He did not win the Nobel Prize for nothing

[Coito ergo sum]

As you can see, growth peaked in 2010 Q2, before Osborne's austerity budget, before GDP shrank by 0.6% in Q4 [Office for National Statistics, 2011]. As for unemployment, for the population 16 and over unemployment went from 7.8% (Nov-Jan), to 7.9% (Feb-Apr) back to 7.8% (May-Jul) during 2010 before moving back up through 7.9% to 8% from Aug-Jan (2010-2011), following the emergency budget. Figures are similar excluding those over-64, with unemployment remaining static through Feb-Jul (8%) before moving through 8.1% to 8.2% during Aug-Jan.

Figures are particularly striking when focusing on the male workforce, with unemployment dropping from 8.9% to 8.5% during May-Jul, before rising again through 8.6% to 8.7% for Nov-Jan (including over-64s). Excluding over-64s, unemployment fell by 0.4% between May and July before again jumping 0.2% during Nov-Jan.

In all cases, unemployment has risen - often after falling - following the austerity budget. Again figures are sourced from the Office for National Statistics: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=192 and at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/P ... ?vlnk=8272 (Unemployment by age and duration)

Except that they only just announced the austerity measures in 10/2010 - fourth quarter, and they wouldn't have taken effect at all until at least the first quarter of 2011 - the one that we are still in. The purpose of the austerity measure is to, as I understand it, reduce Britain's public debt from a massive and ultimately unsustainable 11 percent of gross domestic product to 2 percent by 2015. It raises taxes, cuts government spending and cuts about 500,000 public sector jobs. The idea is for the government to save $130 billion dollars, and shift the burden of job creation to the private sector.

The rise in VAT sales tax didn't take effect until January 2011. The bank balance sheet levy didn't come into effect until January 2011. The cutting of child benefits for parents making over 44,000 pounds a year ($70,000) won't take effect until 2013. The rise in payroll taxes for employees will not take effect until next month, April, 2011. And cutting relief to high-earning pensioners won't take effect until at least this year, if not later. And, they announced the intention, in October 2010, to abolish, merge or reform 481 semi-independent state agencies (quangos) and cut a lot of government jobs, but they haven't followed through on that yet.

The plans to cut departmental budgets by 83 billion pounds and achieve the rest of the tightening through tax increases haven't gone into effect.

[egbert]

I didn't know that the Nobel Prize folks had a category "Nobel Prize for Nothing" - must be a new one!
So, if Henry Kissinger, biggest mass murderer of the 21st century, can get the Nobel Peace Prize, I don't see why I shouldn't get the "Nobel Prize for Nothing." Could someone please nominate me?

[DRSB]

CES:

What we need is less energy, so that people will live greener, more local, and more more sustainable individual lifestyles - small family farms, fertilized with renewable human-sourced fertilizer.

"Why A.D. 2011 beats 100,000 B.C.: More choices, free will, freedom"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2011-01-03

[DRSB]

I didn't know that the Nobel Prize folks had a category "Nobel Prize for Nothing" - must be a new one!
So, if Henry Kissinger, biggest mass murderer of the 21st century, can get the Nobel Peace Prize, I don't see why I shouldn't get the "Nobel Prize for Nothing." Could someone please nominate me?

What did he win the Nobel Prize for? I'm sure it wasn't nothing.

[egbert]

I didn't know that the Nobel Prize folks had a category "Nobel Prize for Nothing" - must be a new one!
So, if Henry Kissinger, biggest mass murderer of the 21st century, can get the Nobel Peace Prize, I don't see why I shouldn't get the "Nobel Prize for Nothing." Could someone please nominate me?

What did he win the Nobel Prize for? I'm sure it wasn't nothing.

I dunno. Not even sure who "He" was.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES:

What we need is less energy, so that people will live greener, more local, and more more sustainable individual lifestyles - small family farms, fertilized with renewable human-sourced fertilizer.

"Why A.D. 2011 beats 100,000 B.C.: More choices, free will, freedom"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2011-01-03

I was being ironical.

The point is, the same folks lauding the "stimulus" measures also seem to be the same folks who lambaste industry and manufacturing. However, it is industry and manufacturing that sustain a vibrant economy of the kind we have. If the stimulus stimulates service industries and boondoggles, then it's a wasteful temporary band-aid. I am not opposed to all stimulus and government expenditures - I just wish it wasn't enacted in the same manner as someone throwing handfuls of mud against a wall to see what sticks. I would support heavy industry and high technology - spend money that will create careers, not "jobs." The space industry is one - let's do an aggressive manned program and double up our unnmanned missions to give jobs to scientists and add demand for industrial computer technology, robotics, superconducter technology, and high tech research and development, as well as hard sciences, together with all the support and service industries necessary to maintain such an industry. Let's aggressively develop safe nuclear power, and employ more engineers and scientists and physicists, together with all support industries. Let's support aerospace and aviation the same way. Fixing a rusty bridge is not going to "stimulate the economy" - creating vibrant industries will.

[.Morticia.]

How is that vibrant industry going to ship their goods if they don't have a bridge?

Further, what is the purpose of the economy if not to provide for the needs of the community?

If so, then surely our priorities should reflect this.

On that same note, I'm sick of the bleating by politicians about family values. They can shut up or put the money where their mouth is .

and I don't mean up the butts of corporations

[DRSB]

I didn't know that the Nobel Prize folks had a category "Nobel Prize for Nothing" - must be a new one!
So, if Henry Kissinger, biggest mass murderer of the 21st century, can get the Nobel Peace Prize, I don't see why I shouldn't get the "Nobel Prize for Nothing." Could someone please nominate me?

What did he win the Nobel Prize for? I'm sure it wasn't nothing.

I dunno. Not even sure who "He" was.

Paul Krugman, has a regular column on NYTimes. With a Nobel Prize for economics under your belt, I reckon, you can write whatever you want about economics.

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't know that the Nobel Prize folks had a category "Nobel Prize for Nothing" - must be a new one!
So, if Henry Kissinger, biggest mass murderer of the 21st century, can get the Nobel Peace Prize, I don't see why I shouldn't get the "Nobel Prize for Nothing." Could someone please nominate me?

What did he win the Nobel Prize for? I'm sure it wasn't nothing.

I dunno. Not even sure who "He" was.

Paul Krugman, has a regular column on NYTimes. With a Nobel Prize for economics under your belt, I reckon, you can write whatever you want about economics.

Krugman has a Nobel Prize for economics.

Obama has a Nobel Price for Peace.

Kofi Anan won one...

Yassir Arafat won one...

Henry Kissinger...

Mother Theresa....

[DRSB]

Jimmy Carter's is well deserved though, now this is one true peace-maker.

[Coito ergo sum]

The funniest thing about the protests against government austerity is that some of the most vocal and vociferous groups involved in the protests are the anarchists. Anarchists...protesting a reduction in government....

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

As you can see, growth peaked in 2010 Q2, before Osborne's austerity budget, before GDP shrank by 0.6% in Q4 [Office for National Statistics, 2011]. As for unemployment, for the population 16 and over unemployment went from 7.8% (Nov-Jan), to 7.9% (Feb-Apr) back to 7.8% (May-Jul) during 2010 before moving back up through 7.9% to 8% from Aug-Jan (2010-2011), following the emergency budget. Figures are similar excluding those over-64, with unemployment remaining static through Feb-Jul (8%) before moving through 8.1% to 8.2% during Aug-Jan.

Figures are particularly striking when focusing on the male workforce, with unemployment dropping from 8.9% to 8.5% during May-Jul, before rising again through 8.6% to 8.7% for Nov-Jan (including over-64s). Excluding over-64s, unemployment fell by 0.4% between May and July before again jumping 0.2% during Nov-Jan.

In all cases, unemployment has risen - often after falling - following the austerity budget. Again figures are sourced from the Office for National Statistics: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=192 and at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/P ... ?vlnk=8272 (Unemployment by age and duration)

Except that they only just announced the austerity measures in 10/2010 - fourth quarter, and they wouldn't have taken effect at all until at least the first quarter of 2011 - the one that we are still in. The purpose of the austerity measure is to, as I understand it, reduce Britain's public debt from a massive and ultimately unsustainable 11 percent of gross domestic product to 2 percent by 2015. It raises taxes, cuts government spending and cuts about 500,000 public sector jobs. The idea is for the government to save $130 billion dollars, and shift the burden of job creation to the private sector.

The rise in VAT sales tax didn't take effect until January 2011. The bank balance sheet levy didn't come into effect until January 2011. The cutting of child benefits for parents making over 44,000 pounds a year ($70,000) won't take effect until 2013. The rise in payroll taxes for employees will not take effect until next month, April, 2011. And cutting relief to high-earning pensioners won't take effect until at least this year, if not later. And, they announced the intention, in October 2010, to abolish, merge or reform 481 semi-independent state agencies (quangos) and cut a lot of government jobs, but they haven't followed through on that yet.

