Interesting reading of the UK economy

One of the central motivations for austerity was the idea that our deficits and debts were so high as to inspire a lack of confidence in the economy. The narrative was always that we needed austerity to ‘bring the public finances under control’ – even as the government simultaneously cut corporation tax, inheritance tax and income tax for the highest earners. By making sharp public sector cuts, the government would restore confidence and the UK would move towards a swift recovery.

This is from the Progressive Economy Forum.

There are a couple of problems with it.

1) There were no public sector spending cuts. Spending is up in cash terms, in real terms and is still higher in %ge of GDP terms than it was in 2007. What sodding cuts?

2) The stimulative effect is the size of the deficit, not the amount of spending. Cutting taxes to increase the deficit is stimulatory itself.

Not a good evidentiary base to start from, is it?

Simon Wren Lewis has been klnown to insist that even so there has been austerity. His definition being any amount of spending less than the amount which would have entirely prevented the recession.

10 thoughts on “Interesting reading of the UK economy”

  1. A bunch of sad, failed people. Why should anyone take any notice of Pettifor, Wrong-Lewis, Captain Potato , Danny Dorling and the numpty of numpties, Joon-Chang? Their meetings must take hours just swapping the available brain cell around when it is their turn to expatiate without meaning

  2. Does the figure for “government spending net of transfer payments” get much of an outing anywhere? The figures reported in the telly and in the newspapers invariably seem to include pension and benefit spend, but that isn’t the “big G” in Z = C + I + G + NX that the textbooks go on about.

  3. Diogenes: re your assessment of the listed miscreants, admittedly not as concise a formulation as I’d have used – namely, “arrogant bunch of cunts” – but still “nicely” put.

  4. ‘Public health experts writing in the British Medical Journal have linked cuts to health and social care spending to 120,000 excess deaths.’

    Perhaps they can give us the names of a few of them. No? They are lying.

  5. The people claiming deaths never appear to know the number of deaths expected for the population demographic concerned.
    They tend to talk about ‘xxx deaths’ when not giving context – so you don’t know if the number of deaths is lower or higher than it should be.

    One additional death is not as worthy of headlines as a hundred thousand however.

  6. “One additional death is not as worthy of headlines as a hundred thousand however.”

    Disagree. The numbers are MADE UP. You can’t use math – numerical comparison – on made up numbers.

    A made up one !< made up hundred thousand.

  7. Gamecock – you can indeed use math – numerical comparison – on made up numbers.
    To show the gits up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *