Osborne dishonestly trying to rewrite his history

[jaywalker]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @Jaywalker...

>

> Hesse's writings are influential mainly in the

> physical sciences but could not be regarded as an

> influential figure in the wider social science

> context.

I think this is wrong. Her arguments are about the nature of enquiry - there is nothing to disqualify them from an interrogation of social science. That there is a profound imbrication of the tropic in any 'rational' 'objective' 'value-free' enquiry extends beyond the physical science she used as her evidence.

Knorr Cetina on the other hand does have

> much value due to her studies in regard to the

> relationships between science, knowledge &

> society.

I agree. I was blown away by her writing (see particularly the discussion of CERN in Epistemic Cultures).

> All that navel-gazing stuff is a bit lost on me.

But what else do we have? We cannot trust our everyday self-certainties - if we could, you would not bother with econometrics. And if you take THAT step, why stop there?

> I am more grounded in Descartes,

Descartes articulated radical doubt (he made the mistake of travelling in his youth - made him a bit postmodern). We do not have to take the cogito at face value.

Newton & Leibniz

> - the rationalists & mathematicians

well, Newton believed in magic, Lucifer, and all sorts of influential (and rubbish) metaphysics. And he was, of course, wrong (about the physics).

who embraced

> empiricism also though many empiricists have a lot

> of difficulty in embracing rationalism. I tend

> also to add tinctures of skepticism & pragmatism

> in my approach to my work. Each has their place.

I guess pragmatism was a philosophy directly aimed at positivism. How do you live under these two roofs??

> Also - please don't confuse econometricists with

> classical economists.

bien sur, but you said you were doing 'agent based modelling'. So how do you theorise that?

Quants are regularly at

> odds or at least uneasy with our classical

> cousins. Economists are good at big-picture

> thinking,

no they are not.

usually good at talking and are really

> really good at politics and influencing

> government,

I fear this is true

whereas on the other hand quants are

> not so good at this, mostly because we are too

> critical of our own short-comings and very aware

> of what criteria is missing from the mix -

> politicians prefer absolutes to conditional

> thought. Big picture 'blue-sky' thinking has been

> the cause of most economic failure as the people

> with the most clout are often people with very

> little experience of analytical objectivity.

ok

> Science makes knowledge, knowledge shapes the

> future.

there is no such thing as knowledge. there is only action in which sense is stabilised/de-stabilised. you need to update your agent based models to accommodate this. It is a fundamental pragmatist principle (e.g. see John Dewey).

Quants merely try to make sense of the

> world around us today - we don't try to shape the

> future; we test hypotheses & attempt to forecast

> trends. Often we can see black holes but much of

> the time a suitable solution eludes us. Our

> successes are greater than our failures so we find

> ourselves still gainfully employed.

well, beware of the poker players delusion. "I won several tournaments so I am a good poker player" (then look at Monte-Carlo simulations of poker tournaments).

[Lowlander]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is a good read......

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar

> /17/george-osborne-editor-substance-london-evening

> -standard?CMP=share_btn_tw

>

> Small extract below. What a phrase.

>

> As for Lebedev, no appointment by him could really

> be regarded as eyebrow-raising ? particularly when

> you?re as Botoxed as the nine circles of his

> friendship inferno are. A starfucker of

> thermonuclear pretensions, Lebedev is marginally

> more likely to dip-dye his horse?s mane for a W

> magazine feature than he is to appoint it features

> editor. But only marginally.

>

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?2

> 0,file=253290

Two cracking links AM.

I'd read the Guardian article and love the line "...starfucker of thermonuclear pretensions..."

[rendelharris]

Lowlander Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd read the Guardian article and love the line

> "...starfucker of thermonuclear pretensions..."

That was the one which instantly caught my eye, I'm not the biggest fan of Ms.Hyde but that one definitely fell into the "wish I'd written that" category.

[Lordship 516]

In 1997 when New Labour came to office the National Debt stood at 42% of GDP. Even though the government embarked on sorting out investment in the NHS & Education by 2002 this had dropped to 35%. From then to 2008 the ratio increased gradually to 47.4%. In the following two years it increased to 55% & 68% respectively for reasons the we all have come to understand.

Contrary to the propaganda of Cameron & Osborne, the labour Government left the economy & the fabric of the UK in reasonable good health. They had improved education, health & housing much of which has been/is being torn down by the coalition & the current mob. The real failure of all of labour since 2010 is allowing them to put the idea across that Labour left the country in an economic mess - the opposite is the truth; it is the coalition & the conservatives that have created the mess and created an imbalanced economy & a very divided society.

From 2010 to 2016 the UK national debt to GDP ratio steadily increased to 85%; it is now 84%, the same as 2015.

This is Gideon?s economic legacy.

He has taken from the poor, the disabled, the NHS, housing & education and given to the wealthy [both foreign & locals] - his own privileged friends, some of whom are rewarding him with jobs & substantial incomes. The current administration are carrying on his legacy. They will use the cover of Brexit to achieve their goals - to implement more austerity by abusing the co-operative spirit of the UK people, that surfaces in face of adversity, to enrich the already rich & privileged & to entrap the greater population in miserable circumstances for years to come. Let them eat cake.

Our real adversaries are not the EU - it is the enemy within - the Conservative changeling party that is in thrall to the lunatic fringe fringe to the right of bugger all. A bunch of 5th columnists that are set to subvert everything that this country has so painstakingly fought & worked for.

[????]

I love the objective, non-partisan and rational voice of our own EDF Economist. Jump the shark point on politics on here for me....

[JohnL]

He's got 6 jobs and he's tired.

Poor guy ;)

[Lordship 516]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I love the objective, non-partisan and rational

> voice of our own EDF Economist. Jump the shark

> point on politics on here for me....

More of a snipe point than shark....

So, please tell me what I quoted was biased..? I just quoted their own output to illustrate the current reality...

[Loz]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In 1997 when New Labour came to office the National Debt stood at 42% of GDP. Even though

> the government embarked on sorting out investment in the NHS & Education by 2002 this had dropped to

> 35%. From then to 2008 the ratio increased gradually to 47.4%. In the following two years it

> increased to 55% & 68% respectively for reasons the we all have come to understand.

>

> Contrary to the propaganda of Cameron & Osborne, the labour Government left the economy & the

> fabric of the UK in reasonable good health. They had improved education, health & housing much of

> which has been/is being torn down by the coalition & the current mob. The real failure of all of

> labour since 2010 is allowing them to put the idea across that Labour left the country in an economic

> mess - the opposite is the truth; it is the coalition & the conservatives that have created

> the mess and created an imbalanced economy & a very divided society.

Interesting that you will happily allow the Labour party to blame the increase in national debt to the global crisis, but not extend the same courtesy to the Tories.

The problem with using the 'percentage of GDP' measure is that GDP has varied quite wildly over the past 10 years. Let's have a look at actual deficits, rather than total debt.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/include/ukgs_chartDp01t.png

We can see that, even during the pre-2008 boom years, Labour were still running deficits, instead of paying off the debt. That is where Labour can, quite legitimately, be criticised. Post crash, the budget deficit skyrocketed to ?50 billion in 2009 and ?103 billion in 2010. In the subsequent recovery the deficit has slowly declined, reaching ?40 billion in 2016. Looking at percentage of GDP, as you have, gives a vastly different picture.

There is a lot that Osborne did wrong, but trying to get us to spend within our means, especially in the aftermath of 2008, isn't one of them. Yes, he could have done it better, but what would Labour have done? Borrowed and spent more?

So, I suspect your criticism is based more on politics than economics. It certainly reads that way.

[Lordship 516]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I love the objective, non-partisan and rational

> voice of our own EDF Economist. Jump the shark

> point on politics on here for me....

More like low level sniping.... All I have shown are the government's own figures compared to the New Labour performance...what's irrational about that..? Or should we try some post-fact analysis that fits the right wing agenda..?

Gideon's budgets have now finished and we are moving into the era of Hammond's own budgets - lets see what he produces [& how long he lasts]

New Labour's performance has been analysed in depth, particularly by CASE [LSE] and there has only been hysterical denunciation of their analysis by reactionary right wing la-la land afficianados...so we can reasonably say that the partisan shoe is worn on the right foot...

[Lordship 516]

???? Wrote:

[steveo]

That was quite succinct 516

[Lordship 516]

@Loz

Current deficits must be judged against the overall Total Public Debt as each years borrowings to service Current Deficit is added to the Total Public Debt. The Total Public Debt to GDP ratio is recognized as the most relevant measure regardless of other economic performance criteria as this is the reality that we will always find ourselves in.

In 13 years from 1997/8 to 2009/10, the Labour Government increased debt from ?347 billion to ?1030 billion - an average of ?52.5 billion per year.

In the 5 years from 2010/11 to 2014/2015, the Coalition Government increased debt to ?1,554 billion - an average of ?104.8 billion per year.

At the end of January 2017, the amount of money owed by the public sector to the private sector stood at ?1,682.8 billion, or 85.3 percent of GDP.

You could say that what Gideon was about after 2015 was correcting the excesses of the coalition government by making unwarranted benevolent transfers from the sick, disabled, the poor to his own privileged class - they have rewarded him well with a top job in the city & a sinecure editorship from the Russian oligarch plus various speeches to the various well-off chattering classes.[This para is a political comment & well justified]

The change to austerity after 2010 was largely a self-induced panic with the Tory government talking down the economy in order to demonize the Labour party - the motive for austerity was the desire to paint a grim picture of public finances. This Tory mantra of economic pessimism became self-fulfilling. We have only the Tory party to blame for where we are now.

[Loz]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @Loz

>

> Current deficits must be judged against the overall Total Public Debt as each years borrowings

> to service Current Deficit is added to the Total Public Debt. The Total Public Debt to GDP ratio

> is recognized as the most relevant measure regardless of other economic performance criteria

> as this is the reality that we will always find ourselves in.

(Referring to the bit I bolded) By whom? That seems to be one of those vague statements people trot out to justify figures they like. Source please.

And anyway, as you can see from the wildly changing GDP figures over the last 10 years, it is hardly a "reality that we will always find ourselves in". It's a good long-term measure of debt-affordability, but a pretty useless short term measure, especially when GDP figures are so erratic.

> In 13 years from 1997/8 to 2009/10, the Labour Government increased debt from ?347 billion to

> ?1030 billion - an average of ?52.5 billion per year.

>

> In the 5 years from 2010/11 to 2014/2015, the Coalition Government increased debt to ?1,554

> billion - an average of ?104.8 billion per year.

And most of those Labour years were global boom years. As I said (and you haven't commented on), you were quite happy to allow the Labour party to blame the increase in national debt to the global crisis, but not extend the same courtesy to the Tories.

You also haven't commented on the main point I made - which your own figures back - that Labour spent in the boom years when we should have been paying off the debt.

[snip]

> You could say that what Gideon was about after 2015 was correcting the excesses of the coalition

> government by making unwarranted benevolent transfers from the sick, disabled, the poor to his

> own privileged class - they have rewarded him well with a top job in the city & a sinecure editorship

> from the Russian oligarch plus various speeches to the various well-off chattering classes.

You could say that, but again you would sound like someone more driven by politics than economics. I am neither a Labour or Tory voter - so all your political angst-ridden waffle won't cut it with me. Stick to economic facts - at the moment you are just trotting out your political beliefs and trying to justify them with a bunch of rather unconnected figures. Where have you shown data for these "unwarranted benevolent transfers"?? That has absolutely sod all to to with national debt figures, whether measured directly or as a percentage of GDP.

And you still haven't said what Labour would/could have done differently, apart from borrowing and spending.

Or even, since you are so concerned about the national debt, how would you bring the figure down?

[Lordship 516]

@ Loz

I too have no political allegiance but on balance I have greater regard for the Labour performance than that of the Tories. I can only observe that the conservatives are very greedy & seem to want to maintain privilege for the few & care little for those in need. Words are easy - its action & effect on the street that tell the story.

"And anyway, as you can see from the wildly changing GDP figures over the last 10 years, it is hardly a "reality that we will always find ourselves in". It's a good long-term measure of debt-affordability, but a pretty useless short term measure, especially when GDP figures are so erratic."

The business of government is exactly to smooth the curve & the Public Net Debt/GDP relationship is relevant both long term & short term. The swings in GDP in the UK are relatively moderate & can be catered for within a good economic management structure, so long as governments are acting in an aware manner. The base level of UK GDP has been fairly stable but certain sectors need government policy support in order to develop base stability [construction & agriculture]

However, I wouldn't get too exercised about running Public Debt up if the reasons were good social policy or productive reasons. It could be argued that running up public debt @ 3% of GDP in the latter years of the boom was a mistake but this was a relatively minor mistake. Most of the boom was in development & finance with inflation running at very low levels. Few foresaw the impending recession. When you analyse the causal reasons for the recession it is clear that government spending levels & budget deficits contributed little if anything to the cause of the recession.

The current Tory government are setting about a rash policy of running the NHS into a corner so they can then pursue a policy of privatization, reducing spending on education thus creating [or indeed maintaining] a two speed education policy, doing little about social & affordable housing; Basically they are about rolling back on democracy & regaining the better life for the few rather than us all being in it together.

If you care to review economic history going back to 1913 you will see that the economy improved substantially with increases in wages, improvements in housing, establishment of the NHS & the insistence of the ordinary soldiers who came back from the wars for a better deal. The current negative increases in real wages is holding our economy back - we need a better spread of the nations income across the total population.

On the question of what I would do it is simple - I would set up a development fund similar to that proposed by John McDonnell & others[about ?250 to ?500 billion] by having it issue bonds to the BoE - QE but not for the banks & their mateys - with every citizen over 16 holding shares by right so it would not be a public entity but we all own it - say a Citizens Development Bank that would invest in strategic projects [hospitals, schools, housing] that would be self funding & the cash flow income [from current budgets or client/resident rental] would provide further & sustained stimulus for years to come. This would release the direct funding burden from the government & keep their current contributions down to a manageable level instead of frittering away moneys to banks & the already rich via PPP etc.

Most of the Public Net Debt is to banks & other financial institutions - this would be funding by citizens & payment from the exchequer, other agencies [councils, health authorities, schools etc]. The city boyos would never allow it to happen. They would lose their golden goose forever.....

[Lordship 516]

@ Loz

"unwarranted benevolent transfers"

1] Increasing Tax thresholds

2] Reducing top rate of income tax

3] Reduction in Capital Gains Tax [18% and 28% rates to 10% and 20%]

4] Increasing Inheritance Tax Relief

5] Reductions to tax relief on pensions

6] Reduction in Corporation Profits Tax [up to ?300k - 20% tax; over ?300K reduced from 23% to 20%

7] Quantitative Easing [40% of the gains went to the richest 5% of households - BoE figure]

The reductions in social support for disabled people + other supports are funding these reductions to the tune of ?50 billion+ up to 2020 .... this is a heck of a transfer program and unconscionable but won't cause Gideon & his mates to lose much sleep.

A distributional analysis of Mr Osborne?s Budgets shows that they benefit the richest the most ? and the poorest least.

Osborne said in his 2016 budget speech ?The British economy will stay on course and we will not burden our children and grandchildren. This is a budget for the next generation,?

He means HIS children & grandchildren & those of his claque of Tory grandees - bugger the rest of the mules....

Of course it all unravelled for him rather quickly but he has left a mess behind him & I suppose he will try to re-write his legacy from the sidelines in the Evening Standard.