Monday, June 7, 2010

Poor chancellor and weak prime minister – reputation now in ruins

No more "boom and busts"? I don't think so, Mr Brown

''Mr Brown in Budget after Budget and Pre-Budget Report after Pre-Budget Report regaled his unfortunate audiences with his judgment that all past economic woes were the fault of Tory governments. And he, he alone, the anointed one, had banished economic fluctuations for ever. The future was golden; the Tory past was dross.''

Posted by hpwatcher @ 09:03 AM (1050 views)
Please complete the required fields.

2 thoughts on “Poor chancellor and weak prime minister – reputation now in ruins

  • At the core of Marxist economics, it is believed that boom-and-bust cycles are a product of capitalism.

    However this assertion has never been explained, demonstrated or proved. It is just ivory tower theoretical speculation that has tremendous emotional appeal. It is a dream.

    The Marxists will argue that we still have boom-and-bust because we don’t yet have ENOUGH Marxism. It’s all those overseas capitalists that are the problem and the sooner they also follow Marxist economics, the better. That’s why Brown kept saying “it started in America” as an excuse for why he failed to hedge.

    However, I always find it amusing that in most fields, ideas and theories have to be tested and proved before being used – yet Marxists feel that such a requirement should not apply to themselves. They know better, if only the rest of the world would agree.

    Maybe they should build a world government of Marxist-only economics on the moon or on Mars and report back about how they get on.

    Meanwhile, capitalism here on planet Earth boom-and-bust will continue – as it always has and as always will.

    It’s only when you deny it can happen that you take such giant risks that, when the downturn inevitably comes, the collapse is even more spectacular than if you accept the cycle and behave accordingly.

    Captcha: our riven
    (a classic, even by Captcha’s standards!)

    Please complete the required fields.

  • Capitalism allows the boom (bust) to be quantified in a meaningful manner (both statistically and via purchasing power ironically using the alienation of labour) to those that produce (workers), if all were owned by the public there would be no meaningful manner* in which to do the same, but the problem would still exist and workers would observe it both at their factories goods-in door and in their provisions. I believe the boom & bust would be a different, and most likely worse, phenomena in a fully isolated Marxist state since a lack of implicit feedback in the system would lead to both sharper busts (central control did not know that the mine had a problem until a lack of receipts were reported) and slower recoveries (central control must decide upon the best course of action rather than allowing all the subjects actions to direct this).

    * yes, it could be quantified, but the current production of iron ore in tonnes has little meaning to a shoe factory worker.

    Please complete the required fields.

Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>