The Lemon Fool

Interesting article in the FT, two days ago.

Former member of the MPC suggest that we should adopt IMF like policies gently and sooner, rather than having them imposed with brute force later.

https://www.ft.com/content/4cf73b89-51e ... f08ecaee5c

It's behind a paywal. Google the subject title to read it at cam.ac.uk

Basically advocates disincentive for being on benefits rather than working; pay increase in short term for NHS & emergency workers, paid for by CGT and "property". INvest publicly in energy grid, trains and critical infrastructure, and cut subsidies elswewhere. No state aid for mortgagors, any help should be from the mortgagee. Liberalise planning to promote construction, not "help to buy". More immigration. More monetary policy tightening.

rhys wrote:Interesting article in the FT, two days ago.

Former member of the MPC suggest that we should adopt IMF like policies gently and sooner, rather than having them imposed with brute force later.

https://www.ft.com/content/4cf73b89-51e ... f08ecaee5c

It's behind a paywal. Google the subject title to read it at cam.ac.uk

Basically advocates disincentive for being on benefits rather than working; pay increase in short term for NHS & emergency workers, paid for by CGT and "property". INvest publicly in energy grid, trains and critical infrastructure, and cut subsidies elswewhere. No state aid for mortgagors, any help should be from the mortgagee. Liberalise planning to promote construction, not "help to buy". More immigration. More monetary policy tightening.

It's an interesting article and I don't really disagree with any of the points outlined.

I'd argue that the time to embark on most of the suggestions would have been when borrowing was much cheaper (and thus be better positioned to cope with their sixth point)
- but I'll accept that it often takes a (real and sustained) "crisis" ( ) before unprogressive govts will even countenance the possibility of doing anything (other than pat themselves on the back for not doing anything)

But the idea of looking at where you are and your strengths then deciding what game you want to play, and developing a strategy is a good one; and much better than rocking up and realising you've brought the wrong kit.

-sd

Let’s stop kidding ourselves we’re a rich nation and get real… the UK’s gone bust

The Guardian

Britain depends on the kindness of strangers to get by in the world. It doesn’t have to be like this

"In another fascinating analysis by the FT’s John Burn Murdoch, he shows how stripping out the richest city in a rich country has a more devastating impact in Britain than doing the same in the Netherlands, Germany or the US. Lose London and the GDP per head in the rest of the UK is below the poorest US state, Mississippi."

"We cannot live with a decade of more of the same. Britain is extremely vulnerable to any mishap – a crack in the housing market, a crisis in the financial markets, another energy crisis. Above all, we have to light the fires of hope. Britain does not need to be the sick country of the west. We must act."

Will Hutton is an Observer columnist

Unfortunately we are in a vicious circle of ever increasing overhead (excessive benefits, swollen and inefficient civil service, an entitlement mindset, envy of success rather than admiration of it, absence of a self reliance ethos etc etc).

We are an overcrowded island and increasing immigration is like a drunk having another drink because the pain of sobering up is too bad. It helps short term problems but creates ever worse long term ones.

I don’t know what the solution is. I fear it will take a catastrophic collapse, eventually, before things can be turned round.
In the short term, losing Scotland and Northern Ireland would help, sad as it is to say that!

One thing I am quite sure of is that any solution proposed by Will Hutton and the Guardian would make things even worse!

scrumpyjack wrote:We are an overcrowded island and increasing immigration is like a drunk having another drink because the pain of sobering up is too bad. It helps short term problems but creates ever worse long term ones.

It doesn't even help short term. We would need to build the equivalent of two Belfast's each year to cope - I don't see all the hospitals, reservoirs, sewers, etc required.

Our population is underestimated and our GDP relies on an increasing portion of imputed rent. Our GDP per capita has had at least two lost decades.

scrumpyjack wrote:Unfortunately we are in a vicious circle of ever increasing overhead (excessive benefits, swollen and inefficient civil service, an entitlement mindset, envy of success rather than admiration of it, absence of a self reliance ethos etc etc).

The above sounds to me very like a Telegraph analysis!

scrumpyjack wrote:One thing I am quite sure of is that any solution proposed by Will Hutton and the Guardian would make things even worse!

Think it's overstating it to say Emerging market. I think the UK's situation more akin to Japan or Italy. A highly developed economy but with lots of economic problems which can lead to stagnation, lost decade or even lost decades. Not easy to fix. Think best we can hope for is stable govt and that Labour when they get in are more Blair, than Corbyn.

If only we could find a load of experienced and qualified people to graft and raise the standard.
It would be ideal if they were superior to the useless youngsters we have running the show now.
A vote winner surely.

It was never like this in my day....

W.

Adamski wrote:Think it's overstating it to say Emerging market. I think the UK's situation more akin to Japan or Italy. A highly developed economy but with lots of economic problems which can lead to stagnation, lost decade or even lost decades. Not easy to fix. Think best we can hope for is stable govt and that Labour when they get in are more Blair, than Corbyn.

I quite agree. It is much easier for Labour to tackle these deep rooted problems. Anything the Conservatives do about benefits, the NHS, the Civil Service will be automatically rubbished by the media rent a mob, but they are more likely to give Labour a chance.

scrumpyjack wrote:

Adamski wrote:Think it's overstating it to say Emerging market. I think the UK's situation more akin to Japan or Italy. A highly developed economy but with lots of economic problems which can lead to stagnation, lost decade or even lost decades. Not easy to fix. Think best we can hope for is stable govt and that Labour when they get in are more Blair, than Corbyn.

