What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?
biffvernon wrote:So Osborne wants massive cuts in government spending because:
a) he thinks the economy is going to shrink massively and government spending must shrink in step, or
b) he is going for the neo-liberal economic agenda on steroids and wants the government to be involved in a much smaller proportion of the economy.
Either way, Keynes must be spinning in his grave.
Osborne & Co are currently running on ideological overdrive and with no real opposition to speak of for the foreseeable future, will continue to introduce a set of austerity measures which are guaranteed to bring real hardship to an increasing number of folk at the bottom of the pile.
biffvernon wrote:So Osborne wants massive cuts in government spending because:
a) he thinks the economy is going to shrink massively and government spending must shrink in step, or
b) he is going for the neo-liberal economic agenda on steroids and wants the government to be involved in a much smaller proportion of the economy.
Either way, Keynes must be spinning in his grave.
What are your calculations that drive you to these conclusions. I don't agree with the current government position, but I would suggest there has to be some numerical model behind any critique of the government's position (which is supported by a numerical model - a model that takes into account the fact that government spending can increase economic activity the first derivative of which by time is called growth).
No calculations involved. Numbers can be inserted after the policy is decided, just to fill in the details.
If not a) or b) then what?
c) The canny Osborne, realising that infinite growth on a finite planet could become tricky and realising that global warming is the existential issue for humanity, hes set us on a course of degrowth, disguised as neo-liberalism?
Looks at public expenditure as a proportion of GDP. 18-19 is 37% and 19-20 is 36.3%. This is higher than forecast in March, but also higher than under the Blair Labour Government in 99-0 and 2000-1.
It is important to note that organisations like the OBR, IMF, ECB etc try to use the best available approaches to forecasting to make a good estimate as to what is likely to happen.
Varoufakis style handwaving cannot compete in terms of intellectual rigour with this.
I am unhappy with a number of the changes from the Conservative government including making Graduates pay more for education (what they actually pay, not what the government pays). However, any critique should have an arguable basis. I do start worrying at the 37-36% level of GDP and would be happier with higher rates.
Last edited by johnhemming2 on 21 Jul 2015, 20:23, edited 1 time in total.
As an issue depletion is taken into account in forecasting for North Sea Oil, but not the wider depletion issues which will affect BAU at some stage. There is an assumption that something will turn up.
Last edited by johnhemming2 on 21 Jul 2015, 20:26, edited 1 time in total.
Looks at public expenditure as a proportion of GDP. 18-19 is 37% and 19-20 is 36.3%.
but the Wikipedia page you linked to puts it at 48%?
Whereas...
I prefer handwaving. One can concentrate on principle rather than being distracted over numbers, but, as I may have mentioned before, Varoufakis is a statistician. I expect he only waves his hands when he thinks his audience is innumerate.
Looking at the bar-chart and mentally superimposing periods of Labour and Tory rule, one might think that Labour thinks Government should have a larger role while the Tories would shrink the state.
(Of course it's anybody's guess as to where the bunch still sometimes known as Labour would lead us now, given half a chance.)
The figure varies from year to year. I have given a link to PESA and the OBR document. Those are used as sources for other reports.
If you are arguing about the question of a "small state" that can only be worked out on the basis of the amount of public spending as a proportion of GDP. 48.% is obviously quite high. 35% is not small.
Your chart has 9-10 at about 48%. I don't know what year the wikipedia page value comes from.
In part this is why there is such a disconnect between government and the public. The Westminster Bubble often does not go back to source and has a debate about finance not really connected to reality. If the media debate looked more precisely at the truth, and the figures give a good guide to that, then people would understand better what is going on.
biffvernon wrote:Looking at the bar-chart and mentally superimposing periods of Labour and Tory rule, one might think that Labour thinks Government should have a larger role while the Tories would shrink the state.
(Of course it's anybody's guess as to where the bunch still sometimes known as Labour would lead us now, given half a chance.)
johnhemming2 wrote:I don't know what year the wikipedia page value comes from.
It was your link! And it says:
This is a list of countries by government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) for the listed countries, according to the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal.
No I gave additional information from Wikipedia. It appears that Wikipedia were out for some reason or other. It still gives an indication of the range of public spending as a proportion of GDP.
Your argument is that the government is proposing a "small state". Although it may be smaller than I personally would go for it is not a small state as a proportion of GDP in comparison to global figures.
Ok, so you supported your position with a link which you now think is wrong. Love it.