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

My plan to come out of the UK recession Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's a bit hard to condense onto a TSR post, but here is Part 1 in how I think we as a country can come out of recession and increase exports.

    http://pseudoword.wordpress.com/2013...lution-part-1/

    What do you think? Discuss.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I am not an economist nor am I politically savvy but ethically your spending cuts on International Aid ain't cool. I agree that emerging economies like India that can fund a space program ought to have their funding cut but for poverty stricken countries like Ethiopia surely that isn't okay? Whilst I admit that things aren't as great as they were 7 years ago, we aren't exactly falling apart. Why do you/other Britons take precedence over other members of the human race? We're all equal right? IA is there to help provide funding for countries who's citizens do not have the basic human rights that everyone ought to have, access to water, health etc etc.

    tldr; I agree with some bits but cutting IA isn't the way to go about it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peachz)
    I am not an economist nor am I politically savvy but ethically your spending cuts on International Aid ain't cool. I agree that emerging economies like India that can fund a space program ought to have their funding cut but for poverty stricken countries like Ethiopia surely that isn't okay? Whilst I admit that things aren't as great as they were 7 years ago, we aren't exactly falling apart. Why do you/other Britons take precedence over other members of the human race? We're all equal right? IA is there to help provide funding for countries who's citizens do not have the basic human rights that everyone ought to have, access to water, health etc etc.
    u
    tldr; I agree with some bits but cutting IA isn't the way to go about it.
    It's fair logic, but the point is, if we use that money to develop ourselves, then in the long run we'll actually be giving them more money.

    Yes we are all equal, but not totally. We don't live in a society where we share all of our wealth.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    It's a bit hard to condense onto a TSR post, but here is Part 1 in how I think we as a country can come out of recession and increase exports.

    http://pseudoword.wordpress.com/2013...lution-part-1/

    What do you think? Discuss.

    I generally agree but there are so many lefties here that you will probably get lots of negs
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    It's fair logic, but the point is, if we use that money to develop ourselves, then in the long run we'll actually be giving them more money.

    Yes we are all equal, but not totally. We don't live in a society where we share all of our wealth.
    I agree - that's the failure of socialism/communism/far-left policies
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    I generally agree but there are so many lefties here that you will probably get lots of negs
    I am also a democractic socialist, hence why I think we should leave or even increase benefits (as discussed in the article) so that the poor keep a fairly good standard of living, but in these times it would be irresponsible to spend even more money. Im all for government provision when we have a bit more money, but we just can't at this current time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    I am also a democractic socialist, hence why I think we should leave or even increase benefits (as discussed in the article), but in these times it would be irresponsible to spend even more money. Im all for government provision when we have a bit more money, but we just can't at this current time.
    So you think more welfare and more incentive benefit scroungers?

    Or do you mean more support STRICTLY for the low-paid
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think this article is a bit economically confused.

    You talk about aggregate demand, but all the measures you propose are supply-side. Many of them I support, such as education reform and boosting R&D, but some I don't. Pure investment subsidies are dumb. Moreover, you seem to equate exports with prosperity, which is kind of silly. And the only actual way to move the current account towards surplus, even if you think that is desirable, is to boost private or government saving.

    You point to the unemployment figures (which for starters are actually a bit off - unemployment was nowhere near as low in the mid-noughties as you claim). Obviously some element of this is going to be demand-side - the natural rate of unemployment doesn't jump by 3 percentage points overnight. And you bring up the issue of deficient AD. So where are the calls for demand stimulus? Why aren't you asking that the Bank of England do more, that the inflation target be raised, that the government increase deficit spending if you think that would work?

    And you mention a lot of jargon that you presumably learnt in A-Level economics without really working through the theory you're relying on.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    So you think more welfare and more incentive benefit scroungers?

    Or do you mean more support STRICTLY for the low-paid
    Well if we got more people into University, people would have the opportunity to go into higher skilled jobs, so benefits would still be low in comparison to what they could now get (as they're educated). Thus, people will be inspired to work harder as they now have opportunities, unlike now where people leave school with no gases and have little hope to move up the hierarchy without qualifications, so they resort to benefit scrounging.
    (Original post by Dapperatchik)
    I think this article is a bit economically confused.

    You talk about aggregate demand, but all the measures you propose are supply-side. Many of them I support, such as education reform and boosting R&D, but some I don't. Pure investment subsidies are dumb. Moreover, you seem to equate exports with prosperity, which is kind of silly. And the only actual way to move the current account towards surplus, even if you think that is desirable, is to

    You point to the unemployment figures (which for starters are actually a bit off - unemployment was nowhere near as low in the mid-noughties as you claim). Obviously some element of this is going to be demand-side - the natural rate of unemployment doesn't jump by 3 percentage points overnight. And you bring up the issue of deficient AD. So where are the calls for demand stimulus? Why aren't you asking that the Bank of England do more, that the inflation target be raised, that the government increase deficit spending if you think that would work?

    And you mention a lot of jargon that you presumably learnt in A-Level economics without really working through the theory you're relying on.
    Yes, I am an AS level Economics student, so at the moment my theory is quite limited, but I hope to improve it. Through the provision of education it will bring increases in both demand and supply, thus reducing the effects of inflation.
    Also, I got those employment figures from a respected site, so I'm not sure about your skepticism.
    I will hopefully go into things such as the Bank of England in later editions!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    Well if we got more people into University, people would have the opportunity to go into higher skilled jobs, so benefits would still be low in comparison to what they could now get (as they're educated). Thus, people will be inspired to work harder as they now have opportunities, unlike now where people leave school with no gases and have little hope to move up the hierarchy without qualifications, so they resort to benefit scrounging.
    Sadly not everyone is academic

    We need more vocational options for people who might say have dyslexia and might struggle in a classroom but thrive in a practical role

    Cut the welfare budget and use to fund tax cuts for the poorest and improve education
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    all we need now is someone who thinks they know all the answers
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I totally agree that we should compete based on quality and not quantity - take the thriving Brompton Bikes for example - China can't produce goods of that quality so they simply can't compete.
    The theory that increased supply alleviates demand-pull inflation is fairly weak though, since for many industries it can be very difficult to significantly increase supply quickly. Supply chain issues plague a great deal of industries. The other issues with economic theory have largely been covered by another poster.
    Thankfully we're in the process of withdrawing much of our aid contributions to India so I also agree on that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    Yes, I am an AS level Economics student, so at the moment my theory is quite limited, but I hope to improve it. Through the provision of education it will bring increases in both demand and supply, thus reducing the effects of inflation.
    Also, I got those employment figures from a respected site, so I'm not sure about your skepticism.
    I will hopefully go into things such as the Bank of England in later editions!
    Thats fine thats the right attitude as long as you realise you are still learning then no problems putting your ideas out there to get shot down by others as you will learn from their feedback. I think it is good that you are thinking about your economics.

    A few comments:

    - the quality against quantity of goods is on the right lines, the UK needs to focus on moving up the value chain, producing stuff that is more high quality and advanced that low cost developing countries cannot yet produce

    - providing education is another good idea, and also this contributes on the demand side as well as supply side especially if you bring in overseas students, they spend money in the UK as well as their course fees and this counts to our exports

    (relating to these two points have you read "Made in Britain" by Evan Davies, his book talks in detail about these issues, its very readable too)

    - on your comments about inflation you are nearly right, you could simplify it, really the risk of inflation comes if you increase AD proportionately more than AS; if you increase AD and also increase AS in proportion you should not need to worry about inflation

    - international aid is a complicated subject, personally I am in favour of it, but there are arguments against. Try and read some material from Jeffrey Sachs (pro aid) and William Easterly (anti aid) for further insight

    - cutting spending on sport may be counter productive in terms of stimulating demand, sport is a large industry and government spending can stimulate private sector consumption in this area
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Thats fine thats the right attitude as long as you realise you are still learning then no problems putting your ideas out there to get shot down by others as you will learn from their feedback. I think it is good that you are thinking about your economics.

    A few comments:

    - the quality against quantity of goods is on the right lines, the UK needs to focus on moving up the value chain, producing stuff that is more high quality and advanced that low cost developing countries cannot yet produce

    - providing education is another good idea, and also this contributes on the demand side as well as supply side especially if you bring in overseas students, they spend money in the UK as well as their course fees and this counts to our exports

    (relating to these two points have you read "Made in Britain" by Evan Davies, his book talks in detail about these issues, its very readable too)

    - on your comments about inflation you are nearly right, you could simplify it, really the risk of inflation comes if you increase AD proportionately more than AS; if you increase AD and also increase AS in proportion you should not need to worry about inflation

    - international aid is a complicated subject, personally I am in favour of it, but there are arguments against. Try and read some material from Jeffrey Sachs (pro aid) and William Easterly (anti aid) for further insight

    - cutting spending on sport may be counter productive in terms of stimulating demand, sport is a large industry and government spending can stimulate private sector consumption in this area
    Thanks for your comments! And yes, I read it last year
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    First of all, even if the government cuts back on all the things you said, it still won't be happy spending money as it'll still have a deficit.

    2nd, if these investments made much sense, businesses wouldn't need a government subsidy to persuade them to do it. Also all this investment in Education is so long term, the recession will probably be long forgotten by the time it actually takes effect. Again, there is no guarantee it'll actually pay off, when the world is in a recession, the cheaper goods are more desirable.

    Sports actually brings in a lot of money for the government I imagine. It is not a thing they'll want scrapping, also, very politically unpopular so unlikely to happen IMO.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KD35)
    First of all, even if the government cuts back on all the things you said, it still won't be happy spending money as it'll still have a deficit.

    2nd, if these investments made much sense, businesses wouldn't need a government subsidy to persuade them to do it. Also all this investment in Education is so long term, the recession will probably be long forgotten by the time it actually takes effect. Again, there is no guarantee it'll actually pay off, when the world is in a recession, the cheaper goods are more desirable.

    Sports actually brings in a lot of money for the government I imagine. It is not a thing they'll want scrapping, also, very politically unpopular so unlikely to happen IMO.
    Regarding the part in bold, this isn't true. Demand for luxury goods continues to grow as the 'recession' progresses. Huge expansions are being and can still be made into BRIC anyway.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I think it is an ambitious attempt to propose your own views on a complicated issue, and props to you, as you've attempted to apply what you have learnt in AS Economics.

    However, much of what you said isn't very well thought out, as people on here have already alluded to.

    How do you think the people will react if sports-funding is cut? It will have plenty of negative externalities in obesity etc. and it will lead to a decline in British sports. This has serious impacts in terms of revenue from the Premier League to rugby to cricket etc. Cutting aid also is understandable, but the problem comes when you want to restart aid, how do you know when you are doing well enough to start re-contributing? If you stop aid, you become dependant on not giving aid, so it is harder to restart doing so.

    Also, most of the supply-side policies you suggest (education etc.) are obviously necessary but are much more long-term and many would argue it would be better to get out of the crisis and then invest, as otherwise it is putting more pressure on an already strained economy.

    As for military cutbacks, again it is understandable, but as a rich/well-developed country we have a duty to protect states from corrupt dictators and oppression. Failed states have much worse long term negative impacts than if they had been prevented from failing - just imagine if the Islamists had taken control of Mali if France hadn't stepped in. Aid to India has already been cut by the way, but there are much worse off countries (I'm thinking Sub-Saharan Africa) that may need our aid. However bad you think our economy is doing, remember that we are still infinitely better off than many other countries around the world. The extra money saved from not giving that aid may make our lives slightly better, but it would make many more lives much, much worse. This is just my opinion, but providing families with mosquito nets/vaccines/running water is more important than if Aggregate Demand gets an extra boost or if I get a fancy new computer every year in school.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by venenecinema)
    Regarding the part in bold, this isn't true. Demand for luxury goods continues to grow as the 'recession' progresses. Huge expansions are being and can still be made into BRIC anyway.
    Does that even mean anything? I wonder how the demand for economy goods is going?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KD35)
    Does that even mean anything? I wonder how the demand for economy goods is going?
    Yeah, it means something. I suggest you work on your comprehension.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    It's fair logic, but the point is, if we use that money to develop ourselves, then in the long run we'll actually be giving them more money.

    Yes we are all equal, but not totally. We don't live in a society where we share all of our wealth.
    No we don't but you should be willing to sacrifice some of your unneeded wealth, which it admittedly is, in order to help those that lack basic human rights.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
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.