I quite agree. It is much easier for Labour to tackle these deep rooted problems. Anything the Conservatives do about benefits, the NHS, the Civil Service will be automatically rubbished by the media rent a mob, but they are more likely to give Labour a chance.

What rent a mob?
The Spectator? Telegraph? FT?

Every developed country has distinct characteristics and ours happens to be very dependent on London. I don’t think the strip out London line gets us very far. If my auntie had xyz she’d be my uncle comes to mind.

Nonetheless I think Hutton’s arguments and solutions are worth a look. He doesn’t directly address inequality but it’s clearly an underlying theme.

Large swathes of the populace seem to have little part in the success of the U.K. (The poorest are dependent on benefits and don’t own the funding problem while the moderately wealthy don’t depend on many of the public services until there’s no alternative - a devil take the hindmost mentality). How do we get more people to feel ownership of the U.K. In this sense I think there is such a thing as society.

The undeserving poor and scroungers undoubtedly exist but my impression is that most people do what they can. I wonder whether the existence of a welfare state inevitably (in a democracy) leads to economic decline. (Don’t tax me, don’t tax you, tax that man behind the tree. Why shouldn’t I be entitled to all those wonderful products and services advertised?)

Although tax rates are at historic highs I’m not convinced that the burden is fairly distributed. Part of the problem may be that the intermediate wealthy (me) are able to generate a lot of tax protected income and wealth.

Best wishes,

Steve

servodude wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:I quite agree. It is much easier for Labour to tackle these deep rooted problems. Anything the Conservatives do about benefits, the NHS, the Civil Service will be automatically rubbished by the media rent a mob, but they are more likely to give Labour a chance.

What rent a mob?
The Spectator? Telegraph? FT?

That's what I was thinking! Along with: The Mail, Express...

XFool wrote:

servodude wrote:What rent a mob?
The Spectator? Telegraph? FT?

That's what I was thinking! Along with: The Mail, Express...

We have the media we deserve. If you do not like the UK papers, or UK election results, then you do not like (a majority of) the British people. Those entities and results can only exist and happen if they have a broad swathe of popular support.

I tend to agree with the premise that the UK has become a basketcase. Not because of the media. Not because of immigrants. But because everyone wants something for nothing, and for the government to bail them out. We have become institutionalised.

The geographic composition of my portfolio reflects that dim view of the future prospects of UK Inc. It is not the fault of any individual government or party, but rather 100 years of national decline. And nothing will change that - we are in a structural and terminal long-term bear market.

This is a pretty depressing thread but I suppose the population gets what it deserves.

It's a shame when we have so many positives.

We are an island with the channel which is a great physical barrier.
We can grow our own food due to our temperate climate.
We can catch our own fish with our state of the art fishing fleet.
We have centuries of energy under our feet.
We have a company that can produce proven, safe mini nuclear reactors.
We will be one of the few global countries to be last man standing if climate change is real.
We have abundant water supplies to harness.
We have centuries of history, culture and rule of law.

We really need to start believing in ourselves.

Lootman wrote:We have the media we deserve.

If only!

Well I'll say it if no-one else will.

As somebody who almost shouted, "So what the HELL do we do now?" on 23 June 2016, I find the article spot on in its summary of Brexit as not being the cause of all of the UK’s economic problems, but a very significant contributor to almost all of them getting worse.

So the article advocates thinking like a small country and specialising, rather than unsuccessfully following larger ones, or trying to cut bilateral deals at a bad bargaining disadvantage, for example. It's like to coming to terms with a chronic condition. A gammy leg, or some inflammatory bowel condition. You make do as best you can for the rest of your life, and you'll die with it rather than of it.

What a future, eh?

XFool wrote:

servodude wrote:What rent a mob?
The Spectator? Telegraph? FT?

That's what I was thinking! Along with: The Mail, Express...

It was only because I'd stumbled across this recently https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tories-are-heading-for-electoral-evisceration/
- they hardly seem to be what I would consider "usual suspects" for such output

servodude wrote:It was only because I'd stumbled across this recently https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tories-are-heading-for-electoral-evisceration/
- they hardly seem to be what I would consider "usual suspects" for such output

This paragraph seems to sum the issue up:

"The party need not ever be universally loved. It must, however, have broad enough appeal to be able to win elections. It cannot simply become the political wing of the boomer-Facebook-complex. Nor can it become beholden to a narrow seam of angry reactionaries who simply seek to rail at the modern world."

XFool wrote:

servodude wrote:It was only because I'd stumbled across this recently https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tories-are-heading-for-electoral-evisceration/
- they hardly seem to be what I would consider "usual suspects" for such output

This paragraph seems to sum the issue up:

"The party need not ever be universally loved. It must, however, have broad enough appeal to be able to win elections. It cannot simply become the political wing of the boomer-Facebook-complex. Nor can it become beholden to a narrow seam of angry reactionaries who simply seek to rail at the modern world."

The UK has finally fallen into the trap expressed by the saying "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul". With so many dependent on the state for an income (direct welfare, in work support, pensions and the colossal number employed by the state doing jobs which don't need to be done), those who are genuinely financially supporting the state feel under seige. Why work when so many don't need to?

Work, productivity, ingenuity, study, skills, industry, self reliance - all need adequate reward so that they are encouraged. At present they are not.