Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Nominal GDP targeting

including Budgets
Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Nominal GDP targeting

#520420

Postby Dod101 » August 6th, 2022, 11:42 pm

1nvest wrote:
Dod101 wrote:
1nvest wrote:
Dod101 wrote:It is a shame that some of those highly opinionated people who post of 'the solution' on these Boards were not in Government. Covid, exchange rates, GDP and so on would be solved in a week or two.

Dod

You're of course perfectly entitled to opine that UK preparedness for a virological situation of 'wing it' along with economic policies of yo-yo (Lab/Con) to be good/appropriate, the realities of those however are a steady progressive relative decline as there are better alternatives. Parliamentary waste/incompetence could be resolved in a week or two, but is a paradox in that Parliament wont vote for that, as that involves removal of the dead wood that Parliament is. So the UK will continue to chug along the un-demographic induced decline slope, where just 20% of the population voted for the government in power, or just a small fractional percentage of the population get to decide who the next PM should be.


The democratic right of the people indirectly decided how a Prime Minister would be chosen. They decided that they wanted a Conservative Government and I do not think that party has ever made a secret of how a replacement PM would be chosen if required. That is all that is happening now. As has been said many times, the people never vote for a Prime Minister. That appointment with any party is for that party to decide. End of.

Dod

Generally around only 20% of the population voted for the government in office. A minority. 80% didn't vote for it. But that works for some. End of.


Well you are continuing the discussion. That is for the 20% to sort out. You may want another outcome but you must change the system, not those within it. It is a free country after all.
Or you could attempt to involve the majority who take no real direct interest in politics.

Dod

1nvest
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4323
Joined: May 31st, 2019, 7:55 pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1316 times

Re: Nominal GDP targeting

#520428

Postby 1nvest » August 7th, 2022, 1:54 am

Dod101 wrote:
1nvest wrote:
Dod101 wrote:
1nvest wrote:
Dod101 wrote:It is a shame that some of those highly opinionated people who post of 'the solution' on these Boards were not in Government. Covid, exchange rates, GDP and so on would be solved in a week or two.

Dod

You're of course perfectly entitled to opine that UK preparedness for a virological situation of 'wing it' along with economic policies of yo-yo (Lab/Con) to be good/appropriate, the realities of those however are a steady progressive relative decline as there are better alternatives. Parliamentary waste/incompetence could be resolved in a week or two, but is a paradox in that Parliament wont vote for that, as that involves removal of the dead wood that Parliament is. So the UK will continue to chug along the un-demographic induced decline slope, where just 20% of the population voted for the government in power, or just a small fractional percentage of the population get to decide who the next PM should be.


The democratic right of the people indirectly decided how a Prime Minister would be chosen. They decided that they wanted a Conservative Government and I do not think that party has ever made a secret of how a replacement PM would be chosen if required. That is all that is happening now. As has been said many times, the people never vote for a Prime Minister. That appointment with any party is for that party to decide. End of.

Dod

Generally around only 20% of the population voted for the government in office. A minority. 80% didn't vote for it. But that works for some. End of.


Well you are continuing the discussion. That is for the 20% to sort out. You may want another outcome but you must change the system, not those within it. It is a free country after all.
Or you could attempt to involve the majority who take no real direct interest in politics.

Dod

Oh the irony.

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4350
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 1590 times
Been thanked: 1579 times

Re: Nominal GDP targeting

#520453

Postby GoSeigen » August 7th, 2022, 9:52 am

1nvest wrote:Generally around only 20% of the population voted for the government in office. A minority. 80% didn't vote for it. But that works for some. End of.


Complete fallacy. Dude evidently believes babies should also be voting. And that since 99.9% of population didn't vote in a company's general meeting its decisions are taken by the minority and so undemocratic. Bizarre. "End of."

Why are we discussing politics on this forum?

GS

1nvest
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4323
Joined: May 31st, 2019, 7:55 pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1316 times

Re: Nominal GDP targeting

#520538

Postby 1nvest » August 7th, 2022, 5:25 pm

GoSeigen wrote:
1nvest wrote:Generally around only 20% of the population voted for the government in office. A minority. 80% didn't vote for it. But that works for some. End of.


Complete fallacy. Dude evidently believes babies should also be voting. And that since 99.9% of population didn't vote in a company's general meeting its decisions are taken by the minority and so undemocratic. Bizarre. "End of."

GS

Rather pathetic to compare a entity with only a limited number of interested parties (shareholders) with that of a entire country where everyone has a vested interest. But yes, if you want to be pedantic, 81% adult population (only 1 in 4 of the adult population voted for the government in power). Spun to your company example, if 25% of the shareholders were only permitted a say/vote and you'd be fine with that? I'm pretty certain that the rules would soon be changed in that case after control were seized via just that 25% proportion of voting power being grabbed and exploited. Yet on a far grander scale that affects the entire country, Parliament deems such policies/practice to be entirely acceptable/appropriate. When a entire country can be bought relatively inexpensively, naturally GDP will lag where it might otherwise have been.

Less than 0.3% of the population will determine the next PM, and where the exact number isn't even known, believed to be around 180,000, for some costing just £5 to become a voting member, and with seemingly very lose background checking - such that half of those votes could potentially have been bought for a total of less than £0.5 million - small change in the scale of things. That Parliament permits/accepts such is a travesty, some might even say treasonous.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Nominal GDP targeting

#520599

Postby ursaminortaur » August 7th, 2022, 8:23 pm

1nvest wrote:
GoSeigen wrote:
1nvest wrote:Generally around only 20% of the population voted for the government in office. A minority. 80% didn't vote for it. But that works for some. End of.


Complete fallacy. Dude evidently believes babies should also be voting. And that since 99.9% of population didn't vote in a company's general meeting its decisions are taken by the minority and so undemocratic. Bizarre. "End of."

GS

Rather pathetic to compare a entity with only a limited number of interested parties (shareholders) with that of a entire country where everyone has a vested interest. But yes, if you want to be pedantic, 81% adult population (only 1 in 4 of the adult population voted for the government in power). Spun to your company example, if 25% of the shareholders were only permitted a say/vote and you'd be fine with that? I'm pretty certain that the rules would soon be changed in that case after control were seized via just that 25% proportion of voting power being grabbed and exploited..


With companies it is actually far worse. The votes aren't cast with one person per vote but one share per vote. It is more like the old block vote system of the unions when voting at Labour conference. The institutions (pension funds, financial institutions etc) cast big blocks of votes usually without consulting the individual pensioners or other investors for whom they supposedly hold those shares and those blocks of votes generally easily outnumber all the votes cast directly by individual private shareholders.

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4350
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 1590 times
Been thanked: 1579 times

Re: Nominal GDP targeting

#520632

Postby GoSeigen » August 8th, 2022, 1:12 am

1nvest wrote:
GoSeigen wrote:
1nvest wrote:Generally around only 20% of the population voted for the government in office. A minority. 80% didn't vote for it. But that works for some. End of.


Complete fallacy. Dude evidently believes babies should also be voting. And that since 99.9% of population didn't vote in a company's general meeting its decisions are taken by the minority and so undemocratic. Bizarre. "End of."

GS

Rather pathetic [...]


Hah! What are your standards for pathetic then? Wouldn't it be rather pathetic not to recognise that there is a defined electorate? Wouldn't it be pathetic to expect all of them to vote and that if some didn't an election is invalidated? Wouldn't it be pathetic for a country to decide to leave the EU on the votes of fewer than 25% of the population?

GS

1nvest
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4323
Joined: May 31st, 2019, 7:55 pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1316 times

Re: Nominal GDP targeting

#520635

Postby 1nvest » August 8th, 2022, 1:32 am

GoSeigen wrote:
1nvest wrote:
GoSeigen wrote:
1nvest wrote:Generally around only 20% of the population voted for the government in office. A minority. 80% didn't vote for it. But that works for some. End of.


Complete fallacy. Dude evidently believes babies should also be voting. And that since 99.9% of population didn't vote in a company's general meeting its decisions are taken by the minority and so undemocratic. Bizarre. "End of."

GS

Rather pathetic [...]


Hah! What are your standards for pathetic then? Wouldn't it be rather pathetic not to recognise that there is a defined electorate? Wouldn't it be pathetic to expect all of them to vote and that if some didn't an election is invalidated? Wouldn't it be pathetic for a country to decide to leave the EU on the votes of fewer than 25% of the population?

GS

Personally I opine that matters involving constitutional changes should require a distinct majority, not 50/50 first past post, perhaps 60/40 as a minimum. And of proportional representation where if 7M vote LD, 8M vote Con, they don't end up with LD having 40 MP's whilst Con have 160 MP's. And yes, its pathetic that the MP's that as-is define the rules permit such existing rules. Leading to the likes of Scotland and its SNP quest to repeatedly vote in order to secure just one vote above the 50% of voters line, win very marginally just once out of many attempts in order to secure the 'desired' outcome. Less pathetic rules would favour PR, and for Brexit/Scottish Independence to require a more substantial backing by the population (and in which case the UK would never have even joined the EU in the first place, instead of being dragged in via a PM who was bribed with a yacht to do so).

