Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Is Britain stuffed? Report on economy

  1. #1
    Trusted Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    12,185

    Default Is Britain stuffed? Report on economy


  2. #2

    Default

    Wow that is shocking!
    How low does the BNP have to go before the Gri££otards see it?

  3. #3
    Trusted Member LogicAndFairness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Reality
    Posts
    9,172

    Default

    The mulitiracialism and low White birth rate mean that civilisation itself will collapse here. The balance has tipped from people who want to cooperate as they feel bound to one another, to people who are in individual competition and only want to do what immediately benefits themselves while regarding others with cynicism.
    You're like so totally whatever!

  4. #4
    Trusted Member LogicAndFairness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Reality
    Posts
    9,172

    Default

    Previous research has shown that students who take economics classes are more likely to describe greed as good. Pairing ethics courses with economics may be beneficial, Piff said.

    “It might be as simple as not only stressing individual performance, but the value of cooperation and improving the welfare of others,” he said. “That goes a long way.”
    In the research reported yesterday, the experiments suggest at least some wealthier people “perceive greed as positive and beneficial,” probably as a result of education, personal independence and the resources they have to deal with potentially negative consequences, the authors wrote.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...hers-find.html
    An attitude nurtured by genetic diversity in a population.
    You're like so totally whatever!

  5. #5
    Trusted Member Endangered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    7,655

    Default

    "Britain’s fiscal and economic problems
    result from grotesque mishandling
    of the economy under the 1997-
    2010 Labour administration. Gordon
    Brown’s reform of the financial
    regulatory system, and his insistence
    that the Bank of England determine
    monetary policy on the basis of retail
    inflation alone, resulted in a reckless
    escalation in mortgage lending.
    The ensuing property price boom
    spurred unsustainable growth in a
    plethora of housing-related sectors,
    and underwrote a rapid expansion
    in consumer borrowing. Believing
    that this bubble was real growth,
    Brown spent up to, and beyond, the
    apparent expansion in the tax base
    that had resulted from the propertydriven
    boom. Real public spending
    increased by 53% in a period in which
    the economy expanded by just 17%.
    As soon as the bubble burst, a chasm
    rapidly opened up between excessive
    spending and falling tax revenues.
    In addition to skewing the economy
    towards debt and public spending,
    Brown and his colleagues imposed
    ever-increasing regulatory and
    fiscal burdens on business, and
    simultaneously transferred resources
    from private industry into a public
    sector whose productivity was subject
    to continuous decline. This weakened
    the overall productivity of the
    British economy.

    Labour’s period in office was
    characterised not just by economic
    and fiscal mismanagement but also
    by the promotion of a culture of moral
    absolutism centred around spurious
    and selective concepts of ‘fairness’.
    This culture, and the accompanying
    sense of individual and collective
    entitlement
    , is the biggest obstacle in
    the way of effective economic reform.
    "



  6. #6
    Trusted Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    12,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Endangered View Post
    "Britain’s fiscal and economic problems
    result from grotesque mishandling
    of the economy under the 1997-
    2010 Labour administration. Gordon
    Brown’s reform of the financial
    regulatory system, and his insistence
    that the Bank of England determine
    monetary policy on the basis of retail
    inflation alone, resulted in a reckless
    escalation in mortgage lending.
    The ensuing property price boom
    spurred unsustainable growth in a
    plethora of housing-related sectors,
    and underwrote a rapid expansion
    in consumer borrowing. Believing
    that this bubble was real growth,
    Brown spent up to, and beyond, the
    apparent expansion in the tax base
    that had resulted from the propertydriven
    boom. Real public spending
    increased by 53% in a period in which
    the economy expanded by just 17%.
    As soon as the bubble burst, a chasm
    rapidly opened up between excessive
    spending and falling tax revenues.
    In addition to skewing the economy
    towards debt and public spending,
    Brown and his colleagues imposed
    ever-increasing regulatory and
    fiscal burdens on business, and
    simultaneously transferred resources
    from private industry into a public
    sector whose productivity was subject
    to continuous decline. This weakened
    the overall productivity of the
    British economy.

    Labour’s period in office was
    characterised not just by economic
    and fiscal mismanagement but also
    by the promotion of a culture of moral
    absolutism centred around spurious
    and selective concepts of ‘fairness’.
    This culture, and the accompanying
    sense of individual and collective
    entitlement
    , is the biggest obstacle in
    the way of effective economic reform.
    "
    Beat me to it quoting that section!

  7. #7
    Trusted Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    12,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LogicAndFairness View Post
    The mulitiracialism and low White birth rate mean that civilisation itself will collapse here. The balance has tipped from people who want to cooperate as they feel bound to one another, to people who are in individual competition and only want to do what immediately benefits themselves while regarding others with cynicism.
    Short-termism prevails for individuals and government. It's like the party at the end of Downfall.

  8. #8
    Trusted Member Endangered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    7,655

    Default

    Just been doing a little browsing on the author of the original pdf, Dr Tim Morgan, and found this from 2010:

    http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2...by-tim-morgan/

    According to conventional analysis, Britain now has
    its first coalition administration since 1945, but,
    in one sense at least, all political parties, and
    hence all governments, are coalitions. This is
    certainly true of Labour. The party was founded
    as the political wing of a labour movement of which
    the trades unions were the industrial wing, and of
    which the objective was the betterment of the living
    conditions of what was then an identifiable and
    largely homogenous working class
    .

    But, as social change has altered the economic
    dynamic of the UK, so this relatively straightforward
    value-set has been complicated almost out of
    recognition
    – for a start, who exactly are today’s
    ‘British working class’?

    Along the way, Labour’s original core has attracted
    a constellation of interest groups, to some of whom
    (such as pacifists, and the various libertarian
    groupings), many of the policies of Blair and Brown
    were anathema.

    The leadership contest has illustrated some at least
    of the tensions within the left coalition led by
    Labour. Some luminaries have insisted that the party
    must adhere to the ‘New Labour agenda’ (popularly
    associated with Blair and Peter Mandelson), while
    others counter that Labour should, instead, renew
    its connection with its core support base.

    Though I think that Labour needs to develop a wholly
    new philosophy, advocates of the ‘core support’ view
    have a good point, whereas the New Labour philosophy
    is a proven failure and is dead in the water
    . The
    greatest single criticism of the New Labour
    administration lies in the extent to which it
    betrayed and alienated natural Labour supporters by
    turning its back on the party’s history, principles
    and objectives.


    I'm fairly sure that labour will romp home next GE but I don't think Milliband will follow a single word of Morgan's advice. They will continue with the 'new labour' agenda.

    Amongst these failings, arguably the most serious
    was an excessive devotion to unfettered free
    markets. When Labour stalwarts complained that
    Tony Blair and his team were ‘more Tory than the
    Conservatives’, they were bang on target.
    Far
    from reversing two of the key trends of the
    Thatcher era – deregulation and privatisation –
    New Labour accelerated both. The guiding philosophy
    was that the financial services industries,
    liberated to prosper, would pay for a new welfare
    state. It was a disastrous miscalculation, in
    that it failed to understand the ultimately
    destructive, bubble-building nature of unfettered
    market liberalism.
    Last edited by Endangered; 06-03-2012 at 05:54 PM.



  9. #9
    Trusted Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    12,185

    Default

    The high price of moral absolutism

    If the Labour administration failed
    on two of its stated aims – economic
    competence and ethical foreign
    relations – then it succeeded, rather
    horrifically, on the third, which was to
    change ‘hearts and minds’.
    Perhaps the most intractable part
    of Britain’s economic problem is the
    mind-set engendered by Labour.
    This mind-set, which is a compound
    of entitlement (both personal and
    national), financial irresponsibility and
    spurious moral absolutism, makes it
    difficult for the public to perceive the
    nature of the national problem, let
    alone resolve it.
    Not since the days of William
    Gladstone has a government come
    to power with a greater sense of moral
    fervour, and it is at least arguable that
    Tony Blair and (in particular) Gordon
    Brown were even more prone than ‘the
    Grand Old Man’ to treat the despatch
    box as a pulpit. The essential difference
    between Gladstone and New Labour,
    however, was that Blair and Brown
    peddled an essentially secular moral
    absolutism, albeit with at times a
    distinctly nonconformist flavour.
    A selective concept of ‘fairness’ was
    at the very heart of Labour’s secular
    theology, so much so that an entire
    chapter of the 2009 budget was
    entitled “helping people fairly” (when
    helping them effectively might have
    been a much better idea).
    The problem with this was (and is)
    that ‘fairness’ is an extraordinarily
    vague concept, one to which everyone
    can subscribe and then interpret as
    suits them best. For example, a rich
    person might argue that fairness
    involves every working person paying
    the same amount of tax, or at any rate
    paying the same percentage of his or
    her income, whilst a person on a low
    income might believe that the system
    should take far more from the better
    off. The reality is that, beyond basic
    rights as outlined in documents as
    varied as the American Constitution
    and the European Convention on
    Human Rights, there are very few
    moral absolutes in a secular society.
    Labour’s solution simply was to
    declare ‘ex-cathedra’ principles and to
    demonise those who had the temerity
    to disagree.
    Even by its own standards, Labour’s
    secular morality was full of holes.
    Where, critics asked, was the ‘fairness’
    in plundering private pension
    schemes, piling gigantic debts onto
    future generations, or invading
    Iraq? Where was the ‘fairness’
    in imposing rigid uniformity on
    everyone, banning minority activities
    (such as fox-hunting), leaving the
    income tax threshold a long way
    below the minimum wage, enforcing
    multiculturalism as a secular religion
    which no-one was allowed even to
    question on pain of arrest, or granting
    national and local government ever
    greater coercive and surveillance
    powers over individuals?
    Labour’s creed of moral absolutism
    had multiple negative spin-offs. But
    from a purely economic perspective,
    Labour pursued disastrous policies
    (such as ‘light touch’ deregulation) to
    the point of recklessness because it
    believed that it had the moral inside track
    on all issues.

  10. #10
    Trusted Member Endangered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    7,655

    Default

    The U.K. Is Not O.K.

    Britain's 'austerity drive' really has been nothing of the
    sort when you look at the numbers (which we shall do
    in a moment), but somehow, in a brilliant piece of
    marketing, the coalition government have managed to
    talk tough whilst simultaneously bringing the UK’s
    Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR) to a little
    over 60% ABOVE where it was when they took office
    in May 2010.



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •