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

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://gu.com/p/2phbb

Time for a Plan B?

 

[Neil_F]

So who are these "top economists"?

Richard Grayson, Goldsmiths - History professor
Ian O'Shea - cultural studies
Henning Meyer - Global Governance
Howard Reed - Economist
Geoffrey Hodgson - Business studies
Jonathan Rutherford - Cultural Studies
Natalie Fenton - Media Research
Stefano Harney - Business Ethics
Andrew Watt - Trade unionist
Mariana Mazzucato - Innovation (???)
Gregor Gall - Industrial relations
George Irvin - Economist
Peter Case - Leadership ethics
Michael Burke - Economist
Marcus Miller - Economist
Susan Himmelweit - Economist
James Meadway - Economically illiterate think tank fellow
Dennis Leach - Economist
Jonathan Glennie - International development
Stewart Lansley - Student
Alan Finlayson - Cultural Studies
Robin Murray - Governance
Richard Murphy - Retired accountant

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.

And what about their "Plan B"? Raising taxes is fiscally contractionary; it is equivalent to spending cuts (in fact the data in cmall open economies suggest it is worse). Picking "winners" in industrial policy worked brilliantly in the 70s. My favourite though, is improving work-life balance. Working less = stronger GDP growth. Perhaps it is no coincidence these people aren't real economists?

 

[South Bank Hank]

I can't be bothered to go on.

I couldn't be bothered to read it in the first place.

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.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I couldn't be bothered to read it in the first place.

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.

If you had bothered to click on the link you'd have seen it was from The Observer and not The Guardian.
The point I wished to make-hence my question-was; is it time for a Plan B(as the article suggests)?The idea was to encourage some debate on what is a relatively important subject,IMO.
Neil F.makes a good point btw on the relatively few economists cited.

 

[South Bank Hank]

If you had bothered to click on the link you'd have seen it was from The Observer and not The Guardian..

It is from the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/04/george-osborne-plan-not-working

The point I wished to make-hence my question-was; is it time for a Plan B(as the article suggests)?The idea was to encourage some debate on what is a relatively important subject,IMO. Neil F.makes a good point btw on the relatively few economists cited

You've been asked before not to just post links.

If you want to start a debate, make a point of your own. As you've been advised before, if you just post a link to a site (Guardian, Observer, Independant or even Whizzer and Chips), the thread will be deleted.

 

[McNasty]

If you had bothered to click on the link you'd have seen it was from The Observer and not The Guardian.
The point I wished to make-hence my question-was; is it time for a Plan B(as the article suggests)?The idea was to encourage some debate on what is a relatively important subject,IMO.
Neil F.makes a good point btw on the relatively few economists cited.

I just clicked on the link and it took me to an article in the Guardian. Am I missing something ?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I just clicked on the link and it took me to an article in the Guardian. Am I missing something ?

Technically,SBH is quite right(since the article was on the Guardian website yesterday originally).However, I first read it on The Observer website today.I think most people know that the Observer was bought by the Guardian owners some years ago to stop it going bust.Theoretically(and I believe)practically they are separate papers(and that's the way I've always thought of them).I'm aware,however,that this is a matter of debate(for some).
I'm intrigued by this Whizzer and Chips reference though.Am I missing something?

To get back on topic: I'm one of those people who are convinced that nothing short of a double dip recession or worse will convince this Tory led coalition to change tack and stop the cuts.This, at a time when some countries in Europe,eg Germany and France are already seeing that economic stimulus packages(like those in the USA)are helping their economies to get out and stay out of recession.
Those of us who remember the 80's, know that Thatcher was able to to finance her ideological experiment of changing the UK economy from a manufacturing one to a service based one,thanks to North Sea oil revenues,(while incidentally putting vast numbers of working people on the dole in the process).
The present round of cuts is likely to have a similar effect, unless the private sector miraculously starts creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.There's precious little hard evidence of that happening in sufficient numbers at the present time,I fear.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So who are these "top economists"?

Richard Grayson, Goldsmiths - History professor
Ian O'Shea - cultural studies
Henning Meyer - Global Governance
Howard Reed - Economist
Geoffrey Hodgson - Business studies
Jonathan Rutherford - Cultural Studies
Natalie Fenton - Media Research
Stefano Harney - Business Ethics
Andrew Watt - Trade unionist
Mariana Mazzucato - Innovation (???)
Gregor Gall - Industrial relations
George Irvin - Economist
Peter Case - Leadership ethics
Michael Burke - Economist
Marcus Miller - Economist
Susan Himmelweit - Economist
James Meadway - Economically illiterate think tank fellow
Dennis Leach - Economist
Jonathan Glennie - International development
Stewart Lansley - Student
Alan Finlayson - Cultural Studies
Robin Murray - Governance
Richard Murphy - Retired accountant

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.

And what about their "Plan B"? Raising taxes is fiscally contractionary; it is equivalent to spending cuts (in fact the data in cmall open economies suggest it is worse). Picking "winners" in industrial policy worked brilliantly in the 70s. My favourite though, is improving work-life balance. Working less = stronger GDP growth. Perhaps it is no coincidence these people aren't real economists?

You're guilty of quoting selectively here,since you ignore some points about Plan B actually mentioned in the article,which included cracking down on tax evasion(not at all the same thing as raising taxes)and more importantly(IMO)the idea of developing green technologies to promote growth.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Technically,SBH is quite right(since the article was on the Guardian website yesterday originally).However, I first read it on The Observer website today.I think most people know that the Observer was bought by the Guardian owners some years ago to stop it going bust.Theoretically(and I believe)practically they are separate papers(and that's the way I've always thought of them).I'm aware,however,that this is a matter of debate(for some).
I'm intrigued by this Whizzer and Chips reference though.Am I missing something?

To get back on topic: I'm one of those people who are convinced that nothing short of a double dip recession or worse will convince this Tory led coalition to change tack and stop the cuts.This, at a time when some countries in Europe,eg Germany and France are already seeing that economic stimulus packages(like those in the USA)are helping their economies to get out and stay out of recession.
Those of us who remember the 80's, know that Thatcher was able to to finance her ideological experiment of changing the UK economy from a manufacturing one to a service based one,thanks to North Sea oil revenues,(while incidentally putting vast numbers of working people on the dole in the process).
The present round of cuts is likely to have a similar effect, unless the private sector miraculously starts creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.There's precious little hard evidence of that happening in sufficient numbers at the present time,I fear.

The Times and The Sun are seperate newspapers but......

As I've remarked before it's strange that unemployment becomes a huge issue for the left when the evil Tories are in government (albiet a coalition). Yet unemployment grew massively and virtually unremarked under New Labour from 1997-2010, but that's alright isn't it?

 

[Neil_F]

You're guilty of quoting selectively here,since you ignore some points about Plan B actually mentioned in the article,which included cracking down on tax evasion(not at all the same thing as raising taxes)and more importantly(IMO)the idea of developing green technologies to promote growth.

I am entirely guilty of quoting selectively. I'm all in favour of tackiling tax evasion to increase net yields, but how to do it? It's very easy to say but not so easy to actually articulate a realistic plan.

Green technology is another politic soundbite. How exactly will it be done? We already subsidise a number of green technologies so what are they actually proposing? Picking winners doesn't work; it never has. For example, in my career I encounter a number of people involved in technical aspects of developing green technology. One was recently telling me that we have invested huge amounts in wind technology (only economically viable due to taxpayer subsidies), but there is evidence to suggest that wind patterns are dynamic and subject to change: there is every chance that in 50 years the turbines built today won't work because they will no longer point in the right direction!

My point here, is that this letter offers simplistic analysis and prizes intentions over outcomes. Who wouldn't want to invest in green technologies that improve energy security, reduce carbon emissions and create jobs? Is it actually possible though? The best way to foster growth is to allocate capital optimally. Governments do not have a strong history in this regard, yet more government intervention and unaffordable spending is all that is advocated by these "economists".

 

[Neil_F]

.This, at a time when some countries in Europe,eg Germany and France are already seeing that economic stimulus packages(like those in the USA)are helping their economies to get out and stay out of recession.

The US did prolong their stimulus (they were able to because their reserve currency status allowed them to keep the spending taps on without risking interest rate pressure). However, Obama is not reducing spending in one year by more as a percentage of GDP than Osborne is doing in 4 years (graph below). I have also said on numerous instances that UK government spending in cash terms is increasing for each of the next five years.

 

[osymandus]

The Times and The Sun are seperate newspapers but......

As I've remarked before it's strange that unemployment becomes a huge issue for the left when the evil Tories are in government (albiet a coalition). Yet unemployment grew massively and virtually unremarked under New Labour from 1997-2010, but that's alright isn't it?

Would that not just be evidence their both useless ****ers and we should just take the best bits of all of them ????

 

[osymandus]

I am entirely guilty of quoting selectively. I'm all in favour of tackiling tax evasion to increase net yields, but how to do it? It's very easy to say but not so easy to actually articulate a realistic plan.

Green technology is another politic soundbite. How exactly will it be done? We already subsidise a number of green technologies so what are they actually proposing? Picking winners doesn't work; it never has. For example, in my career I encounter a number of people involved in technical aspects of developing green technology. One was recently telling me that we have invested huge amounts in wind technology (only economically viable due to taxpayer subsidies), but there is evidence to suggest that wind patterns are dynamic and subject to change: there is every chance that in 50 years the turbines built today won't work because they will no longer point in the right direction!

My point here, is that this letter offers simplistic analysis and prizes intentions over outcomes. Who wouldn't want to invest in green technologies that improve energy security, reduce carbon emissions and create jobs? Is it actually possible though? The best way to foster growth is to allocate capital optimally. Governments do not have a strong history in this regard, yet more government intervention and unaffordable spending is all that is advocated by these "economists".

Well there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_to_Cradle_Design which BT , Cisco and Reanult have all signed up for . Power requirement's are based on the design of teh object using it . The efficiently and total life cycle of a product could be made to last longer (mobile phones anyone ) be better if economic models were also looked at in a more efficient manner (the cost of a mass produced phone is paid for by your contract for instance so after 2 years the company wants you to buy the latest one , this is not down to the product nor its technology rather the model used to make money ).

An intresting point is our capacity to make money is based on how much limited life time products we can keep selling over a very short term .

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The Times and The Sun are seperate newspapers but......

As I've remarked before it's strange that unemployment becomes a huge issue for the left when the evil Tories are in government (albiet a coalition). Yet unemployment grew massively and virtually unremarked under New Labour from 1997-2010, but that's alright isn't it?

They are indeed but it's well known they have the same owner.Murdoch is,of course, (in)famous for his editorial interference in both papers.Whereas, very few people could tell you who the owner of The Guardian newspaper group is.More to the point, she is well known precisely for not interfering with the editorial policy of the Guardian, or its sister paper,The Observer.
It's quite true that stuctural unemployment grew under New Labour, especially after 2008.There are well documented reasons for that.Suffice it to say that UK unemployment is on par with most other EU countries(and less than half of that in Spain).Also that unemployment, under Governments of whatever political persuasion, is never all right(IMO).

 

[Neil_F]

An intresting point is our capacity to make money is based on how much limited life time products we can keep selling over a very short term .

Which is an interesting discussion. One relevant example would be football club merchandising. Something that always makes me laugh is fans complaining that too many new kits are brought out. No one is obligated to buy one, in much the same way I've only ever had three mobile phones in nearly 15 years (I've simply replaced them when they cease to work or no longer meet my requirements)

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

Thats all well and indeed dandy mr smarty pants neil but what about PLAN B,good band or not barma wants to know,me i couldnt give a link one way or the other.

 

[Napster]

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

 

[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...

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:

 

[Hotman]

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.

 

[MK Shrimper]

So what I gather, these people in the Guardian article are not mainstream economists? And that's a problem why? Mainstream economists have done such a wonderful job saving the planet from a global financial meltdown and closing the ever increasing gap between rich and poor haven't they? Perhaps they should just shave some monkeys, let them loose on Wall Street and if it makes any difference.