George Osborne plan isn't working, say top UK economists

[osymandus]

Exactly , however the models we have used are based on cheap no-resuable products . We complain about the bankers etc Yet forget that even they must have na end product to sell . And we as consumers are responsible fro what and why we even buy the things we do ? Want the market to change stop buying your usual brand .

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

A quick copy and paste of a news feed on Twitter about the article, can't vouch for it's accuracy (the article, as well as the twitter feed...)

GuidoFawkes Guido Fawkes
Actually only 15 mainstream economists out of the 52 when you strip out the anti-poverty campaigners, trade unionists, journalists etc.
10 hours ago
»

GuidoFawkes Guido Fawkes
Half-a-dozen of the "52 Economists" are associated with nutty New Economics Foundation which thinks Cuba is sixth happiest place on planet.
10 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

GuidoFawkes Guido Fawkes
@
These "52 Economists" are mostly not mainstream economists, quite a lot of them are media studies lecturers and the like.

Perhaps you nshould put Neil F on your twitter feed.He was much faster off the mark with this.:winking:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

of course Alan Rusbridger never interfered with editorial policy? ps the Guardian will go bust soon enough - it's leaking money faster than SUFC...

As the Editor it would be rather strange if he didn't.:winking:More pertinantly he's not the owner or even the MD of the Scott Trust.:Naps:

 

[Cricko]

I am just glad we let another 400000 walk into the country this last year as we don't have the man power to sort the paperwork.

Viva la Britain!

 

[number11]

It's true that The Guardian newspaper group (including The Guardian,The Observer and the Guardian Weekly)have been losing money for quite some time.However, hopefully The Scott Trust will be able to keep them afloat for some time yet.Who knows, they might even try another business model, such as charging for their online newspapers(as some of their "quality" rivals do)?:winking:

If the Guardian goes down the route of charging for their online content, how will this affect the fascinating articles you link to on here? Sounds worrying to me......

 

[South Bank Hank]

If the Guardian goes down the route of charging for their online content, how will this affect the fascinating articles you link to on here? Sounds worrying to me......

We could just pretend the links were to the Observer.

 

[Uncle Leo]

It's true that The Guardian newspaper group (including The Guardian,The Observer and the Guardian Weekly)have been losing money for quite some time.However, hopefully The Scott Trust will be able to keep them afloat for some time yet.Who knows, they might even try another business model, such as charging for their online newspapers(as some of their "quality" rivals do)?:winking:

On the subject of paying for online content, an interesting article here from Charlie Brooker in, yes, the Grauniad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/06/spotify-problem-getting-people-to-pay

This free giving away of so much 'good stuff' can't last forever I guess.

There was also a piece in The Independent today talking about how GNG employ well over 600 journalists, more than the Telegraph and The Times (including Sunday versions). Seeing as they're losing money hand over fist, I imagine there will need to be some cuts at GNG sooner rather than later.

All of which is a bot off topic. Sorry y'all.

 

[Napster]

As the Editor it would be rather strange if he didn't.:winking:More pertinantly he's not the owner or even the MD of the Scott Trust.:Naps:

No, but he's on the Board...

http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/the-scott-trust-board/

ps it's pertinently.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

If the Guardian goes down the route of charging for their online content, how will this affect the fascinating articles you link to on here? Sounds worrying to me......

Fear ye not.I'll be happy to pay.We already have an annual subscription to El Pais as it is(my wife picked up a nice Mariscal designed cutlery set for that)when we changed over from a three month sub..:winking:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

No, but he's on the Board...

http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/the-scott-trust-board/

ps it's pertinently.

Yours pedantically.Sorry, I was using a computer at the LFB.Their French spell checker wasn't much help to me.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

On the subject of paying for online content, an interesting article here from Charlie Brooker in, yes, the Grauniad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/06/spotify-problem-getting-people-to-pay

This free giving away of so much 'good stuff' can't last forever I guess.

There was also a piece in The Independent today talking about how GNG employ well over 600 journalists, more than the Telegraph and The Times (including Sunday versions). Seeing as they're losing money hand over fist, I imagine there will need to be some cuts at GNG sooner rather than later.

All of which is a bot off topic. Sorry y'all.

Saw that earlier.One of his better pieces.

 

[milhouse]

So who are these "top economists"?

