Double-dip!

[southern muppet]

The extent of these effects of the economic crisis in Europe on the common man can really vary wildly depending on who you're asking or where you're looking for answers to be honest. For reasons too long and boring to go into I may have to move to Dublin some time in the next 12-18 months and was obviously shitting it a bit at possibly the worst time to be 'job hunting' over there - yet to be honest even for just semi-skilled general office shit there seemed to be plenty of work going when I look online. Well not exactly 'plenty' but certainly not that worse than local to me right now in Oxford.

 

[mackenzie]

Actually no, we have built too few houses. That is one of our main problems. The population has surged, largely due to immigration, but the lack of affordable and social housing has meant that the cost of living (housing costs) in certain areas is astronomical. This has a big impact on the amount of money people have to spend. So less disposable income is bad for the economy because it means people have no money to spend and demand falls. A shortage of housing is also the reason why the housing benefit part of welfare expenditure is so high. A 1930's style house building boom would stimulate the construction sector, create job, increase Gov revenues, reduce homelessness and cut the housing benefit bill.

Spain was the extreme, due in part to the low interests rate set by the ECB, which were totally unsuitable for the Spanish economy. There is no reason we would be like Spain.

Last night itv news had a report about this subject. In the 1930's we dragged ourselves out of a situation similar to the current one by a mass house building programme.

I actually said we havent built any houses.

All the Poles helped to keep wage growth low and curbed inflation which in turn kept interest rates low.

I actually believe that Brown/Blair knew what mass immigration would do for the economy and used it as an economic stategy.

This is precisely why they relaxed immigration.

Exactly. And thats why they introduced a National Minimum Wage; because they knew they were safe in doing so.

 

[W12]

Citi Bank now saying that theres a 90% chance that Greece will pull out of the euro. Both Spain and Italy will then get the substantial bailouts that they need but tough measures will be needed if they are to stave off further problems.

That leaves the French. They have been a bit quiet in all this considering they are Germany`s lap dogs...but they are fooooked and Hollande is not helping..

The debt levels which the country has are as unsustainable as Britain’s, yet its policies are more irresponsible and its remedies more restricted. Although it is considered a core country in the eurozone, France’s economic profile now bears more resemblance to Greece’s the Germany’s.

Public debt in France is at 86.1pc of GDP (146pc if ECB liabilities and bank guarantees are included). The projected budget deficit this year is 4.5pc, with France having exempted itself from the EU’s instruction to bring deficits down to 3pct by the end of the year.

These numbers are not unusual in the context of eurozone economies in general. What distinguishes France is the lack of political will to address them and, as a consequence, a projected debt to GDP ratio which would place it firmly amongst the PIIGS grouping...

But Mr François Hollande doesn’t seem particularly interested in addressing the situation in a reasonable way. The Telegraph describes his efforts so far:

• Lowering the pension age from 62 to 60.

• Increasing the minimum wage above inflation (albeit not much above inflation).

• Demanding that the EU take even more money from the national governments than was planned, violating a prior agreement and potentially adding £3bn to Britain’s annual tribute.

• Introducing a top rate of income tax at 75pc for those earning €1m or more – a move which gives a marginal rate of tax of 90.5pct on certain types of income.

• Introducing a tax on anyone owning assets in France but living abroad which will see 15.5pc of the rent or capital gain on property transferred to the state.

• Introducing a one off wealth tax at double the rate which had been previously trailed.

Yesterday, a lunch companion explained how the French are reacting: "France is finished. We’re leaving! Well, of course, I’m exaggerating. Young people with talent, brains and ambition are leaving. And old people with money are leaving. That leaves the middle classes... and what you call the ‘zombies’. And there are more and more of them.

"France is becoming a divided place. But it’s not divided between those with money and those without... it’s divided between those who work and those who don’t. Those who do honest work have to work harder and harder to support those who don’t work.”
France is going to go into meltdown and Hollandes priority to tax the rich and well off rather than bring in policies that actually provide growth are going to prove his downfall.

We are not at this point yet but we will be if this government doesnt reduce taxes and develop growth through investment in infrastructure,maufacturing,building and green technology. They are doing it but not quick enough. Taxing the super rich isn`t always the answer.

Bit like the UK then.

 

[Rascal]

The Telegraph describes his efforts so far:

• Lowering the pension age from 62 to 60.

• Increasing the minimum wage above inflation (albeit not much above inflation).

• Demanding that the EU take even more money from the national governments than was planned, violating a prior agreement and potentially adding £3bn to Britain’s annual tribute.

• Introducing a top rate of income tax at 75pc for those earning €1m or more – a move which gives a marginal rate of tax of 90.5pct on certain types of income.

• Introducing a tax on anyone owning assets in France but living abroad which will see 15.5pc of the rent or capital gain on property transferred to the state.

• Introducing a one off wealth tax at double the rate which had been previously trailed.

Yesterday, a lunch companion explained how the French are reacting: "France is finished. We’re leaving! Well, of course, I’m exaggerating. Young people with talent, brains and ambition are leaving. And old people with money are leaving. That leaves the middle classes... and what you call the ‘zombies’. And there are more and more of them.

"France is becoming a divided place. But it’s not divided between those with money and those without... it’s divided between those who work and those who don’t. Those who do honest work have to work harder and harder to support those who don’t work.”

France is going to go into meltdown and Hollandes priority to tax the rich and well off rather than bring in policies that actually provide growth are going to prove his downfall.

We are not at this point yet but we will be if this government doesnt reduce taxes and develop growth through investment in infrastructure,maufacturing,building and green technology. They are doing it but not quick enough. Taxing the super rich isn`t always the answer.

PMSL at the Telegraph commentating on France. They are commentating on there aversion to socialism not France. More far right rhetoric. Does the Telegraph not realise that the French people voted for there President to do eactly the things he said he would do.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

PMSL at the Telegraph commentating on France. They are commentating on there aversion to socialism not France.

In all fairness it was probably both, seeing as it's The fucking Torygraph ;-)

 

[Rascal]

PMSL at the Telegraph commentating on France. They are commentating on there aversion to socialism not France.

In all fairness it was probably both, seeing as it's The fucking Torygraph ;-)

A good point

well made ;)

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

Citi Bank now saying that theres a 90% chance that Greece will pull out of the euro. Both Spain and Italy will then get the substantial bailouts that they need but tough measures will be needed if they are to stave off further problems.

That leaves the French. They have been a bit quiet in all this considering they are Germany`s lap dogs...but they are fooooked and Hollande is not helping..

The debt levels which the country has are as unsustainable as Britain’s, yet its policies are more irresponsible and its remedies more restricted. Although it is considered a core country in the eurozone, France’s economic profile now bears more resemblance to Greece’s the Germany’s.

Public debt in France is at 86.1pc of GDP (146pc if ECB liabilities and bank guarantees are included). The projected budget deficit this year is 4.5pc, with France having exempted itself from the EU’s instruction to bring deficits down to 3pct by the end of the year.

These numbers are not unusual in the context of eurozone economies in general. What distinguishes France is the lack of political will to address them and, as a consequence, a projected debt to GDP ratio which would place it firmly amongst the PIIGS grouping...

But Mr François Hollande doesn’t seem particularly interested in addressing the situation in a reasonable way. The Telegraph describes his efforts so far:

• Lowering the pension age from 62 to 60.

• Increasing the minimum wage above inflation (albeit not much above inflation).

• Demanding that the EU take even more money from the national governments than was planned, violating a prior agreement and potentially adding £3bn to Britain’s annual tribute.

• Introducing a top rate of income tax at 75pc for those earning €1m or more – a move which gives a marginal rate of tax of 90.5pct on certain types of income.

• Introducing a tax on anyone owning assets in France but living abroad which will see 15.5pc of the rent or capital gain on property transferred to the state.

• Introducing a one off wealth tax at double the rate which had been previously trailed.

Yesterday, a lunch companion explained how the French are reacting: "France is finished. We’re leaving! Well, of course, I’m exaggerating. Young people with talent, brains and ambition are leaving. And old people with money are leaving. That leaves the middle classes... and what you call the ‘zombies’. And there are more and more of them.

"France is becoming a divided place. But it’s not divided between those with money and those without... it’s divided between those who work and those who don’t. Those who do honest work have to work harder and harder to support those who don’t work.”

France is going to go into meltdown and Hollandes priority to tax the rich and well off rather than bring in policies that actually provide growth are going to prove his downfall.

We are not at this point yet but we will be if this government doesnt reduce taxes and develop growth through investment in infrastructure,maufacturing,building and green technology. They are doing it but not quick enough. Taxing the sper rich isn`t always the answer.

Thanks for that very comprhensive and absolutely spot on.

I had dinner with some US work colleagues yesterday, one of them a french expat who echoed many of the points you mention.

Personally i think there are severl possible outcomes for the eurozone with perhaps tighter fiscal control of member states controlled and oversigted by the ECB just one of the possible measures.

 

[city diehard]

You have failed to address (or perhaps appreciate) my point, namely that you criticise the current government's policies for being driven by ideology and yet it was ideology that drove public spending policies throughout the last Labour government.

What you appear to be saying is that: I don't believe in ideology based policies unless I agree with the ideology.

This, to me, displays a complete lack of balance and fairness in your perspective on this matter.

For the record I do not "loathe" the bureaucracy that is attendant in the public sector. I see it as an inevitable and acceptable part of any large organisation up to a point.

What I do loathe is a lack of fiscal responsibility from governments and the complete inabilty of some people to accept the economic reality that Western Europe is now facing. The halcyon post-war days, to which you refer, were a time when the hegemony of developed nations remained largely unchallenged and the demographic landscape was considerably more benign than is the case today.

The party's over, I'm afraid.

You have failed to address (or perhaps appreciate) my point that we are on the brink or even in a depression as Krugman states; which ultimately means that the luxury of pursuing ideological aims of a smaller state is not the time nor the place, whereas the economic conditions under New Labour allowed for as you put it for the ideological aim of a larger state. In essence, appreciate this point; choose your moments.

