Turn on thread page Beta

Jeremy Corbyn WINS (40+) economists’ backing for anti-austerity policies watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCitizenAct)
    It's a bit like walking into a meeting of members of the National Socialist German Workers Party and asking for their perspective on Judaism.
    Yeah... it's exactly like that.
    In fact I thought it was that to be honest, it was just so similar.

    Because asking the conservative IMFs' opinions on austerity is exactly like asking the Nazis opinions on Judaism.
    Two peas in a pod.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yeah... it's exactly like that.
    In fact I thought it was that to be honest, it was just so similar.

    Because asking the conservative IMFs' opinions on austerity is exactly like asking the Nazis opinions on Judaism.
    Two peas in a pod.
    No, but the principle is the same. It's an analogy.

    You are asking people with incredibly hard line views in favour of socialism to give their opinion on socialist economic policies. That's like asking a Nazi to give their perspective on Judaism. There's only one answer.

    University professors are renowned for their inclinations towards socialism. The entire sector is left-wing, often radically left. As I've already noted, 22% of the University sector voted for the Green party at the last election. If the University sector was the electorate, we'd have a Government radically different to what the average voter would vote for.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Mark Blyth will be on that list soon
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCitizenAct)
    No, but the principle is the same. It's an analogy.

    You are asking people with incredibly hard line views in favour of socialism to give their opinion on socialist economic policies. That's like asking a Nazi to give their perspective on Judaism. There's only one answer.

    University professors are renowned for their inclinations towards socialism. The entire sector is left-wing, often radically left. As I've already noted, 22% of the University sector voted for the Green party at the last election. If the University sector was the electorate, we'd have a Government radically different to what the average voter would vote for.
    So the IMF, are hardline socialist?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So the IMF, are hardline socialist?
    No, of course not. But they didn't get 40 IMF employees to contribute their opinion. The vast majority of them are University professors, all of whom work in a sector complete detached from society (they sit in an office all day conducting independent research, they'd have to be!) - they can't function in normal society - and with a disproportionate tendency (relative to mainstream, functional society) to vote for the Green party.

    The modern University system is a joke. Feelings are the new intellectualism and the hard left has dominated the Higher Education sector for decades.

    Pre-GE Cameron got 103 business leaders to approve his economic plans. That's a more authoritative sample in my view, however even then I didn't care. It's 103 people with an opinion.

    If you've lived enough life you'll realise: opinions are like a******s, everyone's got one and they are typically s**t.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Well from a empirical scientific stand point, you know, the best way to get to 'the truth', one of the Corbyn backers predicted the 2008 crisis when the mainstream economists models didn't even leave room for a financial crisis like that from even happening. It would be like having a weather forecasting model that did not even have include rain. If something like that happened in say physics there would be loads of excitement in showing why the mainstream models are wrong and fixing them, but economics is a pseudoscience most of the time and economists are more like priests trying to protect their own ideology (this applies to both left and right wings).

    So like I said, their models are like a protoscience at best. They think the Sun goes round the Earth, and they got lots of maths to prove it. But they are still wrong.

    It tends to be the left that gets behind these people since the left has a bias against the perceived unfairness and workability of capitalism. The right has the opposite problem. But in this case the left's bias is more empirically supported.

    It also isn't the fist time elites enact dumb counterproductive economic polices that make problems worse.
    PRSOM. Economics needs major reform imo.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCitizenAct)
    No, of course not. But they didn't get 40 IMF employees to contribute their opinion. The vast majority of them are University professors, all of whom work in a sector complete detached from society (they sit in an office all day conducting independent research, they'd have to be!) - they can't function in normal society - and with a disproportionate tendency (relative to mainstream, functional society) to vote for the Green party.

    The modern University system is a joke. Feelings are the new intellectualism and the hard left has dominated the Higher Education sector for decades.

    Pre-GE Cameron got 103 business leaders to approve his economic plans. That's a more authoritative sample in my view, however even then I didn't care. It's 103 people with an opinion.

    If you've lived enough life you'll realise: opinions are like a******s, everyone's got one and they are typically s**t.
    Ah those who work in universities are out of touch but corporate business leaders really get people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Ah those who work in universities are out of touch but corporate business leaders really get people.
    I'd have no qualms with slapping your average 'banker' (there's a catch-all term to refer to hundreds of thousands of people if ever there was one) across the face with a wet fish, however at least they work long hours, at least they stray beyond the confines of a University campus, at least they deal with reality.

    Your average University professor votes for the Green party and spends his or her her days positing, grandstanding, moralising and idealising, rather than actually f*****g doing anything.

    There's a reason they've enclosed themselves within the safe confines of the Higher Education system, the thought of coming across a real person, with real world problems, scares the s**t out of most of them. That and they hate the idea of being deprived of long summer vacations, 9-4 work days, 45 days paid holiday every year and tax payer funded salaries.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Jez We Can
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Probably asked 1,000 Economists if they back it or not..... 40 did.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCitizenAct)
    I'd have no qualms with slapping your average 'banker' (there's a catch-all term to refer to hundreds of thousands of people if ever there was one) across the face with a wet fish, however at least they work long hours, at least they stray beyond the confines of a University campus, at least they deal with reality.

    Your average University professor votes for the Green party and spends his or her her days positing, grandstanding, moralising and idealising, rather than actually f*****g doing anything.

    There's a reason they've enclosed themselves within the safe confines of the Higher Education system, the thought of coming across a real person, with real world problems, scares the s**t out of most of them. That and they hate the idea of being deprived of long summer vacations, 9-4 work days, 45 days paid holiday every year and tax payer funded salaries.
    What nonsense.
    Barely deserves a response.

    And by your own admission - if 22% vote green - which you've not provided any evidence whatsoever for- then that's not your 'average' professor.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    What nonsense.
    Barely deserves a response.

    And by your own admission - if 22% vote green - which you've not provided any evidence whatsoever for- then that's not your 'average' professor.
    I have provided evidence, I linked to the Times supplement earlier in this thread. You chose not to read it.

    By the way, if you want to debate with people:

    1. Don't be so quick to anger.
    2. Don't cover your inability to come up with a response under an accusation of 'nonsense.' It weakens your credibility. If it's 'nonsense', it's easy to counter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Bitter impotent man posts angry rant on internet forum, thinks world will change as a result. Yawn. I repeat, there is not a single respectable economist on that list, with the exception of Blanchflower perhaps. Further, there is no respectable argument for balanced budgets or nationalizations being a goal, in themselves, for any nation.

    As for your beloved IMF, you are naive to really think that IMF has always been "anti-austerity"? International Monetary Fund has long been a stalwart advocate of austerity as the route out of financial crisis. The UK is a an example of the false austerity story. The government continues to borrow about 7% of GDP. Govt spending as proportion of GDP is close to historical all-time highs! But the UK is "austere". Sure.

    (Original post by Erzan)
    You tried to discredit the sources by claiming it is a result of left wing bias but fail to account for the support from the IMF or Bank of England advisers. Also not all the names are left wing radicals. You need help in basic comprehension and perhaps you can start with learning what confirmation bias is.

    You're going to ignore the IMF too, run by international economists trusted and quoted by the Tory party whenever it suits them? do you want every single economist to come and tell you? be serious, you don't even know what threshold you are going to admit anti-austerity policies is mainstream.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Erzan)
    He wants to dramatically cut the military budget, cut housing benefits, increase corporation tax, inheritance tax, close tax loopholes, introduce new council tax on very high value property. Can you stop lying?

    Thank you.
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They are costed and he has very clearly explained how he will raise the money :/.
    (Original post by Kokopod)
    This is blatantly untrue. Here is the link to his economic plan: http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/inves...nd_tax_justice

    And this article analyses his economic policies: http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...delsky-2015-08
    If Jeremy Corbyn had actually indicated a level at which he’d set corporation tax, he could at least have guessed at the figure it would raise by past performance. That would be something – but he has not set out that rate. He vaguely references removing £93bn in “tax reliefs and subsidies”. Where he got that figure from or what it involves is not referenced – but no-one could suggest a rate of corporation tax is either a “tax relief” or a “subsidy”.

    At any rate, costing something involves more than simply thinking you can, say, double a rate and it will raise double the income. Increasing corporation tax will decrease economic activity – he has not given the slightest bit of effort in quantifying behavioural effects of his huge tax increases.

    Moving on to one of his key policies, "closing tax loopholes", a shibboleth of the far-left – his pledges here are a nonsense too. What resources would be expended on this exercise? At what stage will the cost of investigating evasion outstrip the revenue generated? Will they stop at that point or actually spend more to bring in less as some sort of ideological gesture? In the case of legitimate tax avoidance activity, “closing tax loopholes” is no more than a tax rise – again, where are the costings in terms of economic activity?

    If you’re looking for lies, here’s a barefaced one from Corbyn’s economic publication. In it he claims he’ll take a different path from George Osborne. He says—

    “Labour will close the current budget deficit through building a strong growing economy that works for all. We will not do it by increasing poverty”

    When of course, poverty has decreased under the Coalition government to a very low level.

    In terms of your tax evasion points, he even misrepresents even the work of Richard Murphy on behalf of the PCS union: pretending, for example, £25bn in late paid taxes are taxes avoided or evaded that can be somehow raised – rather than as, in reality, a sum which already ends up in the accounts of the exchequer.

    His eight page economic plan is not a remotely credible document – it’s a speech written as a report, which makes basic factual errors and doesn't go anywhere near setting out the economic effects of his policies, never mind the costs. I could point to plenty of ludicrous statements within it which are by no means the realms of sensible economic theory, but I suspect anyone who actually bothers to read it will find that out by themselves pretty quickly.

    (Original post by Erzan)
    I would take note of 40 economists, advisor to the Bank of England and the IMF. Over the opinions of you or George Osborne. As you're both ideological fiscal Conservatives, who would not care about evidence led policy if it smacked you in the face.

    I actually have very little against David Blanchflower. If you would take it as read that a self-selecting sample of 40 “economists” makes something somehow legitimate, then more fool you. I may as well cite 40 MPs agreeing with something as an example of why it is sensible.

    Some of us may even recall the 364 economists who once wrote to The Times condemning the economic policies of Geoffrey Howe. They ended up with egg on their collective faces when those very policies led to economic growth.

    The very worst is when one economist is pitted against another on the basis of qualifications or standing. Let’s not forget, both Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman are Nobel laureates yet would have the most radically divergent views imaginable.

    There is nothing evidence-led about listening to a handful of lecturers on economic matters and thinking that is conclusion on any question. These are areas of political dispute - you'll find nothing conclusive here.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    If Jeremy Corbyn had actually indicated a level at which he’d set corporation tax, he could at least have guessed at the figure it would raise by past performance. That would be something – but he has not set out that rate. He vaguely references removing £93bn in “tax reliefs and subsidies”. Where he got that figure from or what it involves is not referenced – but no-one could suggest a rate of corporation tax is either a “tax relief” or a “subsidy”.

    At any rate, costing something involves more than simply thinking you can, say, double a rate and it will raise double the income. Increasing corporation tax will decrease economic activity – he has not given the slightest bit of effort in quantifying behavioural effects of his huge tax increases.

    Moving on to one of his key policies, "closing tax loopholes", a shibboleth of the far-left – his pledges here are a nonsense too. What resources would be expended on this exercise? At what stage will the cost of investigating evasion outstrip the revenue generated? Will they stop at that point or actually spend more to bring in less as some sort of ideological gesture? In the case of legitimate tax avoidance activity, “closing tax loopholes” is no more than a tax rise – again, where are the costings in terms of economic activity?

    If you’re looking for lies, here’s a barefaced one from Corbyn’s economic publication. In it he claims he’ll take a different path from George Osborne. He says—

    “Labour will close the current budget deficit through building a strong growing economy that works for all. We will not do it by increasing poverty”

    When of course, poverty has decreased under the Coalition government to a very low level.

    In terms of your tax evasion points, he even misrepresents even the work of Richard Murphy on behalf of the PCS union: pretending, for example, £25bn in late paid taxes are taxes avoided or evaded that can be somehow raised – rather than as, in reality, a sum which already ends up in the accounts of the exchequer.

    His eight page economic plan is not a remotely credible document – it’s a speech written as a report, which makes basic factual errors and doesn't go anywhere near setting out the economic effects of his policies, never mind the costs. I could point to plenty of ludicrous statements within it which are by no means the realms of sensible economic theory, but I suspect anyone who actually bothers to read it will find that out by themselves pretty quickly.




    I actually have very little against David Blanchflower. If you would take it as read that a self-selecting sample of 40 “economists” makes something somehow legitimate, then more fool you. I may as well cite 40 MPs agreeing with something as an example of why it is sensible.

    Some of us may even recall the 364 economists who once wrote to The Times condemning the economic policies of Geoffrey Howe. They ended up with egg on their collective faces when those very policies led to economic growth.

    The very worst is when one economist is pitted against another on the basis of qualifications or standing. Let’s not forget, both Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman are Nobel laureates yet would have the most radically divergent views imaginable.

    There is nothing evidence-led about listening to a handful of lecturers on economic matters and thinking that is conclusion on any question. These are areas of political dispute - you'll find nothing conclusive here.
    He has given a figure - 20.5 %-
    Up from 20%- hardly radical now is it?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    He has given a figure - 20.5 %-
    Up from 20%- hardly radical now is it?
    I'd genuinely not seen that. It seems there is indeed a press release on his website, saying it could be increased to 20.5% to fund university maintenance grants.

    Credit where it's due - that's not ridiculous. What is, however, is saying he could extract a further £93 billion a year from businesses by removing “tax reliefs and subsidies” on business.

    That's more than twice what corporation tax brings in now. £93 billion in the context of expected total UK tax receipts of £673 billion this year is an enormous figure. it's almost the entire schools budget, and twice what we spend on defence.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Ah those who work in universities are out of touch but corporate business leaders really get people.
    It's almost like a scientific and/or intelligent mind leads you to be a bit left wing :beard:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It's almost like a scientific and/or intelligent mind leads you to be a bit left wing :beard:
    I remember a while back a study showing the higher a persons iq- the more likely they are to be left wing.

    To be left wing you have to actually think about things and challenge what the press tell you.
    In this country people are default right wing wing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    LOL just LOL.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I remember a while back a study showing the higher a persons iq- the more likely they are to be left wing.

    To be left wing you have to actually think about things and challenge what the press tell you.
    In this country people are default right wing wing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They are costed and he has very clearly explained how he will raise the money :/.
    Yes, he will "raise" iot by increasing inflation significantly and implementing practically impossible methods.

    Oh, I didn't look at who I was quoting, time for you to reject this are "right wing smear" or some crap like that because it disagrees with your view.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 3, 2015
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.