Paul Mason has written this in the Guardian this evening:
In the face of [the current economic crisis], Osborne should design a Tory version of “people's quantitative easing”: since the ECB is now buying company debt and bank debt at rates that give away money for free, Osborne is signalling the Bank of England to do likewise by raising its inflation target.
The scale of the problem signalled by stagnant global growth, negative interest rates and financial turbulence means Britain needs a second stimulus — done this time in a way that moves us away from import dependence, precarious work and low pay.
Wednesday is Osborne's last chance to prove he can think outside the austerity box.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
But sadly Osborne’s version of PQE would be only for his class of people yet again!
So there was Martin Sorrell on Channel 4 News saying what a wonderful job Osborne is doing and that he deserves to be PM. Of course Osborne is doing a wonderful job for Martin Sorrell. But can someone please tell me why his opinion is of any interest to the general population. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee434a84-e942-11e5-bb79-2303682345c8.html#axzz42mTmMx5Y
H(ad to get that one off my chest.)
I made the same comment to the screen
Martin Sorrell has as much interest in the well being of the general population as the World Economic Forum has to tackling inequality – he and they are the problem and will never provide a solution other than to line their own pockets!
The assumption here is that George Osborne has a brain, has any understanding of economics, has any interest other than slash and burn of public services, waging class warfare and transfer of money from the poor to the rich.
Well he does have a brain Keith, one with a very evil intention, but that’s about it from your list in my view. On all other counts he is clearly guilty as any sober and impartial judge could quickly deduce from the evidential facts.
It’s tricky to deduce intentions from words and actions, especially when Osborne’s words are often at odds with his actions or the effects of his actions.
The problem is deciding whether it’s a bug – he doesn’t intend to increase inequality, he really intends to rebalance the economy, he really thinks were “all in it together” but economic incompetence and a reliance of terrible advice mean he consistently does the opposite of what he wants to do – or a feature.
On the other hand, why is it a problem that need concern us? I don’t really care whether his intentions are good or if he really wills the ends he’s actually achieving. It’s not my responsibility to stare into his soul (bleagh!).
It may be our collective responsibility to do our best to see he doesn’t get away with what he’s doing.
I think you will find Sarah that Osborne’s real meaning behind phrases such as “re-balancing the economy” or “we’re all in it together” are vastly different from how most people would choose to interpret them.
Results speak for themselves, this country is more financially unequal than it was when the Tories took power. That is what he really means – he’s looking after his class of people.
It is constantly amazing how many non-wealthy people still think you can believe a nice man in a smart suit saying warm words (while he’s picking your pockets and stealing your tableware behind your back) and making you fear that “other guy” who will threaten our national security.
You could write a comedy about it if it wasn’t so sad and outrageous!
It’s not about Osborne per se as the word ‘Osborne’ is a metonym for the collective interests represented by his advisor-he himself is probably incapable of individual thought and is merely an echo chamber.
Of course we can’t deduce intentions from words because words are ‘polysemic’ and can be interpreted in a variety of ways. But we can see the results, the ‘fruits’and 40 years of neo-liberal guff are now clearly before our eyes. Osborne is a socially inept goon and nothing more, he’s like most politicians, divorced from social reality, cares not a jot and will leave his job to join a big corporation and when the next collapse comes he will say (as Churchill did when as chancellor he went back to the gold standard) ” I was only following my advisers.”
The duplicity of politicians is practically an art form, how to be Shakespearian, how to woo and persuade. Shakespeare was so clever, he made you empathise and despise his characters with equal measure, such was his skill. Would Mr Osbourne be a Richard 11.
Ah Richard, I see thy glory, like a shooting star, fall to the base earth from the firmament.
An interesting article in the Toygraph by William Hague.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12193882/George-Osborne-must-hold-steady-and-stick-by-his-4-billion-cuts.html
where, although correctly indicating that the politics is really psychological, he thinks the economics is as well. And if an ex Conservative leader thinks that and clearly has no idea where money comes from I think it’s obvious most other MP’s think similarly.
Interesting too that he goes on about economics not being a science, but an art. He completely forgets that science is about understanding the real world. The ‘economy’ is a human construct. It’s a new design that needs fixing not the perverse consequences of the old one!