the economy.

[Balti]

living standards and disposable income continue to decline

meaningless economy stats for the vast majority of us

 

[Ducado]

To say the economy will never recover is as daft as the people saying it would never crash a the height of the last bubble, it's all a big cycle the bigger the boom the bigger the bust, the bigger the bust the longer the recovery takes

 

[Len Rum]

To say the economy will never recover is as daft as the people saying it would never crash a the height of the last bubble, it's all a big cycle the bigger the boom the bigger the bust, the bigger the bust the longer the recovery takes

Maybe maybe not, you're just simply going off the past to predict the future.

 

[Ducado]

To say the economy will never recover is as daft as the people saying it would never crash a the height of the last bubble, it's all a big cycle the bigger the boom the bigger the bust, the bigger the bust the longer the recovery takes

Maybe maybe not, you're just simply going off the past to predict the future.

It's the best I can do, of course we are all free to beleive the sky is going to fall in and we will soon be living back in slums, or we can beleive that things are very cyclical what goes around comes around as they say, if you live long enough you tend to see it, and every time some pundit or other will say it's different this time worse or better

 

[andyhinch]

I struggle to judge it, my industry doesn't really have an ecconomic barometer, so to speak.

 

[Len Rum]

To say the economy will never recover is as daft as the people saying it would never crash a the height of the last bubble, it's all a big cycle the bigger the boom the bigger the bust, the bigger the bust the longer the recovery takes

Maybe maybe not, you're just simply going off the past to predict the future.

It's the best I can do, of course we are all free to beleive the sky is going to fall in and we will soon be living back in slums, or we can beleive that things are very cyclical what goes around comes around as they say, if you live long enough you tend to see it, and every time some pundit or other will say it's different this time worse or better

Yes but things might not be as simple as you make out. This recession could be followed by a modest recovery then we could go into recession again ( collapse in Europe for example or whatever). Or we could leave the European Union and it could be a disaster or alternatively the making of us. Or there could be a nuclear war and we're all fucked. Or we could be working for the Chinese in 100 years time. Anything could happen , simplistic short term cyclical arguments ,based on things working out as they did in the past decade or so are irrelevant. Based on your premise the economic future is totally predictable, which of course it isn't.

 

[cockneycarparkm32]

Maybe maybe not, you're just simply going off the past to predict the future.

It's the best I can do, of course we are all free to beleive the sky is going to fall in and we will soon be living back in slums, or we can beleive that things are very cyclical what goes around comes around as they say, if you live long enough you tend to see it, and every time some pundit or other will say it's different this time worse or better

Yes but things might not be as simple as you make out. This recession could be followed by a modest recovery then we could go into recession again ( collapse in Europe for example or whatever). Or we could leave the European Union and it could be a disaster or alternatively the making of us. Or there could be a nuclear war and we're all fucked. Or we could be working for the Chinese in 100 years time. Anything could happen , simplistic short term cyclical arguments ,based on things working out as they did in the past decade or so are irrelevant. Based on your premise the economic future is totally predictable, which of course it isn't.

That Adam Curtis /Massive attack show last week at M.I.F. pointed out your very point ;) The use of technology to predict the future and the media`s use to control people . The very use of technology these days is similar to religious belief ( in my eyes) the people that use graphs and such alike to make there point . They believe stoically in the technology churning out the truth ,if you get me . Curtis /M.A. put up a very strong argument about the manipulation of fact .

 

[SWP's back]

Wip fucking Woo 0.6%

Osborne has been the worst chancellor in history, he is fucking hopeless.


Shame is the best possible Chancellor in the HoC is stuck as Business secretary. What a waste of talent.

Scale up 0.6% and then castigate.

-- Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:43 am --

Was you asleep between 1997 and 2010 then?

Gordon Brown was as good as a Chancellor as he was bad as a Prime Minister, and that's high praise indeed. I'll give you Alistair Darling, though. The financial crisis would have happened regardless of who was in power, it was a failing of financial regulation as a whole and not the Chancellor's management of the economy. Strangely enough we were initially one of the countries that came out of it best. Unfortunately, we have an incompetent baboon as Chancellor and he signed off on a period of austerity precisely at the time you are supposed to use infrastructure spending to accelerate growth.

