BBC Blog Network

User Profile

chriss-w

Listed below are comments made by chriss-w between Monday, 12th October 2009 and Saturday, 31st October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Copenhagen's climate change battle 10:58am on 31 Oct 2009 I suppose it is inevitable that a discussion of the EU response to climate change has, quickly, become a mix of sniping at Brown, Blair et al; and arguments against the EU. Whatever else is achieved by getting rid of the current Government, or leaving the EU it will do nothing to address the issue of climate change.

Which only goes to show. Short term political considerations will always take pecedence over long term (imprecise and uncertain) threats. So, neither the EU nor the World will ever be able to agree to reduce emissions enough to make a difference: and sooner or later we will learn whether the doom-monger or the nay-sayers are right.
Blair's EU campaign hits a snag 09:48am on 28 Oct 2009 This whole issue is merely evidence of the ridiculous importance we attach to celebrities (as opposed to VIPs). Neither the post nor the candidate merit ouyr attention.

The post of EU-President will never be more than a figurehead. Can anyone imagine a UK Prime Minister (French President, German Chancellor or any national leader) allowing anyone to swan around the World committing them to anything? The power will vest where it always has - in a Committee of the Member States where the large Member States (especially Germany, France and the UK) hold most of the cards.

It's just another seat at the top table, and my bet is that that is what Mr Blair is missing.

As for his qualifications for the job, important people are important (and carry influence) because they wield power - the power of patronage, the power to dispense money, in short the power to make other people do what you want. As Prime Minister Mr Blair had this - as President of Europe he will not. The idea that his address book from the old days will give him the ability to influence events by virtue of some innate quality is nonsense.
Eighty years after Wall Street crashed, what did we learn? 10:26am on 25 Oct 2009 The historical parallels with 1929 and the Great Depression are striking; however, we are in a very different World in 2009, this is a different crash, and the policy reponse has been almost the exact opposite. So, there is no reason to assume that things will play out in exactly the same way.

That having been said, a crash is a crash and at bottom they are due to the fact that borrowing/debt becomes unsustainable relative to anticipated future income. To rebalance this equation, in one weay or another, two things need to happen. First, the level of debt has to be reduced - either through repayment or through write-offs. The level of anticipated future income needs to rise.

At present, we appear to have chosen not to reduce the debt. Rather we have transferred it from the private to the public sector which has become the borrower of last resort.

Logically therefore we can only get out of this mess by increasing the potential future income: and given that it is the government that is borrowing this means tax revenues: and increasing tax revenue means either tax increases or growth in the real economy. Whether tax increases yield more tax revenue will depend on the effect on the real economy - and in its current parlous state that should be a real concern.

If the real economy doesn't return to "real" (as opposed to QE) growth then these sums are not going to add up.

Then the choice of policy instrument today versus 1929 becomes irrelevant and the economy will find its own way to a new, depressed steady state by way of either inflation or contraction; or both.
First draft of UK economic history 11:03am on 23 Oct 2009 These data may be "below expectations" among those who have been seeing green shoots all over the place: but, as the graph in Hugh Pym's linked article shows, they are entirely consistent with the alternative prediction that we are in for a long period of stagnation.

It is interesting that the main fall in the services sector is in catering, hotels etc implying that consumers are cutting back on discretionary spending. In a sewrvice economy that is heavily dependent on this sector (and this spending) that should give pause for thought.

More evidence that the real economy is no going to be "talked up" by bullish predictions, bullishly reported.
Is all publicity good publicity? 09:49am on 21 Oct 2009 #9 Doctorbreezy

I'm nothing like as optimistic as you.

"A general election would end all this and give us a new start?" A new Government, almost certainly, but that, in itself, would do nothing to address the economic hole we've dug for ourselves. Any new Government will have to address these issues and the necessary measures are unlikely to lift the mood.

"The next depression?" We've not even started this one yet - wait until after the election.

"The BNP would recede?" The BNP is strengthened by the economic downturn because its ideology reaches out to the disaffected. It was ever thus - just look at Germany in the 1930s. Then read the economic commentators comparing the current recession with the 1930s.

If we do end up in a prolonged depression, double-dip recession, W-shaped depression (or whatever)then people will be looking for someone to blame. Step up the obvious scapegoats. Far, from receding, the nationalism visible in the BNP (where the focus is on race)and in UKIP (where the focus is on the EU) may come to dominate the political debate.
A sombre warning 08:44am on 21 Oct 2009
Given that the Glass-Steagall Act was only repealed in the 1990s it seems a bit much to claim that "it can't be done". It was done. So what has changed in the last ten years to make it impossible?

The answer, I suspect is that the casino banks have become dependent on their retail arms, and probably also the taxpayer guarantee that comes with them. To suggest that the banks are now to complex for this simple solution to work is, to my eye, special pleading (if not just blowing smoke).

As for the idea that this could only be done internationally. This looks like the result of more special pleading, if not threats, to decamp from London if the UK goes it alone.

More proof, if more proof were needed, that we are politically chained to the City of Londaon - and that our Regulators do not control the banks: the banks control them.
President of precisely what? 6:33pm on 19 Oct 2009 It's funny, reading the posts of MarcusAurelius I find myself in agreement with so much of his analysis (the sentence "There's much more to a society than numbers tallied in economists' and demographers' ledger books." is particularly resonant) and yet come to precisely the opposite conclusion.

The economists, who seek to measure everything by giving it a monetary value; and the demographers who reduce people to statistics, are shaping a society without human values (no soul if you'll allow). But then, that is not a uniquely European process - and it is no less dehumanising that a society based on the ruthless and competitive pursuit of money.

For my part, I see something of value in the European (including the UK) model in which the state provides a social infrastructure in terms of a basic standard of welfare, health case education etc. However, there is also a challenge to prevent this becoming an open ended (and ever more expensive) commitment - and to prevent people taking it all for granted (and dropping out of gainful employment).

Whether we can strike this balance will depend, far more on whether we can retain a sense of non-monetary "values" than it will on whether we can "afford" to provide the necessary services.

For the time being this is not looking too hopeful.
Dole queues fall across the West for the first time 2:55pm on 14 Oct 2009 Picking up from #1 and 2

You are probably correct that unemployment "in the West" is falling. The question is, why for the first time in my recollection was this local perspective thought newsworthy enough to feature on the News Home Page? And why was it sold under a banner: "Cash in the West:
Unemployment is falling, but there is little cheer".

The only credible answer is that it was intended to present as positive a spin as possible on the "less bad than expected" unemployment figures. One can only assume that there is an editorial policy to talk up anything that could be seen as a "green shoot".
What do women really want? 3:12pm on 12 Oct 2009
There are two irritating things about this research. First, the question which assumes that there is some absolute value to which everyone (all women) aspire. This is nonsense. Unless you are so remarkably lucky/wealthy that your every whim is catered for most life choices involve trade-offs and individuals trade according to individual wants.

Second, there is the assumption that the current state of affairs has been imposed on people against their will; and/or that it can be resolved by external action - ie that "they ought to do something about it", whoever "they" are. So far as I know no-one is stopping people giving up work if they want to: they just have to take the consequences in terms of reduced income. To ask someone, usually the Government (ie everyone else who is still in work), to pick up the tab doesn't seem to be a step towards a fairer society.
Asset sale: Deja vu? 2:49pm on 12 Oct 2009
I agree with all the above who say (a) that the lost income from assets like the Datford Tunnel; (b) the fact that any private investor will be looking to cut costs, and most likely lay off workers, leading to greater unemployment and public spending; and (c) sooner rather than later we'll see above inflation price increases on these services.

Pretty desperate if you ask me!

Now, perhaps someone could help me regarding the sale of the "student loan book". as I understand it these loans are at a preferential rate of interest and not repayable until the student begins to earn above a certain threshold.

Presumably these limitations reduce the commercial value of these loans significantly (unless the Government underwrites the difference?). More importantly, the people who buy the loan book will presumably put in place some sort of "debt collection agency" to chase people and check whether their earning exceed the threshold.

So, following the withdrawal of the grant system, the generation promised low interest loans from a benign government may suddenly find themselves exposed to the tender mercies of the debt collection industry.

That will be a significant disincentive to those interested in further education: particularly if you also consider the steady devaluation of the resulting qualification.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

chriss-w