8 June

[JohnL]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Corbyn will Scrap tuition fees..* Privatise the

> railways.. more money for the NHS

> Free school dinners.. amongst many other things

>

> * Estimates for the cost of scrapping tuition

> fees range between ?7bn and ?11bn.

>

> * ?5.6bn on 'NHS for education'

>

> Anyone concerned about how this will be paid for

> should relax..

>

> Diane Abbott has done the maths and advised the

> Chancellor of the Exchequer there is no problem.

>

> DulwichFox

He didn't say he'd do it all straight away ;)

[Borky]

An Abbott trope. lol.

[JohnL]

Seems people like the manifesto pledges

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-poll-british-voters-come-out-in-support-of-labour-manifesto-pledges-a3537131.html

They just don't like Corbyn (wonder if they can say why - I still think we'll see a Macron type emerge sooner or later (the younger you are the less chance you've made mistakes in your life).

[emilyr0se]

.

[Lordship 516]

TheCat Wrote:

> Yep...I lost a little faith in his analysis when

> in the comments for the original article, he

> accused an Actuary (who was making a reasonable

> point) of 'having no idea about statistics'...I'm

> guessing he doesn't know what an actuary is...

Murphy has a particular agenda & makes many good arguments to support that.

However, what he has failed to demonstrate is that an actuary uses statistics in a very different manner to an economist.

An actuary is usually using a combination of various statistics including lifestyle analysis in order to best project various likelyhoods such as time of death or propensity to suffer an accident and usually carries out this exercise for discrete age and/or activity groups. [a non-smoker will pay less for health based insurances but a smoker will be offered higher annuity payments as they are expected to have a shorter lifespan]

An macro economist uses mainly economic statistics to try to define what is happening in the economy or what is likely to happen in an economy if certain criteria change as a result of market conditions or policy changes.

For discrete population groups [age, gender, wealth, employment sector] an economist will uses statistics that impact these groups and the projections will usually be shorter term in their evaluations than actuaries.

Murphy's biggest sin is to argue from the particular now to the general over many years and this is not real analysis but suits his own agenda, mainly I think to boast his own ego. Read his website "Read more about me". He has an accountants approach to econometrics - in essance he is able to add. He is a nice guy & his heart is in the right

place but much of his analysis is very simplistic & lacks rigour. Much of his work is directed at tax fairness & how to tackle evasion/avoidance.

Numbers & statistics are funny animals and very hard to tame, made more especially hard if you play around too much with interpreting them in a manner that is not related to actuality.

Evaluating the effects public policy spend is a very specialized science because of the effects that actual spend has on the multiplier of its application. An argument has to be made for every ? spent on the NHS [for example] in the UK [not for imported goods] there is a credit spin-off from the spend [wages for instance] whereby the recipient pays tax & NI, spends the balance of their salaries buying goods & services in the local economy in order to live & in turn the people they pay will also spend in the local economy & so on. So a gross spend of ?5Billion headline spend could result in a net burden on the exchequer of very much less than the actual ?5billion headline figure & even result in a positive contribution to the exchequer, if applied in a managed manner. The same applies to the spend on tuition fees whereby the current ?9,000.00 par head is mainly spent on providing extra teaching staff [most other costs are fixed assets paid for already] & they in turn will spend in the local economy & in turn the people they pay will also spend in the local economy. The effect of this multiplier can be as much as 2.5 times to 5 times the injected amount after an initial lag period of between 6 months & one year for current spend or 1 year to three years for capital spend.

There is a social gain from this also with better health & education having been achieved. Thatcher & her acolytes have carried out an ideological war against this good type of government subsidy but the result has been a decay in services and a loss of badly needed jobs.

Much of the Labour manifesto can either be neutral or positive in their cost and will reach this condition after just a few months or 1 year. The amount of extra taxation burden required can be as little as 10% but is more likely to be in the order of 30% for the 1st year and reducing thereafter due to the exponential effect of the multiplier effect generating an enhanced cashflow to the exchequer. There is a further positive in that this spend can also remove unemployed/underemployed people off the unemployment register & reduce welfare spending.

The Tories know this but they are playing to a simplistic audience - the Labour party have to educate the population on this point.

[????]

oh Good some expert and neutral analysis from you again.....we are in awe

[TheCat]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

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

>

> Much of the Labour manifesto can either be neutral

> or positive in their cost and will reach this

> condition after just a few months or 1 year.

The 'multiplier effect' of some public spending, I understand. But extrapolating this to effectively say by spending ?90bn we will actually make a net gain???....ummmmmm...I'd like to see both your hands above the table please....

[Lordship 516]

???? Wrote:

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

> oh Good some expert and neutral analysis from you

> again.....we are in awe

It appears that you read most content with acquired prejudice.

I merely sought to explain how government spending actually works in reality. The headline amount is not ever the final result on paper or in the bank. You know this but just want to knock people for the sake of knocking. Most people are aware of your nonsense.

I'm waiting for their costings & will make up my mind but from what I have seen I think that their policies can become neutral on taxation pretty quickly - one to two years & become positive after about 3 to 4 years.

[Lordship 516]

TheCat Wrote:

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

> Lordship 516 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> >

> > Much of the Labour manifesto can either be

> neutral

> > or positive in their cost and will reach this

> > condition after just a few months or 1 year.

>

> The 'multiplier effect' of some public spending, I

> understand. But extrapolating this to effectively

> say by spending ?90bn we will actually make a net

> gain???....ummmmmm...I'd like to see both your

> hands above the table please....

The ?90 billion is not all spent on day one - there is a cash-flow out & a lagging period for cash-flow in - the time difference will vary depending on the nature of the activity being invested in. For employment [extra medical staff, police, lecturers or avoidance of redundancy] the multiplier kicks in pretty quickly. For capital spend the spend is slower & consequently the multiplier takes longer to kick in.

The Social impacts are felt almost immediately & will continue to improve over the years. ?90 billion is not such a big figure in an economy such as the UK - its significant but not so huge to be unmanageable. It is actually less than ?1,500 per person in the UK as a whole.

[DaveR]

"I merely sought to explain how government spending actually works in reality."

Is that right? Or do you mean 'in theory'?

"The effect of this multiplier can be as much as 2.5 times to 5 times the injected amount after an initial lag period of between 6 months & one year for current spend or 1 year to three years for capital spend."

I'd like to see some evidence for that - I am aware of recent arguments that in developed economies the evidence for multipliers greater than 1 is pretty thin.

The real point about the Corbyn manifesto is not, in any event, about what is the appropriate fiscal multiplier. Trying to implement even a fraction of that manifesto will hit business confidence both in the UK and externally so hard that the negative effects will massively outweigh any benefits. People have talked about 'back to the 70s' but a fair summary of the overall policy platform is 'we think the UK should be more like Cuba'. And we all know how well things are going there.

At least it's almost honest (I say almost because the expansion of the State promised is undoubtedly just the beginning in Corbyn's world). Corbyn is offering a socialist government, and despite the constant refrain here about the deluded masses, the electorate can make a choice. I expect them to reject Corbyn's offer decisively, and for this to be blamed on the Murdoch press. Plus ca change...

[titch juicy]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> " The real point about the Corbyn manifesto is not,

> in any event, about what is the appropriate fiscal

> multiplier. Trying to implement even a fraction

> of that manifesto will hit business confidence

> both in the UK and externally so hard that the

> negative effects will massively outweigh any

> benefits. "

Can you explain why you think that would be?

Thanks

[????]

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> DaveR Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > " The real point about the Corbyn manifesto is

> not,

> > in any event, about what is the appropriate

> fiscal

> > multiplier. Trying to implement even a

> fraction

> > of that manifesto will hit business confidence

> > both in the UK and externally so hard that the

> > negative effects will massively outweigh any

> > benefits. "

>

> Can you explain why you think that would be?

>

> Thanks

er...an increase in corporation tax

.....an increase in higher rate of tax for high earners -

In the modern global economy both of these will deter big business from investing in the UK - which we need more than ever post-Brexit

Move towards nationalization will deter investment

but probably more damaging is the very real and slightly malevolent anti-big business rhetoric - I think Corbyn and co genuinely see big business and the bankers as an evil rather than an employer of millions (including alot of the high tax PAYING high earners). The way McDonnell/Corbyn and Co go on you'd think that big business pays nothing in corporation tax and the 'rich' over 80K earners don't contribute hardly anything to Income tax - in both areas they punch way above their weight in contribution - yet you still see social media momentum types harping on about how the top 10% pay nothing etc etc - laughable ignorance. I think these idiots really think you can run a welfare sttae and modern health service on every one being a public sector worker, small trader or craft beer entrepreneur. They are fecking muppets.

[????]

basically the 'rigged' society narrative is exactly the same sort of ignorant populism that UKIP gave us pre-Brexit and once more largely given by public school educated, marxist tossers from Islington.

[miga]

Isn't society rigged?

[????]

Nope - society is what it is with some of it's flaws which will right themselves over time to be replaced by other imperfections - it's not rigged by vested interests.

Globally - the bogey 'neo liberalism' and free markets are delivering unprecedented increase in wealth, accelerating decline in hunger (more people now dying of obesity than starvation), massive improvements in health (life expectancy and infant mortality improving at phenomenal rates) - the anti-capitalist left and spoilt westerners struggle a bit with this reality so we get the tedious narratives of exploitation, unfairness etc. Empirically by any positive measure capitalism outclasses socialism by such a vast gap it's laughable that otherwise intelligent people seem to take pride in still declaring "i'm a socialist " as some badge of honour, seriously has me scratching my head. The main barriers to these global improvements are political and theocratic idealism.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

???? Wrote:

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

> basically the 'rigged' society narrative is

> exactly the same sort of ignorant populism that

> UKIP gave us pre-Brexit and once more largely

> given by public school educated, marxist tossers

> from Islington.

It's impressive that you manage simultaneously to believe:

- society is not rigged

- it's ex-public schoolboys that set the discourse

[????]

No it's not it's just another howling at the moon and they, public schoolboys, or some of them, seem to specialise in it. Is it middle-class guilt or sum fink, feck knows. I don't think they have any "rigidness" over us than our own capacity to believe them. Anger with 'the system 'is just stupidity, anger with stupidity is fine though

[JohnL]

Society has to be rigged to an extent - we all see it in our own personal lives - the little help up the rung of the ladder given to some whilst some hardly stand a chance.

[malumbu]

I find much of the debate here very informative, including the dangers to the economy of Corybyn's agenda. Yet haven't we already scored a massive home goal against our economy by voting to leave Europe?

[jaywalker]

OK, I think this is what will happen next. Tories fib their way to a 200 seat majority landslide. They take many core traditional labour seats, but not so in cosmopolitan remain seats (like ours). That reduces the parliamentary labour party to a rump of corbynites (he will not even be able to form a shadow cabinet), but also 80 to 120 pro-remain, enlightened, social-democrat labour MPs. Looks like the Lib Dems will be squeezed and get no more than their current 8 seats.

THEN we will catch up with French Macron time. My guess is Chuka Umunna - he would be excellent. They form a new, en marche style party - very attractive to the young and the cosmopolitan and educated. This new grouping will form the official opposition (the largest opposing party does). THEN May has a serious problem.

If she follows through on her ludicrous 'brexit means brexit' and the economy starts falling apart (as it would) then the pro-remain Tories will simply leave and set up their own centre-right party (as in every other European country - we are the only ones with this stupid polarising system). This is already happening in France as parliamentarians are faced with la r?alit? as they head to their elections. This could even happen during the negotiations: if May is too tough they can ditch her (Tories very good at doing this unlike Labour) and join a central coalition with Umanna (or Ken Clarke who is not too old to be PM if the Tory group was the largest). I do not think that the Tories would even have to form a new party to do this: they can simply force the Brexiteers out - they will try to reform UKIP.

Their first move as a coalition is to bring in PR. End of May, Brexit and the swivel eyed ones of far left and right.

[Loz]

I wish that would happen, jaywalker, but sadly I just can't see it coming to fruition.

[Lordship 516]

???? Wrote:

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

> Nope - society is what it is with some of it's

> flaws which will right themselves over time to be

> replaced by other imperfections - it's not rigged

> by vested interests.

>

> Globally - the bogey 'neo liberalism' and free

> markets are delivering unprecedented increase in

> wealth, accelerating decline in hunger (more

> people now dying of obesity than starvation),

> massive improvements in health (life expectancy

> and infant mortality improving at phenomenal

> rates) - the anti-capitalist left and spoilt

> westerners struggle a bit with this reality so we

> get the tedious narratives of exploitation,

> unfairness etc. Empirically by any positive

> measure capitalism outclasses socialism by such a

> vast gap it's laughable that otherwise

> intelligent people seem to take pride in still

> declaring "i'm a socialist " as some badge of

> honour, seriously has me scratching my head. The

> main barriers to these global improvements are

> political and theocratic idealism.

It is very true to say that the neo-liberal & free-markets [laissez faire] have delivered unprecedented wealth - for the very few that can harness gun-slinger lawyers, Bankers & accountants to leverage their power to shelter their gains from being shared by all of society.

It is not true to say that they have delivered a decline in hunger - there are over 4 million children still in abject poverty in this country, hidden from view and without a real advocate to challenge their condition. You can then cast your vision [if it can reach that far] towards Africa, Asia & South America where there are countless hundreds of millions barely keeping themselves alive on scraps & handouts. You have huge multi-nationals controlling the food production of nations - chocolate in Ghana is essentially controlled by Nestl? & others, corn production & distribution is 80% controlled by Cargill Tradex etc. etc. This is what the neo-liberals promote - wealth for their people and F@#* the rest.

It is not communist or Marxist to promote fairness or even to promote controlling the essential services of a country. Mixed economies can and do prosper - have a look at how Scandinavian countries operate; taxes are high but satisfaction is also high with health, education & transportation provided with a high level of efficiency. Advocating the Corbyn programme is not necessarily going back to the bad ole 70s - it is about remediating the current problems & moving forward in a manner that is more fair to the vast majority of our population. There were failures in the 70s and lessons can be learned from these. There are certainly failures in health, education, transportation, utilities now on a much grander scale & this needs to be brought under control & managed for the benefit of the population & not run for the benefit of shareholders many of whom live abroad.

Of course the 'capitalists' [vultures] will scream & yell that they will go away & take their investment with them - good riddance. The UK have enough qualified & dedicated people of our own to run our own needs without having these awful so-called investors sucking the lifeblood out of the country.

The gospel according to Hayek, Friedman & their grasping acolytes needs putting aside and a new era of decency introduced back into our society; where the human being will matter more than raw money, where the markets will be subservient to society & not society subservient to the market. Where people can live & prosper, one & all and no one is left in a limbo of poverty, where the strong will be willing to support the weak and the young will support the old. The markets will do none of these, neither will the Mayniacs who appear to be committed to screwing all but their own claque of followers.

We need to have elements of capitalism but also moderated with social justice for all.

[Lordship 516]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> "I merely sought to explain how government

> spending actually works in reality."

>

> Is that right? Or do you mean 'in theory'?

>

> "The effect of this multiplier can be as much as

> 2.5 times to 5 times the injected amount after an

> initial lag period of between 6 months & one year

> for current spend or 1 year to three years for

> capital spend."

