The Lemon Fool

ursaminortaur wrote:

Lootman wrote:But it is still more pro-business than the only alternative that we were offered in 2019. And the discussion here is the relative difference between the two parties, if any.

No, as the title says the subject is how the UK economy will perform in the next five years

And that quickly turned into an "it all depends" debate about the impending change to a Labour government and their mixed historical record of supporting business and prosperity.

So yes, it matter whether Starmer delivers on his pro-business sympathies. Or whether he capitulates to the many special interest groups who will have their grubby palms out demanding taxpayer largesse.

Lootman wrote:

mc2fool wrote:Maybe you'd prefer this article: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-which-party-has-a-better-track-record-on-the-economy

Not really because, again, there is too much focus on statistics and not enough on understanding and explanation. The voters routinely believe that the Tories are better on the economy. That indicates to me that there is more to the issue than mere "data", which of course can always be cherry-picked or manipulated to produce the outcome that the authors prefer.

Then again I routinely distrust academics anyway (despite having two degrees) and so maybe I am just a right-brained guy living in a left-brained world. I routinely get told off for asking "But why?" when presented with alleged "data".

That "The voters routinely believe that the Tories are better on the economy" i's a supposition. The economy isn't the only thing people vote on and its salience varies election to election as, clearly, do opinions of the economic competence of both major parties.

But ok, so we get it; there's no point in presenting any data then as you'll just dismiss it as "cherry picked". That'd apply to any data that happened to show the Tories do better too then. And, of course, any explanations are just theories and also subject to similar manipulation, and so any answers to "But why?" can similarly be dismissed. So we're left with fact free preconception then.

Well, for our collective entertainment, here's another couple of facts and an explanation for you to dismiss out of hand....

"Despite both being viewed as ‘business friendly’ parties the Republicans and Conservatives have a poor track record when it comes to preventing economic shocks, with 90 per cent of US recessions and 75 per cent of UK recessions since the 1950s starting on their watch.

Why do parties of the right tend to be worse at managing economic shocks? One potential explanation is that parties of the left have been more pragmatic and willing to intervene in markets to mitigate slumps, while right-wing leaders have tended to place more faith in the ability of markets to self-correct."

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/business-economics/new-research-reveals-labour-is-better-at-handling-the-economy-than-the-conservatives-295748/

Dod101 wrote:For reasons I do not really understand, the economy seems generally to keep rising (as measured by GDP) and yet most of us do not feel any better off than we were say 5/10 years ago. Are our expectations too high?

Dod

Well GDP has risn and GDP per capita has also risen, but not for everyone. Inequality!

The increase in wealth is skewed towards the richest in our society, whereas others down the income scale will not feel any richer than they were 10 years ago.

FD

Lootman wrote:In my case something like 90% of my investment income comes from overseas. Fluctuations in UK GDP have no effect on that, and therefore on how well off or not I feel.

I think we can safely say you are not normal (in the nicest possible way of course). C.

mc2fool wrote:

Lootman wrote:Not really because, again, there is too much focus on statistics and not enough on understanding and explanation. The voters routinely believe that the Tories are better on the economy. That indicates to me that there is more to the issue than mere "data", which of course can always be cherry-picked or manipulated to produce the outcome that the authors prefer.

Then again I routinely distrust academics anyway (despite having two degrees) and so maybe I am just a right-brained guy living in a left-brained world. I routinely get told off for asking "But why?" when presented with alleged "data".

But ok, so we get it; there's no point in presenting any data then as you'll just dismiss it as "cherry picked". That'd apply to any data that happened to show the Tories do better too then.

No, my point has consistently been that data without understanding is moot. And sadly our education system produces people who are very good at producing a lot of data but is not so good at producing people who have understanding to explain that data.

So for example if your "data" shows that a pro-business party is good for business then you may get away without further analysis.

But if your "data" shows that an anti-business party is good for business then expect difficult questions such as the ones I have been asking.

funduffer wrote:

Dod101 wrote:For reasons I do not really understand, the economy seems generally to keep rising (as measured by GDP) and yet most of us do not feel any better off than we were say 5/10 years ago. Are our expectations too high?

Well GDP has risen and GDP per capita has also risen, but not for everyone. Inequality!

And inequality is bad because . . . ?

Lootman wrote:

mc2fool wrote:But ok, so we get it; there's no point in presenting any data then as you'll just dismiss it as "cherry picked". That'd apply to any data that happened to show the Tories do better too then.

No, my point has consistently been that data without understanding is moot. And sadly our education system produces people who are very good at producing a lot of data but is not so good at producing people who have understanding to explain that data.

So for example if your "data" shows that a pro-business party is good for business then you may get away without further analysis.

But if your "data" shows that an anti-business party is good for business then expect difficult questions such as the ones I have been asking.

We don't have any anti-business parties in the UK (at least amongst the major parties), so the "difficult" question would be to question the basis of the statement.

However, we do have a supposedly pro-business party in power that hasn't been so good for business, with their Over-regulation of businesses and employment and Taxes at a 70 year high.....

mc2fool wrote:

Lootman wrote:No, my point has consistently been that data without understanding is moot. And sadly our education system produces people who are very good at producing a lot of data but is not so good at producing people who have understanding to explain that data.

