Hulver's site || Economies are best run by

Economies are best run by

Economists	4 votes - 57 %
Non-economists	3 votes - 42 %

7 Total Votes

It is my belief, brother, that your misogyny is largely theoretical | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Chancellor being a hard job by jump the ladder (4.00 / 3) #1 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:36:37 AM EST

Well it seems at least for some former chancellors being Prime Minister is even harder :)

Well by R Mutt (4.00 / 1) #2 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 06:19:07 AM EST

Someone or other was saying that Gordon Brown's biggest problem as PM was that he doesn't have a strong chancellor to hold back spending, reassure the markets etc...

[ Parent ]

: Ands I thought his biggest problem by jump the ladder (4.00 / 2) #6 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 06:53:58 AM EST

Was he was a dour, uninspring geek with no clear ideas of what direction he wants to take the country now he's been overpromoted. Silly me :)

[ Parent ]

Write in by idiot boy (4.00 / 1) #3 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 06:26:50 AM EST

Let the blind forces of free market liberalism take us where they will.

: No by jump the ladder (4.00 / 2) #11 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:25:26 AM EST

I think a Soviet Stalinist style five year plan is the only answer. Off to the gulag for you slackers and a T34 in every driveway.

[ Parent ]

Will look for that book by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #4 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 06:33:19 AM EST

I do wonder though; out of all those who wrote for it and claimed that being an economist was not necessary to run the economy; would they expect the same lack of qualification from their heart surgeon?

Economics by jump the ladder (4.00 / 1) #5 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 06:51:30 AM EST

It's not a proper science to same extent as medicine is. You can easily find out who's a crap surgeon from their deathrate. You can't find out a crap economist so quickly or decisively.

So having an economist "running" the UK economy may not be any better than a reasonably intelliegent layman with good advice. Greenspan was a economist but he was partly responsible for the current credit crisis.

[ Parent ]

Sadly ego seems to take over by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #7 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 06:59:54 AM EST

There does seem to be a bit of "I am THA MAN!" mentality that creeps into Chancellors heads after a year or two of not fucking things up.

[ Parent ]

Erm by jump the ladder (4.00 / 1) #8 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:02:15 AM EST

So you wouldn't get that with an economist in the same position with the added difficulty that he thinks his theory is now proved and works in all circumstances?

[ Parent ]

Of course not! by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #10 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:23:52 AM EST

For different values of not, of course.

So what background would you consider good for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have?

[ Parent ]

: Intelliegent with some academic background by jump the ladder (4.00 / 2) #13 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:31:26 AM EST

But with some real life experience of business not necessarily running one or working in the City. Some of the better Labour Chancellors have had a trade union background in industry as opposed to in the public sector.

[ Parent ]

Well, no by DullTrev (4.00 / 2) #9 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:08:11 AM EST

Because, you see, one is a difficult job made more difficult by the lack of scientific rigour and dependable information, and the other is a strawman.

--
DFJ?
[ Parent ]

Why is it so hard? by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #12 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:27:24 AM EST

Possibly because incumbents have had no experience with anything like it before?

[ Parent ]

: It's hard to say whether they're right by R Mutt (4.00 / 3) #14 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:43:14 AM EST

On the one hand, when they get into specifics of where they disagreed with economists, I tend to agree with the economists. For instance, Geoffrey Howe cutting spending in the middle of a recession, making the recession worse. Also I think Nigel Lawson could have had a less inflationary policy in the late Eighties boom.
On the other hand, it seems to me that the more technical bits of the job are relatively easy to delegate, but the political aspects are not. A chancellor can easily ask one of the boffins "what will the happen to unemployment if I raise interest rates 2%?" without having to understand the mathematics or the model himself. But when it comes to sitting in a cabinet meeting and saying "Look you can only have your aircraft carrier if you give up your hospitals", the Chancellor needs to possess the political skills himself.

[ Parent ]

I don't really follow the UK economy . . . by slozo (4.00 / 1) #15 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:21:09 AM EST

. . . but this phrase jumped out at me as an outright lie and deception on the question of gold reserves:

"That's the obvious basis of reserves [basket of currencies with nations one does trade with], and I couldn't understand why we had gold." and even better, "Over the years it has been a declining non-performative asset and in my opinion is only held in the reserves of national banks for mystical, out-of-date reasons."

The English gold selling started in the summer of '99 or thereabouts, when gold was around $250 USD an ounce. Now it's well over 900 an ounce and the sky's the limit. I guess making money has become out-of-date! And any exchequer is well versed on why gold is/was held in reserves and the history of fractional banking, thus, one can only assume the statement is only meant to be misleading and duplicitous.

I think he's thinking in the longer term than that by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #17 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:33:55 AM EST

And it doesn't really make sense to hold your reserves in something whose price oscillates wildly. The purpose of reserves isn't to speculate on the markets.

[ Parent ]

But the market has been manipulated . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:43:13 AM EST

. . . by the governments selling it off. Gold has only oscillated wildly as you say (I'd love my investment to oscillate wildly upwards by 400% in 9 years, btw) when governments and large investors have meddled - and it is always for a purpose (making more money). Left to it's own devices, gold rises pretty steadily . . . it is a long term investment.

[ Parent ]

Hmm by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #19 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:50:20 AM EST

Didn't we have the same discussion a couple of years back on how US housing was always going to keep rising?

Look at this graph for instance. If you bought at the $850 high in 1980, you'd have been screwed for the next 20 years, especially when you account for inflation.

[ Parent ]

Well, it might not have been me . . . by slozo (4.00 / 1) #20 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:09:27 AM EST

. . . but you do have a point - there are peaks and valleys. What you point to, however, is a gold high that was artificially manipulated by federal reserve banks themselves, in order to sell high. When they actually did sell (after they pushed the price up with rumours to sell, coupled with an artificially constructed oil price spike), of course the price was put back down to earth.

Without getting into a long discussion on it, in the end, the fractional reserve banking system is a humanity dooming practice. Reserve banks are a for profit venture, can create money from thin air, pay no taxes (they receive some, though) and can charge you interest on imaginary money loaned that you have to pay back with real labour and produce. Unless it goes back to a reality-based gold reserve (or some other precious reserve commodoity), eventually it will lead to indentured (and real) slavery.

[ Parent ]

VOTE RON PAUL! by garlic (4.00 / 1) #21 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 11:36:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]

LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #23 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:08:46 PM EST

. . . I'M GARLIC, THE EXTREMELY SHARP AND WITTY COMMENTARY GUY! OOOHH, CAN'T YOU JUST IMAGINE HOW KICK-ASS INFORMED AND SMART I AM! WOW, I ALWAYS HAVE SO MUCH TO ADD TO THE CONVERSATION! I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL VEEEEERRY IMPRESSED WITH MY KNOWLEDGE AND SHIT, I'M LIKE A GODDAMN BOTTLE-ROCKET OF SUPERSMARTS! AND FUNNY, TOO!

[ Parent ]

: I'm confused. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #25 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:03:13 PM EST

Why would you ask me to explain my joke, when you're complaint only makes sense if you understand my joke? That's crazy talk, that is.

[ Parent ]

Well by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #22 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:56:56 PM EST

I'm fairly familiar for the arguments against both gold standard and fractional reserve banking... several people have been pushing them on Metafilter. But I strongly disagree with both.

Here's a good description of the advantages of fiat currencies over the gold standard.

Fractional reserve banking has been with us for hundreds of years, and seems to have worked quite a lot better than its predecessors. It would be a real drag to get rid of it. For instance, if you wanted to buy a house, without that supply of credit, instead of getting a mortgage you'd have to rent somewhere else until you'd saved up the full purchase price.

Rather than credit availability leading to indentured servitude and slavery, I would argue that it was the lack of credit that helped keep pre-modern peasants subservient to the existing landowners. When it's harder to borrow money, the only people who can make money are those that have it already.
--
Butch and Petey are harsh and unforgiving in their estimation of female beauty.
[ Parent ]

Isn't this the whole theory behind by garlic (2.00 / 0) #24 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:00:59 PM EST

microlending social change organizations?

[ Parent ]

: Half of it by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #26 Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:17:07 AM EST

The other half is that if you loan out $100 to change some poor peasant's life, you eventually get the $100 back and can do it all over again.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

I once found the complete Aubrey/Maturin by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #16 Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:27:15 AM EST

novels at a Goodwill in brand new condition for 50 cents each. I promptly bought all 20 and sold them to a used bookstore for well over $100 in trade for other books.

That was all kinds of win, that day. Win for nerds!

---------------

Destroy All Planets

It is my belief, brother, that your misogyny is largely theoretical | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback


Make a new account
Username:
Password: