237 replies to this topic

[Theophilos]

I think it is highly unlikely that the Tories will lose the next election whilst Corbyn remains in charge. Not because Corbyn is unelectable, but because he can't construct a team around him that people would trust in government. That said, if you said to me last August that Cameron, Farage, Gove, Osbourne and Johnson would all have cratered their political careers I wouldn't have believed you either. 

 

Corbyn needs to be retired. The guy is... actually not worth loosing words over.

 

I'm glad to see that the Liar'r'us club has sunk so brilliantly fast. Pity there is no credible alternative though.

[onbekende]

Was Corbyn even 100% willing to become party leader, I just don't feel he has his whole "being" behind it tbh...

[Icewolf]

I think it is highly unlikely that the Tories will lose the next election whilst Corbyn remains in charge. Not because Corbyn is unelectable, but because he can't construct a team around him that people would trust in government. That said, if you said to me last August that Cameron, Farage, Gove, Osbourne and Johnson would all have cratered their political careers I wouldn't have believed you either.

Corbyn needs to be retired. The guy is... actually not worth loosing words over.

I'm glad to see that the Liar'r'us club has sunk so brilliantly fast. Pity there is no credible alternative though.

The trouble is though that even if they all run away the results still stands. We just had a referendum where one side ran a bucket of lies and promised everything under the sun, and now there is no way to hold them to account. Meanwhile we are stuck with a retarded decision as things fall apart and the country goes to the dogs.

[ccabal86]

I'm pretty sure Nigel Farage was paid handsomely enough by Putin to retire for life.

[Theophilos]

 

 

I think it is highly unlikely that the Tories will lose the next election whilst Corbyn remains in charge. Not because Corbyn is unelectable, but because he can't construct a team around him that people would trust in government. That said, if you said to me last August that Cameron, Farage, Gove, Osbourne and Johnson would all have cratered their political careers I wouldn't have believed you either.

Corbyn needs to be retired. The guy is... actually not worth loosing words over.

I'm glad to see that the Liar'r'us club has sunk so brilliantly fast. Pity there is no credible alternative though.

The trouble is though that even if they all run away the results still stands. We just had a referendum where one side ran a bucket of lies and promised everything under the sun, and now there is no way to hold them to account. Meanwhile we are stuck with a retarded decision as things fall apart and the country goes to the dogs.

 

 

Oh, I agree. But democracy is what it is. Though in view of the supremacy of parliament doctrine in UK, the parliament could legitimately decide to set aside the resutt of the referendum.

[onbekende]

I'm pretty sure Nigel Farage was paid handsomely enough by Putin to retire for life.

now now, I doubt he would try that, Putin that is

[Icewolf]

 

 

 

I think it is highly unlikely that the Tories will lose the next election whilst Corbyn remains in charge. Not because Corbyn is unelectable, but because he can't construct a team around him that people would trust in government. That said, if you said to me last August that Cameron, Farage, Gove, Osbourne and Johnson would all have cratered their political careers I wouldn't have believed you either.

Corbyn needs to be retired. The guy is... actually not worth loosing words over.

I'm glad to see that the Liar'r'us club has sunk so brilliantly fast. Pity there is no credible alternative though.

The trouble is though that even if they all run away the results still stands. We just had a referendum where one side ran a bucket of lies and promised everything under the sun, and now there is no way to hold them to account. Meanwhile we are stuck with a retarded decision as things fall apart and the country goes to the dogs.

 

 

Oh, I agree. But democracy is what it is. Though in view of the supremacy of parliament doctrine in UK, the parliament could legitimately decide to set aside the resutt of the referendum.

 

They can do. 

 

The question coming now is this. 

 

How much economic pain does it take for politicians to decide that toughing it out whilst claiming to respect democracy is worth doing? Because the forecasts before the referendum appear to have been way off the mark on the basis of data so far. It is starting to look like the most negative forecast before the referendum should actually have been the most positive. 

[Icewolf]

And also what will prove interesting and increasingly seems likely, what is the impact on a politician if in September when the Brexit planning actually starts, they have a backdrop of economic uncertainty and a public that actually supports remaining a member of the EU? (Following polls showing relatively heavy swings to remain)

[ccabal86]

It would have very servere remifications if the UK's Parliament decided to disregard the results of this referendum, or decided to hold another one. It might be economically viable, but it would also be an admission that Democracy there is little more than a charade, even if the results are not "legally" binding.

 

After all, why bother voting if the will of the people can be retroactively questined or rules retroactively rewritten? If results to an unfavorable question can be put to the vote until the turnout is what the elite "wants". Why bother voting for anything at that point, including the General Elections?

 

I know for a fact that if I were a British citizen, I would not vote again in any election, ever, on principle alone if Parliament didn't act on the Brexit vote. This decision would also have nothing to with the question itself, it's a matter of governance.

 

EDIT: In addition, the UK would forever lose the political ground to criticize any sort of political system in the world. No political freedoms in North Korea? Oh really? As far as they're concerned, the people reign supreme there, it just happens that Kim-Jong Un is voted in every time by 99% of the voters, while you are busy ignoring the clear results of your own referendum.

 

 now now, I doubt he would try that, Putin that is

 

Of course not, he probably used several proxies

Edited by ccabal86, 07 July 2016 - 08:43 AM.

[Bill N Ted]

So the pound is now at $1.30, the FTSE 250 is still in the doldrums, my cities largest employer just very publicly declared they are fucked as the commercial property market has tanked (really saying people are not liking the look of the UK right now). 

 

Meanwhile the Brexit leaders have either self-destructed or legged it, giving an increasing feeling that after the children have taken a massive shit on the floor it is now up to the grown ups to get us out of this fucking. 

 

Stock markets, FOREX exchange, retail prices; since the referendum its amazing how many people have become economics wizards (this is not aimed solely at you Icewolf, its at the public in general) after a referendum, all the while having lost money by keeping it in bankrupt in all but name banks, I don't profess to be an economics wizard but I would say that I have a reasonable handle on the subject.

 

BREXIT vote caused a bit of an upset in the market, though for anyone that watches or partakes in the markets, January-February of this year was much worse than post referendum and yet people bleat on and on about how a democratic vote has caused so much turmoil.  BREXIT is merely the whipping boy for a global bubble economy that's just looking, and is long overdue to find a pin to prick.  Its easier for the powers that be to point to something, anything in order that they are not looked at too closely.

 

Not many have actually looked at the market as an individual and realised that hey:

 

• 0% or close to 0% or even negative interest rates across the Western World is not natural and is far from historically normal
• Billions in stimulus across the Western world is not normal
• What is my local currency really worth given it comes off the magical printing press every time the government needs money?
• Maybe all of these assets were massively over priced to begin with.  BNT looks to the P/E ratios of Wall Street and the NASDAQ and notes how little money these companies are making in the real world yet have huge market valuations.  

 

BREXIT referendum was a god send to the Bank of England though they wont openly admit that, it allowed Sterling to fall realitive to major currencies such as Euro/USD etc.  For the past 8 years central bank after central bank from Washington, Brussels, Zurich to Beijing have been devaluing their currencies via money printing, unpegging exchange rates in order to become more competitive in relation to their neighbours.  This can often cause upset and cries of foul play when nations devalue their own currency and effectively screw over other countries who now have relatively stronger currencies; but this is perfect for the Bank of England, all they have to do is say its unfortunate Sterling fell but that's democracy - its not our doing Governor, T'is the Unwashed Masses 

 

The stock markets and fiat currencies underpinning them are the big white elephant that people just don't see; or fail to appreciate.  The stock markets are totally detached from reality; held at their current highs by big bolus injections of financial heroin by the central banks.  

 

On topic to property prices this made me laugh.  

"As with Aviva and Standard Life, the firm said investors would be better protected by preventing any further withdrawals.

Aviva, the UK's biggest insurer, earlier halted its £1.8bn property trust, a day after Standard Life blocked access to its £2.9bn fund."

 

I would say that these properties for the most part are overvalued.  Not only are they overvalued the companies involved have made money by the properties increasingly unrealistic valuations.  They make money on the loans to the buyers, the properties serve as ever increasing assets (by price) on these companies books, up until the valuations take a hit, at that point these assets swing from being assets to liabilities as they are often over priced to begin with.  See the subprime mortgage crisis and negative equity. 

 

Who do people think these funds are protecting?  The trustees in their trust funds trying to make money (and arguably failing to do so thus the attempted/withdrawal of capital) or themselves as they try to prevent flight of capital out of their property portfolios and thus balance sheets that are filled with over valued assets that will plunge in value when someone yells "fire" on the disco floor?  Nope; this is full blown protectionism by the funds; they have made bets that are now going south and they are preventing people taking their money out of the funds for no righteous reason only pure self interest, namely trying to maintain the perceived current value of the assets on their books; that no doubt have been leveraged to loan money for stock buybacks, executive bonuses etc.

 

It also is not down to the Leave campaign to come up with a plan for the BREXIT, most of these people were/are not in Government merely campaigned to leave and have as much say in a plan as Joe Public; the government, Downing Street provided the referendum, it was for Downing Street to have a plan in place following a potential leave vote; the Bank of England (say at least) that they had a plan, all Downing Street did was collapse into infighting and resignations.  The blame for a failure of a plan, or indeed any plan at all lies at the doorstep of 10 Downing Street.

 

Interesting time friends

[Icewolf]

Well a few things on that; 

 

1. The FTSE 250 has taken a pounding whilst the FTSE 100 has not. If Brexit was good for Britain but weakened other countries trading position, you would expect the globally dominated 100 to fall relative to the Britain dominated 250. Other way round says the markets bet is that this is bad for Britain and good for the world. 

 

2. The concept that a falling currency boosts the economy has several important caveats.

Firstly, it almost always caused a J curve effect-in the short term it drives up import costs without boosting orders as the stickiness in the economy takes a while to adapt. Contracts will be carried out before suppliers are changed etc. This means inflation, reduced economic growth/recession, and pain before gain. 

 

Secondly, it is traditionally used (as with all stimulus) to restore the economy to full employment. The idea being that it reduces relative wages, makes the workers more competitive globally, increases exports and drives up employment. This in part includes driving up import costs reducing propensity to import. For the UK, we cannot stop importing oil and food, so this will cause inflation and suppression of real wages. But more importantly, our economy was already at full employment. There is no employment growth to come. (apart from restoring the loses of the J curve). So additional exports can only come from increased productivity. Which brings to the third point. 

 

Decreasing currency value is considered a good thing as a policy when it is done by increasing money supply, which increases investment alongside increasing demand. The increased investment alongside the increased demand allows the economy to grow into the demand. This is especially important when there is a productivity issue (as the UK has) as productivity increase is the only way to meet demand. For the UK, the fall in currency is driven by a capital flight so great that it alone has returned us to 1985. People are not investing, especially in the manufacturing sector where our largest manufacturers rely on cross EU supply chains. The amount of investment leaving is staggering. So there simply is not the ability to boost productivity to meet demand, meaning we will not reap the type of rewards typical headline economics would suggest. 

 

Put simply, there is a reason that there are no economics cheering right now, there is a reason that all Brexit leaders have run away, its because this is not good news. 

 

Side note, although my main degree is law, I spent about six months pissing about with economics. 

[Icewolf]

It would have very servere remifications if the UK's Parliament decided to disregard the results of this referendum, or decided to hold another one. It might be economically viable, but it would also be an admission that Democracy there is little more than a charade, even if the results are not "legally" binding.

 

After all, why bother voting if the will of the people can be retroactively questined or rules retroactively rewritten? If results to an unfavorable question can be put to the vote until the turnout is what the elite "wants". Why bother voting for anything at that point, including the General Elections?

 

I know for a fact that if I were a British citizen, I would not vote again in any election, ever, on principle alone if Parliament didn't act on the Brexit vote. This decision would also have nothing to with the question itself, it's a matter of governance.

 

EDIT: In addition, the UK would forever lose the political ground to criticize any sort of political system in the world. No political freedoms in North Korea? Oh really? As far as they're concerned, the people reign supreme there, it just happens that Kim-Jong Un is voted in every time by 99% of the voters, while you are busy ignoring the clear results of your own referendum.

 

 now now, I doubt he would try that, Putin that is

 

Of course not, he probably used several proxies

A straight re-run of the referendum is out of the question. But in terms of democracy we have the following situation; 

 

1. The winning campaign told lie after lie after lie

2. They have admitted telling lie after lie after lie

3. All their leaders have since legged it

4. At no point in the campaign was an exit vision painted, so although there has been a vote on what is not wanted, there is no direction for what is wanted

5. We are seeing heavy swings towards people not wanting to leave now the reality of what that means is being noticed. 

 

 

So my question was simply, at what point does a result lose legitimacy? If the day after a general election the leader of the winning party resigned, his cabinet declared they were not going to deliver a single manifesto commitment then also resigned leaving their case presented by a moron who keeps babblng about baby brains, would this be considered a legitimately formed government?

 

It is very noticeable that remain is more energised than ever, and leave have legged it. Surely the opposite should have happened? It hasn't, and it is for a very simple reason. Remain struggled to get a good narrative to defend the status quo. But there is sure a good bloody narrative to attack the new status quo, and there is no one left defending that status quo. 

[Bill N Ted]

Well a few things on that; 

 

Secondly, it is traditionally used (as with all stimulus) to restore the economy to full employment. The idea being that it reduces relative wages, makes the workers more competitive globally, increases exports and drives up employment. This in part includes driving up import costs reducing propensity to import. For the UK, we cannot stop importing oil and food, so this will cause inflation and suppression of real wages. But more importantly, our economy was already at full employment. There is no employment growth to come. (apart from restoring the loses of the J curve). So additional exports can only come from increased productivity. Which brings to the third point. 

 

Decreasing currency value is considered a good thing as a policy when it is done by increasing money supply, which increases investment alongside increasing demand. The increased investment alongside the increased demand allows the economy to grow into the demand. This is especially important when there is a productivity issue (as the UK has) as productivity increase is the only way to meet demand. For the UK, the fall in currency is driven by a capital flight so great that it alone has returned us to 1985. People are not investing, especially in the manufacturing sector where our largest manufacturers rely on cross EU supply chains. The amount of investment leaving is staggering. So there simply is not the ability to boost productivity to meet demand, meaning we will not reap the type of rewards typical headline economics would suggest. 

 

Put simply, there is a reason that there are no economics cheering right now, there is a reason that all Brexit leaders have run away, its because this is not good news. 

 

Side note, although my main degree is law, I spent about six months pissing about with economics. 

 

 

Do you believe the unemployment figures being produced?  

I think the inflation rate given by ONS is highly manipulated, given that I don't trust the inflation data I have very little faith in the unemployment/employment figures.  I will admit that I have viewed the inflation figures and viewed them as rubbish, thus I haven't looked at the official unemployment figures believing it to be a waste of my time. 

 

Do you think that financial stimulus is a good thing? If so why?  I cant get my head around why people view stimulus as a good thing and would like an alternate perspective, assuming of course you support central bank stimulus.  

 

 

So my question was simply, at what point does a result lose legitimacy? If the day after a general election the leader of the winning party resigned, his cabinet declared they were not going to deliver a single manifesto commitment then also resigned leaving their case presented by a moron who keeps babblng about baby brains, would this be considered a legitimately formed government?

 

 

 

 

Is this a Lib Dem flashback?  

[Shahenshah]

I'm pretty sure Nigel Farage was paid handsomely enough by Putin to retire for life.

Putin isn't he kind of guy who will spend money when the comedy on offer is for free?.

He'd run circles around these guys without them noticing.

Well a few things on that;

Secondly, it is traditionally used (as with all stimulus) to restore the economy to full employment. The idea being that it reduces relative wages, makes the workers more competitive globally, increases exports and drives up employment. This in part includes driving up import costs reducing propensity to import. For the UK, we cannot stop importing oil and food, so this will cause inflation and suppression of real wages. But more importantly, our economy was already at full employment. There is no employment growth to come. (apart from restoring the loses of the J curve). So additional exports can only come from increased productivity. Which brings to the third point.

Decreasing currency value is considered a good thing as a policy when it is done by increasing money supply, which increases investment alongside increasing demand. The increased investment alongside the increased demand allows the economy to grow into the demand. This is especially important when there is a productivity issue (as the UK has) as productivity increase is the only way to meet demand. For the UK, the fall in currency is driven by a capital flight so great that it alone has returned us to 1985. People are not investing, especially in the manufacturing sector where our largest manufacturers rely on cross EU supply chains. The amount of investment leaving is staggering. So there simply is not the ability to boost productivity to meet demand, meaning we will not reap the type of rewards typical headline economics would suggest.

Put simply, there is a reason that there are no economics cheering right now, there is a reason that all Brexit leaders have run away, its because this is not good news.

Side note, although my main degree is law, I spent about six months pissing about with economics.

Do you believe the unemployment figures being produced?
I think the inflation rate given by ONS is highly manipulated, given that I don't trust the inflation data I have very little faith in the unemployment/employment figures. I will admit that I have viewed the inflation figures and viewed them as rubbish, thus I haven't looked at the official unemployment figures believing it to be a waste of my time.

Do you think that financial stimulus is a good thing? If so why? I cant get my head around why people view stimulus as a good thing and would like an alternate perspective, assuming of course you support central bank stimulus.

So my question was simply, at what point does a result lose legitimacy? If the day after a general election the leader of the winning party resigned, his cabinet declared they were not going to deliver a single manifesto commitment then also resigned leaving their case presented by a moron who keeps babblng about baby brains, would this be considered a legitimately formed government?

Is this a Lib Dem flashback?

When you start adding hookers to inflate GDP growth, you know the numbers are desperately cooked.

No offense against hookers or any service providers, but just making a point.

[onbekende]

*better stay clear of economical debate*

 

cause you know, inflation is idiotic (someone amping up prices cause somebody wants $$), growth should be propotional to population (otherwise its clearly a shift instead of a growth), enlarge the base of equal operation (competition with equal weapons, not that idea to just slash the company tax level with money you clearly don't have either).

[Shahenshah]

Growth should be proportional not to population, but the actual products and services produced by that population and not financial instruments making money out of thin air. Money should be made out of goods and services, not other money. Value of money falls (inflation) because more is being printed than required (and going to rich). It's simple supply and demand. Inflation then leads to necessity of interest. Interest then allows you to make all the shitty worthless financial instruments and services and ways to screw the masses. :-)

[onbekende]

and I am saying you don't need to produce more then what the populaton needs. Sure "new" products come and go every day, but sadly the pile of not just watsed but also un-used products grows every day aswell.

 

I won't die if today I earn €2k/m and I earn in 5y €2k/m and can do exactly the same, greed is the biggest threat to society as a functioning organisation.

[Icewolf]

 

Well a few things on that; 

 

Secondly, it is traditionally used (as with all stimulus) to restore the economy to full employment. The idea being that it reduces relative wages, makes the workers more competitive globally, increases exports and drives up employment. This in part includes driving up import costs reducing propensity to import. For the UK, we cannot stop importing oil and food, so this will cause inflation and suppression of real wages. But more importantly, our economy was already at full employment. There is no employment growth to come. (apart from restoring the loses of the J curve). So additional exports can only come from increased productivity. Which brings to the third point. 

 

Decreasing currency value is considered a good thing as a policy when it is done by increasing money supply, which increases investment alongside increasing demand. The increased investment alongside the increased demand allows the economy to grow into the demand. This is especially important when there is a productivity issue (as the UK has) as productivity increase is the only way to meet demand. For the UK, the fall in currency is driven by a capital flight so great that it alone has returned us to 1985. People are not investing, especially in the manufacturing sector where our largest manufacturers rely on cross EU supply chains. The amount of investment leaving is staggering. So there simply is not the ability to boost productivity to meet demand, meaning we will not reap the type of rewards typical headline economics would suggest. 

 

Put simply, there is a reason that there are no economics cheering right now, there is a reason that all Brexit leaders have run away, its because this is not good news. 

 

Side note, although my main degree is law, I spent about six months pissing about with economics. 

 

 

Do you believe the unemployment figures being produced?  

I think the inflation rate given by ONS is highly manipulated, given that I don't trust the inflation data I have very little faith in the unemployment/employment figures.  I will admit that I have viewed the inflation figures and viewed them as rubbish, thus I haven't looked at the official unemployment figures believing it to be a waste of my time. 

 

Do you think that financial stimulus is a good thing? If so why?  I cant get my head around why people view stimulus as a good thing and would like an alternate perspective, assuming of course you support central bank stimulus.  

 

 

So my question was simply, at what point does a result lose legitimacy? If the day after a general election the leader of the winning party resigned, his cabinet declared they were not going to deliver a single manifesto commitment then also resigned leaving their case presented by a moron who keeps babblng about baby brains, would this be considered a legitimately formed government?

 

 

 

 

Is this a Lib Dem flashback?  

