The problem with David Blanchflower as an economist

D_Blanchflower David Blanchflower

by RichardJMurphy
Economic growth comes from bank lending or government spending. Osborne\’s plan provides neither. His change in rhetoric is telling…
Economic growth comes from moving an asset or resource from a lower valued use to a higher valued one.
Which can be done with the aid of bank lending, sure. And venture capital, equity investment, angels, credit cards and digging around down the back of the sofa. In fact, it can be done without any financing method at all.
Did we seriously ever have an economist at the BoE who thinks that only government spending or bank lending can produce economic growth?

5 comments on “The problem with David Blanchflower as an economist

  1. or indeed from turning a flow of inputs (like worker effort) into an asset.

    maybe he’s constrained by tweet word count and meant to say: growth requires either private or public sector financing

  2. He is insane. Unfortunately the lunatics seem to be running the asylum.

    All economic growth ultimately comes from technological progress making it easier to produce more goods or new ones.

    In 1920s Germany the ultimate test of the theory was done when they printed ebormous amounts – none of it enabled the German economy to expand let alone to get them all to buy mobile phones & video recorders.

  3. Checking I see david Blanchflower really is an economist, or at least paid for being one. I feel no need to modify my previous comment.

  4. If a farmer sets aside more barley seed from one harvest, instead of turning it into beer, and plants an extra acre of barley in the autumn, then he can reap more barley next summer. This leads to quite literal economic growth.
    Economic growth comes from *saving* and *investing* not from borrowing or printing money.
    [I do accept that technological progress can help]

  5. Balls claims to be an Economist too, and look at the utter shambolic mess he and Brown created.
    Liebour should have been taken outside and quietly shot. We’d have all been several hundred billion better off too.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.