On 17 May 2017 at 9:54pm Sanderson wrote:
Richard Murphy says Labour has delivered a good manifesto for the U.K. 'They will, of course, claim that this is a suicide note from Labour. And they will say it will harm the economy. But neither is true. Government spending when the economy is stagnating at less than capacity is wholly rational. And if it increases the ratio of government spending to total economic activity than has been usual, so what? What we need is government spending on health, education, social care, education and so much more. We are clearly not wanting to spend more on what the private sector has to offer or we would be doing so. This manifesto does then, very clearly, deliver what the economy needs.'
Check it out here »
On 18 May 2017 at 12:28am Hooky wrote:
A small-time accountant who sidled up to Corbyn's leadership campaign, and now is the go-to opinion on his former pal.
On 18 May 2017 at 6:15am Newms wrote:
If economic debate were a game of football, spud Murphy would not be on the pitch, he would be the bloke in the chicken suit.
Top Economist bwaa ha ha hah ha ha....
On 18 May 2017 at 7:07am Chester Packov-Lyze wrote:
@Hooky Can you name *any* economists backing the last 7 years of austerity in this country ?
On 18 May 2017 at 8:29am Dripping Pan Stan wrote:
There are plenty of economists backing Brexit.
Patrick Minford, professor of applied economics.
Gerard Lyons, a former chief economist at Standard Chartered.
Roger Bootle, founder of Capital Economics.
You might want to take a look at this website for some more in-depth analysis of why they consider Brexit to be a good move for our economy.
Check it out here »
On 18 May 2017 at 8:31am Q wrote:
If we are stagnating at less than capacity while unemployment is at a forty year low and nett migration is 300k pa then how is it that Gordon Brown (who ran a deficit 100 billion more than the current) could not get unemployment so low. If government spending was always a virtuous circle then that man would be a saint. Whereas government spending on overmanning, overpaying both wages and contracts and future commitments has shown him to be a sinner.
On 18 May 2017 at 8:48am Clifford wrote:
Economics is not an objective and neutral science. There are differeing points of view that govern interpretation just as in politics. It is daft to pretend otherwise. Capitalist economists interpret in the bosses' favour, socialist economists in the workers' favour. The problem, as ever, is the forelock tugging tendency in the population that kowtows to their masters.
On 18 May 2017 at 10:28am Uh? wrote:
What has Brexit got to do with it Stan?
On 18 May 2017 at 1:16pm Tom Pain wrote:
Economics is not a science at all. It just depends on who is controlling the economy and since 2008 it's pretty obvious that they're not too interested in revealing the mechanics of their Ponzi scheme.
On 18 May 2017 at 2:07pm Buzzard wrote:
Tom Paine is right. There is nothing scientific about Economist. It doesn't use the scientific method, the assumptions of mainstream economics are absurd (like "everyone is rational"), and it has no predictive power. Its main statistic, GDP, is junk and it completely ignores any wealth production which is not done for money (which is probaly most of it) and ecosystems services (which are probably 10 or 100 times more valuabel than global GDP). Economics as taught and purveyed in media is basically just free market propaganda.