By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
After reading Clives post in the "horse thread " I wonder if we should have a think about whether we should have political type threads on here . Although we all support the Rs its obvious we dont share politics and we wont change our views on much. I dont want to lose Clive from running the site , its streets ahead of anything else . Its a big part of my Rangers life ..I know this is a bit rich from me after Brexit but what does everyone think ?
[Post edited 13 Nov 2016 18:30]
3
Political Threads on 13:53 - Nov 16 with 2682 views
I'm a leftie and I can assure you the opposition are not shy of insults themselves.
PS I've only just found the report button!
I've put myself on a self imposed ban on political threads as I've clearly upset a lot of lefties on here. Surprisingly, they seem to be on some kind of sabbatical too.
Please Cliff, don't fan the flames.
0
Political Threads on 00:10 - Nov 17 with 2601 views
Dont lose the political threads.Great reading especially in the close season or international breaks. Everyone should sit on their hands when reading them though. ''Report button'' Reeeaally? ( thanks to the Mrs and daughters for that) Anyway here's a brilliant little vid that I posted on another thread.It was drowned out because of the 'tinkers' thread. Read your palm guv?
Have to say I find that Pie bloke intensely annoying, especially the video about Trump that went round social media recently. It doesn't have any bearing on reality, for starters: anti-immigration language has been mainstream for a long time now.
1
Political Threads on 17:50 - Nov 17 with 2411 views
I actually find the politics threads very illuminating but I can imagine a mare to moderate.
I'm an economist who produces updates for investment banks - I know that's unpopular for a start. The reality is that we are seeing a global reaction to neoliberal economics which has guided the the political classes for some time.
What neoliberalism has done under the guidance of Monetarists like Friedman and to a lesser extent Hayek (Austrian not monetarist) has put the emphasis on the market mechanism rather than social equality. This ultimately was a reaction to Keynesian economics which had no answer to the the stagflation of the 70s.
Upshot is the Reagan/Thatcher years (although the roots stretch further back than this) that dismantled frameworks that were designed to ensure that wealth was distributed more fairly than we now see. The market mechanism sees return on investment as the key driver. That's fine as long as you own the assets than are invested. What we have seen over the last 20 years is the top 1% who own the assets benefit whilst the 99% suffer.
When I say suffer the economic data shows very clearly that median wages in real terms are no higher than before the credit crunch. Prior to that the growth had been slow and fled by cheap credit. Brexit and Trump are more a reaction to the economics than the actual issue people were voting on. I could go on about how mental it was to open the Brexit can of worms (regardless of whether you were in or out) at a time when the global economy is really struggling.
The upshot of all this is a social divide that has grown dramatically over 20 years to the point where I believe it is no longer sustainable. The issue is what's the alternative? When Keynesian fiscal policy faded from favour the monetarists where ready to step in with an economic ideology. Right now we don't have anyone with a solution.
Personally I think we will see a half way house of the market model with greater fiscal policy. Government bond yields are so low globally (and in some cases negative - which breaks all sorts of economic rules) that if you want to borrow and invest in infrastructure now's the time to do it.
Why have I mentioned all this - well I use this board since the days of Adam and Libby as a gauge of what society thinks. It's not perfect don't get me wrong but I'll hear far more differing opinions than I will when I speak to colleagues.
So indirectly loftforwords actually has an impact on the messages I deliver.
Just a perspective of why I find the threads useful even if sometimes they overstep and I can see the moderation issue.
2
Political Threads on 23:43 - Nov 17 with 2329 views
I actually find the politics threads very illuminating but I can imagine a mare to moderate.
I'm an economist who produces updates for investment banks - I know that's unpopular for a start. The reality is that we are seeing a global reaction to neoliberal economics which has guided the the political classes for some time.
What neoliberalism has done under the guidance of Monetarists like Friedman and to a lesser extent Hayek (Austrian not monetarist) has put the emphasis on the market mechanism rather than social equality. This ultimately was a reaction to Keynesian economics which had no answer to the the stagflation of the 70s.
Upshot is the Reagan/Thatcher years (although the roots stretch further back than this) that dismantled frameworks that were designed to ensure that wealth was distributed more fairly than we now see. The market mechanism sees return on investment as the key driver. That's fine as long as you own the assets than are invested. What we have seen over the last 20 years is the top 1% who own the assets benefit whilst the 99% suffer.
When I say suffer the economic data shows very clearly that median wages in real terms are no higher than before the credit crunch. Prior to that the growth had been slow and fled by cheap credit. Brexit and Trump are more a reaction to the economics than the actual issue people were voting on. I could go on about how mental it was to open the Brexit can of worms (regardless of whether you were in or out) at a time when the global economy is really struggling.
The upshot of all this is a social divide that has grown dramatically over 20 years to the point where I believe it is no longer sustainable. The issue is what's the alternative? When Keynesian fiscal policy faded from favour the monetarists where ready to step in with an economic ideology. Right now we don't have anyone with a solution.
Personally I think we will see a half way house of the market model with greater fiscal policy. Government bond yields are so low globally (and in some cases negative - which breaks all sorts of economic rules) that if you want to borrow and invest in infrastructure now's the time to do it.
Why have I mentioned all this - well I use this board since the days of Adam and Libby as a gauge of what society thinks. It's not perfect don't get me wrong but I'll hear far more differing opinions than I will when I speak to colleagues.
So indirectly loftforwords actually has an impact on the messages I deliver.
Just a perspective of why I find the threads useful even if sometimes they overstep and I can see the moderation issue.
Good God, some-one on LFW whose opinion might actually make some difference? Watch out, we might have you stuffed!
I agree that Keynesian strategies failed against stagflation, but that doesn't mean that Keynesian theory is bankrupt. Oz successfully implemented classical Keynesian measures in the GFC (eg, the infamous 'school halls' and 'pink batts' schemes) to stimulate the economy and avoid recession. Even the most egregious results of government intervention elsewhere, the bailing out of irresponsible banks - 'the privatisation of profits, the socialisation of losses' - was preferable to a smashing of confidence in the banking system.
It is disappointing to see a revival of supply-side rhetoric. As you point out, the wealth imbalance only gets worse. If supply-side theory ever needed a contra-argument, that is it.
Good God, some-one on LFW whose opinion might actually make some difference? Watch out, we might have you stuffed!
I agree that Keynesian strategies failed against stagflation, but that doesn't mean that Keynesian theory is bankrupt. Oz successfully implemented classical Keynesian measures in the GFC (eg, the infamous 'school halls' and 'pink batts' schemes) to stimulate the economy and avoid recession. Even the most egregious results of government intervention elsewhere, the bailing out of irresponsible banks - 'the privatisation of profits, the socialisation of losses' - was preferable to a smashing of confidence in the banking system.
It is disappointing to see a revival of supply-side rhetoric. As you point out, the wealth imbalance only gets worse. If supply-side theory ever needed a contra-argument, that is it.
[Post edited 17 Nov 2016 23:54]
Australia has indeed been pursuing expansionary fiscal policy for most of this decade. Whether that immunised them from the credit crunch and then slowdown caused by the sovereign debt crisis is a little less clear. Australia has benefitted from commodity exports to China. With the perceived slow down in the China economy this demand has declined. Commodity exporters are now feeling the pain (Brazil is a great example of this). In Australia GDP growth is sluggish and has been revised down.
I'm certainly not anti Keynesian but do acknowledge that it has certain limitations. The ability to deal with simultaneous inflation and unemployment being the most obvious. Secondly there's always the argument that larger deficits mean more government borrowing which increases the demand for funds and hence interest rates. Higher interest rates then reducing consumption the big driver of aggregate demand. This "crowding out" of private sector borrowing of course has not happened recently due to the massive injections of liquidity globally by UK, EU, US and Japanese QE programmes. The final big argument against discretionary fiscal and monetary policy is the time lags involved. The Bank of England believe it takes 12 months for monetary policy to affect GDP and 22 month to impact inflation. This means monetary policy today is targeting growth and inflation two years down the line. The lags with fiscal policy are unclear.
Anyway if you are going to borrow now's the time to do it - with negative yields in some government bond markets. So expansionary fiscal is cheep to finance right now. Flip is the debt/GDP ratio for many governments that is seen as too high and of course what caused the Eurozone crisis.
So all in all very interesting days globally for an economist. Still think it was crazy to inject the volatility caused by Brexit into our system at a time when globally growth is low.
[Post edited 18 Nov 2016 12:07]
0
Political Threads on 13:35 - Nov 18 with 2200 views
I actually find the politics threads very illuminating but I can imagine a mare to moderate.
I'm an economist who produces updates for investment banks - I know that's unpopular for a start. The reality is that we are seeing a global reaction to neoliberal economics which has guided the the political classes for some time.
What neoliberalism has done under the guidance of Monetarists like Friedman and to a lesser extent Hayek (Austrian not monetarist) has put the emphasis on the market mechanism rather than social equality. This ultimately was a reaction to Keynesian economics which had no answer to the the stagflation of the 70s.
Upshot is the Reagan/Thatcher years (although the roots stretch further back than this) that dismantled frameworks that were designed to ensure that wealth was distributed more fairly than we now see. The market mechanism sees return on investment as the key driver. That's fine as long as you own the assets than are invested. What we have seen over the last 20 years is the top 1% who own the assets benefit whilst the 99% suffer.
When I say suffer the economic data shows very clearly that median wages in real terms are no higher than before the credit crunch. Prior to that the growth had been slow and fled by cheap credit. Brexit and Trump are more a reaction to the economics than the actual issue people were voting on. I could go on about how mental it was to open the Brexit can of worms (regardless of whether you were in or out) at a time when the global economy is really struggling.
The upshot of all this is a social divide that has grown dramatically over 20 years to the point where I believe it is no longer sustainable. The issue is what's the alternative? When Keynesian fiscal policy faded from favour the monetarists where ready to step in with an economic ideology. Right now we don't have anyone with a solution.
Personally I think we will see a half way house of the market model with greater fiscal policy. Government bond yields are so low globally (and in some cases negative - which breaks all sorts of economic rules) that if you want to borrow and invest in infrastructure now's the time to do it.
Why have I mentioned all this - well I use this board since the days of Adam and Libby as a gauge of what society thinks. It's not perfect don't get me wrong but I'll hear far more differing opinions than I will when I speak to colleagues.
So indirectly loftforwords actually has an impact on the messages I deliver.
Just a perspective of why I find the threads useful even if sometimes they overstep and I can see the moderation issue.
Nice one, really informative post.
Interestingly I read this the other day after Hunters post that included the political compass test.
I know it's the guardian but would you say that it's easy to take the facts out of this without succumbing to any opinion bias to get a bit of an understanding? Apart from the fact that to me it seems pretty obvious that going down the route as described in the article would lead to massive disparity's and the problems we have now ,the other thing I got from reading that is that is that it's actually a bit strange then for someone who would consider themselves Right Wing using 'Liberal' as the biggest insult ever ?
I think that this and Hunters post (which I wish he'd repost as I think it was on the traveller thread) should be required reading for all of us who post on LFW .
At least when were calling each other Cnts we'll be doing it from an informed position lol. I'm joking on that, half the time I read the political threads and see two people proper going at each other who actually agree on about 95% of things.
Out of interest is Neo Libralism similar to what used to get called Extreme hyper capitalism ?
My favourite economics quote is Milton Freidmans 'The business of business is business, donations to charity are fundamentally subversive' . That one used used to get commented on with eyebrows raised in even the dryest of professional manuals.
I know it's the guardian but would you say that it's easy to take the facts out of this without succumbing to any opinion bias to get a bit of an understanding? Apart from the fact that to me it seems pretty obvious that going down the route as described in the article would lead to massive disparity's and the problems we have now ,the other thing I got from reading that is that is that it's actually a bit strange then for someone who would consider themselves Right Wing using 'Liberal' as the biggest insult ever ?
I think that this and Hunters post (which I wish he'd repost as I think it was on the traveller thread) should be required reading for all of us who post on LFW .
At least when were calling each other Cnts we'll be doing it from an informed position lol. I'm joking on that, half the time I read the political threads and see two people proper going at each other who actually agree on about 95% of things.
Out of interest is Neo Libralism similar to what used to get called Extreme hyper capitalism ?
My favourite economics quote is Milton Freidmans 'The business of business is business, donations to charity are fundamentally subversive' . That one used used to get commented on with eyebrows raised in even the dryest of professional manuals.
