0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Hound.Oh aye. And your comment that the fall in wages was needed to "fix the damage" is deeply depressing.There is no economic theory or practical experience that says that depressing wages is necessary to "fix the damage" after a recession. It's actually quite the reverse. The way you come out of a recession is by encouraging economic activity to grow. And you don't do that by screwing people down.I'll tell you why it's so depressing. That decision,to implement Austerity in 2010 had nothing whatsoever to do with economics. It was all about shrinking the size and scope of Govt. For right wing ideological purposes. But it was dressed up as inevitable because people put on serious faces and said "we have to fix the damage". There's only two groups in the country who have been isolated from the effects of that catastrophic decision. That's the very wealthiest, who have seen tax rates slashed, and pensioners who have seen consistent above-average pe Sion increases. The rest of the country has been screwed down.
Hound.Of course your post is eating at me. For two reasons. 1) it's emblematic of the way in which people are refusing to look at evidence which goes against what they want to believe. That concerns me. A lot.You say "The graph shows a fall in average wages lasting around three years before Labour were voted out".But it doesn't. At all. It shows a severe drop when the Global Financial Crisis hit in 2008 followed by a year of stabilisation in 09/10. That is as clear as a bell.You say, "am I right in saying that whoever was in power after the global crash would have had difficulty in stabilising the fall." But it's there in front of your nose. The situation WAS stabilised. By Labour. By early 2010, economic growth had come roaring back. We were growing at pre-recession levels, due to the drastic action Labour had taken to address the crisis. Then the rug was pulled from under the legs of the economy by Austerity. The economy flatlined for 4 years and wages fell drastically. It's all there. On that graph.2) Which brings me to the second point. There's a determined insistence, much of it from people if your generation, not to hold the Tories to account for the damage that Austerity has done. It has done horrific damage to our economy and to our social fabric. You want to know why so many working people are so f**ked off these days? Look at that graph. A decade of working damned hard and seeing living standards fall.By the way, you accuse me if twisting your words in saying that a fall in wages was needed to fix the damage. How else am I supposed to interpret "The graph shows a fall in average wages lasting around three years before Labour were voted out and a further three to four years to fix the damage."And THAT is what really tweaks my tail. Because intelligent people have swallowed the lie that we somehow needed this decade of horrific economic performance to fix something. We didn't, and if we don't understand that and start taking down that lie, we are fated to fall for it again. Especially with such a consummately easy liar as Johnson at the helm. And that scares me. A lot.
Right Hound.So you accept that that prolonged fall in wages due to Austerity was entirely unnecessary? That's good. That puts you in the side of the overwhelming majority of economics experts.So. Why do you think it happened?As for the way you read evidence, I'm lost. Is there or is there not a clear 12-18 month period in the run up to the 2010 election in which wages had stabilised, followed by a clear and prolonged drop afterwards?I'm not reading the evidence that way because I support Labour. I support Labour because the evidence always says they handle the economy for the average person better than the Tories do. It's there. In front of your eyes.
Also, clearly NO, not every Govt would have done that. Cameron and Osborne spent 2009 screaming that the Govt was spending too much and that Brown was a Deficit Denier. So obviously they would have slashed Govt spending in 2009/10 if they'd been in power.
Interesting statistics Sydney. I mean a better statistic would be the proportion % cancelled and looking at that trend over time. It may well tell a different story....
Quote from: big fat yorkshire pudding on November 04, 2019, 09:45:56 amInteresting statistics Sydney. I mean a better statistic would be the proportion % cancelled and looking at that trend over time. It may well tell a different story....Every piece of reliable data helps with the jigsaw bfyp