Hamish McRae: Don't believe everything George Soros says If George Soros thinks Britain is likely to have a recession, it must be so? Er, no (...) I think at a time like this it is important to be measured. This is not unknown territory. We have a lot of experience of post-war economic cycles and you have to be profoundly gloomy to believe that this one will be outside the boundaries that these define. I would go further: you have to be profoundly gloomy to believe that the next few years will be as bad as the 1970s, in economic terms the most difficult of the post-war decades. Then there was double-digit inflation and a double-dip recession in most developed countries, followed in the 1980s by double-digit unemployment in many of them as inflation was slowly ground out of the system. (...) This time it looks as though unemployment may rise a little but to nothing like the early 1980s or early 1990s. Instead it will be the living standards of most of us, those in jobs and those who have retired that will take the strain. In one sense this is welcome: much better that we should all feel some burden of adjustment rather than have this burden carried disproportionately by the unemployed. But actually there will still be a big random element. People in the public sector will be better protected than in the private; pensioners with indexed pensions will do particularly well.
If George Soros thinks Britain is likely to have a recession, it must be so? Er, no
(...)
I think at a time like this it is important to be measured. This is not unknown territory. We have a lot of experience of post-war economic cycles and you have to be profoundly gloomy to believe that this one will be outside the boundaries that these define. I would go further: you have to be profoundly gloomy to believe that the next few years will be as bad as the 1970s, in economic terms the most difficult of the post-war decades. Then there was double-digit inflation and a double-dip recession in most developed countries, followed in the 1980s by double-digit unemployment in many of them as inflation was slowly ground out of the system.
This time it looks as though unemployment may rise a little but to nothing like the early 1980s or early 1990s. Instead it will be the living standards of most of us, those in jobs and those who have retired that will take the strain.
In one sense this is welcome: much better that we should all feel some burden of adjustment rather than have this burden carried disproportionately by the unemployed. But actually there will still be a big random element. People in the public sector will be better protected than in the private; pensioners with indexed pensions will do particularly well.
All is fine, says Hamish McRae. Is he NuLabor? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The Independent is quite a good paper but two of its correspondents, McRae and Dominc Lawson, are such right-wing hacks that I worry if I ever agree with a single word they say. keep to the Fen Causeway
We have a lot of experience of post-war economic cycles and you have to be profoundly gloomy to believe that this one will be outside the boundaries that these define. I would go further: you have to be profoundly gloomy to believe that the next few years will be as bad as the 1970s, in economic terms the most difficult of the post-war decades. Then there was double-digit inflation and a double-dip recession in most developed countries, followed in the 1980s by double-digit unemployment in many of them as inflation was slowly ground out of the system.
I just disagree with the reality of the assertion, not that it is an incorrect one to make. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
you have to be profoundly gloomy to believe that the next few years will be as bad as the 1970s, in economic terms the most difficult of the post-war decades
He's not talking about the worst decade or not.
To be fair, Jerome, he doesn't say "all is fine" at all; he just says he doesn't think it will be as bad as the 1970s. He thinks unemployment will increase somewhat and that most people's living standards will go down. He thinks this is better than putting the burden just on the unemployed. You might disagree with him - but at least disagree with what he actually says. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience
And he IS saying "we won't be hurting much ('we' being, as noted above, the City), which is still a highly optimistic vision. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I still don't think you're being fair, he doesn't say "we will be ok" - his conclusion is: "But even if Mr Soros does prove right I don't think we should jump out of windows. A shallow recession, with the pressure widely spread, is not a catastrophe."
To say something is not a catastrophe is not to say that it's fine or OK for "us". He says there will be difficulties and most people's living standards will decline.
This is not to say I agree with him, just trying to be fair. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience
It's like the pundits that say that oil is overpriced and claim that the "real" price today shouls be $60 or $80. You should just not forget the bit of background whereby they were saying, when oil was at $50, that it was overpriced and that the "real" price was $35.
Denial. And the track record that goes with it. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Denial. And the track record that goes with it.
Have neoliberal economists ever been right, about anything?
Serious question. If they're batting a clean zero, we should at least be honest about that.
Ah, so all "neo-liberal economists" (self-described as such, or defined according to what criteria?) have been wrong about everything. This makes things so easy doesn't it? All one has to do is jeer at them (whoever they are) from time to time and "honestly" assert that their record continues to be zero.
If you just want to express your solidarity with those who oppose neo-lib economosts, I suppose it might help the feel-good factor, like many of your other "criticisms". As I indicated, I prefer the kind of reasoned, detailed criticism, backed with evidence, which is typical of Jerome's critiques here. But that takes a bit of work, something not so often evident in your airy dismissals of various groups and individuals.
Of course it isn't a "serious question", because it's not clear who would be included under that label, and who has surveyed the record of everything they've said? And whose judgment of that record would be used ? If one were serious one would try framing the allegation a little more carefully, and acknowledging that they might well have been right about a few things, but that some of us disapproved of the outcomes.
Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience
