Andrew Rawnsley says in his comment in the Observer this morning:
Both [the Tories and Labour] will fight the coming election by promising an extravaganza of spending. Neither is being at all clear about who will pay for their pledges. I very much doubt that the Queen's speech is going to leave us any the wiser about that.
What can I say? That how is that a man can have written for so long on politics and know nothing of Keynesian thought, fiscal policy, the multiplier, the virtues of borrowing when the economy is at less than full employment and rates are low, and that there is a magic money tree, after all?
That is what I can say.
That, and the fact that ignorance of such issues blights our political debate.
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!
I’ve just this minute read his article and had the same reaction. It simply beggars belief that someone of his journalistic experience could write such economic drivel. Just goes to show how far there still is to travel. On a wet Sunday morning it doesn’t help in lifting one’s spirits. The MSM should carry a public health warning.
They don’t get it; I doubt if they ever will.
People like Rawnsley are just hacks – that’s all – overrated hacks. We must not expect too much from them.
Ask Andrew Rawnsley how UK aggregate demand can be optimised (which means minimal unemployment at decent wages with low inflation) and he’ll be totally unable to point to a logical recipe. As you rightly say for a seasoned commentator this is appalling akin to most Brexiters having virtually no understanding what the UK Rule of Law implied for the 2016 Referendum vote. So many ignorant people in the UK that it’s hard at times to have much optimism for the country’s future. Nature would appear to be driven by what can best be described as “cooperative intentionality for well-being” with competition playing a secondary role. It would seem that Nature may have pushed the boat out too far in evolutionary terms with human beings since much of the “cooperativeness” is dependent on cultural wisdom!
My feelings exactly. I read the article knowing full well it would be full of neoliberalism framing and finished it amazed that someone gets paid for being such an ill informed flat-earther. Do these journalists stop learning when they leave junior school?
That’s why i always refer to him as ‘Ridiculous’ Rawnsley.
& his usual running dog ‘inCohenRant’
And their rag the Obsessive/Groan.
That’s why I Dun Groanin.
Keep up calling them out Proff, the truth is getting through.
Rawnsley
Private education at Rugby school followed by Cambridge, it seems these institutions are unable to grasp even Keynes, or Rawnsley is a die hard neoliberal without another thought in his head. Hopeless, always was.
Keep up the fine discourse.
Paul
A moments reflection:
We simultaneously hear that all economists are useless, and then that nobody understands economics. Might be a connection there.
🙂
My view is that the likes of Rawnsley think that if ignoring Macro is good enough for the IFS, it’s good enough for me. Especially if it makes it easy to pen such risible articles as his latest. At least, I’d hope that’s his thinking. If he really believes the ‘no magic money tree’ shtick, it’s more disturbing that he gets the chance to show his ignorance in the press every week.
Yes, same old drivel. I just wait now to hear the first response from many media presenters after some politician explains a policy. Who’s going to pay for it?
I think the only thing Donald Trump has ever said that I thoroughly agree with is that mainstream Media is letting the people down.
It may be worse in America, but it’s certainly bad enough here. People pay to read this stuff ? My thanks to those who pass it on; I’m not prepared to pay for it.