Quantative Easing

[d000hg]

Gordon Brown is interested in one thing, and one thing only - Winning the next election come what may.

Provided nothing goes obviously belly up before then (first half of this year most likely), it doesn't matter to him at all what happens afterwards whether or not he wins.

Why? If everything will definitely go wrong he is educated enough in economics to know that... don't confuse mad government with bad education... so why would he want to inherit that? Either he is in charge and has a nightmare job - I can't imagine being PM is fun in the midst of a recession or hyperinflation, not to mention the reputation he'd have then would be way worse than now - or he wins and gets replaced, in which case why try so hard?

If it's guaranteed things are going to be terrible, wouldn't most leaders cut and run to avoid being the one who gets blamed when things collapse? Maybe some very righteous leader might stay to take the flak, but nobody here would attribute GB with that so why is he wanting to stay?

edit: yes I noticed the typo but decided to leave it as it might tickle a few of you

[PM-Junkie]

Why? If everything will definitely go wrong he is educated enough in economics to know that...

And you base that on what, exactly? His degree in history? His doctorate in "The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918-29"? Maybe his time as a journalist or as current affairs editor for scottish TV?

This man has NO economic or financial qualifications so those of us who do get a little narked when naive idiots like you claim that he is qualified to understand economics and others are not.

I do wish people like you would try doing a little research before you make a prat of yourself. Especially when you are going to claim that others don't know what they are talking about.

[BrilloPad]

Why? If everything will definitely go wrong he is educated enough in economics to know that... don't confuse mad government with bad education... so why would he want to inherit that? Either he is in charge and has a nightmare job - I can't imagine being PM is fun in the midst of a recession or hyperinflation, not to mention the reputation he'd have then would be way worse than now - or he wins and gets replaced, in which case why try so hard?

If it's guaranteed things are going to be terrible, wouldn't most leaders cut and run to avoid being the one who gets blamed when things collapse? Maybe some very righteous leader might stay to take the flak, but nobody here would attribute GB with that so why is he wanting to stay?

edit: yes I noticed the typo but decided to leave it as it might tickle a few of you

He knows it will almost certainly go badly wrong. But will spin it so he looks like the solver of the crisis despite being the architect.

Tickets for Titanic II anyone?

[Gonzo]

Everyone on this board says QE is inevitably going to lead to runaway inflation like happened in Germany and Zimbabwe. But even if you don't trust MPs, they do have access to experienced economists. So one has to think they have a reason for thinking it won't go wrong, are there any articles on what's supposed to happen with QE and why it (apparently) won't go belly-up?

No there aren't.

Unfortunately, running the country is not so simple that you can just turn to chapter 75 of the manual to see what to do next. The first few chapters of that manual have been filled in, but most are blank.

These are unprecendented times so noone can say exactly what needs to happen - see Brillo's thread on six ways to get the economic motor running :

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...r-running.html

In that thread you get the opinion of four economists that are hopeful QE won't be a disaster, and one that is not convinced.

The negativity on here tends to be from people that are upset that we find ourselves in the situation where we have to use the national last-resort. There's no plan B for this. If it doesn't work, then the country will be in the economic tulipe the like of which we have never known.

For the past six months when talking to older people about this I have joked "You remember 1978 don't you?". I am starting to think now that things will be worse than that.

[BrilloPad]

No there aren't.

Unfortunately, running the country is not so simple that you can just turn to chapter 75 of the manual to see what to do next. The first few chapters of that manual have been filled in, but most are blank.

These are unprecendented times so noone can say exactly what needs to happen - see Brillo's thread on six ways to get the economic motor running :

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...r-running.html

In that thread you get the opinion of four economists that are hopeful QE won't be a disaster, and one that is not convinced.

The negativity on here tends to be from people that are upset that we find ourselves in the situation where we have to use the national last-resort. There's no plan B for this. If it doesn't work, then the country will be in the economic tulipe the like of which we have never known.

For the past six months when talking to older people about this I have joked "You remember 1978 don't you?". I am starting to think now that things will be worse than that.

I agree. But it wont be as bad as 1933. I hope.

[d000hg]

And you base that on what, exactly? His degree in history? His doctorate in "The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918-29"? Maybe his time as a journalist or as current affairs editor for scottish TV?

This man has NO economic or financial qualifications so those of us who do get a little narked when naive idiots like you claim that he is qualified to understand economics and others are not.

I do wish people like you would try doing a little research before you make a prat of yourself. Especially when you are going to claim that others don't know what they are talking about.

He has access to, one would expect, a whole team of well-renouned economists, so in that sense he has as much knowledge as he needs.

And, I didn't claim you or others here don't understand economics... only that the government has people who understand them too. I was asking if QE was really as cut and dried a failure as people here like to think. As Gonzo points out there are people here who think it IS worthwhile so I think my question is answered, no thanks to you. You seem very touchy on the whole subject... maybe you should change your signature so everyone can read about how great and wise you are, if you're not feeling enough respect from the community.

[jkoder]

Gordon Brown is interested in one thing, and one thing only - Winning the next election come what may.

Provided nothing goes obviously belly up before then (first half of this year most likely), it doesn't matter to him at all what happens afterwards whether or not he wins.

That's probably how most people in power think. You think the conservatives will be any different?

And what would you do if you were in his shoes? Resign? I don't think you would, given you're a contractor.

It's still very funny listening to you all, keep up the good work!

[Gonzo]

...... And, I didn't claim you or others here don't understand economics... only that the government has people who understand them too. I was asking if QE was really as cut and dried a failure as people here like to think. As Gonzo points out there are people here who think it IS worthwhile so I think my question is answered, no thanks to you......

The point I wanted to get across is that the Economists do not know, and cannot tell us. There are some that say "QE might work.", but there are no economists that can say "This is what happened when so and so tried such and such." about the current situation.

This does not instill me with much confidence in them, and I have had the same basic training as them. Economists are good for analysing the past, they are no use for predicting the future. I didn't pursue the subject any further because I was aghast that what was being passed of as "Economic Laws" was in fact guesswork without any testing done like real science. (Granted, the labwork would be tricky on that one).

I'm sure I have bored people on this forum with this story before, but I like it so, I had the same conversation with a schoolfriend I bumped into on a train a few years ago. He was taking his Masters in Economics and he said:

"If you want to know what is going to happen to the economy and you have the choice between asking a Witch-Doctor and asking an Economist, ask the Witch-Doctor. There is a miniscule chance that the Witch-Doctor might be right. The Economist will be wrong."

[d000hg]

Forgive what I admit is a simple question, but WHY is it still such a mystery? OK, economics has many human factors to mess up any nice mathematical models, but compared to 1929 we not only have a LOT more data to base models on, but we also have fantastically powerful computer models. I don't expect these models to be perfect or even maybe that reliable, but how can we not be considerably more able to predict the effects of certain actions these days than we used to be?

[Cyberman]

And you base that on what, exactly? His degree in history? His doctorate in "The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918-29"? Maybe his time as a journalist or as current affairs editor for scottish TV?

This man has NO economic or financial qualifications so those of us who do get a little narked when naive idiots like you claim that he is qualified to understand economics and others are not.

I do wish people like you would try doing a little research before you make a prat of yourself. Especially when you are going to claim that others don't know what they are talking about.

WHS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!