The Post General Election Thread

[Rascal]

so your a nutter as well?

Only right winers are nutters hence we have RWNJ. Lefties are utopian crackpots.

hth

 

[SWP's back]

As Labour are currently anything but Socialist it shows either a devious gameplan on your part or a lack of understanding of political doctrine.
if Labour fail to elect a left leaning leader then they are finished, but it will leave 4 years for true socialists to organise before the next general election (assuming that the tories don't rip themselves apart before then, already reports of disharmony amongst the ranks are surfacing)

Sound like a scouser claiming the one goal they scored at Stoke shows fighting spirit.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The IMF are also nutters therefore. Add George Osborne, David Cameron and the institute for Fiscal Studies.

All of these are nutters.

I apologise for having any faith whatsoever in the above organisations. I should have just listened to Rascal and PB.

They're not nutters, as Rascal said, but they aren't governments and therefore don't have to worry about the consequences of their opinions on the electorate.

The IMF is quote hard-line, a bit like a loan shark. They don't care how you pay your loan back or what pain it causes as long as they see the money. They've been criticised for their stance on austerity (including by their own internal audit head) and have even admitted that the level of austerity they imposed on Greece was far too severe. If you look at the origins of the IFS, it's quite right wing. But even they reckon that the anticipated scale of cuts is probably unachievable. So it's not true to claim they're unequivocally backing Osborne.

The economic equation is quite simple and well understood. Cuts on the scale we've seen depress demand. Even Osborne realised that, hence his change of tack in 2013.

I've never argued that cutting the current account deficit isn't required. No political party has to my knowledge, even the SNP. I certainly don't have a problem with doing things better and more cost effectively.

There are two basic ways you deal with a deficit - cut down spending or increase income. Income comes from taxes mainly so you can increase those directly and/or indirectly through higher production and wages. The ideal is a combination of all three methods but to achieve the third, you have to have increased demand, meaning more money in people's pockets. Cuts on too big a scale will make that difficult to achieve though.

 

[union city blue]

For a long but very interesting analysis of austerity read this excellent piece by the eminent economist Paul Krugman.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

 

[worsleyweb]

I read that crock of shit last week - the guardian. Need I say more.

 

[urmston]

For a long but very interesting analysis of austerity read this excellent piece by the eminent economist Paul Krugman.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

The Guardian wants increases in public spending - and that means tax rises.

Those tax rises would mostly end up as pay rises for Guardian reading public sector workers, so alleviating the very small amount of austerity those people have suffered compared to most workers.

For the rest of us those tax rises would means austerity gets worse.

 

[union city blue]

Care to elaborate why it's a crock of shit? or is it a crock of shit simply because it doesn't fit in with your world view.

 

[worsleyweb]

Anything in the guardian is a crock of shit - see urrmstons post

 

[union city blue]

The Guardian wants increases in public spending - and that means tax rises.

Those tax rises would mostly end up as pay rises for Guardian reading public sector workers, so alleviating the very small amount of austerity those people have suffered compared to most workers.

For the rest of us those tax rises would means austerity gets worse.

Even by your abysmal standards of RWNJ wumming that is a mind-numbingly cretinous response to a long, very detailed and exceptionally well argued analysis by a respected economist.

If anyone can actually come up with a proper response as to why Krugman is wrong I'd love to read it. But I guess I won't be reading it from you.

 

[urmston]

Even by your abysmal standards of RWNJ wumming that is a mind-numbingly cretinous response to a long, very detailed and exceptionally well argued analysis by a respected economist.

If anyone can actually come up with a proper response as to why Krugman is wrong I'd love to read it. But I guess I won't be reading it from you.

You just have. That's why you are wound up.