![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A strange night's sleep. Fell into slumberland "just like that", but then woke at 4.30am, wide awake, completely disorientated. After an hour I gave up on getting back to sleep, got up, played a couple of hundred hands, and now I might go back to bed again.
Friendly talk on the radio this morning from American business commentators, desperately trying to justify state intervention on a level not seen since, well, ever. "It's no stranger than the UK propping up its banking system" said one US guy, in response to a gentle prod that all of this was a bit weird. Er, yes, but aren't you the country that criticized the UK for too much state intervention, or, er, "socialism" as I believe you termed it at the time?
Another commentator from the US made the palpably hilarious comment that the American public was being told by the government "we know what's best for you, trust us" and that "the American public never likes that". Given that the American public has a history of believing its governments when virtually every other member of the public in every other country in the world has told its governments to "bog off, don't be silly" (I'm thinking the Hussein/Al Qaeda link-up and the WMD claims of 2002 here), to ascribe to the US public a healthy cynicism is in itself charmingly naive.
One US commentator this morning said that it was okay to ignore the tumbling equity markets because investors are just drama queens. In a way, this is true -- sentiment plays a large role in equity valuations, not least because so many fund managers are just trend followers -- following the herd is easier than thinking. But, once again, if you are going to come out with this argument when prices are tanking, you should also follow it when prices are going up.
Digby Jones told a parliamentary committee this morning that 2009 was goping to be absolutely crap for the economy, but much of the fault still lay with the media for emphasising that we are in a recession.
And, once again, it hides a kernel of truth. The "bad times" of the 1930s were actually very good times -- if you were in work and stayed in work. If people in jobs cut back on discretionary spending because they are worried about times being tough, rather than times actually being tough, then the economy shrinks more than it would have otherwise. On the other hand, Digby's argument is implicitly one of "we've got to get people out there buying stuff that they don't need again". One could equally argue that a period of cutting back on discretionary spending is what the world needs, even if this causes a "contraction" in the economy. After all, if we all go out and buy gazillions of stuff that we don't need, all that's happened is that GDP has gone up, and we have worked harder to no actual purpose. GDP, in this sense, is rather a poor measurement of how "wealthy" a society is. However, like democracy, although it's crap, it's just about the best measure we've got at the moment that works. But that doesn't mean that it should be an end in itself.
Pensions were also in the news, with the Royal Mail trustees bleating like shit this time. It's been so obvious for so long that the pension systems invented a century ago were the longest-ruuinning Ponzi scheme in history, I can only wonder why no-one has worked out what to do when it finally blows up. Local councils face two choices -- either they start amending their pension scheme (and this includes benefits for those already retired), or they try to tax people more and more while providing fewer and fewer services. The latter could lead to Detroitification or, if it does not, to serious voter disatisfaction. Eventually democracy has its say, and someone gets elected who says that the pensions deficit has to stop by cutting payments.
________________
Friendly talk on the radio this morning from American business commentators, desperately trying to justify state intervention on a level not seen since, well, ever. "It's no stranger than the UK propping up its banking system" said one US guy, in response to a gentle prod that all of this was a bit weird. Er, yes, but aren't you the country that criticized the UK for too much state intervention, or, er, "socialism" as I believe you termed it at the time?
Another commentator from the US made the palpably hilarious comment that the American public was being told by the government "we know what's best for you, trust us" and that "the American public never likes that". Given that the American public has a history of believing its governments when virtually every other member of the public in every other country in the world has told its governments to "bog off, don't be silly" (I'm thinking the Hussein/Al Qaeda link-up and the WMD claims of 2002 here), to ascribe to the US public a healthy cynicism is in itself charmingly naive.
One US commentator this morning said that it was okay to ignore the tumbling equity markets because investors are just drama queens. In a way, this is true -- sentiment plays a large role in equity valuations, not least because so many fund managers are just trend followers -- following the herd is easier than thinking. But, once again, if you are going to come out with this argument when prices are tanking, you should also follow it when prices are going up.
Digby Jones told a parliamentary committee this morning that 2009 was goping to be absolutely crap for the economy, but much of the fault still lay with the media for emphasising that we are in a recession.
And, once again, it hides a kernel of truth. The "bad times" of the 1930s were actually very good times -- if you were in work and stayed in work. If people in jobs cut back on discretionary spending because they are worried about times being tough, rather than times actually being tough, then the economy shrinks more than it would have otherwise. On the other hand, Digby's argument is implicitly one of "we've got to get people out there buying stuff that they don't need again". One could equally argue that a period of cutting back on discretionary spending is what the world needs, even if this causes a "contraction" in the economy. After all, if we all go out and buy gazillions of stuff that we don't need, all that's happened is that GDP has gone up, and we have worked harder to no actual purpose. GDP, in this sense, is rather a poor measurement of how "wealthy" a society is. However, like democracy, although it's crap, it's just about the best measure we've got at the moment that works. But that doesn't mean that it should be an end in itself.
Pensions were also in the news, with the Royal Mail trustees bleating like shit this time. It's been so obvious for so long that the pension systems invented a century ago were the longest-ruuinning Ponzi scheme in history, I can only wonder why no-one has worked out what to do when it finally blows up. Local councils face two choices -- either they start amending their pension scheme (and this includes benefits for those already retired), or they try to tax people more and more while providing fewer and fewer services. The latter could lead to Detroitification or, if it does not, to serious voter disatisfaction. Eventually democracy has its say, and someone gets elected who says that the pensions deficit has to stop by cutting payments.
________________
