Mervyn King, late to the party but better late than never...
- 13 February 2013 14:40215189......... His latest inflation report make interesting reading. Some key points:
- The BoE cannot do much more with a general monetary stimulus.
- He said the Chancellor must bring in supply side reforms in his budget, meaning tax cuts and deregulation for businesses
- Inflation is set to remain above target for some years yet
- Environmental policies have hit families
In addition today the CBI predicted that there will not be a triple dip recession but point out that the economy remains weak and downgraded their growth forecasts.
None of this is a surprise to me or readers of this blog.
I have been calling for those very supply side measures in this blog and elsewhere for a long time now. When you cannot spend your way out of a spending crisis, when you cannot borrow your way out of a borrowing crisis, what is left?
Perhaps now that King has seen the light and spoken out George Osborne will act, defy the LimpDems and do what is necessary to help business get us out of the mire.
Again his inflation forecast is no surprise, this is the price for QE and it may be worse than he lets on, he knows it and that is why he has said there is nothing left he can do with monetary stimulus.
His comments on environmental policies will please a certain reader of this blog, once again too much cosying up to the LimpDems is just making things worse.
What the CBI said is good news and, indeed all is not gloom from King either. The economy is struggling to shake of the recession but it is doing so slowly, too slowly and that is why the supply side measures are so important.
There are going to be more holes in the road ahead but if Osborne takes on board what King has said and acts then the journey will be a lot smoother..... - 13 February 2013 14:44215192Blast - that was meant to be my blog but is a thread instead - teach me to do it in a hurry....back to work now........
- 13 February 2013 14:46215194What is this 'deregulation' and should it be done across the board?Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
- 13 February 2013 14:46215195i noticed you used the word "blog" and just assumed that you had posted where you didn't mean to.
- 13 February 2013 14:49215197Tom - Yes is the word but it is the small companies that need it most. Those companies that have the greatest potential to grow.
I have said before what should be included and it should be directed primarily at reducing the risks and costs of employing people. A lot has been said about this before, no time to go into it now. Report to finish before end of afternoon.... - 13 February 2013 15:30215204Barry, we'd best both be very careful here as the risk is we may end up agreeing. Wooooh scary!
I have not read the full adjudication of the court in the recent case regarding the 'free labour'/work experience issue, that is in any case being tailored to fit aspects of the adjudication and perhaps to be heard in appeal.
Nevertheless,
I fancy that it would be a great advance to rid us of unemployment at a stroke by counting those in receipt of 'unemployment benefit' as being in a pool of an "in training/available for temporary employment" situation. Although I see the need here for changes to both employment regulations and benefit regulations.
Where out putative accord may break down is in seeing the unemployed as a continuing asset and not as an amorphous body to be starved into accepting 18th century workplace practices.Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - 13 February 2013 15:53215208The hyperbole of your last sentence does you no justice Tom. Nobody wants 19th century workplace practices, what we need is more recognition that excessive protectionism actually damages the supply of jobs and economic growth. A common sense balance is needed from which competition in the jobs market can drive up incomes and skills with a ready supply of willing employers and employees.
- 13 February 2013 16:44215221going off subject every time i listen to mervyn king speak i wonder if he actually believes what he is saying. for someone who has reached the top he seems to have had no schooling in sounding convincing.
- 13 February 2013 16:50215223King's big worry is that Mark Carney will a. succeed where King failed and b. thereby make King look a prat.I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
- Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
13 February 2013 17:53215245Barryw
the view you hold on the rights of employees and giving employers the right to dismiss without reason
is where we differ.
therefore rather than move even further down the road of demorolised workforce, instead do more to protect employeesALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 13 February 2013 18:52215298More protection equals more risk for the employer, more cost for the employer and less growth in the economy and more unemployed.
If you want fewer unemployed, better paid workforce and economic growth then you need to reduce the barriers to these things.
You can ask why every Labour government increases the level of unemployment, the sledge hammer of more employee rights is the reason why. A totally counter productive policy.
Better employment security is obtained by an increased supply of jobs. - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
13 February 2013 19:03215302well theres a couple of biased comments i've ever seen,lighten up boys. - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
13 February 2013 19:04215304Brian
you have indicated your support for workers rightsALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
13 February 2013 19:06215306yes i have,but only in compermise. - 13 February 2013 19:06215307And workers rights should be accompanied with wrkers responsibilities.
Roger - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
13 February 2013 19:07215308yes roger,its a two way street. - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
13 February 2013 19:08215309Thats correct Roger
At the moment its all to far weighed in the employers favour
which does little for moraleALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 13 February 2013 19:12215312But do workers have the right level of responsibility - in many cases they don't and that is why many employers are shy of taking on new staff.
Roger - 13 February 2013 19:40215327barry
3rd paragraph in post 11 is not true, as you have pointed out many times here the reds leave office with higher unemployment.
however the figures show that over the duration of a government unemployment is higher under the blues than the reds. - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
13 February 2013 19:46215333Oh n o howard
barryw wont like your comments
he will make you one of the nastiesALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
