economic situation is dire

[MakemineVanilla]

 Presuming you wouldn't want people from other countries  to become parasitic pension tourists here, Doesn't that sound like a ukip policy? Only let in people you want.

 

So what is wrong with UKIP?

 

The propaganda is getting hysterical but I can't see why Lefties would object to a party likely to dilute the Tory vote.

[colhint]

I agree. 

[blandy]

 

Boom times are coming to the UK... job market buoyant, wages increasing, house prices increases, deficit falling, feelgood factor back in flow... bring on the good times!

Really?

We never learn, do we?

No. But they're not coming, anyway, and they're not here now. Compared to the second quarter of 2010 (time of this Gov't coming in) real wages are down 5.3 per cent for the economy as a whole (down 4.2 per cent in finance and business services, 4.7 per cent in manufacturing, 9.3 per cent in construction and 5.3 percent in service industries).

ONS data on net trade shows that there has been no rebalancing of the economy whatsoever. The value of both UK exports and imports has remained basically flat since mid-2011. In the last quarter exports of goods fell by 2.5 per cent to £72.7bn.

The IMF data which is what the Gov't has used to big up its performance, has growth etc all tailing right off next year.

[thetrees]

Boom times are coming to the UK... job market buoyant, wages increasing, house prices increases, deficit falling, feelgood factor back in flow... bring on the good times!

No more booms please, because the busts are unpleasant.

Things feel better economically, and we are slowly being dragged out of the mess. If slow and steady continues for the next few years, that will do me.

At least until Labour come along and screw it up completely again.

[snowychap]

Boom times are coming to the UK... job market buoyant, wages increasing, house prices increases, deficit falling, feelgood factor back in flow... bring on the good times!

No more booms please, because the busts are unpleasant.

Things feel better economically, and we are slowly being dragged out of the mess. If slow and steady continues for the next few years, that will do me.

At least until Labour come along and screw it up completely again.

Remarkable.

I suspect that if it were a Labour government presiding over the same type of economic recovery as we have at the moment, you'd be claiming that things were getting screwed up again (at least that's what your post - especially the last sentence - implies).

Edited May 1, 2014 by snowychap

[MakemineVanilla]

 

Boom times are coming to the UK... job market buoyant, wages increasing, house prices increases, deficit falling, feelgood factor back in flow... bring on the good times!

No more booms please, because the busts are unpleasant.

Things feel better economically, and we are slowly being dragged out of the mess. If slow and steady continues for the next few years, that will do me.

At least until Labour come along and screw it up completely again.

 

 

Dream on.

 

No party is likely to resist the temptation to stoke another property boom.

 

Rising property values increase the value of mortgage holders' (banks) assets, increased equity feeds back into the economy through loans secured by that equity, and increases demand.

 

I can't think of a party with a history of avoiding such temptations, and at present the temptations are greater than ever.

[thetrees]

 

 

Boom times are coming to the UK... job market buoyant, wages increasing, house prices increases, deficit falling, feelgood factor back in flow... bring on the good times!

No more booms please, because the busts are unpleasant.

Things feel better economically, and we are slowly being dragged out of the mess. If slow and steady continues for the next few years, that will do me.

At least until Labour come along and screw it up completely again.

 

Remarkable.

I suspect that if it were a Labour government presiding over the same type of economic recovery as we have at the moment, you'd be claiming that things were getting screwed up again (at least that's what your post - especially the last sentence - implies).

 

Thanks for confirming the recovery

 

On what I would be 'claiming' you are wrong, as simple as that. I have complimented Labour on a number of things, but not their total mismanagement of our economy under the Blair/Brown regime. If you think that they did a good job, that's fine.

[thetrees]

 

 

Boom times are coming to the UK... job market buoyant, wages increasing, house prices increases, deficit falling, feelgood factor back in flow... bring on the good times!

No more booms please, because the busts are unpleasant.

Things feel better economically, and we are slowly being dragged out of the mess. If slow and steady continues for the next few years, that will do me.

At least until Labour come along and screw it up completely again.

 

 

Dream on.

 

No party is likely to resist the temptation to stoke another property boom.

 

Rising property values increase the value of mortgage holders' (banks) assets, increased equity feeds back into the economy through loans secured by that equity, and increases demand.

 

I can't think of a party with a history of avoiding such temptations, and at present the temptations are greater than ever.

 

And that was my beef with the last government and governments in general. It is the responsibility of governments to take care of all the people, particularly the less well educated and vulnerable. The money in the form of credit card limits and 120% mortgages that were being thrown at decent people who lacked the education to understand what they were getting into was, in my opinion, criminal.

But it fuelled the boom of "no more boom and bust", and the 'caring' party that were in government at the time showed that they couldn't care less.*

 

*A tory government would have acted in exactly the same way, but nobody ever describes them as 'caring' any way.

[snowychap]

Thanks for confirming the recovery

Not quite sure what the point of that comment is.

A recession is measured by decreases in GDP (over a certain period) therefore increases in GDP following a recession would have to be a recovery.

We could have a discussion about whether that is a satisfactory way of looking at things or whether GDP measurement is always or, even, sometimes a good measure or whether a recovery will have occurred when you get back to your starting point from before a recession but I get the feeling that wasn't what you were after.

On what I would be 'claiming' you are wrong, as simple as that. I have complimented Labour on a number of things, but not their total mismanagement of our economy under the Blair/Brown regime. If you think that they did a good job, that's fine.

I don't know where you got the idea that I think they did a good job from.

Given that this recovery would appear to have largely the same foundations as the booms of the Blair/Brown years (consumer spending led; stoking of the housing market), that you weren't critical of it or those presiding over the ship at the moment implied either that you think it isn't as I describe or that your initial comment betrayed a clear partisanship.

Edited May 1, 2014 by snowychap

[thetrees]

Thanks for confirming the recovery

Not quite sure what the point of that comment is.A recession is measured by decreases in GDP (over a certain period) therefore increases in GDP following a recession would have to be a recovery.We could have a discussion about whether that is a satisfactory way of looking at things or whether GDP measurement is always or, even, sometimes a good measure or whether a recovery will have occurred when you get back to your starting point from before a recession but I get the feeling that wasn't what you were after.

On what I would be 'claiming' you are wrong, as simple as that. I have complimented Labour on a number of things, but not their total mismanagement of our economy under the Blair/Brown regime. If you think that they did a good job, that's fine.

I don't know where you got the idea that I think they did a good job from.Given that this recovery would appear to have largely the same foundations as the booms of the Blair/Brown years (consumer spending led; stoking of the housing market), that you weren't critical of it or those presiding over the ship at the moment implied either that you think it isn't as I describe or that your initial comment betrayed a clear partisanship.

I largely agree with you on a lot of things. We differ in that you make a more studious appraisal of the situation, which may be more accurate, but is nonetheless different.

I personally haven't declared an 'economic recovery', i was responding to another post. My comment that it feels better is because it does, and some of my 'back of fag packet' indicators in my day to day business suggests that things are getting better.

My 'slow and steady' comment is in line with your observation that the 'recovery' has the indicators of previous booms, which is a concern, as the least that we can ask of those who govern or will govern, is that they learn from the disastrous period that we have been through, and handle things in a more controlled manner. Of course, in order to do this, they will need to put the people before themselves, which Blair/Brown governments certainly did not and, as we are often reminded by the vociferous VT left, the bay eating Tory party never do.

'Partisan' suggests that someone is on one side. My vehement dislike of the Blair/Brown regime for their crimes against the people of this country does not make me a 'partisan' of their party's old adversary.

[peterms]

Another view.

 

I find it hard to relate to the stuff about lack of land to farm on in the crisis, because we have lots of land owned by the Duke of Westminster and the Duchess of Sutherland and yet-to-be-announced duchies of Moscow and Washington and Tel Aviv, which we could clearly take over if we decided to, as we should.  We can dispose of the current owners, by killing them in a bloody and demonstratvie way, and take it into communal ownership,  But the general thrust was interesting, to me at least.

 

Anyone who starts an article by quoting Herzen can't be all bad.

[snowychap]

I personally haven't declared an 'economic recovery'...

Nor have I - the initial comment was a rather facetious one and, as I went on to hint at in the subsequent post, if we want to talk about the nature of this 'recovery', the nature of the 'recession', the nature of how we measure either of those two things, measuring economic wellbeing by GDP output guesswork and so on then I think it would be of more use to understanding the problems we might face economically and give us all a starting point with regard to where we go from here.

Our economy is pretty much what it has been for the last couple of decades (or probably longer): largely built on fantasy and never really far from peril. Unfortunately, I don't think that most people care - or rather that they will naturally mostly care about their own outcomes.

If you're doing well then hey, why change anything - just think about how you can continue to do well.

If you're doing okay then concentrate on what can get you to 'doing well' and from falling in to the group that may be suffering.

If you're doing poorly then you're likely to be mostly concerned with surviving and getting to a position where you're doing okay.

Now it may ever be (and have been) thus but that shouldn't detract from questioning whether the difference between recessions and recoveries is largely illusory.

Edited May 5, 2014 by snowychap

[Risso]

Another view.

 

I find it hard to relate to the stuff about lack of land to farm on in the crisis, because we have lots of land owned by the Duke of Westminster and the Duchess of Sutherland and yet-to-be-announced duchies of Moscow and Washington and Tel Aviv, which we could clearly take over if we decided to, as we should.  We can dispose of the current owners, by killing them in a bloody and demonstratvie way, and take it into communal ownership,  But the general thrust was interesting, to me at least.

 

Anyone who starts an article by quoting Herzen can't be all bad.

 

You just need to take a photograph of yourself in army surplus gear brandishing a pair of sub machine guns now peter and your GCHQ profile will be complete.

[snowychap]

The best of capitalism is over for rich countries – and for the poor ones it will be over by 2060

One of the upsides of having a global elite is that at least they know what's going on. We, the deluded masses, may have to wait for decades to find out who the paedophiles in high places are; and which banks are criminal, or bust. But the elite are supposed to know in real time – and on that basis to make accurate predictions.

Just how difficult this has become was shown last week when the OECD released its predictions for the world economy until 2060. These are that growth will slow to around two-thirds its current rate; that inequality will increase massively; and that there is a big risk that climate change will make things worse. Despite all this, says the OECD, the world will be four times richer, more productive, more globalised and more highly educated. If you are struggling to rationalise the two halves of that prediction then don't worry – so are some of the best-qualified economists on earth.

World growth will slow to 2.7%, says the Paris-based thinktank, because the catch-up effects boosting growth in the developing world – population growth, education, urbanisation – will peter out. Even before that happens, near-stagnation in advanced economies means a long-term global average over the next 50 years of just 3% growth, which is low. The growth of high-skilled jobs and the automation of medium-skilled jobs means, on the central projection, that inequality will rise by 30%. By 2060 countries such as Sweden will have levels of inequality currently seen in the USA: think Gary, Indiana, in the suburbs of Stockholm.

The whole projection is overlaid by the risk that the economic effects of climate change begin to destroy capital, coastal land and agriculture in the first half of the century, shaving up to 2.5% off world GDP and 6% in south-east Asia.

The bleakest part of the OECD report lies not in what it projects but what it assumes. It assumes, first, a rapid rise in productivity, due to information technology. Three-quarters of all the growth expected comes from this. However, that assumption is, as the report states euphemistically, "high compared with recent history".

There is no certainty at all that the information revolution of the past 20 years will cascade down into ever more highly productive and value-creating industries. The OECD said last year that, while the internet had probably boosted the US economy by up to 13%, the wider economic effects were probably bigger, unmeasurable and not captured by the market. The veteran US economist Robert Gordon has suggested the productivity boost from info-tech is real but already spent. Either way, there is a fairly big risk that the meagre 3% growth projected comes closer to 1%.

And then there's the migration problem. To make the central scenario work, Europe and the USA each have to absorb 50 million migrants between now and 2060, with the rest of the developed world absorbing another 30 million. Without that, the workforce and the tax base shrinks so badly that states go bust.

The main risk the OECD models is that developing countries improve so fast that people stop migrating. The more obvious risk – as signalled by a 27% vote for the Front National in France and the riotous crowds haranguing migrants on the California border – is that developed-world populations will not accept it. That, however, is not considered.

Now imagine the world of the central scenario: Los Angeles and Detroit look like Manila – abject slums alongside guarded skyscrapers; the UK workforce is a mixture of old white people and newly arrived young migrants; the middle-income job has all but disappeared. If born in 2014, then by 2060 you are either a 45-year-old barrister or a 45-year-old barista. There will be not much in-between. Capitalism will be in its fourth decade of stagnation and then – if we've done nothing about carbon emissions – the really serious impacts of climate change are starting to kick in.

The OECD has a clear messagefor the world: for the rich countries, the best of capitalism is over. For the poor ones – now experiencing the glitter and haze of industrialisation – it will be over by 2060. If you want higher growth, says the OECD, you must accept higher inequality. And vice versa. Even to achieve a meagre average global growth rate of 3% we have to make labour "more flexible", the economy more globalised. Those migrants scrambling over the fences at the Spanish city of Melilla, next to Morocco, we have to welcome, en masse, to the tune of maybe two or three million a year into the developed world, for the next 50 years. And we have to achieve this without the global order fragmenting.

Oh and there's the tax problem. The report points out that, with the polarisation between high and low incomes, we will have to move – as Thomas Piketty suggests – to taxes on wealth. The problem here, the OECD points out, is that assets – whether they be a star racehorse, a secret bank account or the copyright on a brand's logo – tend to be intangible and therefore held in jurisdictions dedicated to avoiding wealth taxes.

The OECD's prescription – more globalisation, more privatisation, more austerity, more migration and a wealth tax if you can pull it off – will carry weight. But not with everybody. The ultimate lesson from the report is that, sooner or later, an alternative programme to "more of the same" will emerge. Because populations armed with smartphones, and an increased sense of their human rights, will not accept a future of high inequality and low growth.

Paul Mason is economics editor at Channel 4 News

[tonyh29]

Official figures show the UK economy has emerged from six years of lost growth to return to its pre-crisis peak.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said Britain's economy was now bigger than it was before the financial crisis as gross domestic product (GDP) expanded by 0.8% in the second quarter of the year.

The performance matched that of the previous quarter, although today's figure is only a first estimate and subject to revision.

It meant that on an annual basis, growth was 3.1% higher than was measured in the same period last year leaving total output 0.2% higher than in the first quarter of 2008 - its previous peak.

 

the talk in 2010 was that the next election would all be about the economy  , guess Milliband can start writing his CV 

 

full article on the Evil since 2010 news website

[CVByrne]

 

Boom times are coming to the UK... job market buoyant, wages increasing, house prices increases, deficit falling, feelgood factor back in flow... bring on the good times!

Really?

We never learn, do we?

 

 

We'll learn from our mistakes, the next generation will make their own and learn from them. It;s why we have a financial crisis every 20 or so years. It's important that we have strong regulation and oversight to minimise the damage caused by the next crisis. But it is impossible to avoid another one eventually. 

[snowychap]

We'll learn from our mistakes, the next generation will make their own and learn from them.

We won't and they won't.

We make the same mistakes our forefathers made and so will all the generations to come.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

Official figures show the UK economy has emerged from six years of lost growth to return to its pre-crisis peak.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said Britain's economy was now bigger than it was before the financial crisis as gross domestic product (GDP) expanded by 0.8% in the second quarter of the year.

The performance matched that of the previous quarter, although today's figure is only a first estimate and subject to revision.

It meant that on an annual basis, growth was 3.1% higher than was measured in the same period last year leaving total output 0.2% higher than in the first quarter of 2008 - its previous peak.

 

the talk in 2010 was that the next election would all be about the economy  , guess Milliband can start writing his CV 

 

full article on the Evil since 2010 news website

 

 

Quite a reasonable and balanced article, which doesn't flinch from revealing the bad news.

[CVByrne]

 

We'll learn from our mistakes, the next generation will make their own and learn from them.

We won't and they won't.

We make the same mistakes our forefathers made and so will all the generations to come.

 

 

Not the same specific mistakes, but similar ones yes. But 'we' you mean people in general. It's the next generation that will make the same mistakes. We will learn - to a degree - from ours.

 

Take Deregulation, that mistake is now in the past. We will have deep tight regulation now. It will be the next generation who may reverse what we do.

[snowychap]

We will learn - to a degree - from ours.

I would say that the current evidence suggests otherwise.