It's not particularly biased in my opinion and represents a reasonable history lesson (the article you posted)
The issue with the market mechanism is that it rewards the providers of capital. All factors of production (labour, capital) need reward for their efforts. The issue we have had with neoliberalism is that there is greater skew to rewarding capital and highly skilled labour at the expense of lesser skilled workers. So under this system the rich have got richer and the masses have seen their standard of living eroded.
Under the principals set forth by Hayek wealth is then meant to trickle down from the rich to the masses via consumption spending. So as the rich consume more this boost the revenues of firms and workers providing the goods and services consumed.
So we've had this focus on the market mechanism since the 80s but why is it coming into focus now? When you look from the 90s all the way to 2008 (the credit crunch) you can see that in many economies GDP was growing at it's long term mean (of around 2.8% in real terms) with very little volatility. At the same time unemployment was low as was inflation. This lead to some economists state we are "at the end of the boom bust cycle". A statement echoed by Gordon Brown in the UK.
During this period median wages were growing so in other words everyone was on the same ride. Whilst the rich got richer the average person was also seeing improvements in real terms in their standards of living. This of course was not to last.
We fist see median wage growth stagnate in the early 2000s and remain flat from this period onwards. The reason for looking at median wages rather than mean is that the top 1% of earners will not skew the median unlike a mean. This flattening of median wages can be accounted for by looking at global shocks (dot com bust, credit crunch and eurozone debt crisis).
So we have a 16 year period where for the majority of workers living standards aren't improving and as a result social divides grow.
It's no real surprise that in the UK the cities voted to remain whilst outside of metropolitan areas the vote was to leave. When you look at wage growth you can see that metropolitan areas have done well whilst other areas have stagnated. The same is true in the US. East and West coasts have largely done well whilst the centre (rust belt) based more on agriculture and heavy industry has stagnated and declined. This was reflected in the vote for Trump.
So you can view these election results as snub to the political classes by workers who feel they are being left behind. So more rejections of the establishment and the economic system than anything else.
To answer one of your questions yes I believe that neoliberalism and hyper capitalism are essentially the same thing. A focus on the market mechanism at the expense of traditional values. Your Friedman quote is a very good underlining of the neoliberalist view that the market should dominated and allocate resources to the exclusion of all else and that anything that interferes with this process is counterproductive.
[Post edited 18 Nov 2016 20:42]
0
Political Threads on 16:26 - Nov 18 with 2118 views
It's not particularly biased in my opinion and represents a reasonable history lesson (the article you posted)
The issue with the market mechanism is that it rewards the providers of capital. All factors of production (labour, capital) need reward for their efforts. The issue we have had with neoliberalism is that there is greater skew to rewarding capital and highly skilled labour at the expense of lesser skilled workers. So under this system the rich have got richer and the masses have seen their standard of living eroded.
Under the principals set forth by Hayek wealth is then meant to trickle down from the rich to the masses via consumption spending. So as the rich consume more this boost the revenues of firms and workers providing the goods and services consumed.
So we've had this focus on the market mechanism since the 80s but why is it coming into focus now? When you look from the 90s all the way to 2008 (the credit crunch) you can see that in many economies GDP was growing at it's long term mean (of around 2.8% in real terms) with very little volatility. At the same time unemployment was low as was inflation. This lead to some economists state we are "at the end of the boom bust cycle". A statement echoed by Gordon Brown in the UK.
During this period median wages were growing so in other words everyone was on the same ride. Whilst the rich got richer the average person was also seeing improvements in real terms in their standards of living. This of course was not to last.
We fist see median wage growth stagnate in the early 2000s and remain flat from this period onwards. The reason for looking at median wages rather than mean is that the top 1% of earners will not skew the median unlike a mean. This flattening of median wages can be accounted for by looking at global shocks (dot com bust, credit crunch and eurozone debt crisis).
So we have a 16 year period where for the majority of workers living standards aren't improving and as a result social divides grow.
It's no real surprise that in the UK the cities voted to remain whilst outside of metropolitan areas the vote was to leave. When you look at wage growth you can see that metropolitan areas have done well whilst other areas have stagnated. The same is true in the US. East and West coasts have largely done well whilst the centre (rust belt) based more on agriculture and heavy industry has stagnated and declined. This was reflected in the vote for Trump.
So you can view these election results as snub to the political classes by workers who feel they are being left behind. So more rejections of the establishment and the economic system than anything else.
To answer one of your questions yes I believe that neoliberalism and hyper capitalism are essentially the same thing. A focus on the market mechanism at the expense of traditional values. Your Friedman quote is a very good underlining of the neoliberalist view that the market should dominated and allocate resources to the exclusion of all else and that anything that interferes with this process is counterproductive.
[Post edited 18 Nov 2016 20:42]
Thanks, Trom. Your posts show exactly why it's good to have these kind of threads on LFW. Very informative.
0
Political Threads on 16:27 - Nov 18 with 2118 views
It's not particularly biased in my opinion and represents a reasonable history lesson (the article you posted)
The issue with the market mechanism is that it rewards the providers of capital. All factors of production (labour, capital) need reward for their efforts. The issue we have had with neoliberalism is that there is greater skew to rewarding capital and highly skilled labour at the expense of lesser skilled workers. So under this system the rich have got richer and the masses have seen their standard of living eroded.
Under the principals set forth by Hayek wealth is then meant to trickle down from the rich to the masses via consumption spending. So as the rich consume more this boost the revenues of firms and workers providing the goods and services consumed.
So we've had this focus on the market mechanism since the 80s but why is it coming into focus now? When you look from the 90s all the way to 2008 (the credit crunch) you can see that in many economies GDP was growing at it's long term mean (of around 2.8% in real terms) with very little volatility. At the same time unemployment was low as was inflation. This lead to some economists state we are "at the end of the boom bust cycle". A statement echoed by Gordon Brown in the UK.
During this period median wages were growing so in other words everyone was on the same ride. Whilst the rich got richer the average person was also seeing improvements in real terms in their standards of living. This of course was not to last.
We fist see median wage growth stagnate in the early 2000s and remain flat from this period onwards. The reason for looking at median wages rather than mean is that the top 1% of earners will not skew the median unlike a mean. This flattening of median wages can be accounted for by looking at global shocks (dot com bust, credit crunch and eurozone debt crisis).
So we have a 16 year period where for the majority of workers living standards aren't improving and as a result social divides grow.
It's no real surprise that in the UK the cities voted to remain whilst outside of metropolitan areas the vote was to leave. When you look at wage growth you can see that metropolitan areas have done well whilst other areas have stagnated. The same is true in the US. East and West coasts have largely done well whilst the centre (rust belt) based more on agriculture and heavy industry has stagnated and declined. This was reflected in the vote for Trump.
So you can view these election results as snub to the political classes by workers who feel they are being left behind. So more rejections of the establishment and the economic system than anything else.
To answer one of your questions yes I believe that neoliberalism and hyper capitalism are essentially the same thing. A focus on the market mechanism at the expense of traditional values. Your Friedman quote is a very good underlining of the neoliberalist view that the market should dominated and allocate resources to the exclusion of all else and that anything that interferes with this process is counterproductive.
[Post edited 18 Nov 2016 20:42]
Thanks for that, really nicely explained and really interesting. From reading around the election from lots of different sources what you've said is the narrative I've got.
In a way then for Hayek's principles to really work and without causing the disparities we have now you need workers providing the goods and services consumed to get a fair share. So you either need employers to be altruistic ! or the workers to have some sort of bargaining power / government intervention. It's interesting because from what I've seen many politicians advocating more extreme versions of trickle down seem to be the most anti minimum wage / Unions etc. but isn't that a contradiction in a way. Sorry if that' s simplistic nonsense lol
Football in the UK seems to be a really good example of how trickle down doesn't work when it's taken to extremes. Funny thing is that everybody pretty much agrees on that !
0
Political Threads on 17:03 - Nov 18 with 2089 views
Thanks for that, really nicely explained and really interesting. From reading around the election from lots of different sources what you've said is the narrative I've got.
In a way then for Hayek's principles to really work and without causing the disparities we have now you need workers providing the goods and services consumed to get a fair share. So you either need employers to be altruistic ! or the workers to have some sort of bargaining power / government intervention. It's interesting because from what I've seen many politicians advocating more extreme versions of trickle down seem to be the most anti minimum wage / Unions etc. but isn't that a contradiction in a way. Sorry if that' s simplistic nonsense lol
Football in the UK seems to be a really good example of how trickle down doesn't work when it's taken to extremes. Funny thing is that everybody pretty much agrees on that !
Who are you and what have you done with the real BrixtonR?!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
