Election issues: Tax and public services

In 2010 David Cameron squeezed into office partly on the back of claims such as "we'll cut taxes, not the NHS".

It's now 2024 and it's hard to say that public services are better than they were 14 years ago across the UK. They're not. In Wales there has been way too much blaming the other party for our failings going on - Labour saying it's not our fault, it's the funding we get from Westminster, while the Tories say it's nothing to do with what we give you to spend, it's how you spend it. Such arguments go around this board like a loop at times.

However, 14 years of Conservative rule over the UK has seen our public services get worse and decimated. Local authorities are even going bankrupt.

I have a simple question - why do we seem hell bent on continually trying to cut the amount of tax we pay yet keep expecting good public services? 14 years of austerity and cuts, supposedly to eliminate wastage and not affect services, have had a negative effect. Every day I read someone moaning about the state of roads, waiting times in the NHS and so on, not just in Wales but elsewhere in the UK, but everyone seems to still want tax cuts. One example I have from social media comes from a local authority that reduced their black bins collection. A friend of mine working in refuse thought he'd offer black bin collections more regularly for a fixed amount. He had a lot of takers. I asked the question of those people if they would be prepared to pay that amount extra in council tax for bins to be collected in the same way and none of them would. I found that quite remarkable that they wouldn't pay the council a bit more for bins to be collected more regularly, but would happily fork out for someone to do it privately.

Go back 100 years and more and workers would happily pay a small amount in their wages that allowed libraries, workmens halls etc to be built and maintained, so are we now as a society one that isn't prepared to pay for good public services?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

In 2010 David Cameron squeezed into office partly on the back of claims such as "we'll cut taxes, not the NHS".

It's now 2024 and it's hard to say that public services are better than they were 14 years ago across the UK. They're not. In Wales there has been way too much blaming the other party for our failings going on - Labour saying it's not our fault, it's the funding we get from Westminster, while the Tories say it's nothing to do with what we give you to spend, it's how you spend it. Such arguments go around this board like a loop at times.

However, 14 years of Conservative rule over the UK has seen our public services get worse and decimated. Local authorities are even going bankrupt.

I have a simple question - why do we seem hell bent on continually trying to cut the amount of tax we pay yet keep expecting good public services? 14 years of austerity and cuts, supposedly to eliminate wastage and not affect services, have had a negative effect. Every day I read someone moaning about the state of roads, waiting times in the NHS and so on, not just in Wales but elsewhere in the UK, but everyone seems to still want tax cuts. One example I have from social media comes from a local authority that reduced their black bins collection. A friend of mine working in refuse thought he'd offer black bin collections more regularly for a fixed amount. He had a lot of takers. I asked the question of those people if they would be prepared to pay that amount extra in council tax for bins to be collected in the same way and none of them would. I found that quite remarkable that they wouldn't pay the council a bit more for bins to be collected more regularly, but would happily fork out for someone to do it privately.

Go back 100 years and more and workers would happily pay a small amount in their wages that allowed libraries, workmens halls etc to be built and maintained, so are we now as a society one that isn't prepared to pay for good public services?

---

I think that over the years, we’ve become used to public services getting worse. So not many people are keen to be taxed more for them to get “less bad”. There’s no incentive

Austerity in the 2010's led to massive cuts in central government funding to local councils. Despite some injections of extra funding since covid, services have never recovered. Councils are just firefighting. As far as I know, no party has addressed this in their manifesto which is worrying.

The wealthy sometimes seem to be more obsessed about tax cuts than the average Joe.

The conservatives want low taxation ......and value for money and all that etc etc .....but are the first to moan when the local council has to reduce the number of black bags they collect

Unfortunately, in order to get elected Labour are going to have to promise the same sort of thing

The liberal Democrats appear to be promising the biggest spending on the nhs of the 3 main parties but even that falls way short of what analysts think is needed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bloop

Austerity in the 2010's led to massive cuts in central government funding to local councils. Despite some injections of extra funding since covid, services have never recovered. Councils are just firefighting. As far as I know, no party has addressed this in their manifesto which is worrying.

---

Social care will get more money from labour it appears but in order for big changes there will have to be tax increases

Labour will have to break promises unfortunately but there you go they can deal with that once they are in power

Either old people get someone coming round to help them and taxes go up to fund that or we leave them to suffer

I would say initially losing some votes but improving the service is worth the risk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Social care will get more money from labour it appears but in order for big changes there will have to be tax increases

Labour will have to break promises unfortunately but there you go they can deal with that once they are in power

Either old people get someone coming round to help them and taxes go up to fund that or we leave them to suffer

I would say initially losing some votes but improving the service is worth the risk

---

In the last budget there was £27bn available to Hunt/Rishi. Instead of investing it into public services they chose to pass it on as a tax cut. Purely a decision based on an election being in the offing.
For all his faults Boris wanted to increase national insurance with the receipts going directly to the NHS. His succesors cchosethe opposite so services just suffer further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

The conservatives want low taxation ......and value for money and all that etc etc .....but are the first to moan when the local council has to reduce the number of black bags they collect

Unfortunately, in order to get elected Labour are going to have to promise the same sort of thing

The liberal Democrats appear to be promising the biggest spending on the nhs of the 3 main parties but even that falls way short of what analysts think is needed

---

No they dont, Labour have already won the election. They have said they wont put up NI and Income Tax. They have specifically not mentioned any other general tax rises like capital gains, stamp duty etc. There was a Labour MP on radio 4 this morning that wouldnt answer the additional tax rises question.
As it stands if Sir Keir doesnt get economic growth after 6 months - then he will be putting up taxes or start cut backs.

Now if this was a tory - you would accuse the evil b'stards of cutting cutting cutting etc I hope you will be as vociferous when Labour end up doing the same, there is no magic policy that delivers growth - other than more exports or being able to drive efficiencies in public spending.

Total exports of goods for March 2024
£34.1 billion up £0.1 billion (less than 1%) on February 2024, but down £4.0 billion (10%) on March 2023

Total imports of goods for March 2024
£50.8 billion up £3.5 billion (7%) on February 2024, but down £7.2 billion (12%) on March 2023

The UK was a net importer this month, with imports exceeding exports by £16.7 billion, widening the trade gap (exports minus imports) by £3.4 billion on February 2024.
Source: UK overseas trade in goods statistics from HM Revenue & Customs

Sir Keir wont be able to dodge those stats when it becomes his problem on July 5th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

No they dont, Labour have already won the election. They have said they wont put up NI and Income Tax. They have specifically not mentioned any other general tax rises like capital gains, stamp duty etc. There was a Labour MP on radio 4 this morning that wouldnt answer the additional tax rises question.
As it stands if Sir Keir doesnt get economic growth after 6 months - then he will be putting up taxes or start cut backs.

Now if this was a tory - you would accuse the evil b'stards of cutting cutting cutting etc I hope you will be as vociferous when Labour end up doing the same, there is no magic policy that delivers growth - other than more exports or being able to drive efficiencies in public spending.

Total exports of goods for March 2024
£34.1 billion up £0.1 billion (less than 1%) on February 2024, but down £4.0 billion (10%) on March 2023

Total imports of goods for March 2024
£50.8 billion up £3.5 billion (7%) on February 2024, but down £7.2 billion (12%) on March 2023

The UK was a net importer this month, with imports exceeding exports by £16.7 billion, widening the trade gap (exports minus imports) by £3.4 billion on February 2024.
Source: UK overseas trade in goods statistics from HM Revenue & Customs

Sir Keir wont be able to dodge those stats when it becomes his problem on July 5th.

---

If economic growth doesn't bring in more cash to splash on social care then labour will have to raise taxes

That's the way it is

With the Tories we would get ever worsening social care and tax cuts to keep them in power

I think most voters accept things can't go on like this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bloop

In the last budget there was £27bn available to Hunt/Rishi. Instead of investing it into public services they chose to pass it on as a tax cut. Purely a decision based on an election being in the offing.
For all his faults Boris wanted to increase national insurance with the receipts going directly to the NHS. His succesors cchosethe opposite so services just suffer further.

---

And they say Labour are dodgy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

And they say Labour are dodgy

---

Always remember my economics teacher telling us the the first priority for any government is to get re-elected. They do that is through their policies, with the most effective being those that effect how much money is in people's pay packet each week or month.

This topic annoys the living hell out of me. Like the NHS, just a political football.

I have no respect for Labour on it. They labelled Teresa Mays good suggestion a "dementia tax".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

No they dont, Labour have already won the election. They have said they wont put up NI and Income Tax. They have specifically not mentioned any other general tax rises like capital gains, stamp duty etc. There was a Labour MP on radio 4 this morning that wouldnt answer the additional tax rises question.
As it stands if Sir Keir doesnt get economic growth after 6 months - then he will be putting up taxes or start cut backs.

Now if this was a tory - you would accuse the evil b'stards of cutting cutting cutting etc I hope you will be as vociferous when Labour end up doing the same, there is no magic policy that delivers growth - other than more exports or being able to drive efficiencies in public spending.

Total exports of goods for March 2024
£34.1 billion up £0.1 billion (less than 1%) on February 2024, but down £4.0 billion (10%) on March 2023

Total imports of goods for March 2024
£50.8 billion up £3.5 billion (7%) on February 2024, but down £7.2 billion (12%) on March 2023

The UK was a net importer this month, with imports exceeding exports by £16.7 billion, widening the trade gap (exports minus imports) by £3.4 billion on February 2024.
Source: UK overseas trade in goods statistics from HM Revenue & Customs

Sir Keir wont be able to dodge those stats when it becomes his problem on July 5th.

---

It's difficult to know where to start with this.

BOT on goods alone is highly misleading.

GDP Growth is driven by accumulating more resources (capital, labour and land (including raw materials)) and/or technical change (improving the productivity of said resources).

Government policies and myriad external drivers (like export demand) engender growth but they aren't its source.

It seems to me both major parties are misleading the public somewhat on tax and spending.

The UK isn't a particularly high taxation state and its debt to GDP ratio isn't that high. I'm using G7 means as a comparator.

I think the arbitrary "golden rule" is either implicitly or explicitly being followed by both parties. It's a rule of thumb based upon the sustainability of debt payments, I believe, but I'm not sure it's still relevant. In short, there may be more headroom for debt-based spending than the rule implies.

Isn't the UK public's problem it wants US tax levels and Scandinavian public services so it gets a muddled neither. And that's what the parties are offering - muddle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

In 2010 David Cameron squeezed into office partly on the back of claims such as "we'll cut taxes, not the NHS".

It's now 2024 and it's hard to say that public services are better than they were 14 years ago across the UK. They're not. In Wales there has been way too much blaming the other party for our failings going on - Labour saying it's not our fault, it's the funding we get from Westminster, while the Tories say it's nothing to do with what we give you to spend, it's how you spend it. Such arguments go around this board like a loop at times.

However, 14 years of Conservative rule over the UK has seen our public services get worse and decimated. Local authorities are even going bankrupt.

I have a simple question - why do we seem hell bent on continually trying to cut the amount of tax we pay yet keep expecting good public services? 14 years of austerity and cuts, supposedly to eliminate wastage and not affect services, have had a negative effect. Every day I read someone moaning about the state of roads, waiting times in the NHS and so on, not just in Wales but elsewhere in the UK, but everyone seems to still want tax cuts. One example I have from social media comes from a local authority that reduced their black bins collection. A friend of mine working in refuse thought he'd offer black bin collections more regularly for a fixed amount. He had a lot of takers. I asked the question of those people if they would be prepared to pay that amount extra in council tax for bins to be collected in the same way and none of them would. I found that quite remarkable that they wouldn't pay the council a bit more for bins to be collected more regularly, but would happily fork out for someone to do it privately.

Go back 100 years and more and workers would happily pay a small amount in their wages that allowed libraries, workmens halls etc to be built and maintained, so are we now as a society one that isn't prepared to pay for good public services?

---

Well clearly the conservative party and their core support ...are not prepared to pay for better public services

The government is focusing its core attack on Labour increasing public spending through increased taxation ......to the point of lying that civil servants backed them up on it

If the Tories were interested in this matter they wouldn't be talking about tax cuts going into this election

Would they ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Well clearly the conservative party and their core support ...are not prepared to pay for better public services

The government is focusing its core attack on Labour increasing public spending through increased taxation ......to the point of lying that civil servants backed them up on it

If the Tories were interested in this matter they wouldn't be talking about tax cuts going into this election

Would they ?

---

What are you thoughts on Drakeford and Welsh Lab making cuts to the budgets on their devolved powers ?. i know you'll probably blame it on Westminster and Westminster would blame the british public and companies for not selling more goods and delivering more tax income to the Gov to spend on services. Taking too much tax has its consequences on services, it's a fine balancing act - that Govts all over the world struggle with - the UK is no different or so it seems based on my 40 odd years of remembering various UK Govts.

You are using an odd point of data. Saying “We are not particularly high tax / debt state because others are high” too is a defintion of stupidity. I often see this from London School of Economics political-economists and those of a chronic Keynesian bent.

Let’s bring your logic down to a level that many can understand. Imagine presenting an unmuscly fat person who is obese, with his weight at around 16 stone. You line him next to ten others who are fatter and even more obese, weighing at around 18-20 stone. Then you mistakingly pronounce “You know, actually this guy is quite healthy because these others are really fat”. You have used an extreme reference point to attempt to articulate normality as a defintion, when what you have should have done was anchor to men around a more healthy weight, such as 11-13 stone, ceterus paribus.

Allow me to disabuse you of your delusion. The stark reality is that all G7 have accumulated levels of eye-popping debt that are either record levels (Japan) or others are near record highs, or near levels not seen since the world wars - and that is without a world war!!!

Three further anchor points stand out to me:

1. Our debt levels to GDP are now triple what they were in 1989. At one point it was around 25% and falling. Now it is above 80% and rising.

2. Our levels of debt to GDP are now so bad, that the interest we pay each year on that debt now is the same size as what we spent on education. In other words, if our government were to bring the debt to GDP to zero we could pay for loads of teachers, build school and py off student debt. But because New Labour and this Conservative administration pursued deficit spending policies, we are accumulating dangerous levels of whose trajectory now looks difficult to stabilise. Simple rules - the more annual deficits occur, the bigger the cumulative debt, and the more the cumulative debt the more interest is paid to service the debt than spending on annual public services.

3. Tipping points. A heavy piece of research by leading IMF economists (actually decent ones, Carmen Reinhardt and Kenneth Rogoff) and they studied debt/deficits dynamics, currency crashes and systemic financial system crashes in the 5 major continents in the past 500 years. What they discovered was that developing economies struggled to recover their debt levels beyond 50% to GDP. Developed countries with no history of default were not able to recover at a range beyond 80-100% debt to GDP. Japan are around 200%, US 100%, UK around 85%, and several European countries are in the 70-100% zone.

We are not in a position to believe crankpot PhDs from LSE and members of the IFS who seem to believe we are “OK”. We are already in the areas known as “tipping points” where the only historic outcomes were debt defaults (haircuts) currency collapse or double digit inflation, as foreign and domestic investors lose confidence in the governments or the currencies themselves. Those views are not based on Political-Economic theory, favoured by people who want to cling to any micro/excuse for more uncontrolled ill-disciplined spending. Those views are based on the sheer volume and weight solid, data-based historical research, that are tried and tested across five centuries and 5 continents. To believe that “We are OK” is to believe “Azcity” over the above serious research.

I know who I will be trusting.

Who said "We are not particularly high tax / debt state because others are high” ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

Who said "We are not particularly high tax / debt state because others are high” ?

---

azcity further up:

“ The UK isn't a particularly high taxation state and its debt to GDP ratio isn't that high. I'm using G7 means as a comparator.”

So to sum up:-
All G7 nations have seen the same problems in terms of GDP %.
We have all gone through the same set of problems - Covid, Ukraine , supply chain issues.
It is not unique to any particular G7 nation or political party.

I can almost here the questions that will be fired back at you:-

• If we are all in debt - then who do we owe the money to?
• Seeing as we can print our own money are in charge of it - then why cant we just print more (always an interesting argument)
• Whoever we owe the money to can come and try knocking on our door and see how lucky they get
• Blah blah - I blame Thatcher.... The Factory's default response

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

What are you thoughts on Drakeford and Welsh Lab making cuts to the budgets on their devolved powers ?. i know you'll probably blame it on Westminster and Westminster would blame the british public and companies for not selling more goods and delivering more tax income to the Gov to spend on services. Taking too much tax has its consequences on services, it's a fine balancing act - that Govts all over the world struggle with - the UK is no different or so it seems based on my 40 odd years of remembering various UK Govts.

---

Making cuts to spending to balance the books is very different from using tax cuts to bribe voters ......which is what the tories are doing

I dont think you have thought through your post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Making cuts to spending to balance the books is very different from using tax cuts to bribe voters ......which is what the tories are doing

I dont think you have thought through your post

---

So cuts to the NHS that go against manifesto pledges are good, as long as it's Welsh Labour doing it?

Honest to god 😂

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

So to sum up:-
All G7 nations have seen the same problems in terms of GDP %.
We have all gone through the same set of problems - Covid, Ukraine , supply chain issues.
It is not unique to any particular G7 nation or political party.

I can almost here the questions that will be fired back at you:-

• If we are all in debt - then who do we owe the money to?
• Seeing as we can print our own money are in charge of it - then why cant we just print more (always an interesting argument)
• Whoever we owe the money to can come and try knocking on our door and see how lucky they get
• Blah blah - I blame Thatcher.... The Factory's default response

---

The fault lies with the government

Your tory government

Labour got blamed for everything in 2010

Now it's time for the conservatives to get it up the arris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

You are using an odd point of data. Saying “We are not particularly high tax / debt state because others are high” too is a defintion of stupidity. I often see this from London School of Economics political-economists and those of a chronic Keynesian bent.

Let’s bring your logic down to a level that many can understand. Imagine presenting an unmuscly fat person who is obese, with his weight at around 16 stone. You line him next to ten others who are fatter and even more obese, weighing at around 18-20 stone. Then you mistakingly pronounce “You know, actually this guy is quite healthy because these others are really fat”. You have used an extreme reference point to attempt to articulate normality as a defintion, when what you have should have done was anchor to men around a more healthy weight, such as 11-13 stone, ceterus paribus.

Allow me to disabuse you of your delusion. The stark reality is that all G7 have accumulated levels of eye-popping debt that are either record levels (Japan) or others are near record highs, or near levels not seen since the world wars - and that is without a world war!!!

Three further anchor points stand out to me:

1. Our debt levels to GDP are now triple what they were in 1989. At one point it was around 25% and falling. Now it is above 80% and rising.

2. Our levels of debt to GDP are now so bad, that the interest we pay each year on that debt now is the same size as what we spent on education. In other words, if our government were to bring the debt to GDP to zero we could pay for loads of teachers, build school and py off student debt. But because New Labour and this Conservative administration pursued deficit spending policies, we are accumulating dangerous levels of whose trajectory now looks difficult to stabilise. Simple rules - the more annual deficits occur, the bigger the cumulative debt, and the more the cumulative debt the more interest is paid to service the debt than spending on annual public services.

3. Tipping points. A heavy piece of research by leading IMF economists (actually decent ones, Carmen Reinhardt and Kenneth Rogoff) and they studied debt/deficits dynamics, currency crashes and systemic financial system crashes in the 5 major continents in the past 500 years. What they discovered was that developing economies struggled to recover their debt levels beyond 50% to GDP. Developed countries with no history of default were not able to recover at a range beyond 80-100% debt to GDP. Japan are around 200%, US 100%, UK around 85%, and several European countries are in the 70-100% zone.

We are not in a position to believe crankpot PhDs from LSE and members of the IFS who seem to believe we are “OK”. We are already in the areas known as “tipping points” where the only historic outcomes were debt defaults (haircuts) currency collapse or double digit inflation, as foreign and domestic investors lose confidence in the governments or the currencies themselves. Those views are not based on Political-Economic theory, favoured by people who want to cling to any micro/excuse for more uncontrolled ill-disciplined spending. Those views are based on the sheer volume and weight solid, data-based historical research, that are tried and tested across five centuries and 5 continents. To believe that “We are OK” is to believe “Azcity” over the above serious research.

I know who I will be trusting.

---

****ing hilarious reply - Reinhart and Rogoff's work was trashed and they are considered pariahs. But keep quoting them, fool.

(PS. Maybe google more deeply before quoting bollocks.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

So cuts to the NHS that go against manifesto pledges are good, as long as it's Welsh Labour doing it?

Honest to god 😂

---

Cuts to the Welsh NHS are nothing to do with a party trying to win votes

In fact Welsh government cuts are definitely going to lead to a reduction of votes but they had to be done

The Tories are promising TAX CUTS which will lead to reduced services ........that's not being done because it has to be done ....its being done to try and win votes

I am surprised people can't see the difference .....unless they are Tories 🤔

Welsh government makes cuts knowing it will reduce its popularity and lose votes , definitely

Sunak , on his arse , promises tax cuts to GAIN votes


🤔

It's obvious that the tory boys on here are pissed off they are getting a shafting

It's going to be a tough few years for you all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

****ing hilarious reply - Reinhart and Rogoff's work was trashed and they are considered pariahs. But keep quoting them, fool.

(PS. Maybe google more deeply before quoting bollocks.)

---

I left this one alone as soon as the IFS got slated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Cuts to the Welsh NHS are nothing to do with a party trying to win votes

In fact Welsh government cuts are definitely going to lead to a reduction of votes but they had to be done

The Tories are promising TAX CUTS which will lead to reduced services ........that's not being done because it has to be done ....its being done to try and win votes

I am surprised people can't see the difference .....unless they are Tories 🤔

Welsh government makes cuts knowing it will reduce its popularity and lose votes , definitely

Sunak , on his arse , promises tax cuts to GAIN votes


🤔

It's obvious that the tory boys on here are pissed off they are getting a shafting

It's going to be a tough few years for you all

---

And so it starts all over again, is every day like this for you ?

In 2010 - it was Labour not being able to keep control of massive public sector projects - 6 billion NHS IT system, schools rebuilding program that Ed Balls spunked 70% of the budget before laying a brick etc - so when the toxic loans crash from the US kicked in - it whacked us.
When Covid hit - it wiped 10% off the economy almost over night - unless of course you think Thatcher caused covid - in which case you have a point :)

The field of economics is interesting, but just like politics and technology there are arseholes in the sphere, who cling to theories like a comfort blanket. Usual bilge of Left v Right, red v blue, bog standard tribal baboonery. In this case, tribalism in their theories.

These people are apparently university educated and are supposed to learn the art of objectivity, logical reasoning and critical thinking. Yet despite an alleged higher IQ than the average person many still display tribal behaviours, and the predictable mental hijacking of their amygdala that many humans have not shaken off since the day of the caveman.

Economics has some well founded branches of theory and some are emerging. The more established are the four schools Keynesian, Austrian and Monetarist and the discredited Marxist school. But they are nnown quantities. Less tested, and more niche, but no less relevant, are branches that use network theory, historical / cultural school, complexity theory and the new areas of mesa-economics to explain economic behaviour. All schools have their pros and cons.

The real skill, and what the best economists are doing, is to acknowledge by observations and data (bottom up) what is working, and connect to the theory (top down) to arrive at a consumate conclusion. Those skilled ones will be handsomely paid by the private sector to make predictions - mega corporations, investment banks and hedge funds for example, who cannot afford their six figure salaries. Real money follows their economic predictions and if they are wrong too often they get fired or moved. Most academics hiding in universities, the research rooms of the OEDC, IMF and Treasury can cling to their theory and talk bollocks as often as they want. If they are wrong they keep their jobs or protected by unions, so they don’t have skin in the game. No money nor reputation on the line. Free hand to talk shite. No come backs. Often paid a low 40-50k for their verbal and written diahorrea. Many of you will not know that economic advisors to The Treasury and those at the Bank of England are also paid a low salary of 35k to 60k for their verbal and written porridge, depending on their civil service grade and time served, not competence.

The most ridiculous branch in recent years was Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). These were the real bimbos in the room. They are the real boobie blondes in the world of economics. When interest rates were near zero years ago, the press actually gave these monkey air time. They said “Look! Debts and deficits don’t matter - borrow more! Aren’t we a genius?!!”. Even the FT gave them a platform. On this forum people discussed it. I pointed out on here and the FT that the major fault was the ignorance of interest rate and inflation cycles that come and go, and that 0% rates were a historical anomaly and wouldn’t last. Then I said the high debt affordability will be hurt by rising rate. Lo and behold rates shot up in 2022. MMT has died a death since and MMT economists have returned to their academic cocoons. Pain has appeared.In true keeping with boobie blondes they are temporarily useful, and soon dismissed and offloaded once we have seen and heard enough.

Let me point another example out. When you heard the nonsense that “Inflation is transitory” from the central banks and general media, I pointed out (yes please search the threads) this was rubbish. I pointed out that inflation would continue upwards, interest rates will follow it and that there will be some pain. I knew that because the central banks had faulty modelling and were saying “But look at the data inflation is low. I see no evidence.” The central bankers use old historical Keynesian data models. They wait for inflation to hit in the form of rising consumer prices or wages. Useless for predicting inflation as they have to wait for it to happen before declaring it has happened. They don’t look at the sources of inflation (aggregate money supply, commodity prices, and supply chains that ship those commodities.) I could see differently as I was using multiple schools of economics to draw my conclusion, and wasn’t tribal.

- Using financial market data I could see that most commodity prices had risen.

- I could also see that wide money supply metrics were out of control. of economics models. Monetarist school of economics models that Keynesians ignore.

- I could see that credit was out of control. Inflationary. Austrian school of economics models that Keynesians ignore.

- I was also using knowledge from the Historical school of economics. I knew that inflation went crazy after World War 2 due to supply shocks, not demand side issues. I also knew that interest rates and inflation moved in historic cycles. I also knew from the 1960s and 1970s that Middle East conflict caused issues for oil priced and inflation. As this is Bayesian data and not sufficient date in the models, Keynesians will ignore.

- Using mesa-economics I could see that the Panama and Suez canal restrictions would create a supply issues and drive prices up. I could also see this being reflected in shipping and freight rates - inflationary. Models that Keynesians ignore.

- I also knew from complexity theory that at times like this, that politicians and central bankers make mistakes on inflation. Information that Keynesians ignore.

So as you can see, like economics in the high paid private sector I wasn’t interested in clinging to one theory. All the other schools of economic theory (other than Keynesian models) were giving me warning signs that inflation was coming. I went off that, rather than clinging to my “favourite theory”. That is what many so-called academic economists have been making poor calls in the last five years.

You have to know what school and model applies to the point in time and event you are trying to assess, and try and use multiple schools to see how many are confirming or not. It ain’t rocket science, but you just have to know where to look, and seperate your political views from your economics and eliminate that bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I left this one alone as soon as the IFS got slated

---

It is nice to try “projecting” about googling, as it is you doing precisely that. It is clear in the way you present your thinking. ChatGPT was it perhaps?

Rogoff and Reinhardt were only slated by the mongs in the political-economic branches. IFS has political-economists inside it, which is evident in their language. I take it you are just parroting the BBC as opposed to reading the primary source? Otherwise it would be clear as day.

Reinhardt and Rogoff’s data was accepted by the IMF, and in fact promoted by them. God knows where you got that opinion from. You cannot change the historic data. But then I can clearly see you are a political-economic “blogger” so straight away I know you are auto-conflicted.

No hedge fund, trading operation, nor mega-corporation would pay you a decent salary for those views. Those views belong in political “think tanks” (stink tanks), NGOs, or some polytechnic.

Please feel free to come back to me when you have had major money backing your economic predictions, and perhaps I might afford you a sympathetic ear. And please, it needs to be something much more substantial than Katies Cakes from Abertridwr, The Welsh Development Agency or Polytechnic of Stoke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

And so it starts all over again, is every day like this for you ?

In 2010 - it was Labour not being able to keep control of massive public sector projects - 6 billion NHS IT system, schools rebuilding program that Ed Balls spunked 70% of the budget before laying a brick etc - so when the toxic loans crash from the US kicked in - it whacked us.
When Covid hit - it wiped 10% off the economy almost over night - unless of course you think Thatcher caused covid - in which case you have a point :)

---

And you say you are not a tory

Get the feck out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

It is nice to try “projecting” about googling, as it is you doing precisely that. It is clear in the way you present your thinking. ChatGPT was it perhaps?

Rogoff and Reinhardt were only slated by the mongs in the political-economic branches. IFS has political-economists inside it, which is evident in their language. I take it you are just parroting the BBC as opposed to reading the primary source? Otherwise it would be clear as day.

Reinhardt and Rogoff’s data was accepted by the IMF, and in fact promoted by them. God knows where you got that opinion from. You cannot change the historic data. But then I can clearly see you are a political-economic “blogger” so straight away I know you are auto-conflicted.

No hedge fund, trading operation, nor mega-corporation would pay you a decent salary for those views. Those views belong in political “think tanks” (stink tanks), NGOs, or some polytechnic.

Please feel free to come back to me when you have had major money backing your economic predictions, and perhaps I might afford you a sympathetic ear. And please, it needs to be something much more substantial than Katies Cakes from Abertridwr, The Welsh Development Agency or Polytechnic of Stoke.

---

You are replying to the wrong person perchance ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

The field of economics is interesting, but just like politics and technology there are arseholes in the sphere, who cling to theories like a comfort blanket. Usual bilge of Left v Right, red v blue, bog standard tribal baboonery. In this case, tribalism in their theories.

These people are apparently university educated and are supposed to learn the art of objectivity, logical reasoning and critical thinking. Yet despite an alleged higher IQ than the average person many still display tribal behaviours, and the predictable mental hijacking of their amygdala that many humans have not shaken off since the day of the caveman.

Economics has some well founded branches of theory and some are emerging. The more established are the four schools Keynesian, Austrian and Monetarist and the discredited Marxist school. But they are nnown quantities. Less tested, and more niche, but no less relevant, are branches that use network theory, historical / cultural school, complexity theory and the new areas of mesa-economics to explain economic behaviour. All schools have their pros and cons.

The real skill, and what the best economists are doing, is to acknowledge by observations and data (bottom up) what is working, and connect to the theory (top down) to arrive at a consumate conclusion. Those skilled ones will be handsomely paid by the private sector to make predictions - mega corporations, investment banks and hedge funds for example, who cannot afford their six figure salaries. Real money follows their economic predictions and if they are wrong too often they get fired or moved. Most academics hiding in universities, the research rooms of the OEDC, IMF and Treasury can cling to their theory and talk bollocks as often as they want. If they are wrong they keep their jobs or protected by unions, so they don’t have skin in the game. No money nor reputation on the line. Free hand to talk shite. No come backs. Often paid a low 40-50k for their verbal and written diahorrea. Many of you will not know that economic advisors to The Treasury and those at the Bank of England are also paid a low salary of 35k to 60k for their verbal and written porridge, depending on their civil service grade and time served, not competence.

The most ridiculous branch in recent years was Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). These were the real bimbos in the room. They are the real boobie blondes in the world of economics. When interest rates were near zero years ago, the press actually gave these monkey air time. They said “Look! Debts and deficits don’t matter - borrow more! Aren’t we a genius?!!”. Even the FT gave them a platform. On this forum people discussed it. I pointed out on here and the FT that the major fault was the ignorance of interest rate and inflation cycles that come and go, and that 0% rates were a historical anomaly and wouldn’t last. Then I said the high debt affordability will be hurt by rising rate. Lo and behold rates shot up in 2022. MMT has died a death since and MMT economists have returned to their academic cocoons. Pain has appeared.In true keeping with boobie blondes they are temporarily useful, and soon dismissed and offloaded once we have seen and heard enough.

Let me point another example out. When you heard the nonsense that “Inflation is transitory” from the central banks and general media, I pointed out (yes please search the threads) this was rubbish. I pointed out that inflation would continue upwards, interest rates will follow it and that there will be some pain. I knew that because the central banks had faulty modelling and were saying “But look at the data inflation is low. I see no evidence.” The central bankers use old historical Keynesian data models. They wait for inflation to hit in the form of rising consumer prices or wages. Useless for predicting inflation as they have to wait for it to happen before declaring it has happened. They don’t look at the sources of inflation (aggregate money supply, commodity prices, and supply chains that ship those commodities.) I could see differently as I was using multiple schools of economics to draw my conclusion, and wasn’t tribal.

- Using financial market data I could see that most commodity prices had risen.

- I could also see that wide money supply metrics were out of control. of economics models. Monetarist school of economics models that Keynesians ignore.

- I could see that credit was out of control. Inflationary. Austrian school of economics models that Keynesians ignore.

- I was also using knowledge from the Historical school of economics. I knew that inflation went crazy after World War 2 due to supply shocks, not demand side issues. I also knew that interest rates and inflation moved in historic cycles. I also knew from the 1960s and 1970s that Middle East conflict caused issues for oil priced and inflation. As this is Bayesian data and not sufficient date in the models, Keynesians will ignore.

- Using mesa-economics I could see that the Panama and Suez canal restrictions would create a supply issues and drive prices up. I could also see this being reflected in shipping and freight rates - inflationary. Models that Keynesians ignore.

- I also knew from complexity theory that at times like this, that politicians and central bankers make mistakes on inflation. Information that Keynesians ignore.

So as you can see, like economics in the high paid private sector I wasn’t interested in clinging to one theory. All the other schools of economic theory (other than Keynesian models) were giving me warning signs that inflation was coming. I went off that, rather than clinging to my “favourite theory”. That is what many so-called academic economists have been making poor calls in the last five years.

You have to know what school and model applies to the point in time and event you are trying to assess, and try and use multiple schools to see how many are confirming or not. It ain’t rocket science, but you just have to know where to look, and seperate your political views from your economics and eliminate that bias.

---

Are you applying for a job or something?

I think you are wasted on here

Quite literally

Probably every day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

It is nice to try “projecting” about googling, as it is you doing precisely that. It is clear in the way you present your thinking. ChatGPT was it perhaps?

Rogoff and Reinhardt were only slated by the mongs in the political-economic branches. IFS has political-economists inside it, which is evident in their language. I take it you are just parroting the BBC as opposed to reading the primary source? Otherwise it would be clear as day.