 

To point 1, under the correct circumstances Financial Stimulus can be good for an economy, as can monetary stimulus. There is a lot of academic debate behind that, but on current evidence it appears to be the correct view. 

 

One thing we know for certain is that the two central tenants of neo-classical economics (Government deficits hamper growth and the gold standard would be a good thing) have been fundamentally destroyed as having any credibility over the last 8 years. Since the great depression, the harder countries have engaged in austerity, the weaker their growth has been, and the faster their national debt as a share of GDP has risen. Those countries like the USA and UK with lower levels of austerity have actually had a far better performance in reducing share of national debt to GDP.

 

We have also had the case study of Greece as a country on the equivalent of the Gold Standard by being tied to the Euro, essentially a country having a fixed currency tied to market factors seperate to its own economy. This has hampered its economic recovery massively. The biggest failure of the Euro is not the fact it was an international currency, but the fact it was implemented on neoclassical economics principles.  We also have the nice little historical fact that the date a country recovered from the Great Depression in the 30s is very closely linked to the date it dropped the Gold Standard. The earlier a country left the gold standard, the faster its economy recovered. The US was last, and it took the massive fiscal stimulus of WWII to recover. 

 

For point 2, I think the Liberal Democrats were politically naive but are somewhat unfairly labelled. They went into a coalition so could not deliver all their manifesto pledges. They chose raising personal income tax allowance over tuition fees. Unfortunately for them, George Osbourne was then able to take ownership of that policy and present it as his own, and it was done very quickly and without controversy. However tuition fees dragged on and on and on and on and really as the dumber choice with hindsight to have dropped. They also in terms of Cabinet positions took Business (nobody really knows what that department does outside whitehall), Energy (no one really cares what that department does), Chief Secretary to the Treasury (ie, Osbourne's Bitch) and the constitutional reform...which epicaly failed. 

 

Compared to Vote Leave who rather than entering a negotiation and losing some commitments as a result, one the referendum outright and then abandoned every single pledge without having to enter a single negotiation, that is entirely a different league of dishonesty. 

Growth should be proportional not to population, but the actual products and services produced by that population and not financial instruments making money out of thin air. Money should be made out of goods and services, not other money. Value of money falls (inflation) because more is being printed than required (and going to rich). It's simple supply and demand. Inflation then leads to necessity of interest. Interest then allows you to make all the shitty worthless financial instruments and services and ways to screw the masses. :-)

That is the traditional view, but it is also incorrect. We have had record levels of money creation in western economies in recent times, whilst inflation and interest rates are at record lows. You can also have inflation without an increase in money-supply, when you have a risk driven capital flight of investors from an economy (see the UK over the next 2-3 months). This is because it sharply increases the costs of imported goods. 

On another note, at 2am on Friday morning some cunt through a petrol bomb through a Romanian owned super market in my city. Various groups of people went to show solidarity by cleaning up the mess and helping them put it back together. As they were doing so another cunt came and yelled racist abuse at the people helping clear it up. 

 

Does someone really want to tell me that giving validation to these cunts by voting out has made my country better? Really?

[Bill N Ted]

For once Icewolf, I am lost for words 

 

It looks to me like the Central banks are already fueling up the helicopters.

[Shahenshah]

Well a few things on that;

Secondly, it is traditionally used (as with all stimulus) to restore the economy to full employment. The idea being that it reduces relative wages, makes the workers more competitive globally, increases exports and drives up employment. This in part includes driving up import costs reducing propensity to import. For the UK, we cannot stop importing oil and food, so this will cause inflation and suppression of real wages. But more importantly, our economy was already at full employment. There is no employment growth to come. (apart from restoring the loses of the J curve). So additional exports can only come from increased productivity. Which brings to the third point.

Decreasing currency value is considered a good thing as a policy when it is done by increasing money supply, which increases investment alongside increasing demand. The increased investment alongside the increased demand allows the economy to grow into the demand. This is especially important when there is a productivity issue (as the UK has) as productivity increase is the only way to meet demand. For the UK, the fall in currency is driven by a capital flight so great that it alone has returned us to 1985. People are not investing, especially in the manufacturing sector where our largest manufacturers rely on cross EU supply chains. The amount of investment leaving is staggering. So there simply is not the ability to boost productivity to meet demand, meaning we will not reap the type of rewards typical headline economics would suggest.