This post bears all the hallmarks of the double-think that many people on the left demonstrate when espousing Keynsian economic policies.

As you are doubtless aware Keynes was a strong advocate of running a surplus during times of growth and yet you expressly reject that totemic and pivotal aspect to his economic thinking when you endorse (or attempt to excuse) Labour's financial recklessness of running an ever increasing deficit during times of growth, in your post . I wonder if at that time you were castigating Gordon Brown for failing to follow the ideas of a man who you now appear to venerate. I suspect not and if that is the case then some might say that your death bed conversion is intellectually dishonest.

Like your antipathy to ideology based politics, your adherence to Keynes' beliefs seems to operate on a "pick ' n mix" basis. Moreover I'm curious: if you believe in running a deficit in times of growth and in times of recession is there any time you don't advocate spending more than we can afford?

Running a deficit is more then healthy for a country as long as it's sustainable, and still would of been post the bust. One country has run a surplus and its Norway, the Golden rule which Gordon Brown formulated was one which was sustainable with current spending being financed by govt revenue and capital spending by borrowing. The idea that Labour's reckless handing of the economy is close to criminal is just plain wrong, a international banking crisis may have had to have something to do with it. The response also would of been very different and the outcome worse if Labour didn't promote the return of discretionary demand management policies. The only failure was the mismanagement of the balance of our economy, and our over reliance on financial services which consequently left use even more vulnerable, however I would attribute that more to the Reaganomics in the 80's that Thatcher so brutally enforced.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

You have failed to address (or perhaps appreciate) my point that we are on the brink or even in a depression as Krugman states; which ultimately means that the luxury of pursuing ideological aims of a smaller state is not the time nor the place, whereas the economic conditions under New Labour allowed for as you put it for the ideological aim of a larger state. In essence, appreciate this point; choose your moments.

This post bears all the hallmarks of the double-think that many people on the left demonstrate when espousing Keynsian economic policies.

As you are doubtless aware Keynes was a strong advocate of running a surplus during times of growth and yet you expressly reject that totemic and pivotal aspect to his economic thinking when you endorse (or attempt to excuse) Labour's financial recklessness of running an ever increasing deficit during times of growth, in your post . I wonder if at that time you were castigating Gordon Brown for failing to follow the ideas of a man who you now appear to venerate. I suspect not and if that is the case then some might say that your death bed conversion is intellectually dishonest.

Like your antipathy to ideology based politics, your adherence to Keynes' beliefs seems to operate on a "pick ' n mix" basis. Moreover I'm curious: if you believe in running a deficit in times of growth and in times of recession is there any time you don't advocate spending more than we can afford?

Running a deficit is more then healthy for a country as long as it's sustainable, and still would of been post the bust. One country has run a surplus and its Norway, the Golden rule which Gordon Brown formulated was one which was sustainable with current spending being financed by govt revenue and capital spending by borrowing. The idea that Labour's reckless handing of the economy is close to criminal is just plain wrong, a international banking crisis may have had to have something to do with it. The response also would of been very different and the outcome worse if Labour didn't promote the return of discretionary demand management policies. The only failure was the mismanagement of the balance of our economy, and our over reliance on financial services which consequently left use even more vulnerable, however I would attribute that more to the Reaganomics in the 80's that Thatcher so brutally enforced.

I note you have conspicuously failed to answer my question.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

This post bears all the hallmarks of the double-think that many people on the left demonstrate when espousing Keynsian economic policies.

As you are doubtless aware Keynes was a strong advocate of running a surplus during times of growth and yet you expressly reject that totemic and pivotal aspect to his economic thinking when you endorse (or attempt to excuse) Labour's financial recklessness of running an ever increasing deficit during times of growth, in your post . I wonder if at that time you were castigating Gordon Brown for failing to follow the ideas of a man who you now appear to venerate. I suspect not and if that is the case then some might say that your death bed conversion is intellectually dishonest.

Like your antipathy to ideology based politics, your adherence to Keynes' beliefs seems to operate on a "pick ' n mix" basis. Moreover I'm curious: if you believe in running a deficit in times of growth and in times of recession is there any time you don't advocate spending more than we can afford?

Running a deficit is more then healthy for a country as long as it's sustainable, and still would of been post the bust. One country has run a surplus and its Norway, the Golden rule which Gordon Brown formulated was one which was sustainable with current spending being financed by govt revenue and capital spending by borrowing. The idea that Labour's reckless handing of the economy is close to criminal is just plain wrong, a international banking crisis may have had to have something to do with it. The response also would of been very different and the outcome worse if Labour didn't promote the return of discretionary demand management policies. The only failure was the mismanagement of the balance of our economy, and our over reliance on financial services which consequently left use even more vulnerable, however I would attribute that more to the Reaganomics in the 80's that Thatcher so brutally enforced.

I note you have conspicuously failed to answer my question.

I dont think he has answered a question at all

Just one big long political broadcast for the Labour Party