Ermmmm no. He is the worst chancellor in history.<br /><br />-- Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:46 am --<br /><br />

Maybe maybe not, you're just simply going off the past to predict the future.

It's the best I can do, of course we are all free to beleive the sky is going to fall in and we will soon be living back in slums, or we can beleive that things are very cyclical what goes around comes around as they say, if you live long enough you tend to see it, and every time some pundit or other will say it's different this time worse or better

Yes but things might not be as simple as you make out. This recession could be followed by a modest recovery then we could go into recession again ( collapse in Europe for example or whatever). Or we could leave the European Union and it could be a disaster or alternatively the making of us. Or there could be a nuclear war and we're all fucked. Or we could be working for the Chinese in 100 years time. Anything could happen , simplistic short term cyclical arguments ,based on things working out as they did in the past decade or so are irrelevant. Based on your premise the economic future is totally predictable, which of course it isn't.

What recession?

 

[Irwell]

Ermmmm no. He is the worst chancellor in history.

As usual you are wrong, but then I expect nothing less.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Gordon Brown was a good Chancellor, he was a pretty dull non-entity just as he was as a Prime Minister. He was neither good or bad at either, he just existed. The economy ticked along nicely under his watch, but that wasn't exactly his doing he just didn't do anything that rocked the boat. He can't be blamed for the economic collapse, that was always going to happen and it wasn't even our country that triggered it.

What a Chancellor can be blamed for is the measures they put in place when faced with recession. This is why Osborne and Tory policy have been a resounding failure. To some extent I agree with certain aspects of their economic policies, though I wouldn't describe myself as a Tory, but it is quite clear that the policies they tried to implement at the time were exactly the policies they shouldn't be implementing. Fair enough if you want an austerity drive, but you can't do it in the middle of a recession. This is the very time when you need to maintain or increase spending. The austerity can come, in small packages, once the economy starts to recover. It's Economics 101.

The idea that debt levels were so high that we were unable to do so is completely flawed. Our debt levels were substantially below those of other countries, and indeed below the level they are at now. Yes, additional spending would have increased those levels more than austerity measures have led to, but it's an expectation that the levels of debt will increase during a recession. If wisely spent, however, the economic growth, or indeed the reduced contraction, resulting from the spending should outweigh the increased debt levels such that as a percentage of GDP they are actually lower.

Osborne has been an absolute disaster as Chancellor. The economy would have recovered faster with absolutely no changes than it has with the ones he has implemented.

 

[law74]

Ermmmm no. He is the worst chancellor in history.

As usual you are wrong, but then I expect nothing less.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Gordon Brown was a good Chancellor, he was a pretty dull non-entity just as he was as a Prime Minister. He was neither good or bad at either, he just existed. The economy ticked along nicely under his watch, but that wasn't exactly his doing he just didn't do anything that rocked the boat. He can't be blamed for the economic collapse, that was always going to happen and it wasn't even our country that triggered it.

What a Chancellor can be blamed for is the measures they put in place when faced with recession. This is why Osborne and Tory policy have been a resounding failure. To some extent I agree with certain aspects of their economic policies, though I wouldn't describe myself as a Tory, but it is quite clear that the policies they tried to implement at the time were exactly the policies they shouldn't be implementing. Fair enough if you want an austerity drive, but you can't do it in the middle of a recession. This is the very time when you need to maintain or increase spending. The austerity can come, in small packages, once the economy starts to recover. It's Economics 101.

The idea that debt levels were so high that we were unable to do so is completely flawed. Our debt levels were substantially below those of other countries, and indeed below the level they are at now. Yes, additional spending would have increased those levels more than austerity measures have led to, but it's an expectation that the levels of debt will increase during a recession. If wisely spent, however, the economic growth, or indeed the reduced contraction, resulting from the spending should outweigh the increased debt levels such that as a percentage of GDP they are actually lower.

Osborne has been an absolute disaster as Chancellor. The economy would have recovered faster with absolutely no changes than it has with the ones he has implemented.

What makes you think the "austerity" drive had anything to do with the economy of the nation?
It was purely an ideologically driven push towards the free market economy and the strive for a "purely for profit" country.
& yes, he has been a disaster for the citizens of the United Kingdom