The Economics Debate....
31 October 2012
It is one thing to participate in discussing economics on this forum. It is a very frustrating exercise in which people who may hold very strong views but know nothing about how the economy works argue with a pretence of authority with others who do know what they are talking about.
It is one thing to participate in discussing economics on this forum. It is a very frustrating exercise in which people who may hold very strong views but know nothing about how the economy works argue with a pretence of authority with others who do know what they are talking about.
It is quite another thing to have a debate between people who actually know what they are talking about.
The Spectator held an event on Monday that I would have loved to attend. It was a debate on whether a 'Plan B' should be adopted for the economy.
Speaking in favour of the motion were former Labour Chancellor, Alistair Darling, LibDem Peer Lord Oakeshott and economist David Blanchfower (the latter I have clashed with myself at an IFA conference).
Speaking against were Former Chancellor Norman Lamont, journalist Frazer Nelson and Conservative MP and rising star Jesse Norman.
As is so often the case at the start of the debate the chairman 'took the temperature' of the audience. 105 people were in favour of Darling's motion, 133 against while 112 were 'don't knows'.
Reading through the article about the debate (link below) it looks to have been a lively affair and one that I would have loved to engage in. It seems that Darling tried all the old Labour chestnuts and scapegoats but was not allowed to get away with it.
The outcome? Who won?
Well, only the audience can judge that.
At the end 154 people supported Darling's motion while 250 opposed it. Clearly a lot of people arrived late!!! That said, a win for common sense.
- Barry, if you believe that Plan A means just cutting spending, increasing the budget deficit and the National Debt - as the Coalition has done thus far, reducing Council spending by 40%, laying of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers, printing more digital money - as Osborne has done through the BoE on several occasions, and keeping unemployment at a maximum peak, then that's a very sad plan A.
- lord heseltine sees things very differently with his ideas for giving the economy a kick start.
- Lord Heseltine wants much more local economic decision-making, and believes this is in line with Localism as envisaged by the Government. It's also what I've been saying.
Barry said it was all tosh. Will he say the same of Lord Heseltine's speech?
Whatever I write Barry says it's tosh! - Because that is an accurate description of your economic recipes Alexander.
Heseltine has come up with a mixed bag, not surprising as he is a bit of an interventionist. As I have said many times it is supply side reforms needed above all else for sustainable long term growth. Some of the Heseltine prescription is positive but only for short term boost, though that is needed.
Bringing together all the government capital projects and lumping them in with local regeneration budget is one of his better ideas.
Alexander - plan A is deficit reduction using a mix of 80% spending cuts and 20% tax rises. It is wrong only in that the spending cuts are too little too long and the tax rises should be cuts. The tax cuts paid for by spending cuts. This is to help grow the economy and create more real sustainable jobs. The BoE are those who decide upon monetary stimulus, such as QE, it is not part of plan A or any plan. I am opposed to QE.
You clearly have not read what I recommended to you. If you had any real genuine interest in economics then you would be informing yourself of the writings of Friedman, Hayek and yes, even Keynes. But clearly you think you know better than the top economists of the 20th century. - Tax cuts won't make British productivity more competitive, Barry.
The Chinese pay on average 50 euro a month for factory work, and ship it anywhere in the world, including the UK.
India produces Pear soap for the UK (I mean: Pear soap! a symbol of British production from times remote), Clarks shoes and so many other shoe brands that once were produced here, and they do it employing anything from the lowest cast - the untouchables - to children purchased from their families or abducted in the streets. Child slave labour in India is a known subject.
To be competitive, tax cuts are simply not the answer. We need a fair trade law, that bans all rubbish price manufacture from abroad and unfair competitiveness in general. - Read the b****y books about economics I recommended Alexander and you might have enough knowledge to hold down a debate of this kind.
- Barry, try reading where your shoes and trousers are produced: the first in India, the latter in China.
That tells volumes! - If you had more knowledge of these matters then you would see this in the perspective of the wider economy. But you are not really interested and just prefer to argue from a position of total ignorance.
- What a very self important statement Barry. So you consider yourself an expert on these matters eh? Are you having a giraffe?
Remember a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It appears your side "won". So you believe in consensus economics eh? The type of economics which got us all into this mess in the first place with contrarians being laughed at by the mainstream opinion makers?
Total tosh.
Presumably you think Osbourne is doing the right thing like creating a carbon price floor, the green investment bank, prevaricating on our status as a hub for international air traffic, giving away 0.7% of gdp to foreign aid, building wind farms everywhere, U-turning on many different policy statements, completely messing up our energy requirements, destroying our manufacturing base because of these higher energy costs.
These bunch of muppets don't have any real plan - A, B or C. - Philip - have you been on the Alexander fantasy pill? you clearly are on something.
When have I ever been in favour of so called 'consensus' economics whatever that is?
When have I ever been non-critical of the rather wimpy approach by Osborne to the economy?
When have I ever been a supporter of the sandal wearers?
I may understand why Osborne is being wimpish, I may understand why Cameron sucks up to the environment lobby, I certainly understand the political dilemma of coalition politics and give them some slack, but that does not mean I agree with these policies.
Incidentally - to say I am anything other than a contrarian is rather strange!
How true, but there are audiences and there are audiences.