(no subject)

[johnny9fingers]

I don't want to have been Cassandra...but:

http://business.guardian.co.uk/markets/story/0,,2164612,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

We have to avoid it going tits up.
Gods, I hope your clever-clever guys are on the ball.
Or maybe it is even time to anticipate a reversion to the more Keynsian economics of yore, or at least a modified version thereof.
Perhaps there needs to be a cycle moving between the economic theories: perhaps that's the only way we consolidate our gains. Retrench, and invest, develop, and then remove the redundancy that's grown in the system in the meantime.

Is it (or should it be) a dynamic?

Comments

Dollar going tits-up ?

[ankh156.livejournal.com]

This has been threatening since Clinton left. Bush's laissez-faire attitude has verged on negligence since he got there. His only economic move was to reduce taxes for the super-rich.

Clinton : "It's the economy, stupid !"

Bush : "It's the stupid economy".

I'm so glad I'm in the eurozone. Barrels of oil are already (unofficially) reckoned in €.

The 'special relationship' always was a bumfuck.

Heil to the thief.

Re: Dollar going tits-up ?

[vlion.livejournal.com]

Given the timing, I'd suspect that this is an effect of Clinton and the regulations, not an aftereffect of the laizzez-faire attitude. I've always found the arguments that a government could run an economy monumentally unconvincing, given their screw-ups in every other affair they set their hands to.

Interesting

[ankh156.livejournal.com]

Nearly 8 years later, after Bush effectively ignores the economic climate of his watch (apart from ensuring that the price of oil triples), and it's 'Clinton's fault'. This, after Clinton left the economy pretty solid, and the deficit at an all time low. You might as well say it's Roosevelt's, fault... or Franklin's maybe ? Aren't american presidents supposed to move to ensure/defend the prosperity of american voters ?

Re: Interesting

[vlion.livejournal.com]

"Aren't american presidents supposed to move to ensure/defend the prosperity of american voters ?"
Ensure my prosperity? No. His job's to defend the country and administer the executive functions of the state. Goodness knows, if I relied on another person for my prosperity, I'd be a whiny mooch. "wah, you're a flawed human being, and you're messing my life up with your flaws"

Economics moves in slower patterns than presidential cycles. The 90s boom was not due to Clinton- it was due to the research done in Silicon Valley in the 60s and 70s leading to the computer revolution and- I may be mistaken in this last part- the new markets that began to open up with the fall of the USSR, which I *think* was partially caused by Reagan's anti-Commie policies stressing the USSR's finances beyond sustainability. (he forced more spending from the USSR, as I recall from what I read quite a few years ago)

[winterlion.livejournal.com]

Believe it or not I've been expecting this since Regan - as the key now is the housing prices being out of hand (and control) - as has city (business) tax rates and corporate costs outside of the "top dogs".

and I think it's been happing in the UK for a few years already?

perhaps it's time to reassess the values of fundamentals - and see where we end up. (I keep seeing the word "nomad" come up when I think about this although the requirements aren't yet in place).


looking at this slantways though I suspect there IS a correction that can be done - I just can't quite smell what it is yet.

Don't panic Captain Mannering!

[(Anonymous)]

Oh for goodness' sake - you should know better than to listen to such hysterical reactions.

Why is everyone getting so upset about it? Various people have been wanting the US to cut interest rates for some time. Figures come out which make a cut in interest rates more likely. Everyone craps their pants. Why?

I am so telling N about this one - you're in for an email, I think...

M

Re: Don't panic Captain Mannering!

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Who is panicking?
I'm merely extrapolating from the 20th century's economic cycle and the different economic theories used at given times to address the problems.
For example: 'the New Deal' - deficit budgeting and Keynesian economics, growth, employment, followed by a war economy, followed by a period of prosperity. Then followed by retrenchment and monatarism in the late 70's and 80's. Cutting the flab that had grown in the system.
I wonder if we've come to the end of that part of the cycle.
Most economists belong to one church or another. An either/or situation.
I wonder if the theories are just tools for specific jobs (Nah, we don't need a hammer here, but a spanner).