So for example if your "data" shows that a pro-business party is good for business then you may get away without further analysis.

But if your "data" shows that an anti-business party is good for business then expect difficult questions such as the ones I have been asking.

We don't have any anti-business parties in the UK (at least amongst the major parties), so the "difficult" question would be to question the basis of the statement.

However, we do have a supposedly pro-business party in power that hasn't been so good for business, with their Over-regulation of businesses and employment and Taxes at a 70 year high.....

Certain parts of Labour are anti-business. I could easily construct an argument that the Greens are even worse, possibly the SNP.

And whilst the Tories have had their problems I would still be fascinated to hear which alternative government since 2010 would have been better for business? Miliband? Corbyn? Present your idea.

Lootman wrote:So for example if your "data" shows that a pro-business party is good for business then you may get away without further analysis.

But if your "data" shows that an anti-business party is good for business then expect difficult questions such as the ones I have been asking.

Really Dod. Do you not think that you are not talking "confirmation bias".

Historically the "anti-business" party lead by Mr Blair was in fact quite good for business.
The current lot (the pro-business party) have been quite bad for business.

In fact there IS no anti-business party. Without tax from business and employees no government could fund public services. The more profit and more employment, the more tax to work with!

As for the "education" system, well it's not. It's a training system.

But education is also about the practical business of ensuring that young people receive the preparation they need to secure a good job and a fulfilling career, and have the resilience and moral character to overcome challenges and succeed.
...
But perhaps most important of all, we must ensure that more people have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in a demanding economy.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... -education

Fair enough, but don't then expect that a state education will waste time teaching thinking or questioning.

Urbandreamer wrote:As for the "education" system, well it's not. It's a training system.

But education is also about the practical business of ensuring that young people receive the preparation they need to secure a good job and a fulfilling career, and have the resilience and moral character to overcome challenges and succeed.
...
But perhaps most important of all, we must ensure that more people have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in a demanding economy.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... -education

Fair enough, but don't then expect that a state education will waste time teaching thinking or questioning.

Now with that, I agree. Sadly these days if you ask someone a question they will provide a link rather than an analysis. Then if you ask them to explain what that link means, they produce another link. The art of understanding has been replaced with the art of looking something up and hoping that it flies.

Lootman wrote:Now with that, I agree. Sadly these days if you ask someone a question they will provide a link rather than an analysis. Then if you ask them to explain what that link means, they produce another link. The art of understanding has been replaced with the art of looking something up and hoping that it flies.

If irony was intended... it's valid.

Urbandreamer wrote:

Lootman wrote:So for example if your "data" shows that a pro-business party is good for business then you may get away without further analysis.

But if your "data" shows that an anti-business party is good for business then expect difficult questions such as the ones I have been asking.

Really Dod. Do you not think that you are not talking "confirmation bias".

Historically the "anti-business" party lead by Mr Blair was in fact quite good for business.
The current lot (the pro-business party) have been quite bad for business.

In fact there IS no anti-business party. Without tax from business and employees no government could fund public services. The more profit and more employment, the more tax to work with!

As for the "education" system, well it's not. It's a training system.

But education is also about the practical business of ensuring that young people receive the preparation they need to secure a good job and a fulfilling career, and have the resilience and moral character to overcome challenges and succeed.
...
But perhaps most important of all, we must ensure that more people have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in a demanding economy.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... -education

Fair enough, but don't then expect that a state education will waste time teaching thinking or questioning.

This is Dod. My name has been quoted without my uttering a word. I happen to believe that the SNP and their brothers in arms the Greens are anti business. They simply see business as a cash cow to be milked until ‘the pips squeak’.
Dod

Dod101 wrote:This is Dod. My name has been quoted without my uttering a word. I happen to believe that the SNP and their brothers in arms the Greens are anti business. They simply see business as a cash cow to be milked until ‘the pips squeak’.
Dod

Sorry Dod. To compound matters I also thought that I was replying to you in my later post.

Again, sorry for my confused post. The points may have been apt, but not appertaining to you or your views.

Urbandreamer wrote:

Dod101 wrote:This is Dod. My name has been quoted without my uttering a word. I happen to believe that the SNP and their brothers in arms the Greens are anti business. They simply see business as a cash cow to be milked until ‘the pips squeak’.
Dod

Sorry Dod. To compound matters I also thought that I was replying to you in my later post.

Again, sorry for my confused post. The points may have been apt, but not appertaining to you or your views.

Thank you. I might have added that I largely agree with your views.

Dod

Dod101 wrote: the SNP and their brothers in arms the Greens are anti business. They simply see business as a cash cow to be milked until ‘the pips squeak’.

You can add the rabid left of the Labour Party. That includes some MPs but possibly a majority of its members.

A paid up socialist does not really believe in private wealth, free markets or for-profit enterprises at all. Or if they do they are only fans of small businesses whilst wanting the major companies nationalised. They see wealth as an obscenity and something to be confiscated.

If you can stand it take a look some time at the comments section of The Guardian. You will see people suggesting that "nobody should earn more than £50,000 a year" or that "nobody should have more than £500,000 in wealth". Or mindless incantations of "tax the rich".

Luckily even poor people generally see through this kind of envy projection and do not vote for it. But with powerful groups like unions, public-sector workers, the NHS and welfare recipients all wanting more, they cannot be discounted electorally either.

Lootman wrote:
A paid up socialist does not really believe in private wealth, free markets or for-profit enterprises at all.

Or if they do they are only fans of small businesses whilst wanting the major companies nationalised.

They see wealth as an obscenity and something to be confiscated

“If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists.” - Friedrich Hayek

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Itsallaguess wrote:
“If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists.” - Friedrich Hayek

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

I'm really surprised he'd never heard of Keynes; though there do seem to be plenty that pretend he didn't identify as a socialist!
In the same way a similar tranche pretend the suffragettes weren't self avowed terrorists

Lootman wrote:

Dod101 wrote: the SNP and their brothers in arms the Greens are anti business. They simply see business as a cash cow to be milked until ‘the pips squeak’.

You can add the rabid left of the Labour Party. That includes some MPs but possibly a majority of its members.

A paid up socialist does not really believe in private wealth, free markets or for-profit enterprises at all. Or if they do they are only fans of small businesses whilst wanting the major companies nationalised. They see wealth as an obscenity and something to be confiscated.

The topic is about the UK economy, and the fallacy here is to directly equate the economy with (private) business and (private) wealth.

While businesses are a part of the economy and certainly play a significant role, the economy is a larger and more comprehensive concept that encompasses all economic activities within a country (or region). It's interesting to see the number of more socially minded European countries up at the top end of the GDP per capita tables, intermixed with (and in many cases, beating) some more capitalist minded countries.

https://www.google.com/search?q=countries+by+gdp+per+capita (choice of source left to the reader)

mc2fool wrote:

Lootman wrote:You can add the rabid left of the Labour Party. That includes some MPs but possibly a majority of its members.

A paid up socialist does not really believe in private wealth, free markets or for-profit enterprises at all. Or if they do they are only fans of small businesses whilst wanting the major companies nationalised. They see wealth as an obscenity and something to be confiscated.

The topic is about the UK economy, and the fallacy here is to directly equate the economy with (private) business and (private) wealth.

While businesses are a part of the economy and certainly play a significant role, the economy is a larger and more comprehensive concept that encompasses all economic activities within a country (or region). It's interesting to see the number of more socially minded European countries up at the top end of the GDP per capita tables, intermixed with (and in many cases, beating) some more capitalist minded countries.

https://www.google.com/search?q=countries+by+gdp+per+capita (choice of source left to the reader)

Crikey. Next you'll be making them look at the billionaires per capita

servodude wrote:

mc2fool wrote:The topic is about the UK economy, and the fallacy here is to directly equate the economy with (private) business and (private) wealth.

While businesses are a part of the economy and certainly play a significant role, the economy is a larger and more comprehensive concept that encompasses all economic activities within a country (or region). It's interesting to see the number of more socially minded European countries up at the top end of the GDP per capita tables, intermixed with (and in many cases, beating) some more capitalist minded countries.

https://www.google.com/search?q=countries+by+gdp+per+capita (choice of source left to the reader)

Crikey. Next you'll be making them look at the billionaires per capita

Avoids being accused of cherry picking the data source ...

But ok, if you insist ... https://www.google.com/search?q=countries+by+billionaires+per+capita (blimey, socially minded high tax Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US! )

Lootman wrote:A paid up socialist does not really believe in private wealth, free markets or for-profit enterprises at all. Or if they do they are only fans of small businesses whilst wanting the major companies nationalised. They see wealth as an obscenity and something to be confiscated.

I suggest doing some serious political research if you think that is anti-business. I'd start with the Anarchist government of Catalonia and their anarcho-syndics. Of course we do know that they were forcefully ousted by the "pro-business" fascists. I'd follow that up by reading "Homage to Catalonia", by a man famous for his warning books about the dangers of socialism taken to the extreme. Their basic view is that business should be there to support the working "man". Hence they are PRO-business. It's just who gets the benefit of business that differs.

In the words of an American, talking about the early soviet union, "I have seen the future and it works". Well it didn't, but that may be due to the way that it evolved. Arguably central planning was the issue, sounds a bit like what our current government seems to be trying.

servodude wrote:I'm really surprised he'd never heard of Keynes; though there do seem to be plenty that pretend he didn't identify as a socialist!
In the same way a similar tranche pretend the suffragettes weren't self avowed terrorists

Err, you do know that they were actually friends, despite public disagreements on their shared subject.

Keynes befriended Hayek during the war, and it was he who proposed him for a fellowship of the British Academy in 1944. He made an unforgettable personal impression on Hayek – ‘the magnetism of the brilliant conversationalist with his wide range of interests and bewitching voice.’

https://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blog ... k-and.html

Since we have wandered well and truelly off topic, I though that I'd post this link to a rap battle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk