Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Gordon Brown is doing a better job to resolve the economic recession than Obama Watch

  • View Poll Results: Gordon Brown is doing a better job to resolve the economic recession than Obama
    Yes
    38
    56.72%
    No
    29
    43.28%

    Offline

    14
    (Original post by ajp100688)
    likewise anyone with even a modicum of economic knowledge knew why the banks had to be saved from collapse (Paulson surprisingly for the secretary of the treasury seemed to lack this basic knowledge with Lehman Bros).
    It's not as simple as that. :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Ravi_)
    Maybe you should be prime minister.. seeing as you know everything :rolleyes:
    But he's right...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Ravi_)
    Maybe you should be prime minister.. seeing as you know everything :rolleyes:
    Maybe I should, I mean I do know everything.

    Or maybe if you disagree with what I write instead of using the rolleyes at me you should actually argue your point. Just a thought.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://amconmag.com/article/2009/may/04/00024/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caprylate)
    Maybe I should, I mean I do know everything.

    Or maybe if you disagree with what I write instead of using the rolleyes at me you should actually argue your point. Just a thought.
    When I read this, it made me :rolleyes: (below)

    (Original post by Caprylate)
    stating Brown is doing better than Obama is essentially asking which one is dumb and which one is dumber.
    It may be that your argument is completely valid, but I think it is arrogant of you (a stranger on an internet forum for students) to dismiss the efforts of some of the world's leading economic minds as if they were fools.

    Whenever I read Gordon-Brown-Bashing, I am reminded of how football fans think they can do a better job than the manager when the club is going through a bad patch. I personally think that they are just finding an outlet for their frustration.

    Anyway, I don't think you should underestimate the credentials of Britain's longest serving Chancellor and the team that surrounds himself and Obama. Whatever argument you have, I'm sure that they are not ignorant enough to not have considered it.

    Its possible that I'm completely off the mark here and you are correct, as I do not know very much about economics. Its just my opinion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What can they possible do to help the recession?
    They didnt cause it...so they cannot really solve it.
    It has to solve itself, thats why its called the economic cycle.
    Its up to the banks on this one and the banks are independent...
    So Im not choosing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Ravi_)
    When I read this, it made me :rolleyes: (below)



    It may be that your argument is completely valid, but I think it is arrogant of you (a stranger on an internet forum for students) to dismiss the efforts of some of the world's leading economic minds as if they were fools.

    Whenever I read Gordon-Brown-Bashing, I am reminded of how football fans think they can do a better job than the manager when the club is going through a bad patch. I personally think that they are just finding an outlet for their frustration.

    Anyway, I don't think you should underestimate the credentials of Britain's longest serving Chancellor and the team that surrounds himself and Obama. Whatever argument you have, I'm sure that they are not ignorant enough to not have considered it.

    Its possible that I'm completely off the mark here and you are correct, as I do not know very much about economics. Its just my opinion.
    If Gordon Brown and Barack Obama are our two best economic minds in the world then we are doooooooooooomed!

    Seriously, raising taxes and spending during a recession isn't the way to end it faster, it has the opposite effect, this is basic economics that even a stranger on an internet forum knows. Brown and Obama have no formal education in Economics btw.

    Your analogy would make sense if it wasn't objectively obvious that Brown was a terrible chancellor. Raising spending during the good years (instead of reducing the country's debt as a whole) and having none during the bad years to plug the deficit.

    For all I know, Brown and Obama have considered my ideas, but chose to do what politically appears to be doing something and because ideologically, they are opposed to smaller spending power and taxes.

    You yourself said you know very little economics, read up on it, despite what some people think its a very approachable subject, and requires little maths knowledge to understand. Watch some of Milton Friedman's Free To Choose here: http://www.ideachannel.tv/ the quality of the video isn't great but the content is. Press Ctrl + mousewheel towards computer to make the video size bigger.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Playa_h8r)
    What can they possible do to help the recession?
    They didnt cause it...so they cannot really solve it.
    It has to solve itself, thats why its called the economic cycle.
    Its up to the banks on this one and the banks are independent...
    So Im not choosing.
    :facepalm:
    This is why I wish they made economics mandatory in schools.

    It's an interesting question, but I'm going to go with 'no'. Purely because the two leaders face very different economic (and political) landscapes, so it's difficult to compare their actions and the consequences of those actions - it's also important to note that the economic crisis was gripping when the Bush administration was still in power, so some of the issues that Obama is facing are leftovers from that era as well.

    I think both have done fairly well in their handling of the crisis, given their different contexts, by biting the bullet and doing the unpopular thing of ringing up insane levels of debt in the form of a fiscal stimulus. Even more impressive is the coordination shown by the G20 in their actions, which has definitely had a positive impact. If I remember correctly, I think Britain really lead the charge with the fiscal stimulus plan, so props to Gordon for that, and plans to reform banking regulation have been ticking away quite nicely.

    (Original post by Caprylate)
    Seriously, raising taxes and spending during a recession isn't the way to end it faster, it has the opposite effect, this is basic economics that even a stranger on an internet forum knows.
    You're right on the raising the taxes bit, but increasing Government spending really was looking like the only option available to the leaders at the time. I mean, wasn't the UK interest rate at 0.5% at one point? We were evidently heading towards the liquidity trap nightmare scenario, which Japan found itself mired in during the 90's. We had to increase Government spending to slow our descent - inaction wasn't an option, and monetary policy was looking increasingly ineffective (the sheer fact the BoE resorted to quantitative easing was a red flag that they didn't know what to do). And didn't Gordon Brown lower V.A.T? I'm not sure about taxes stateside.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No way... Gordon Brown was the most useless chancellor this country has ever had with our current levels of national debt lol
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Gordon Brown's a butt-burglar.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest I dont really care which one is doing a better job but I do know this, no matter how good a job Gordon Brown does he is still a fat scottish turd who sold all of our gold.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chidona)
    :facepalm:
    This is why I wish they made economics mandatory in schools.

    It's an interesting question, but I'm going to go with 'no'. Purely because the two leaders face very different economic (and political) landscapes, so it's difficult to compare their actions and the consequences of those actions - it's also important to note that the economic crisis was gripping when the Bush administration was still in power, so some of the issues that Obama is facing are leftovers from that era as well.

    I think both have done fairly well in their handling of the crisis, given their different contexts, by biting the bullet and doing the unpopular thing of ringing up insane levels of debt in the form of a fiscal stimulus. Even more impressive is the coordination shown by the G20 in their actions, which has definitely had a positive impact. If I remember correctly, I think Britain really lead the charge with the fiscal stimulus plan, so props to Gordon for that, and plans to reform banking regulation have been ticking away quite nicely.



    You're right on the raising the taxes bit, but increasing Government spending really was looking like the only option available to the leaders at the time. I mean, wasn't the UK interest rate at 0.5% at one point? We were evidently heading towards the liquidity trap nightmare scenario, which Japan found itself mired in during the 90's. We had to increase Government spending to slow our descent - inaction wasn't an option, and monetary policy was looking increasingly ineffective (the sheer fact the BoE resorted to quantitative easing was a red flag that they didn't know what to do). And didn't Gordon Brown lower V.A.T? I'm not sure about taxes stateside.
    Why did u quote me?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Playa_h8r)
    Why did u quote me?
    Because what you said isn't really true, and it's common knowledge that it isn't really true. I'm not taking the piss, but it's incredibly frustrating that the average person would be making such bad calls on topics as important to this - topics which could decide what Government we'll be under.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chidona)
    Because what you said isn't really true, and it's common knowledge that it isn't really true. I'm not taking the piss, but it's incredibly frustrating that the average person would be making such bad calls on topics as important to this - topics which could decide what Government we'll be under.
    Well part of what I am saying is true I did economics A-level and got an A. So I do know what I am saying, the goverment cannot totally help in this recession.
    we are in the era of credit cards and because people used loans and credit irresponisibly and the banks gave them out irresponsibly it is up to the banks to fix them mess they have made the bank of england is not part of the government so the gov cannot intervene so what Brown says may or may not be taken into consideration.
    Even if the gov injected money into the economy it is all about consumer confidence the economy will not be up and running back to the way it was before the recession because the banks and firms have learnt not to give out too much credit to the wrong people.
    The only thing that can be done is to get more jobs available which seems to be an impossible task as firms will only expand if there is more people willing to invest and demand what is being produced increase this is difficult as it all relys again on consumer confidence and confidence of investors.
    See what I mean by the economic cycle?
    I am still sticking to no choosing between obama and brown as they cannot do anything but inject money, and besides the british and american economy is very different. The american economy will be much easier to improve as American has natural resources and produces its own good whereas the uk only produces financially services that no one will want in a global recession and as the UK imports almost everything (i know exaggeration lol) things will cost a lot more meaning the cost of living will be very high this means that it will take much longer for GDP to go back to the way it was before the recession compared to america.

    I hope what i said now makes more sense
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chidona)
    And didn't Gordon Brown lower V.A.T? I'm not sure about taxes stateside.
    Whilst its true that VAT was cut by 2.5% to 15%, he also increased several other taxes. 50% tax on income over 150K, 2p per litre fuel duty increase from September 1st, various cigarette and alcohol tax increases etc.

    Also the VAT cut should have been more significant (5% off appeals much more to people than 2.5% off), and if Brown was really serious about tax cuts, then income and corporate rate taxes should have been reduced too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caprylate)
    Whilst its true that VAT was cut by 2.5% to 15%, he also increased several other taxes. 50% tax on income over 150K, 2p per litre fuel duty increase from September 1st, various cigarette and alcohol tax increases etc.

    Also the VAT cut should have been more significant (5% off appeals much more to people than 2.5% off), and if Brown was really serious about tax cuts, then income and corporate rate taxes should have been reduced too.
    Mmmmmmmmm, I see your point. That said, given the condition that Brown still thinks it's possible for Labour to win another election (I know, I know), bigger tax cuts were political suicide - the tories would've skewered him even further under the banner of increasing our national debt.

    (Original post by Playa_h8r)
    *babble*
    I think a big mistake you've made is muddling up monetary and fiscal policy. Yes the BoE is independent, but that's on the monetary side and there appears to be general consensus that monetary policy was becoming increasingly ineffective (thus, rendering the BoE ineffective, to an extent). Brown sets the inflation target that they need to adhere to, so he has the ultimate say in their function - he sets the end, they figure out the means via interest rates.

    You then mention consumer confidence and fiscal stimuli being ineffective, which is false, really. I mean, firstly, a fiscal stimulus kick starts investment and creates (or saves) jobs that would have otherwise been lost - this helps keep aggregate demand up (however, there are a tonne of caveats with that statement). I mean, you're correct about saying the economy isn't going to go back to the way it was (in the short-run at least - you'd be amazed at the parallels between the recent crisis and previous crises), but that's a good thing - we want to restructure finance and credit markets, since they're the plumbing of the economy and they need to be kept in good order, not neglected like they were.

    I'm going to be totally honest and say I don't see why your theory is based on the economic cycle. This wasn't going to just get better by itself, and it's an insane position to take as far as I'm concerned - besides needing to restructure finance and inject money into the economy to keep jobs and infrastructure up, you also need to consider the true root of the problem which is the massive current account surpluses rung up by East Asian economies and China.

    Obama and Brown may 'only' be able to inject money into the economy, but that's what the crises called for, so early on. With the credit markets on lockdown, they had to make their national banks the lenders of last resort to keep credit flowing - once credit dies, so does the entire economy.

    (Also, I've done A level economics as well, got the A, and trust me, after studying it at university - even only for my first year, so far - A level economics is so watered down it's laughable.)

    Ending my contribution to this thread, as I've stated all I want, and I'd just be repeating myself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chidona)
    *More babble*
    If I fully explained what I was trying to say I would be making an essay which I am not bothered to do on TSR.

    I just quoted you to say obv economics alevel is a watered down version other people could just leave school and get a career with the alevel and 4get the degree ...I am not sure if you were trying to patronise me but it kinda sounded like it.

    One more thing just because you do an economics degree don't make yourself out to be the smartest in the thread. What I have learnt from economics is that there will not always be one answer hence why there are a range of economics theorist.
    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chidona)
    Mmmmmmmmm, I see your point. That said, given the condition that Brown still thinks it's possible for Labour to win another election (I know, I know), bigger tax cuts were political suicide - the tories would've skewered him even further under the banner of increasing our national debt.



    I think a big mistake you've made is muddling up monetary and fiscal policy. Yes the BoE is independent, but that's on the monetary side and there appears to be general consensus that monetary policy was becoming increasingly ineffective (thus, rendering the BoE ineffective, to an extent). Brown sets the inflation target that they need to adhere to, so he has the ultimate say in their function - he sets the end, they figure out the means via interest rates.

    You then mention consumer confidence and fiscal stimuli being ineffective, which is false, really. I mean, firstly, a fiscal stimulus kick starts investment and creates (or saves) jobs that would have otherwise been lost - this helps keep aggregate demand up (however, there are a tonne of caveats with that statement). I mean, you're correct about saying the economy isn't going to go back to the way it was (in the short-run at least - you'd be amazed at the parallels between the recent crisis and previous crises), but that's a good thing - we want to restructure finance and credit markets, since they're the plumbing of the economy and they need to be kept in good order, not neglected like they were.

    I'm going to be totally honest and say I don't see why your theory is based on the economic cycle. This wasn't going to just get better by itself, and it's an insane position to take as far as I'm concerned - besides needing to restructure finance and inject money into the economy to keep jobs and infrastructure up, you also need to consider the true root of the problem which is the massive current account surpluses rung up by East Asian economies and China.

    Obama and Brown may 'only' be able to inject money into the economy, but that's what the crises called for, so early on. With the credit markets on lockdown, they had to make their national banks the lenders of last resort to keep credit flowing - once credit dies, so does the entire economy.

    (Also, I've done A level economics as well, got the A, and trust me, after studying it at university - even only for my first year, so far - A level economics is so watered down it's laughable.)

    Ending my contribution to this thread, as I've stated all I want, and I'd just be repeating myself.
    Frankly, the economic reality is that the world has gotten a lot tougher. In the past 20 years or so, world labour supply has grown exponentially in line with the opening of chinese and indian markets to world trade. It's gotten to the point where any gains in said economies must come at the expense of a relative loss in traditionally wealthy countries.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.