Put simply, there is a reason that there are no economics cheering right now, there is a reason that all Brexit leaders have run away, its because this is not good news.

Side note, although my main degree is law, I spent about six months pissing about with economics.

Do you believe the unemployment figures being produced?
I think the inflation rate given by ONS is highly manipulated, given that I don't trust the inflation data I have very little faith in the unemployment/employment figures. I will admit that I have viewed the inflation figures and viewed them as rubbish, thus I haven't looked at the official unemployment figures believing it to be a waste of my time.

Do you think that financial stimulus is a good thing? If so why? I cant get my head around why people view stimulus as a good thing and would like an alternate perspective, assuming of course you support central bank stimulus.

So my question was simply, at what point does a result lose legitimacy? If the day after a general election the leader of the winning party resigned, his cabinet declared they were not going to deliver a single manifesto commitment then also resigned leaving their case presented by a moron who keeps babblng about baby brains, would this be considered a legitimately formed government?

Is this a Lib Dem flashback?

To point 1, under the correct circumstances Financial Stimulus can be good for an economy, as can monetary stimulus. There is a lot of academic debate behind that, but on current evidence it appears to be the correct view.

One thing we know for certain is that the two central tenants of neo-classical economics (Government deficits hamper growth and the gold standard would be a good thing) have been fundamentally destroyed as having any credibility over the last 8 years. Since the great depression, the harder countries have engaged in austerity, the weaker their growth has been, and the faster their national debt as a share of GDP has risen. Those countries like the USA and UK with lower levels of austerity have actually had a far better performance in reducing share of national debt to GDP.

We have also had the case study of Greece as a country on the equivalent of the Gold Standard by being tied to the Euro, essentially a country having a fixed currency tied to market factors seperate to its own economy. This has hampered its economic recovery massively. The biggest failure of the Euro is not the fact it was an international currency, but the fact it was implemented on neoclassical economics principles. We also have the nice little historical fact that the date a country recovered from the Great Depression in the 30s is very closely linked to the date it dropped the Gold Standard. The earlier a country left the gold standard, the faster its economy recovered. The US was last, and it took the massive fiscal stimulus of WWII to recover.

For point 2, I think the Liberal Democrats were politically naive but are somewhat unfairly labelled. They went into a coalition so could not deliver all their manifesto pledges. They chose raising personal income tax allowance over tuition fees. Unfortunately for them, George Osbourne was then able to take ownership of that policy and present it as his own, and it was done very quickly and without controversy. However tuition fees dragged on and on and on and on and really as the dumber choice with hindsight to have dropped. They also in terms of Cabinet positions took Business (nobody really knows what that department does outside whitehall), Energy (no one really cares what that department does), Chief Secretary to the Treasury (ie, Osbourne's Bitch) and the constitutional reform...which epicaly failed.

Compared to Vote Leave who rather than entering a negotiation and losing some commitments as a result, one the referendum outright and then abandoned every single pledge without having to enter a single negotiation, that is entirely a different league of dishonesty.

Growth should be proportional not to population, but the actual products and services produced by that population and not financial instruments making money out of thin air. Money should be made out of goods and services, not other money. Value of money falls (inflation) because more is being printed than required (and going to rich). It's simple supply and demand. Inflation then leads to necessity of interest. Interest then allows you to make all the shitty worthless financial instruments and services and ways to screw the masses. :-)

That is the traditional view, but it is also incorrect. We have had record levels of money creation in western economies in recent times, whilst inflation and interest rates are at record lows. You can also have inflation without an increase in money-supply, when you have a risk driven capital flight of investors from an economy (see the UK over the next 2-3 months). This is because it sharply increases the costs of imported goods.

On another note, at 2am on Friday morning some cunt through a petrol bomb through a Romanian owned super market in my city. Various groups of people went to show solidarity by cleaning up the mess and helping them put it back together. As they were doing so another cunt came and yelled racist abuse at the people helping clear it up.

Does someone really want to tell me that giving validation to these cunts by voting out has made my country better? Really?

Uhm, you do understand that inflation as touted by the government is a massively mutated airbrushed figure in this day and age? You'll have to delve a bit deeper nowadays to pick out the things.

Google House prices to earnings ratio in UK, then tell me if the inflation is low.