Reinhardt and Rogoff’s data was accepted by the IMF, and in fact promoted by them. God knows where you got that opinion from. You cannot change the historic data. But then I can clearly see you are a political-economic “blogger” so straight away I know you are auto-conflicted.

No hedge fund, trading operation, nor mega-corporation would pay you a decent salary for those views. Those views belong in political “think tanks” (stink tanks), NGOs, or some polytechnic.

Please feel free to come back to me when you have had major money backing your economic predictions, and perhaps I might afford you a sympathetic ear. And please, it needs to be something much more substantial than Katies Cakes from Abertridwr, The Welsh Development Agency or Polytechnic of Stoke.

---

Keep quoting the discredited stuff and claiming you're correct when you've been caught out using ChatGPT injudiciously.

Here's the BBC take on it: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22223190

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

You are replying to the wrong person perchance ?

---

Sludgey, I've got this. :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

It seems to me both major parties are misleading the public somewhat on tax and spending.

The UK isn't a particularly high taxation state and its debt to GDP ratio isn't that high. I'm using G7 means as a comparator.

I think the arbitrary "golden rule" is either implicitly or explicitly being followed by both parties. It's a rule of thumb based upon the sustainability of debt payments, I believe, but I'm not sure it's still relevant. In short, there may be more headroom for debt-based spending than the rule implies.

Isn't the UK public's problem it wants US tax levels and Scandinavian public services so it gets a muddled neither. And that's what the parties are offering - muddle.

---

Spot on, and who ever said paying tax is in anyway bad? Anyone who pays full taxes should be proud of their contribution to society. The only bad thing in the UK is that far too many poor people pay taxes and the overwhelming number of the rich cohort get away scot free.

The first tax I'd tackle is Inheritance Tax. I'd make it 100%!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Are you applying for a job or something?

I think you are wasted on here

Quite literally

Probably every day

---

Done my time in the workplace. Some people show an interest in it, some pontificate as if they are experts and clearly they aren’t, and it is a field of my interest, work experience and qualifications.

Debates happen. People share info. I am semi-retired so I have the time and there are gaps on my day when my trades can take several days or weeks before they pay off.

Quiet day today. Trades placed against French banks and bonds! A few crypto trades placed and a share bought. Two hours work and my day is done. Nowt to do for a few days now!

Waiting game so I just flick around, look at sports news, watch prices, hit the gym and see what ****ers like you are up to on here 🤭😉

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

Keep quoting the discredited stuff and claiming you're correct when you've been caught out using ChatGPT injudiciously.

Here's the BBC take on it: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22223190

---

BBC 😂😂😂 Do you think any serious market analyst, trader, or high punching economist would quote the BBC? You would be sacked. Seriously Az, go and get help.

Imagine a debate between surgeons over an operation and one saying “Look listen to me, here is a bite sized article from the BBC. There I am now proven correct”. 😂😂😂

Keep digging. You will soon need a world record length spade, or a diamond-edged oil rig drill to keep going. One of the funniest responses I have seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

Done my time in the workplace. Some people show an interest in it, some pontificate as if they are experts and clearly they aren’t, and it is a field of my interest, work experience and qualifications.

Debates happen. People share info. I am semi-retired so I have the time and there are gaps on my day when my trades can take several days or weeks before they pay off.

Quiet day today. Trades placed against French banks and bonds! A few crypto trades placed and a share bought. Two hours work and my day is done. Nowt to do for a few days now!

Waiting game so I just flick around, look at sports news, watch prices, hit the gym and see what ****ers like you are up to on here 🤭😉

---

It's like a scene out of American Psycho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

BBC 😂😂😂 Do you think any serious market analyst, trader, or high punching economist would quote the BBC? You would be sacked. Seriously Az, go and get help.

Imagine a debate between surgeons over an operation and one saying “Look listen to me, here is a bite sized article from the BBC. There I am now proven correct”. 😂😂😂

Keep digging. You will soon need a world record length spade, or a diamond-edged oil rig drill to keep going. One of the funniest responses I have seen.

---

You clearly know absolutely zero about serious Economics. You can't even spell FFS.

Go on, you're an expert apparently, tell us all your qualifications and experience in terms of Economics. Just a warning to you - you're likely on a very sticky wicket here. I've actually met Rogoff - have you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

Done my time in the workplace. Some people show an interest in it, some pontificate as if they are experts and clearly they aren’t, and it is a field of my interest, work experience and qualifications.

Debates happen. People share info. I am semi-retired so I have the time and there are gaps on my day when my trades can take several days or weeks before they pay off.

Quiet day today. Trades placed against French banks and bonds! A few crypto trades placed and a share bought. Two hours work and my day is done. Nowt to do for a few days now!

Waiting game so I just flick around, look at sports news, watch prices, hit the gym and see what ****ers like you are up to on here ����

---

Interesting.... if that is all true.

(Is there a prize for the most words posted in a season?)

You always seem very pleased with yourself.

Are you are useful member of society? Just wondering.