rose more or less constantly.


But now we are in a period of utter stagnation. That is appallingly bad news for the medium and long term future. Whether it is engineering graduates working as barristas because there is no demand for engineers. whether it is companies not being able to invest in the latest productive equipment because they can't get credit, whether it is the 1.5M people who are working part-time who desperately want full-time work; whatever it is, something is badly not working at the core of our economy. The result is that people are having to work harder without seeing any sign of improvements in their living standard. They won't, because without improvements in productivity, the slices of the cake don't increase. That is the Big Point that Labour have caught onto. A recovery that has stagnating productivity at its core is no recovery at all, in terms of what it means to individuals.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The growth figures look good but...

UK current account defect balloons to highest level since 1989.

Retailers experiencing disappointing Christmas sales performance.

The good news just keeps on coming.

I wonder what sort of a recovery is this?

It's the sort of recovery that Billy and Labour love. Debt fuelled. At least the Tories are shrinking the state and have a commitment to reduce spending long-term. They are the lesser of the two evils.

Mick.

Stop making a prick of yourself, just for once.

[IC1967]

I give up

You have a peculiar way of ignoring anything anyone actually says and instead answering what you convince yourself that they say. I haven't got time in my life to continue discussing with a person who is incapable of even reading what is set out in front of him. If that convinces you that you are correct, then I'm very happy for you.

Merry Xmas

.

At last you've seen sense and have admitted defeat. About time. You know you are no match for me.

Merry Xmas