Jeremy Corbyn

[Canalman]

Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.

The problem with the household analogy is not that it is simple, it is that it is wrong.

Correct. The old household analogy is subject to the usual idealogies. What if a prudent household has an illness in the family, an expensive one to cure? Socialism dicatates that the state should/ could step in and help. Extreme  capitalism says the opposite.

Household analogy also based on full employment. Rarely the case now.

[muppet]

Is this always the case: debt = bankruptcy

Anyway, you are trying to trap me into the analogy again. So best of luck with that.

Debt clearly does not always equal bankruptcy, and given the ridiculously low borrowing costs that the UK has enjoyed over the last decade or so, the folly was not taking on more debt to compensate for the lack of demand in the economy as so many private citizens started deleveraging at the same time. Instead we had a focus on 'balancing the books' which flowed from the analogy with household debt. I think such a policy is well worth sneering at.

I don't follow. Are you sneering at the private citizens for starting de-leveraging? Or at a policy which led them to start de-leveraging??

[deiseach]

I don't follow. Are you sneering at the private citizens for starting de-leveraging? Or at a policy which led them to start de-leveraging??

I am sneering at the policy that says the government should balance the books at the same time that so many private citizens are doing the same. It's a recipe for stunting economic recovery, which is exactly what happened.

[muppet]

Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.

The problem with the household analogy is not that it is simple, it is that it is wrong.

Correct. The old household analogy is subject to the usual idealogies. What if a prudent household has an illness in the family, an expensive one to cure? Socialism dicatates that the state should/ could step in and help. Extreme  capitalism says the opposite.

Household analogy also based on full employment. Rarely the case now.

That's different kettle of fish.










F*ck, I'll get slaughtered now for mixing my idioms with my analogies!

[deiseach]

Correct. The old household analogy is subject to the usual idealogies. What if a prudent household has an illness in the family, an expensive one to cure? Socialism dicatates that the state should/ could step in and help. Extreme  capitalism says the opposite.

Household analogy also based on full employment. Rarely the case now.

The analogy would work if the usual response to a member of the household losing their job would be to make another member of the household lose their job. Madness.

[Orior]

The analogy is not about a household, it is simply about balancing the books. The only time the average dope has to do this is in his household. Hence why it is used (and maybe overused).

Britain has had a national debt since 1694. How come it has not once gone bankrupt?

Because they kept stealing stuff from countries that they invaded and merged into their empire?

[magpie seanie]

The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.

The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.

I really hope he manages to introduce the idea that an economy is not a household into the conversation. If that's all he manages, his election will be a worthwhile exercise.

Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.

Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.

Someone asked about Labour's values.

It was supposed to be about workers. Fair wages for workers, housing for workers, shorter working hours for workers and safer working environments for workers. All noble and sensible stuff.

Now it is about high taxes for those who don't vote for Labour. That article on Corbyn has it as his Number One policy. We see it with the Left in Ireland too. They insist they will tax the rich and give the money to 'the most vulnerable in society', who invariably are their own voters. Most people have an image of 'the rich' as those ones in the magazines, with their yachts in Monaco, who don't work and who wouldn't miss the money.

The reality is that 'the rich' is anyone who earns more than the average industrial wage. (This was confirmed by an Irish Minister to a colleague of mine in the last 2 years - and Irish Labour aren't as left-wing as others). Thus they are intent on punishing up to 50% of earners.

Labour and the left used to be about workers, but now they are about screwing half of them. Whether in the UK or here, unless they return to their founding values of representing workers, instead of dividing them and setting out to screw half of them, I don't see them holding electoral sway in the modern world.

That's not a fair assessment at all. It's about having a society where those who can afford to make a greater contribution to the costs of running services for everyone do so. I think in a post financial collapse era - where certainly the lower earners in society had absolutely nothing to do with the mess or the additional debt created - a greater share of the additional burden should be carried by the more well off. I don't think this can be argued. The cruelty of imposing measures like USC on guiltless people who were struggling anyway is beyond belief.

"Giving money to poor people"....."punishing 50% of workers".....it's sweeping inaccurate mantras like this that falsely label any policies not part of the capitalist groupthink cartel. I believe in a society that is fair for all - not one that barely exists and even then it's only for when things go wrong for the top dogs.

[muppet]

I don't follow. Are you sneering at the private citizens for starting de-leveraging? Or at a policy which led them to start de-leveraging??

I am sneering at the policy that says the government should balance the books at the same time that so many private citizens are doing the same. It's a recipe for stunting economic recovery, which is exactly what happened.

So you think the UK, which has printed money for the last 7 years, should borrow and spend more?

The UK QE policy in 2009 created £200bn and increased economic output by 1.5%-2%. Now I am no economist and surely an increase is a good thing, right?

Here is an interesting graph:



That is the total value of sterling in circulation. Compare that with the £200bn they printed in the 2009 QE. Like I said I am no economist, but I don't think that was a government 'balancing the books' and even worse, it only bought a tiny amount of growth.

[muppet]

The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.

The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.

I really hope he manages to introduce the idea that an economy is not a household into the conversation. If that's all he manages, his election will be a worthwhile exercise.

Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.

Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.

Someone asked about Labour's values.

It was supposed to be about workers. Fair wages for workers, housing for workers, shorter working hours for workers and safer working environments for workers. All noble and sensible stuff.

Now it is about high taxes for those who don't vote for Labour. That article on Corbyn has it as his Number One policy. We see it with the Left in Ireland too. They insist they will tax the rich and give the money to 'the most vulnerable in society', who invariably are their own voters. Most people have an image of 'the rich' as those ones in the magazines, with their yachts in Monaco, who don't work and who wouldn't miss the money.

The reality is that 'the rich' is anyone who earns more than the average industrial wage. (This was confirmed by an Irish Minister to a colleague of mine in the last 2 years - and Irish Labour aren't as left-wing as others). Thus they are intent on punishing up to 50% of earners.

Labour and the left used to be about workers, but now they are about screwing half of them. Whether in the UK or here, unless they return to their founding values of representing workers, instead of dividing them and setting out to screw half of them, I don't see them holding electoral sway in the modern world.

That's not a fair assessment at all. It's about having a society where those who can afford to make a greater contribution to the costs of running services for everyone do so. I think in a post financial collapse era - where certainly the lower earners in society had absolutely nothing to do with the mess or the additional debt created - a greater share of the additional burden should be carried by the more well off. I don't think this can be argued. The cruelty of imposing measures like USC on guiltless people who were struggling anyway is beyond belief.

"Giving money to poor people"....."punishing 50% of workers".....it's sweeping inaccurate mantras like this that falsely label any policies not part of the capitalist groupthink cartel. I believe in a society that is fair for all - not one that barely exists and even then it's only for when things go wrong for the top dogs.

Seanie you are guilty of similar sweeping inaccurate mantras. 'those who can afford to make a greater contribution' - [this is measured ONLY on income - what about his debts, size of family, money inherited etc] ... 'the lower earners in society had absolutely nothing to do with the mess or the additional debt created' [neither did most of us - why should I have to pay and the fella next door doesn't?]...

The spin is that there is hidden bunch of rich people out there that can be tapped to pay our way without any consequences. The reality is that they will have to tax everyone.

[muppet]

Correct. The old household analogy is subject to the usual idealogies. What if a prudent household has an illness in the family, an expensive one to cure? Socialism dicatates that the state should/ could step in and help. Extreme  capitalism says the opposite.

Household analogy also based on full employment. Rarely the case now.

The analogy would work if the usual response to a member of the household losing their job would be to make another member of the household lose their job. Madness.

Ironically that household would probably be far better off if everyone was unemployed.

[deiseach]

The UK should have borrowed more and spent more. Growth of 1.5%-2% was puny considering the amount by which output fell during the recession. And here's the thing. The oh-so-ruthless markets never once wavered in their demand for British government debt. No matter how low the interest charged and how much they supposedly debased sterling with quantitative easing, the red braces snapped up British bonds. Future economists will look back on this period when the British government, given the low rates and the likely prospects for inflation, at times turned their nose up at free money and wonder what the hell went on.

[easytiger95]

I think the Keynesian counterc cyclical point of view that expanding government spending during a recession is a fairly good way of getting out of that recession - as the inverse (keeping tight spending controls during times of growth) to stave off a crash, has also been proved (fairly well in our case).

But beyond my simple reading of it - surely it is a case that it is what the government is spending it on, rahter than how much it prints that counts. If it is printing money to buy bonds or prop up banks than that type of spending does not have a great effect on growth or the real economy. However, if you insist that private bondholders bear the brunt of their gamble, whilst directing government spending towards large capital and infrastructure projects, you both reduce the amount the government directly owes, whilst increasing growth in the real economy. Hence the New Deal and Corbyn's own People's QE? Isn't this the nub of the argument? that whilst printing money in the US and Europe has been going at the same rate as it would have in the 30s, the printed money has been diverted to prop up the banking system, whilst government spending is slashed at a time of historically low borrowing rates?

[muppet]

I think the Keynesian counterc cyclical point of view that expanding government spending during a recession is a fairly good way of getting out of that recession - as the inverse (keeping tight spending controls during times of growth) to stave off a crash, has also been proved (fairly well in our case).

But beyond my simple reading of it - surely it is a case that it is what the government is spending it on, rahter than how much it prints that counts. If it is printing money to buy bonds or prop up banks than that type of spending does not have a great effect on growth or the real economy. However, if you insist that private bondholders bear the brunt of their gamble, whilst directing government spending towards large capital and infrastructure projects, you both reduce the amount the government directly owes, whilst increasing growth in the real economy. Hence the New Deal and Corbyn's own People's QE? Isn't this the nub of the argument? that whilst printing money in the US and Europe has been going at the same rate as it would have in the 30s, the printed money has been diverted to prop up the banking system, whilst government spending is slashed at a time of historically low borrowing rates?

Surely, no matter how you look at it, the problem is too much debt? Whether it is in the banking system or Government borrowing, or QE??

More debt is hardly the solution.

[magpie seanie]

The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.

The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.

I really hope he manages to introduce the idea that an economy is not a household into the conversation. If that's all he manages, his election will be a worthwhile exercise.

Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.

Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.

Someone asked about Labour's values.

It was supposed to be about workers. Fair wages for workers, housing for workers, shorter working hours for workers and safer working environments for workers. All noble and sensible stuff.

Now it is about high taxes for those who don't vote for Labour. That article on Corbyn has it as his Number One policy. We see it with the Left in Ireland too. They insist they will tax the rich and give the money to 'the most vulnerable in society', who invariably are their own voters. Most people have an image of 'the rich' as those ones in the magazines, with their yachts in Monaco, who don't work and who wouldn't miss the money.

The reality is that 'the rich' is anyone who earns more than the average industrial wage. (This was confirmed by an Irish Minister to a colleague of mine in the last 2 years - and Irish Labour aren't as left-wing as others). Thus they are intent on punishing up to 50% of earners.

Labour and the left used to be about workers, but now they are about screwing half of them. Whether in the UK or here, unless they return to their founding values of representing workers, instead of dividing them and setting out to screw half of them, I don't see them holding electoral sway in the modern world.

That's not a fair assessment at all. It's about having a society where those who can afford to make a greater contribution to the costs of running services for everyone do so. I think in a post financial collapse era - where certainly the lower earners in society had absolutely nothing to do with the mess or the additional debt created - a greater share of the additional burden should be carried by the more well off. I don't think this can be argued. The cruelty of imposing measures like USC on guiltless people who were struggling anyway is beyond belief.

"Giving money to poor people"....."punishing 50% of workers".....it's sweeping inaccurate mantras like this that falsely label any policies not part of the capitalist groupthink cartel. I believe in a society that is fair for all - not one that barely exists and even then it's only for when things go wrong for the top dogs.

Seanie you are guilty of similar sweeping inaccurate mantras. 'those who can afford to make a greater contribution' - [this is measured ONLY on income - what about his debts, size of family, money inherited etc] ... 'the lower earners in society had absolutely nothing to do with the mess or the additional debt created' [neither did most of us - why should I have to pay and the fella next door doesn't?]...

The spin is that there is hidden bunch of rich people out there that can be tapped to pay our way without any consequences. The reality is that they will have to tax everyone.

They're not hidden but they are protected. Can you cut a cheque every year to top up your (large) pension fund while at the same time maximising your tax relief? There are loads of inequities like this. Saving for a pension is good but how much of a pension do you need? How much is just plain abuse of the system? This is based on % of income so people earning more can benefit more. There are also loads of things like childrens allowance that are paid out to people who don't need it - there's plenty of scope to make changes. Unless you believe the fairy story that they'll all run away and leave us with no jobs cos we're too stupid to organise anything ourselves!

[muppet]

They're not hidden but they are protected. Can you cut a cheque every year to top up your (large) pension fund while at the same time maximising your tax relief? There are loads of inequities like this. Saving for a pension is good but how much of a pension do you need? How much is just plain abuse of the system? This is based on % of income so people earning more can benefit more. There are also loads of things like childrens allowance that are paid out to people who don't need it - there's plenty of scope to make changes. Unless you believe the fairy story that they'll all run away and leave us with no jobs cos we're too stupid to organise anything ourselves!

I agree on children's allowance. It can also be argued that it serves to increase birth rates in demographics that need high birth rates like a hole in the head. Those high birth rates increase pressure on resources and in particular jobs, in areas that really don't need that.

As for the pensions.

Tax relief is slightly misleading. If I put €10,000 into my pension last year the government missed out on the tax. Fair enough. But when I retire and draw down the pension I will pay full income tax. Thus for most of the money, the tax is deferred, not completely conceded. Also the 0.6% pensions levy on private funds means that about 1/3 of that €10,000 went to the Government anyway.

But for senior civil servants and politicians the story is completely different. They get their big pensions despite never having funded them (the recently introduced pension levy on PS workers would only pay a fraction of the costs for politicians in particular and senior civil servants). And of course because there is no fund, they don't have to worry about the pension levy that takes 1/3 of my contributions.

So I agree there is massive scope for fairness in pensions too.