Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Tired of Waiting

Miliband's New "central Insight" : Governments Should Regulate Markets.

Recommended Posts

Miliband's "central insight" : " For me the central insight is this: New Labour was right to accept the role of the market in 1994 (...) But government has a central role to play as well. Government as regulator, government as influencer (...) "

:huh:

He has just had this "insight" recently?!? Is he even more moronic than Brown?!? Is this possible?!?!

I don't get it. This is O level economics, settled for quite a few centuries! What is he talking about??!!

Source, The Labour Party: http://www2.labour.org.uk/ed-milibands-speech-to-labours-npf

Secondly we have to change our economy and we have to understand how we need to change our economy.

Now we did great things as a party: we created millions of jobs through our economic record. We used the proceeds of growth to rebuild our public services and tackle poverty. But let’s be honest, the message we heard at the election was that that wasn’t enough. For the people who were saying where are the industrial jobs of the future going to come from for my son or daughter, that wasn’t enough. For the people who were saying to us how am I going to get on the housing market, how is my son or daughter going to get on the housing ladder, it wasn’t enough. For the person who said ‘I feel like I’m just stuck, I’m stock in a low paid job and I can’t get out of it’, it wasn’t enough. For the small business owner who said look, the banks don’t seem to be helping me, it wasn’t enough.

So our second challenge is to understand that we need a whole new approach on our economy.

Now what is the central insight? For me the central insight is this: New Labour was right to accept the role of the market in 1994, that dynamic markets do help create jobs. But government has a central role to play as well. Government as regulator, government as influencer, government must play its role. But how should we do it going forward?

We know what the challenge is: to promote a proper living wage in this country. To have the high quality industrial jobs that we need. To reform our banking system in the way that we know other countries, Germany and others countries have in the past and created those high paying industrial jobs. And to take action also so there is responsibility on pay throughout our society. All of those things must be part of our policy review.

I tell you this also though. Deficit reduction is important. But deficit reduction cannot be your only economic policy. This government is trying to reduce economic policy simply to deficit reduction and frankly it won’t work. It won’t create the good economy we need in the future. So we need to change our approach on the economy.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was seriously* worried when I heard this adenoidal communist speak. It's as if they've not even looked at the country over the last 30 years. They have their theories about how things should be, and reality must fit that.

* they spoke seriously, and that is the worry, as if government was an alternative to the market. Why must they assume that government has to do everything for everyone? Do they not realise that 98% of us can sort out our own affairs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me the central insight is this: New Labour was right to accept the role of the market in 1994, that dynamic markets do help create jobs. But government has a central role to play as well. Government as regulator, government as influencer, government must play its role. But how should we do it going forward?

Such thoughtfulness from someone who's desperately trying to convince the electorate that he's brand new in the job and doesn't know anything about how UK PLC got in this mess.

Fortunately, he can't fool all of us. We know that in 1994 was working with the Shadow Treasury team and remained a key member of the Treasury until just five years ago.

Poor Ed, he's just had no opportunity to do anything about these issues before has he?

To reform our banking system in the way that we know other countries, Germany and others countries have in the past and created those high paying industrial jobs.

So this MSc Economics (LSE) grad suggests we change our entire banking model and business culture. That'll be a quick and easy to implement solution then.

It's a favourite uni essay topic to compare the US/UK and German models, but has it ever been achieved in reality? You'd better explain how you're going to do this, Ed.

I tell you this also though. Deficit reduction is important.

Has he also mixed up debt and deficit? Debt reduction is even more important, Ed. Imperative some would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was seriously* worried when I heard this adenoidal communist speak. It's as if they've not even looked at the country over the last 30 years. They have their theories about how things should be, and reality must fit that.

* they spoke seriously, and that is the worry, as if government was an alternative to the market. Why must they assume that government has to do everything for everyone? Do they not realise that 98% of us can sort out our own affairs?

Because they're socialists and that is their way. BTW, I mis-interpreted the heading as 'government should manipulate markets', which is probably closer to what they really mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was seriously* worried when I heard this adenoidal communist speak. It's as if they've not even looked at the country over the last 30 years. They have their theories about how things should be, and reality must fit that.

* they spoke seriously, and that is the worry, as if government was an alternative to the market. Why must they assume that government has to do everything for everyone? Do they not realise that 98% of us can sort out our own affairs?

As far as they are concerned, Blair/ Brown's new labour was an experiment with market principles and it failed. So now, it's 'back to basics'

I am also dismayed to hear that climate change must be at the centre of labour policy

This bunch of buffoons are never going to leave their hall of mirrors

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The central insight being that it's yet more twisting and more pledges to be reneged on.

To have the high quality industrial jobs that we need. To reform our banking system in the way that we know other countries, Germany and others countries have in the past and created those high paying industrial jobs.

Yeah right. It'll be forged in the white heat of technology no less - half a century on and the UK's still on tenterhooks waiting for it all to arrive. They are so the great renegers, alongside the other lot of renegers.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He has just had this "insight" recently?!? Is he an even more moronic than Brown?!? Is this possible?!?!

I don't get it. This is O level economics, settled for quite a few centuries! What is he talking about??!!

Sadly no one bothered to tell the economics professionals this bit of O level economics- they've spent the last 20 years running around telling anyone who would listen that markets regulate themselves :lol:

The best part is these same idiots still have their jobs and are being paid for their 'advice'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miliband's "central insight" : " For me the central insight is this: New Labour was right to accept the role of the market in 1994 (...) But government has a central role to play as well. Government as regulator, government as influencer (...) "

This is where free market capitalists and socialists differ.

free market capitalists actually DO understand there are rules to the game,and if they are broken or bent,then those who get caught get punished severely.

socialists behave rather more like aristocratic adolescents.....you misbehave,then send for the whipping boy.(taxpayer bailout)

they really do need a good hiding to teach them some discipline...hence why so many socialists spring from rather privileged backgrounds,and do not have any real experience of having to rough it...they talk a good talk,but that's it.

What we really need is a return to philanthroic capitalism(ie cadbury/rowntree and so on).

Not statism,not corporatism.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour are going to have another few leaders before they are back in power.

Milliped is simply unimpressive - he doesn't appear to be a leader and at some point he'll step down.

The man has no charisma - and that's what people like in politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly no one bothered to tell the economics professionals this bit of O level economics- they've spent the last 20 years running around telling anyone who would listen that markets regulate themselves :lol:

The best part is these same idiots still have their jobs and are being paid for their 'advice'.

Many economists (including FT's Martin Wolf, and the The Economist, and Vince Cable) saw the credit bubble, and the danger of it, and kept warning the country, many times, years before 2007. But the country did not want to listen, from the sheeple to bankers and politicians from both parties. It was a national collective credit binge party.

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where free market capitalists and socialists differ.

free market capitalists actually DO understand there are rules to the game,and if they are broken or bent,then those who get caught get punished severely.

socialists behave rather more like aristocratic adolescents.....you misbehave,then send for the whipping boy.(taxpayer bailout)

they really do need a good hiding to teach them some discipline...hence why so many socialists spring from rather privileged backgrounds,and do not have any real experience of having to rough it...they talk a good talk,but that's it.

What we really need is a return to philanthroic capitalism(ie cadbury/rowntree and so on).

Not statism,not corporatism.

Perhaps on the pages of a textbook they do but there is no real evidence to show that has ever happened.

Every single time a fundamental free market system has been bought in it has been corrupted. Almost all the companies acting as champions of deregulation have come to the conclusion that if the benefits from cheating outweigh the costs of getting caught then they cheat.

Philantropic capitalism is of an era when some landed gentry found God and decided to be nice. Unfortuately the Freedmanite philosopy is such that even if that was the aim of an individual he would be unable to pursue that at the expense of shareholder profits.

Mixed economies are the way forward - for me the job of the state is to work out where private enterprise is genuinely better and where it is just rent seeking.

Personally I'd have a "public option" for everything from banking, to insurance, to savings plans which would offer genuine competition to their private sector equivilants.

Edited by Timak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll still call their policies "progressive" even though they say they're going in the opposite direction to policies called "progressive" before the election.

There are only two options. I don't think Millipede wants to be known for regressive policies.

Meaningless terminology employed to appeal to the ignornat masses. Worse, in my view, is the catch word "change" used without anyreference to what, how, why etc.

Here's Millipede's new election catch pharse: Vote Labour, its time for progressive change.

Edited by Realistbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want:

Free markets that are properly regulated. Barca vs Real would not be a better game if there was no referee. Business success should be down to being able to offer a better product or a cheaper price not on destroying competition through dirty tricks.

Limited purpose state backed banking - State backed savings and retirment investment plans with tax payer guarantee.

Regulated banking - Current accounts, Savings accounts, Business accounts and retirement investment with strict regulation run through the private sector.

Unregulated banking - Given my "properly regulated" point above this might sound a strange one but I believe there should also be the ability to invest in completely unregulated investments with no safety net. If I choose to give £10k to some city spiv to gamble on my behalf that should be my choice. Only proviso would be no no leverage, they can gamble only real money.

Reducing the cost of shelter - it is ridiculous that people should spend their lifetimes shackled to debt to pay for shelter. When the neolibs call this socialism ask them about which economies we should emulate. When they say Hong Kong, Singapore and Germany ask about the level of property ownership and rent controls.

Do this by a massive building program on land bought at agricultural prices.

Encouraging a 30 hour working week - Remove the reliance on welfare by increasing employment. The 20% economically inactive could be employed by a 20% reduction in the working week. This would be affordable to many by reducing the cost of shelter by well over 20%. Businesses would still be open for as long as they liked, however they would employ more people at reduced wages.

End result - 3 day weekends for everyone with no drop in standard of living for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

Reducing the cost of shelter - it is ridiculous that people should spend their lifetimes shackled to debt to pay for shelter. When the neolibs call this socialism ask them about which economies we should emulate. When they say Hong Kong, Singapore and Germany ask about the level of property ownership and rent controls.

Do this by a massive building program on land bought at agricultural prices.

Exactly!

And the government doesn't even have to build the homes. Just buy rural land, set up serviced plots, and sell them, even covering the costs. Sell these plots to builders and to individual buyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly!

And the government doesn't even have to build the homes. Just buy rural land, set up serviced plots, and sell them, even covering the costs. Sell these plots to builders and to individual buyers.

Unfortunately, doing this will not address the problem.

A builder who buys the plot will simply pocket the difference between what he pays and the 'normal' market price. Back to square 1. You need to reform the real estate market

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, doing this will not address the problem.

A builder who buys the plot will simply pocket the difference between what he pays and the 'normal' market price. Back to square 1. You need to reform the real estate market

Come on Stars, we are not thinking 1 plot, but a million plots, or more, whatever number is necessary to make housing affordable, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 150 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.