I can't be bothered to go on. Of the first 23, just 6 are economists. Forgive me if I don't take this seriously.

I think that since 2007 or so it became very well established that economists know jack all about anything, least of all economics, so I don't see the relevance of why these people should be labelled economists or not. More reason to respect their opinion if they're not.

Economists can't even predict whether inflation will go up or down next month, let alone work out a solution to this country's economic problems. How they make a living is a bit of a mystery to me: a bit like economics is to them.

BB, if you're going to post Guardian links, make a point of your own and use the link to add value to a point YOU wish to make - otherwise, it's just spam. If people want to read the Guardian's opinion, I'm sure they can just go and visit the website.

Agree that he should make a point rather than post a link, but maybe he's fed up with getting slated for posting an isolated non-ultra right-wing post. How dare he.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Agree that he should make a point rather than post a link, but maybe he's fed up with getting slated for posting an isolated non-ultra right-wing post. How dare he.

If you seriously think that Barnaby is some sort of brave crusader against evil right-wing extremists, rather than a self-important attention whore, then you're a bigger fool than I thought you were.

 

[osymandus]

If you seriously think that Barnaby is some sort of brave crusader against evil right-wing extremists, rather than a self-important attention whore, then you're a bigger fool than I thought you were.

Why am i thinking of the expression pot kettle black here ?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Why am i thinking of the expression pot kettle black here ?

Because you're an attention whore as well?

 

[Uncle Leo]

Why am i thinking of the expression pot kettle black here ?

Because you're an attention whore as well?

Ok, could we please try and bring this back on to topic (says the bloke who took it off topic earlier)?

 

[Pubey]

I think that since 2007 or so it became very well established that economists know jack all about anything, least of all economics, so I don't see the relevance of why these people should be labelled economists or not. More reason to respect their opinion if they're not.

Economists can't even predict whether inflation will go up or down next month, let alone work out a solution to this country's economic problems. How they make a living is a bit of a mystery to me: a bit like economics is to them.



Agree that he should make a point rather than post a link, but maybe he's fed up with getting slated for posting an isolated non-ultra right-wing post. How dare he.

Here goes a (pretend) economist trying to stick up for economists...

Firstly, I don't think many economists claim to be fortune tellers. Forecasting models give an uncertain prediction, often very uncertain. You could well end up with a 95% CI around an inflation prediction that ranges from -1% to +5%... the point estimate means nothing alone because the (un)certainty in the model prediction hasn't been relayed... at least to the media, and often to the decision maker too. The economists have to take some blame for this, but so do the media and policy makers. Saying "inflation could be anywhere between -1% and +5%" isn't a great story to tell, but it's more informative to both the public and policy makers. I guess the public are kept in the dark to some extent to maintain consumer confidence, and also politicians will add their spin/agenda to reported figures for whatever reasons. However I'm not a macroeconomist, so this is quite out of my area (health economics).

 

[Rudi Luftwaffe]

I hope the Guardian doesn't go bust otherwise I will have no way of demonstrating how much more ethical, intelligent and well informed I am.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Here goes a (pretend) economist trying to stick up for economists...

Firstly, I don't think many economists claim to be fortune tellers. Forecasting models give an uncertain prediction, often very uncertain. You could well end up with a 95% CI around an inflation prediction that ranges from -1% to +5%... the point estimate means nothing alone because the (un)certainty in the model prediction hasn't been relayed... at least to the media, and often to the decision maker too. The economists have to take some blame for this, but so do the media and policy makers. Saying "inflation could be anywhere between -1% and +5%" isn't a great story to tell, but it's more informative to both the public and policy makers. I guess the public are kept in the dark to some extent to maintain consumer confidence, and also politicians will add their spin/agenda to reported figures for whatever reasons. However I'm not a macroeconomist, so this is quite out of my area (health economics).

It was interesting to hear the Deputy Chairman of the IMF, on Newsnight yesterday evening, telling Paxman that he "hoped" the Coalition's growth forecasts were right.Aren't these people supposed to know?
At a time when the new Government's quarterly and annual growth forecasts are constantly being revised downwards the only person who seemed reasonably cheerful about things was Ed Balls.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I hope the Guardian doesn't go bust otherwise I will have no way of demonstrating how much more ethical, intelligent and well informed I am.

You could always switch to the Indy.It takes much less time to read too.:winking: