Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Not counted in the unemployment figures:
    - self employed (44% of the supposed fall in unemployment is people declared themselve this, if you think they are all off earning money installing lagging and trimming hedges 35 hours a week I don't know where to begin)
    - those of middling means hounded off unemployment benefits due to ridiculous conditionality
    - those on benefits but currently serving a sanction (job centres work to sanction targets and often invent missed appointments etc)
    - those on ESA in the support group - not fit for work in any way
    - those in full time education
    - people on zero hours contracts even if they don't actually get any work (and the uncertainty is hardly a recipe for economic stability)
    - people mandated to work for free on the Work Programme, the DWP's slave labour scheme (for which the employer gets a bung to boot)
    - people waiting on appeal for the overturn of decisions by the disability denial factories (ballpark waiting list 6 months)

    Does any of that sound like employment to you? Does it sound like dynamic, positive economic growth?

    In fact the 7% figure has not the slightest thing to do with employment. It measures nothing more the number of people not at that moment claiming out-of-work benefits. Isn't it strange that we should have magically attained the 7% figure given that it is an explicit target?

    Get a clue before you go believing figures put about by the government.
    You need to look up the difference between the ILO measure of unemployment (6.9%) and the Claimant Count measure of unemployment (3.4%). You've pretty much described the methodology of the latter to discredit the methodology of the former to make the incorrect point that unemployment figures can't be trusted. Here is the gist of it
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rich2606)
    You need to look up the difference between the ILO measure of unemployment (6.9%) and the Claimant Count measure of unemployment (3.4%). You've pretty much described the methodology of the latter to discredit the methodology of the former to make the incorrect point that unemployment figures can't be trusted. Here is the gist of it
    Oh OK, thanks for the pointer. I'm pretty sure that the supposedly self-employed, the Work Programme and the zero-hours people are still very much counted as in employment in the ILO figure though and these are the main problems. A large proportion of them aren't employed in any meaningful sense.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You do know the UK has the fastest growing economy in the developed world don't you?
    and economic output is still 1.3% below its 2008 first quarter level. Growth would have been faster had the government adopted more sensible economic policies, not those driven by ideology
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suedonim)
    and economic output is still 1.3% below its 2008 first quarter level. Growth would have been faster had the government adopted more sensible economic policies, not those driven by ideology
    Which sensible economic policies would they be?

    I've heard of these 'sensible' economic policies. Raising tax was one. Didn't work in France. Increase public spending was another. Again, hasn't worked where that was done. Just raised the deficit.

    We have a positive at the moment. But are claiming that an unknown would've made it even better.

    growth doesn't need to be faster. Growth needs to be sustainable. It was unsustainable high growth that got us into this problem.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Which sensible economic policies would they be?

    I've heard of these 'sensible' economic policies. Raising tax was one. Didn't work in France. Increase public spending was another. Again, hasn't worked where that was done. Just raised the deficit.

    We have a positive at the moment. But are claiming that an unknown would've made it even better.

    growth doesn't need to be faster. Growth needs to be sustainable. It was unsustainable high growth that got us into this problem.
    In a recession you do not take money from the poor - who spend in it the local economy - to give to the rich, who don't. Bankers got us into this mess. Of course you know that Osbourne has massively increased debt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suedonim)
    In a recession you do not take money from the poor - who spend in it the local economy - to give to the rich, who don't. Bankers got us into this mess. Of course you know that Osbourne has massively increased debt.
    Actually the government played a huge part in getting us into this mess. They were the ones who failed to adequately regulate the banking system and ran an unsustainable level of public spending with the result that when the recession occurred there were no savings left to spend, nor was their any room left on the credit card. We had the lowest level of economic stimulus of any western country because there simply wasn`t any money available.

    The bankers had their part to play, but so did the british people. Who were the banks lending money to? - the feckless people in the uk who were using their houses like an ATM to re-mortgage every couple of years to pay off the latest loans and credit cards. Many of these people who are now bankrupt, in IVA`s, or sinking under negative equity. It`s the defaults and write-offs on these loans that are causing the banks to need taxpayers money. Companies like GMAC and Northern Rock were lending 125% mortgages to people with abysmal credit histories. They did this because the government allowed them to offload these loans to other investors, and so they didn`t really care if people could afford to pay back the debt. I hold these people just as responsible as the bankers and the government, and find it quite ironic when they blame the banks because they couldn`t pay back the money they borrowed to spend on shoes and holidays.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Which sensible economic policies would they be?

    I've heard of these 'sensible' economic policies. Raising tax was one. Didn't work in France. Increase public spending was another. Again, hasn't worked where that was done. Just raised the deficit.

    We have a positive at the moment. But are claiming that an unknown would've made it even better.

    growth doesn't need to be faster. Growth needs to be sustainable. It was unsustainable high growth that got us into this problem.
    Scrap the whole welfare state and introduce a basic unconditional income perhaps. Famously endorsed by one of the most right-wing men on the planet.

    http://www.conallboyle.com/BasicInco...rrayReview.pdf
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suedonim)
    In a recession you do not take money from the poor - who spend in it the local economy - to give to the rich, who don't. Bankers got us into this mess. Of course you know that Osbourne has massively increased debt.
    How have the rich been given money? They're paying 5% more than they did under labour. ( top rate tax was 40% under labour, it's now 45%. Universal benefits for the rich have been cut to zero)

    You'll actually find that in a recession, the one thing you do want to do is to cut spending.

    We can argue about different economic policies, but the simple fact is it works. Let's hear from a historian who explains what actually has happened in a depression. What worked and what didn't.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GSd_Ld6X6O8
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lumberjack 101)
    Actually the government played a huge part in getting us into this mess. They were the ones who failed to adequately regulate the banking system

    The bankers had their part to play, but so did the british people.
    All uk governments fail to regulate banking. The loans were not aways to British people. Finance is international and the rot started in America. But if the banks weren't irresponsible they woudn't need money from everyone in this country, including those who were not irresponsible.

    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    How have the rich been given money? They're paying 5% more than they did under labour. ( top rate tax was 40% under labour, it's now 45%. Universal benefits for the rich have been cut to zero)

    You'll actually find that in a recession, the one thing you do want to do is to cut spending.

    We can argue about different economic policies, but the simple fact is it works. Let's hear from a historian who explains what actually has happened in a depression. What worked and what didn't.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GSd_Ld6X6O8
    Not worth discussing with someone who doesn't understand finance

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...animated-video

    The government has had to borrow more to fund unemployment benefit, the national debt is increasing. It should be reducing with the sale of llodys bank and royal mail, if the government were not too incompetent to get a decent price.

    "what worked and what didn't" is a subjective view and this is what other historians think of Starkey talking outside his own academic interests http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...istorians.html
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Which sensible economic policies would they be?

    I've heard of these 'sensible' economic policies. Raising tax was one. Didn't work in France. Increase public spending was another. Again, hasn't worked where that was done. Just raised the deficit.

    We have a positive at the moment. But are claiming that an unknown would've made it even better.

    growth doesn't need to be faster. Growth needs to be sustainable. It was unsustainable high growth that got us into this problem.
    Honestly, I really don't think you understand what you're talking about (I mean that in the nicest way possible). Your arguments about tax, France, public spending and current growth are nonsensical.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Burridge)
    Honestly, I really don't think you understand what you're talking about (I mean that in the nicest way possible). Your arguments about tax, France, public spending and current growth are nonsensical.
    I know exactly what I'm talking about. You're argueing a Keynesian economic policy. I'm merey pointing out that that has never worked.

    I'll make it straight forwrad. When you spend more than you earn you have to keep borrowing money. That creates what is called a deficit. You need to cut the deficit to stop spending money you don't have.

    Alternativley, you can look at it this way. The current coalition government have been criticised for their economic policy. Yet some how the UK has record employement and teh fastest growing economy in the West.

    France did what you are suggesting. France is still in recession.

    There are two lines of strategy. One works but is unpopular. The other is popular but doesn't work. I always want a government that will do the right thing even though it is unpopular.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I know exactly what I'm talking about. You're argueing a Keynesian economic policy. I'm merey pointing out that that has never worked.

    I'll make it straight forwrad. When you spend more than you earn you have to keep borrowing money. That creates what is called a deficit. You need to cut the deficit to stop spending money you don't have.

    Alternativley, you can look at it this way. The current coalition government have been criticised for their economic policy. Yet some how the UK has record employement and teh fastest growing economy in the West.

    France did what you are suggesting. France is still in recession.

    There are two lines of strategy. One works but is unpopular. The other is popular but doesn't work. I always want a government that will do the right thing even though it is unpopular.
    Did I argue a Keynesian strategy? I'd love you to quote me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Burridge)
    Did I argue a Keynesian strategy? I'd love you to quote me.
    No. But you advocated it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    No. But you advocated it.

    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I know exactly what I'm talking about. You're argueing a Keynesian economic policy. I'm merey pointing out that that has never worked.

    I'll make it straight forwrad. When you spend more than you earn you have to keep borrowing money. That creates what is called a deficit. You need to cut the deficit to stop spending money you don't have.

    Alternativley, you can look at it this way. The current coalition government have been criticised for their economic policy. Yet some how the UK has record employement and teh fastest growing economy in the West.

    France did what you are suggesting. France is still in recession.

    There are two lines of strategy. One works but is unpopular. The other is popular but doesn't work. I always want a government that will do the right thing even though it is unpopular.
    Keynesianism has never worked? It's worked in all corners of the world; notable examples being the UK, Argentina, Australia and the USA. Of course, it depends on your definition of "worked".

    I'll match your argument and make mine as equally as simple - the government spends money and invests in infrastructure and other areas; this increases employment, thereby increasing the tax-take and decreasing unemployment benefits.

    The government has rightly been criticised for their economic policy. It is founded in ideological aspirations for a smaller-state. Austerity prematurely choked growth in 2010; need I remind you that growth was at over 2% when Labour left office? The record employment is sham and is most definitely not something to be proud of; they're low-paying, temporary, part-time service-sector jobs. The rise in self-employment, zero-hour contracts and workfare programmes mask the true issues facing the UK labour market. The current growth is unsustainable; it's the same growth that caused the recession in the first place - debt-fuelled consumer spending and rising house-prices. Even Mark Carney, the BOE governor, concedes this.

    France have imposed a ruthless austerity programme. Unsure where you're getting that idea from. Over the past 2 years France has cut their spending/GDP ratio by nearly 4%; the IMF were vocal in their criticisms of the government for this. I can only presume you're wrongly basing that argument on the fact that they've imposed a 75% super-tax on the most wealthy - a measure I don't support. Incidentally, it's worth a mention that France is closer to their pre-recession peak than we are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Burridge)
    Keynesianism has never worked? It's worked in all corners of the world; notable examples being the UK, Argentina, Australia and the USA. Of course, it depends on your definition of "worked".

    I'll match your argument and make mine as equally as simple - the government spends money and invests in infrastructure and other areas; this increases employment, thereby increasing the tax-take and decreasing unemployment benefits.

    The government has rightly been criticised for their economic policy. It is founded in ideological aspirations for a smaller-state. Austerity prematurely choked growth in 2010; need I remind you that growth was at over 2% when Labour left office? The record employment is sham and is most definitely not something to be proud of; they're low-paying, temporary, part-time service-sector jobs. The rise in self-employment, zero-hour contracts and workfare programmes mask the true issues facing the UK labour market. The current growth is unsustainable; it's the same growth that caused the recession in the first place - debt-fuelled consumer spending and rising house-prices. Even Mark Carney, the BOE governor, concedes this.

    France have imposed a ruthless austerity programme. Unsure where you're getting that idea from. Over the past 2 years France has cut their spending/GDP ratio by nearly 4%; the IMF were vocal in their criticisms of the government for this. I can only presume you're wrongly basing that argument on the fact that they've imposed a 75% super-tax on the most wealthy - a measure I don't support. Incidentally, it's worth a mention that France is closer to their pre-recession peak than we are.
    I'd be interested for you to show me the Keynesian model working.

    Here's a historians take on it.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GSd_Ld6X6O8
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'd be interested for you to show me the Keynesian model working.

    Here's a historians take on it.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GSd_Ld6X6O8
    It's like I'm banging my head against a brick wall.

    Surprise surprise. Just like in the other thread; once again no real attempt to rebut my claims. No counterargument. You just bypass my comments and repeat yourself.

    :yawn:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Burridge)
    It's like I'm banging my head against a brick wall.

    Surprise surprise. Just like in the other thread; once again no real attempt to rebut my claims. No counterargument. You just bypass my comments and repeat yourself.

    :yawn:
    I have rebutted your claims. I've used a historian to highlight that Keynesian economics doesn't work....... Unless there's a major rebuilding activity following a world war
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not that well clues up on economics but isn't the Keynesian model based on the government increasing spending on key parts of industries, like building hospitals or constructing roads, bridges etc to stimulate growth. Then once the economy recovers the government should then cut back on spending.

    Isn't that where it went wrong? That there was never a cut back on spending? Spending just increased? If so then the problem isn't that Keynesian is wrong, it is that it was never carried out properly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I have rebutted your claims. I've used a historian to highlight that Keynesian economics doesn't work....... Unless there's a major rebuilding activity following a world war
    You have NOT rebutted any of my claims. You haven't even acknowledged any of my claims.

    The fact that you simply reposted a YouTube video that had already been posted before I made my claims, and now are trying to claim that you rebutted by claims by posting the video, is clearly nonsensical.

    I had the decency, at least, to address each point you made in your post.

    You didn't address my point that Keynesianism has worked in other countries.
    You didn't address my point that the programme of fiscal-consolidation is ideologically driven.
    You didn't address my point that austerity choked 2010 growth.
    You didn't address my point that the unemployment figures are meaningless.
    You didn't address my point that the growth we're experience isn't the kind of growth we should welcome.
    You didn't address my point that France has, in fact, imposed austerity measures.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: April 20, 2014
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

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