Small human sufferings and UK government cuts

[Feck]

The common view among mainstream economists is that Roosevelt's New Deal policies either caused or accelerated the recovery, although his policies were never aggressive enough to bring the economy completely out of recession. Some economists have also called attention to the positive effects from expectations of reflation and rising nominal interest rates that Roosevelt's words and actions portended.[1][2] However, opposition from the new Conservative Coalition caused a rollback of the New Deal policies in early 1937, which caused a setback in the recovery.[3]

1 Gauti B. Eggertsson, "Great Expectations and the End of the Depression," American Economic Review 98, No. 4 (Sep 2008): 1476–1516;

2 Was the New Deal Contractionary?" Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report 264, Oct 2006, Eggertsson and Benjamin Pugsley "The Mistake of 1937: A General Equilibrium Analysis," Monetary and Economic Studies 24, No. S-1 (Dec 2006), Boj.or.jp

3 William E. Leuchtenburg, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal (1963) p. 262-6

[Warren Dew]

I agree, but that is what rational thinking and willpower should be used for. We need to be on our guard against the xenophobic side of our tribal nature, but still embrace the compassionate side.

Both sides are irrational. The rational approach to compassion is not to make a big deal about it and try to force others to take care of it; it's to do as Seth suggests and voluntarily contribute one's own resources.

[Warren Dew]

The common view among mainstream economists is that Roosevelt's New Deal policies either caused or accelerated the recovery, although his policies were never aggressive enough to bring the economy completely out of recession.

Translation: "I'm preferentially citing the few economists that support my point of view." The truth is, there's no common view among economists about anything about the Great Depression. The more honest economists even admit that they have no clue how the Great Depression even happened.

The only thing that's quite clear is that it ended with the advent of WWII.

[Atheist-Lite]

The common view among mainstream economists is that Roosevelt's New Deal policies either caused or accelerated the recovery, although his policies were never aggressive enough to bring the economy completely out of recession.

Translation: "I'm preferentially citing the few economists that support my point of view." The truth is, there's no common view among economists about anything about the Great Depression. The more honest economists even admit that they have no clue how the Great Depression even happened.

The only thing that's quite clear is that it ended with the advent of WWII.

Economics needs to be thrown off the table like astrology. Treat Homo sapiens has a species rather than a utility maximiser.

[Rum]

The OP was about the human aspect. The arguments, so far between right and left seem to me to ignore the human aspect and rather to be about the egos of the people who hold the views in question. Perhaps that is what politics is about, in which case it explains rather a lot.

[Seth]

The common view among mainstream economists is that Roosevelt's New Deal policies either caused or accelerated the recovery, although his policies were never aggressive enough to bring the economy completely out of recession.

You mean the common view among left-wing academics who have no intention of revealing the feet of clay of their Progressive idol.

[Seth]

The OP was about the human aspect. The arguments, so far between right and left seem to me to ignore the human aspect and rather to be about the egos of the people who hold the views in question. Perhaps that is what politics is about, in which case it explains rather a lot.

What are we to reflect upon when it comes to the human aspect except that those who suffer from socialism suffer largely because they are either too ideologically blind or too ignorant to understand the inevitable course of socialism?

Is it sad that soon-to-be-unemployed government functionaries are upset about losing their publicly-funded sinecure? Perhaps. Or perhaps this is a sterling opportunity for them to become actual productive citizens rather than leeches on the public teat. No one who works for a government agency should ever consider that their job is a permanent one, because the needs of the public, and what they are willing to pay for, varies widely over time.

So, should we sympathize with those who foolishly thought that the gravy train would never end, or should we simply welcome them to the reality that most everyone else has been facing all along?

[mistermack]

Seth, just to prove you're not a troll, can you say what country is a model for your economic wisdom? There must be one, if it's so wonderful.

Sure, the northern sections of the United States of America, from 1776 to about 1912, absent the unfortunate interlude of the Civil War, when the Progressive cancer took root. There was a sweet spot in the 1920's as well, when Harding and Coolidge were in charge. They cut the size of the federal government in half, got rid of meddlesome regulations and agencies, and the economy boomed. That's why they called it the "Roaring 20's."

You haven't got a fuckin clue have you? You quote the hundred years when they were opening up "free" land, ie, stealing it from it's rightful owners. And importing millions of desperate cheap labour. (including black slaves). What fuckin planet are you on?
And your "sweet spot" was when the speculative bubble was growing, in preparation for the wall st. crash and depression.
You really do have a keen financial brain, don't you?

[JimC]

The OP was about the human aspect. The arguments, so far between right and left seem to me to ignore the human aspect and rather to be about the egos of the people who hold the views in question. Perhaps that is what politics is about, in which case it explains rather a lot.

What are we to reflect upon when it comes to the human aspect except that those who suffer from socialism suffer largely because they are either too ideologically blind or too ignorant to understand the inevitable course of socialism?

Is it sad that soon-to-be-unemployed government functionaries are upset about losing their publicly-funded sinecure? Perhaps. Or perhaps this is a sterling opportunity for them to become actual productive citizens rather than leeches on the public teat. No one who works for a government agency should ever consider that their job is a permanent one, because the needs of the public, and what they are willing to pay for, varies widely over time.

So, should we sympathize with those who foolishly thought that the gravy train would never end, or should we simply welcome them to the reality that most everyone else has been facing all along?

What an appalling thing to say about people who have been employed to work assiduously to help those in society in real needs; the people Rum works with are in the front line of social services, a difficult, demanding job at the best of times. We are not talking here about public servants in cushy office jobs, writing pointless memos and minutes of committee meetings. You obviously have no fucking idea what you are talking about in this context!

[Rum]

The OP was about the human aspect. The arguments, so far between right and left seem to me to ignore the human aspect and rather to be about the egos of the people who hold the views in question. Perhaps that is what politics is about, in which case it explains rather a lot.

What are we to reflect upon when it comes to the human aspect except that those who suffer from socialism suffer largely because they are either too ideologically blind or too ignorant to understand the inevitable course of socialism?

Is it sad that soon-to-be-unemployed government functionaries are upset about losing their publicly-funded sinecure? Perhaps. Or perhaps this is a sterling opportunity for them to become actual productive citizens rather than leeches on the public teat. No one who works for a government agency should ever consider that their job is a permanent one, because the needs of the public, and what they are willing to pay for, varies widely over time.

So, should we sympathize with those who foolishly thought that the gravy train would never end, or should we simply welcome them to the reality that most everyone else has been facing all along?

What an appalling thing to say about people who have been employed to work assiduously to help those in society in real needs; the people Rum works with are in the front line of social services, a difficult, demanding job at the best of times. We are not talking here about public servants in cushy office jobs, writing pointless memos and minutes of committee meetings. You obviously have no fucking idea what you are talking about in this context!

Well said Jim. People, especially those for whom it is ideologically convenient, often overlook that at some point the 'publicly funded sinecures' were established because government legislation as agreed following democratic elections, require them. Sure there is waste and inefficiency, and there is (until now) room to get rid of it. But the UK is facing approximately 25% cuts in all public expenditure and that will mean that some things, set up to support and protect the more vulnerable members of society will simply not happen.

I am waiting f the first few dramatic headlines when someone falls through the net and the papers start looking for someone to blame. It will happen.

As I have said several times in this thread however, the point of the OP was the human element in all this. Seth would not be capable, I suspect, of appreciating that.

[Atheist-Lite]

Care should be within the extended family and there are huge dangers, from capaitalism and socialism, when they go beyond our natural biological limits.

[Feck]

The common view among mainstream economists is that Roosevelt's New Deal policies either caused or accelerated the recovery, although his policies were never aggressive enough to bring the economy completely out of recession.

Translation: "I'm preferentially citing the few economists that support my point of view." The truth is, there's no common view among economists about anything about the Great Depression. The more honest economists even admit that they have no clue how the Great Depression even happened.

The only thing that's quite clear is that it ended with the advent of WWII.

At least I preferentially cited a few economists rather than just Asserting my Political view that everything wrong with the economy is was ands always will those damn socialists

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

Capitalism would only work if we could trust business owners etc. to pay employees their fair share of their company's profits but we demonstrably cannot. I don't like to advocate throwbacks, but the centre-left consensus of post-WWII Britain is far preferable to the Thatcherite, centre-right consensus of today - at least in the 50's low unemployment and economic growth didn't seem to be mutually exclusive.

[devogue]

I was at the supermarket earlier today and bumped into a colleague from work. She manages the health and safety unit which covers all our schools, the department, covers CRB checks (criminal records) and stuff, and contrary to the public perception of 'helf and saftie, she is humorous, kind and flexible.

We are still waiting here for 'the letter' about whether or not we qualify for voluntary redundancy. It is now ten days overdue and literally thousands of people in my county council have no idea whether they will have a job in the next month or two.

In passing I said to this woman, who I like and admire very much, that I wasn't being sentimental about it all, but the fact that the government had ditched the agenda I have been focused on for the last 20 years was hard to take and left one questioning what the point of it all was.

She started to say that she *is* sentimental about it, but before she could finish she burst into tears.

On the grander scale of things a smallish matter, but the thousands around the country going through this are human beings with feelings. Perhaps politicians need reminding of this now and again.

Sorry to hear that, Rum. The human cost is pretty grim, regardless of the socio-economic reasons for the cuts.

And I want my children's schools to be as healthy and safe as possible, and I want ex-criminals to be vetted before getting jobs there. I would imagine that all my private sector chamber of commerce friends feel pretty much the same.

[Coito ergo sum]

Surely it was unregulated "capitalism" ie the actions taken by the deregulated banks that caused this recession? Don't get me wrong, i think free enterprise is essential but so is it's regulation. Just like some aspects of "socialism" are essential to a civilized society. It's creating a proper balance that is the tricky part, ideologues on either side are simply unrealistic.

...except, banks have hardly been deregulated.