The plans to cut departmental budgets by 83 billion pounds and achieve the rest of the tightening through tax increases haven't gone into effect.

When a particular tax comes into effect is irrelevant - the budget is time-delayed to give businesses and government departments time to prepare for the changes - in one fashion, by making 'efficiencies savings' in a number of different ways, the effects of which are tangible and have lead to mass protest and outrage not just from the public sector, but also from a variety of research institutes and individual academics.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to outline an entire economic argument that has been going on here for months. Needless to say, this is not Greece or Portugal we are talking about. Britain has the resources and the capability to cut the deficit at a slower rate. The fact is that we lose more money to uncollected taxes and tax evasion each year than the government wants to cut from public expenditure (not to mention that this crisis is not the fault of the people who are actually being punished!) per year, and yet they continue to cut back on HMRC funding. This is a strategy that makes little political sense, very little economic sense and is stemming the recovery.

The only people who want the Tory austerity plan are the rich and the gullible - despite having the world's foremost majoritarian voting system the Conservatives still failed to get a majority in the Commons and won only 36.1% of the vote, compared to the combined 52% won by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who varied virtually nothing when it came to economic policy.

I'll make it clear - this is only happening because the Lib Dems didn't want to be seen to be propping up Gordon Brown, to hell with the consequences of siding with the Tories. The people didn't vote for this and the government have no mandate to enforce it. It's as undemocratic as it is ill-advised.

[Coito ergo sum]

[
When a particular tax comes into effect is irrelevant -

The increased taxes are part of the austerity measures, and I also pointed out that major portions of the cut-backs either didn't start until January of this year or haven't even started yet.

the budget is time-delayed to give businesses and government departments time to prepare for the changes

Exactly. So the changes haven't taken effect, in large part, yet.

- in one fashion, by making 'efficiencies savings' in a number of different ways, the effects of which are tangible and have lead to mass protest and outrage not just from the public sector, but also from a variety of research institutes and individual academics.

Of course, and it's not surprising. The sooner they get to protesting, the better chance they have of stopping the effort in its tracks.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to outline an entire economic argument that has been going on here for months. Needless to say, this is not Greece or Portugal we are talking about. Britain has the resources and the capability to cut the deficit at a slower rate. The fact is that we lose more money to uncollected taxes and tax evasion each year than the government wants to cut from public expenditure (not to mention that this crisis is not the fault of the people who are actually being punished!) per year, and yet they continue to cut back on HMRC funding. This is a strategy that makes little political sense, very little economic sense and is stemming the recovery.

I agree it makes little political sense (in the short term) but IMHO it makes all the economic sense in the world.

The basic premise behind continuing or increasing public sector spending during a downturn like this is that the economy will be encouraged to turn around and grow, so as to pay back later what is being borrowed now. It was like the unprecedented expansion in the 1990s when the US got to a budget surplus. It's because industry, particularly the tech industry, was raging and taxes were being paid on windfall profit by the hundreds of billions.

The thing is, right now, there isn't anything looming on the horizon that makes me think that increased government expenditures now will cause there to be massive increases in revenue later. If I'm right, then massive government spending now will simply drive countries into greater and greater debt and the reality is that there is, in fact, a limit.

The only people who want the Tory austerity plan are the rich and the gullible

That's not true. You're engaging in the usual "those who don't agree with me must either be evil or stupid" routine. There is another option. People can hold informed, legitimate opinions that differ from yours.

- despite having the world's foremost majoritarian voting system the Conservatives still failed to get a majority in the Commons and won only 36.1% of the vote, compared to the combined 52% won by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who varied virtually nothing when it came to economic policy.

So?

I'll make it clear - this is only happening because the Lib Dems didn't want to be seen to be propping up Gordon Brown, to hell with the consequences of siding with the Tories. The people didn't vote for this and the government have no mandate to enforce it. It's as undemocratic as it is ill-advised.

[/quote]

Well, then lodge a motion of no confidence. Gordon Brown is gone. If the opposition really thinks the Tories have it wrong, then they have the means to bring down the Tory government. I don't see as how it is "undemocratic" though - the Parliament makes laws and creates your executive agencies and whatnot - they aren't normally up for popular vote.