>

> I'd like to see some evidence for that - I am

> aware of recent arguments that in developed

> economies the evidence for multipliers greater

> than 1 is pretty thin.

You can have plenty of evidence on this if you care to study the subject in some detail & carefully - go to the British Library or the LSE library. Recent arguments put forward to refute the effects of fiscal multipliers are mainly put forward by neo-liberals in support of their jungle economics. Where the spend is on one element of the economy the multiplier is smaller; where it is applied to infrastructure projects with most if not all of the labour & materials being sourced locally [uK] then the effects of the multiplier are more pronounced [2.5 to 3 times]

>

> The real point about the Corbyn manifesto is not,

> in any event, about what is the appropriate fiscal

> multiplier. Trying to implement even a fraction

> of that manifesto will hit business confidence

> both in the UK and externally so hard that the

> negative effects will massively outweigh any

> benefits. People have talked about 'back to the

> 70s' but a fair summary of the overall policy

> platform is 'we think the UK should be more like

> Cuba'. And we all know how well things are going

> there.

You are making that analysis just to insert a smart alec comment - it is a far cry from how the Cuban economy works.

Your comment has no basis in fact - only a teenage psuedo-journalistic slur..

> At least it's almost honest (I say almost because

> the expansion of the State promised is undoubtedly

> just the beginning in Corbyn's world).

More about contracting the excesses of an uncontrolled/out-of-control market operators & bring control back under local control so that the budgets won't be loaded with artificial debt.

[Loz]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

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

> It is not true to say that they have delivered a

> decline in hunger - there are over 4 million

> children still in abject poverty in this country,

Correction: in relative poverty. A measure that arguably doesn't actually measure poverty and is just about impossible to solve.

More importantly, whilst 'relative poverty' has stayed fairly constant over the past two decades, 'absolute poverty' has been falling steadily.

For instance, if over the next year we have a boom and managed to doubled every household's wage/salary, there would still be about 4m children in 'relative poverty'. If we doubled it again the following year, we'd still have the same problem. The 'absolute poverty' figure would drop, though.

Ironically, the last time the 'relative poverty' figure dropped significantly? The year following the 2008 crash. The reason? Because we all got poorer. If that's not a glaring fault in the measure, what is?

> Of course the 'capitalists' [vultures] will scream & yell that they will go away & take their investment with them - good riddance.

Because when there are no jobs and nobody has anything to eat, that is one of the few times 'relative poverty' could actually fall to zero.

[Lordship 516]

I used the word abject poverty on purpose - going to bed hungry may be a 'relative' measure to you but it is reality to the hungry person. 'Relative poverty' is a term that has relevance to statisticians; hunger is very relevant to the 4 million poverty stricken children in the UK today & tomorrow and....... We are obliged to do more than just wring our hands & keen at their plight.

And yes, if things improved & there is no reasonable trickle down of the gains then these children would still be hungry. This is why society needs to step in and assist these people & their families to escape their poverty. The neo-liberal solution is to let them die and then there is no longer a problem - it's the market, stupid!.

Nietszhe - "?There is nothing more terrible, than a class of barbaric slaves who have learned to regard their existence as an injustice, and now prepare to avenge, not only themselves, but all generations.? [The Birth of Tragedy].

His contemporary, Carl Menger who is regarded as the father of the Austrian school [he wrote Principles of Economics] that gave us Friedrich von Wieser & Eugen von B?hm-Bawerk who in turn educated Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Joseph Schumpeter [who advocated ?creative destruction.?]. B?hm-Bawerk and Wieser promoted Menger?s work and their students Mises and Hayek extended the Austrian school neo-liberalism to the whole world. Unfettered by ethic or decency it has given us a ruinous system whereby the vast majority of humanity has been made slave to the oligarchy of financial overlords.

The neo-liberals separate economics from ethics and philosophy - capital & land have more value & power than labour and labour must be subservient to that capital god - the market. We are not allowed to have a free market for labour - htis would debase their insistence that it is money & money alone that controls our existance.