Brian Fantana
Well-known member
Can we please get a competent economist as Chancellor? It's one of those governmental roles where you really DO need a proper background in the subject matter and thus far RR doesn't seem to meet the criteria.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?
- Thread starter Flounce
- Start date
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Pulling a fast one, possibly, playing with the truth, definitely!
Here’s another one from the Beeb that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y00x52d2vo
Whether you like her or not she is pretty qualified TBF.
Reeves studied at Oxford New College and the London School of Economics obtaining a masters degree in economics before working as an administrative manager at the Bank of England, the British Embassy in Washington and HBOS.
- Oct 12, 2022
- 2,879
As far as I can tell, Rachel Reeves is trying to out-Tory the tories in her political choices. Her amazing plan for growth is to side with big business against consumers seeking accountability, and relax lending rules to increase (entirely debt-fuelled) growth.
A slow handclap from over here I’m afraid. Once more the electorate and their (financial) wellbeing is sacrificed against the need for a growing GDP figure. And for property prices to continue their perpetual rise of course.
If you want real growth, you need wages to grow to boost demand. When people use up their earned income simply paying for their housing/food/transport, you suppress demand. Relaxing debt rules only gives you finite growth before the debt itself becomes a drag on demand. It’s time to differentiate between “good” inflation that boosts demand (eg rising wages) and “bad” inflation that leaves the population hamstrung as it’s using all its income on essentials (rising rents, food costs, energy costs etc)
It’s early days, and I would very much like this government to come good, but it feels very much as if the Treasury has imposed itself on Rachel Reeves, rather than Rachel Reeves imposing herself on the Treasury.
A slow handclap from over here I’m afraid. Once more the electorate and their (financial) wellbeing is sacrificed against the need for a growing GDP figure. And for property prices to continue their perpetual rise of course.
If you want real growth, you need wages to grow to boost demand. When people use up their earned income simply paying for their housing/food/transport, you suppress demand. Relaxing debt rules only gives you finite growth before the debt itself becomes a drag on demand. It’s time to differentiate between “good” inflation that boosts demand (eg rising wages) and “bad” inflation that leaves the population hamstrung as it’s using all its income on essentials (rising rents, food costs, energy costs etc)
It’s early days, and I would very much like this government to come good, but it feels very much as if the Treasury has imposed itself on Rachel Reeves, rather than Rachel Reeves imposing herself on the Treasury.
I don't have the time nor inclination to go into this again but I suggest you look at Reeves education and work experience then compare it to that of other recent chancellors.
Rdodge30
Well-known member
- Dec 30, 2022
- 928
Apparently John Van Reenan, a treasury consultant is in every meeting with the Chancellor and by all accounts If you were going to choose somebody to advise the Chancellor and the Treasury on a strategy for growth, he would almost certainly be your number one candidate.
He believes in rejoining the European Single Market and is a believer in the Creative Destruction branch of economics. The recent policies that are aimed at Businesses are intended to create more automation development rather than more employment along with massive technological investment in Green Energy and speeding up the closure of inefficient businesses.
This ties in with Slippery Ed’s portfolio and also Sir Kerr’s announcement on AI. The de facto leader of the party Tony Blair is well known for his beliefs in technological advancement replacing workers.
I think the party are heading for a massive fallout with the Unions
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,128
you do not get growth from simply increasing wages, at least not sustainable growth. you must invest, create infrastucture both public and private, that increased productivity and grows the whole economy. wage increases alone just lead to inflation spiral, more cash money chasing the same goods and services means prices rise. you need more goods and services produced. you're right simply easing domestic lending wont help much either.
Rdodge30
Well-known member
- Dec 30, 2022
- 928
Cynically I think the wage increases are more about putting extreme pressure on businesses than about looking after workers.
Tony Blair’s economic reset is about inefficiency of staff being replaced by technology and automation.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
A lot of the energy companies are offering help to older people. Octopus, for example, are offering a standing charge holiday in the winter months, so it evens things out a little.
Martin Lewis also has tips like it being cheaper to warm the person rather than the house.
As a pensioner, the very last thing I would do is get a credit card to pay bills. That is ludicrous.
- Oct 12, 2022
- 2,879
I’m sorry, but increasing wages is a huge part of increasing demand. It’s the quickest and simplest mechanism to unleash growth in this country.
People are being hamstrung by their housing and energy costs. Yes, if you keep increasing wages ad-infinitum it can become an inflationary spiral, but I can promise you that if there was a national across the board jump in wages tomorrow, it would unleash a lot of pent-up demand that’s being held back by basic affordability.
Discretionary spending (eg restaurants) home improvements (tradespeople) there’d be an uptick in almost every sector. You can’t impoverish your country into growth, and to try to do so via relaxed debt rules is foolish in the extreme. You get a short-term burst of increased growth followed by a 3-5 year slowdown in demand as people pay off the debt they’ve got themselves into.
I notice the BBC carefully doesn't give her full name. Given that previous stories have been immediately debunked - like that chap who was a rolls royce executive and on a large miltary pension, and the one with the £1000 watch etc.
It is also a little unlikely that you would need a credit card AND an overdraft AND a credit account to replace £200. One, maybe - but all three?
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
That's it, I'm not paying my Licence anymore.
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,757
The simplest way to clarify these issues is to publish some budgets, as I frequently ask re. food bank threads. If we can see a case study of how much income a pensioner gets and what they are spending it on, we will have a better idea of whether they really are struggling, or whether the basic state pension is enough for comfortable living.
darkwolf666
Well-known member
The basic state pension will never make you "comfortable". It's fairly well accepted that the state pension is too low for that. However, these ridiculous examples they keep dredging up of 66 year olds who can't make ends meet without their £200 WFA, are quite frankly ridiculous, at best, or lies at the worst.