Quantative Easing

[Cyberman]

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.

He might have access to a team, but I for one think that he is too arrogant to listen to expert advice. Just look at private pensions where he was adviced not to tax them by the experts, look at the 10% tax abolition where he was advised that poorer people would suffer but continually denied it etc etc.

 

[Cyberman]

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?

You don't need models. An element of commonsense is what has been needed but that has been decidedly lacking. Letting borrowing get out of control, letting taxes get out of control, letting spending get out of control, etc etc etc,,,,,, all avoidable and all down to Gordon Brown !!

 

[TimberWolf]

He might have access to a team, but I for one think that he is too arrogant to listen to expert advice. Just look at private pensions where he was adviced not to tax them by the experts, look at the 10% tax abolition where he was advised that poorer people would suffer but continually denied it etc etc.

There is no expert advice when it comes to economics.

 

[Cyberman]

There is no expert advice when it comes to economics.

Most of it as I said is purely commonsense.

 

[TimberWolf]

Most of it as I said is purely commonsense.

The vast majority of what's said relates to what benefits the armchair experts here personally.

 

[Cyberman]

The vast majority of what's said relates to what benefits the armchair experts here personally.

Well, if the economy is doing well, we should all benefit personally, so that is hard to disagree with. There are a lot of armchair experts with decades of experience of good and bad government. I lived through the 70s, Denis Healey and the IMF debacle, so I have seen a similar scenario before, but I must admit that this lot are going into the Guinness Book of Records for incompetence.
Very soon, because of mistakes and mishandling by HMG and the BofE, we are all going to suffer very badly, and much of this pain would have been avoidable under more competent people. Labour always leave the country in a stinking mess.

 

[TimberWolf]

Well, if the economy is doing well, we should all benefit personally, so that is hard to disagree with. There are a lot of armchair experts with decades of experience of good and bad government. I lived through the 70s, Denis Healey and the IMF debacle, so I have seen a similar scenario before, but I must admit that this lot are going into the Guinness Book of Records for incompetence.
Very soon, because of mistakes and mishandling by HMG and the BofE, we are all going to suffer very badly, and much of this pain would have been avoidable under more competent people. Labour always leave the country in a stinking mess.

Incompetance from your point of view, but from other people's point of view Labour have been really great. Did you consider that?

IMO we need to look at whether we're on the right track when we're happy to pay the likes of Jonathan Ross £6m/year when nuclear physists on £1m/year would be better use of public money.

 

[Cyberman]

Incompetance from your point of view, but from other people's point of view Labour have been really great. Did you consider that?

IMO we need to look at whether we're on the right track when we're happy to pay the likes of Jonathan Ross £6m/year when nuclear physists on £1m/year would be better use of public money.

Hahahahahaha...... if anybody thinks that Labour are doing a good job, I despair. It has always worried me because these people keep voting for them and this will inevitably lead to us becoming the next Zimbabwe. Let's have Labour for another five years then !!


God help us when they do a bad job !!!

 

[TimberWolf]

It has always worried me because these people keep voting for them and this will inevitably lead to us becoming the next Zimbabwe.

Judging by the fact that the Tories knighted Mugabe, they are keener to emulate Zimbabwe's economy than Labour.

 

[Gonzo]

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?

Economic activity is the result of the interactions of billions of human beings.

The good thing about human beings is that they are all different and have a habit of not always acting rationally or predictably. In addition, "normal" behaviour will change over time.

I think that defies modelling.