Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Low Wage Growth + Wealth Inequality = Corbyn Surge
#11
(07-10-2017, 06:41 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Also don't higher interest rates potentially push those JAMs St Theresa talks about into unmanageable  debt?

Lenders (with the tacit support of the BoE & Govt) pushed unmanageable debt at low interest rates onto many Dekka. Some can't resist. Some can't support the lifestyle they fell they deserve without debt.

Thankfully most mortgages are on long term fixes. And savers massively outnumber borrowers and have been completely screwed since 2008. It's a fucker ain't it?

(07-10-2017, 06:55 PM)logic1 Wrote: You can see the austerity in this graph from 2010. Note how the size of the state is slashed. If fiscal policy had continued to be expansionary then it would have stimulated growth (as it had done from 2008-10) and then allowed interest rates to rise. The economy would have recovered, the zombie firms killed off and then there could have been a fiscal consolidation to ease the public finances. The irony is that if Cameron and Osborne had followed textbook Keynesian depression economics then they would both still be in power and Corbyn would be insignificant.

The message is clear - you do not do fiscal consolidation when you are in a depression and interest rates are at the zero-lower bound.

 [Image: united-kingdom-government-spending-to-gd...2=20171231]

So what you're saying, is that austerity = real terms increases in spending every year and spending still higher as a %of GDP than for ALL of the Labour governments up until the financial crisis? Like I say, some austerity. The daft mistake Osborne made was ringfencing departments from scrutiny, and not taking the opportunity to fundamentally reform the NHS.
Reply
#12
(07-10-2017, 10:44 AM)Protheroe Wrote: Seems there's a strong correlation with interest rates suppression and the huge growth in 'zombie companies' in Advanced Economies (AEs).

Suppressed interest rates kill economies. Suppressed interest rates / QE and the asset price inflation (wealth inequality) they create are major reasons for the Corbyn Surge.

We're reaping the whirlwind of debt, and our failure to deal with it. I'm not sure what diseased mind could think more debt is the answer.

[Image: DETplvbXcAElf7U.jpg]

Listen Proth - i shall say zis only once. People havent swung to Corbyn because of a correlation with some graphs. I know that doesnt fit with your script. But it will really help you if you open your eyes and understand the real reasons. People have had enough of robotic, stale and ceremonial politics. Corbyn offers the opportunity to vote for a human being. The real correlation is that as soon as people got to see the real Corbyn and not the media spin, they quickly shifted over. May, by the same token, and the tory party more widely, were left with their pants around their ankles and the exposure has only got worse ever since.
Reply
#13
(07-10-2017, 06:21 PM)logic1 Wrote: Btw, would be interesting to know the number of zombie companies. I don't think it is wise to say that zombie companies are the main causal factor for low productivity.

They're a causal factor. Like cheap labour is too.

(07-10-2017, 07:24 PM)Heath Wrote: Listen Proth - i shall say zis only once. People havent swung to Corbyn because of a correlation with some graphs. I know that doesnt fit with your script. But it will really help you if you open your eyes and understand the real reasons. People have had enough of robotic, stale and ceremonial politics. Corbyn offers the opportunity to vote for a human being. The real correlation is that as soon as people got to see the real Corbyn and not the media spin, they quickly shifted over. May, by the same token, and the tory party more widely, were left with their pants around their ankles and the exposure has only got worse ever since.

I don't disagree Heath - in part. You well know I've been crying out for something different from the norm for a decade.

The political phenomena of Brexit, Trump & Corbyn all stem from the financial crisis. Nothing else.

The Corbyn phenomenon, which it is, is derived from his supporters viewing the world through a prism. The man, give him his due, has stuck doggedly to a credo that has proved an unmitigated disaster in every country in which it's been tried. A credo which suppresses free speech (even within his own party), the imprisonment of dissidents and mass starvation. The real Corbyn called the Falklands War a "Tory Plot". He opposed NATO intervention in Kosovo and dismissed Slobadan Milosevic's war crimes as a "fabrication". Apparently sending 800 troops to Estonia is "a provocation".

The Real Corbyn has £20,000 lying in his bank account from Iran's Press TV - a regime that hangs homosexuals. He told Andrew Marr that "dialogue" is the way forward with ISIS.

But, FREE STUFF. And suddenly everything is ignored. FREE STUFF and suddenly party stalwarts are treated like lepers for disagreeing with Corbyn - despite that fact that he was NEVER threatened with deselection despite voting 500 times WITH THE TORIES.

Forgive me if I sound incredulous. I am.

It's a damning indictment on the Tories (and New Labour) that they have allowed the under 40s to feel as though they don't have a stake. I hear that loud and clear now. But the reason for the rise of Corbyn is because of that helplessness caused by the financial crisis. His voters are clearly desperate. They must be to ignore everything he's said and done.
Reply
#14
I agree with what you say about about the under 40s.

Your view of Corbyn and what he represents sounds like youve spent way too much time reading the Daily Mail, which, in spite of my many differences with your views, youve never remotely sounded like before. Yes, I am sure some of his ideas, actions and concepts have and will continue to be controversial, seemingly naive or risky. But really and truly, he also has many positive characteristics that you neglect, and the prism is alive in that perception of him as the one that you alude to. It is no surprise that women and the young were the swing voters - they have the clearest intuition.
Reply
#15
Can I just say at this point it really did and does rankle with me that I felt I had no choice but to vote for a Corbyn led party but when I deem the alternative for my family was worse tell me what choice did I or many others have?
Reply
#16
The graph I used before was not the most helpful because clearly changes in GDP alter the public spending to GDP ratio. This graph is much better at showing austerity. It is total spending per capita in 2005 prices.

[Image: ukgs_line.php?title=Total%20Spending&yea..._e_g_g_g_g]
Reply
#17
(07-10-2017, 07:58 PM)Heath Wrote: I agree with what you say about about the under 40s.

Your view of Corbyn and what he represents sounds like youve spent way too much time reading the Daily Mail, which, in spite of my many differences with your views, youve never remotely sounded like before. Yes, I am sure some of his ideas, actions and concepts have and will continue to be controversial, seemingly naive or risky. But really and truly, he also has many positive characteristics that you neglect, and the prism is alive in that perception of him as the one that you alude to. It is no surprise that women and the young were the swing voters - they have the clearest intuition.

This fixation with "reading the Daily Mail" is very tiresome. Corbyn has said, and done everything I mentioned and much much more. It's all been widely reported everywhere, not just in the Daily Mail - often with pride in Socialist Worker or the Morning Star....

Happy to hear what these positive characteristics are though Heath.

(07-11-2017, 09:49 AM)logic1 Wrote: The graph I used before was not the most helpful because clearly changes in GDP alter the public spending to GDP ratio. This graph is much better at showing austerity. It is total spending per capita in 2005 prices.

[Image: ukgs_line.php?title=Total%20Spending&yea..._e_g_g_g_g]

So still massively higher than pre Financial Crisis then? Like I said, some austerity.
Reply
#18
Here is the austerity in Education: (All of these graphs are spending per capita in 2005 prices):

[Image: ukgs_line.php?title=Education&year=1986_..._e_g_g_g_g]

Here it is in welfare:

[Image: ukgs_line.php?title=Welfare&year=1986_20..._e_g_g_g_g]

Here it is in transport:

[Image: ukgs_line.php?title=Transport&year=1986_..._e_g_g_g_g]

Less so in health but our population is getting older so health spending per capita needs to rise dramatically:

[Image: ukgs_line.php?title=Health%20Care&year=1..._e_g_g_g_g]


Stagnant in defense:

[Image: ukgs_line.php?title=Defence&year=1986_20..._e_g_g_g_g]

Interest payments actually gone down (so much for burdening future generations). There is no reason at all why we couldn't have done additional borrowing as interest rates are zero. It is the best time to invest in our public services.

[Image: ukgs_line.php?title=Interest&year=1986_2..._e_g_g_g_g]

(07-11-2017, 09:51 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(07-10-2017, 07:58 PM)Heath Wrote: I agree with what you say about about the under 40s.

Your view of Corbyn and what he represents sounds like youve spent way too much time reading the Daily Mail, which, in spite of my many differences with your views, youve never remotely sounded like before. Yes, I am sure some of his ideas, actions and concepts have and will continue to be controversial, seemingly naive or risky. But really and truly, he also has many positive characteristics that you neglect, and the prism is alive in that perception of him as the one that you alude to. It is no surprise that women and the young were the swing voters - they have the clearest intuition.

This fixation with "reading the Daily Mail" is very tiresome. Corbyn has said, and done everything I mentioned and much much more. It's all been widely reported everywhere, not just in the Daily Mail - often with pride in Socialist Worker or the Morning Star....

Happy to hear what these positive characteristics are though Heath.

(07-11-2017, 09:49 AM)logic1 Wrote: The graph I used before was not the most helpful because clearly changes in GDP alter the public spending to GDP ratio. This graph is much better at showing austerity. It is total spending per capita in 2005 prices.

[Image: ukgs_line.php?title=Total%20Spending&yea..._e_g_g_g_g]

So still massively higher than pre Financial Crisis then? Like I said, some austerity.

Higher in nominal terms but falling on a per person basis. That is what austerity is and when you do it in a liquidity trap it tanks the economy. By all means feel free to cut the public sector as a proportion of the economy, but if you want to do that you do it when the economy has recovered. It's basic keynesian econ, it's not socialism, it's not neo-liberalism. All the evidence suggests is that when you are in a balance sheet recession you do not make it worse. But Cameron and Osborne didn't give a fuck, they just ideologically cut the size of the state and look at the pair of them now. And now we are run by right wing morons and the only other option is a bunch of left wing nutters.

Keynes was right, he wrote his general theory to save capitalism from itself.
Reply
#19
Beware of the cockroaches: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aust...31461.html

Indeed one of the arguments we've heard prominently in this thread features nicely in this article.

Finally this article summarises the economic disaster that austerity has had:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/

It has made us all poorer and eventually led to the political instability we now face.
Reply
#20
Proth - if you stop lookiny at him through those tinted specs I suspect you could see a few.

Integrity and honesty(Expenses scandal quickly highlighted that)
A preference for seeing situations from every angle rather than a nationalistic ideological view
A passion for equality, regardless of whether you believe he goes the right way about getting it
The ability to form a clear manifesto that the electorate could engage with
Leading a party that has become genuinely inclusive from bottom up


The thing about all the things you accuse him of is that whilst they might be 'true', the point about the Iranian TV channel more or less highlights how subjective and ridculous they are. Its a bit like saying someone who bought The Sun once was responsible for phone hacking. It's tenuous at best and in reality is exactly why the electorate got bored of all the half baked & subjective repetoire of the right wing press. I'm suprised you cant look a bit beyond it.

The tone away from mocking to concern is an indication of how much has changed. It is like some version of the 5 stages of grief.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)