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Nominal GDP targeting

#520722

Postby ursaminortaur » August 8th, 2022, 12:49 pm

1nvest wrote:
GoSeigen wrote:
1nvest wrote:
GoSeigen wrote:
1nvest wrote:Generally around only 20% of the population voted for the government in office. A minority. 80% didn't vote for it. But that works for some. End of.


Complete fallacy. Dude evidently believes babies should also be voting. And that since 99.9% of population didn't vote in a company's general meeting its decisions are taken by the minority and so undemocratic. Bizarre. "End of."

GS

Rather pathetic [...]


Hah! What are your standards for pathetic then? Wouldn't it be rather pathetic not to recognise that there is a defined electorate? Wouldn't it be pathetic to expect all of them to vote and that if some didn't an election is invalidated? Wouldn't it be pathetic for a country to decide to leave the EU on the votes of fewer than 25% of the population?

GS

Personally I opine that matters involving constitutional changes should require a distinct majority, not 50/50 first past post, perhaps 60/40 as a minimum. And of proportional representation where if 7M vote LD, 8M vote Con, they don't end up with LD having 40 MP's whilst Con have 160 MP's. And yes, its pathetic that the MP's that as-is define the rules permit such existing rules. Leading to the likes of Scotland and its SNP quest to repeatedly vote in order to secure just one vote above the 50% of voters line, win very marginally just once out of many attempts in order to secure the 'desired' outcome. Less pathetic rules would favour PR, and for Brexit/Scottish Independence to require a more substantial backing by the population (and in which case the UK would never have even joined the EU in the first place, instead of being dragged in via a PM who was bribed with a yacht to do so).


There had never been a UK wide referendum on anything before 1975 (and the only countrywide referendum - the NI border poll - was held in 1973 after Heath had taken us into the EEC).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Northern_Ireland_border_poll

The Northern Ireland border poll was a referendum held in Northern Ireland on 8 March 1973 on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland. It was the first time that a major referendum had been held in any region of the United Kingdom.

Hence it wasn't surprising that we went in without a referendum as we had never had such referendums and it was standard practice for parliament to make such decisions which it had in the vote of October 1971 which voted to join by 356 votes to 244 after 6 days of debate. Further debate and more votes in favour were then held as the legislation required to enact entry was passed eg the European Community Act 1972.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/house-of-commons-approve-uk-entry-into-europe-archive-1971

A debate would take place across six days with the Commons eventually voting in favour of entry by 356 votes to 244.


The 1975 referendum on whether to stay in the EEC resulted in a victory for remaining which comfortably exceeds your 60/40 of those voting although that wasn't a requirement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum



And, also incidentally, exceeds the requirement in the 1979 Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums which are the only ones to have actually required something more than a simple majority by requiring the support of more than 40% of registered voters.

The turn out of the 1975 election being 64.62% means that the percentage of the whole electorate voting in favour was 43.44%.

In contrast the 2016 referendum would have failed on both your 60:40 criteria and the 1979 referendum criteria.


As to the bribery with a Yacht I believe this relates to the money he received from winning the Charlemagne prize

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1130623/eu-news-brexit-deal-theresa-may-resign-conservative-leader-edward-heath-eec-spt

According to 1990 book “Treason at Maastricht” by author Rodney Atkinson and political activist Norris McWhirter, Mr Heath received £75,000 as part of his prize.

In today’s money that equates to around £1.5million.

The book says: "[Mr Heath] certainly benefited, after having signed away British sovereignty in 1972, from the £75,000 Charlemagne Prize – presented by the German city of Aachen – for those who have done most for the construction of the European State.”


The problem is that Heath received the Charlemagne prize in 1963 almost a decade before we joined the EEC and even the Telegraph in its obituary for him admits the prize was only £446. The recipient in 1972 being the then Labour politician Roy Jenkins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne_Prize

Sir Edward Heath, who died yesterday aged 89, achieved his great ambition ... He was awarded the Charlemagne Prize; and put the £446 bounty...

(I've exceeded my free articles so can't read the rest but from other sources he put the £446 towards a Steinway grand piano).

The first of Ted Heath's "Morning Cloud" Yachts wasn't bought until 1969

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Cloud

1nvest
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4323
Joined: May 31st, 2019, 7:55 pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1316 times

Re: Nominal GDP targeting

#520788

Postby 1nvest » August 8th, 2022, 5:46 pm

Maybe there was less need for referenda back then - government/parliament perhaps perceived as being more capable (not so sure that was actually the case). Since the slackness of decades of being in the EU with others directing things, more recent Parliaments might perhaps be perceived as being somewhat incompetent. Look at the current situation, high fuel/food poverty risks with winter rapidly approaching and the government are on holidays (PM/Chancellor) whilst the others are debating about cutlery/clothes and primarily focused upon 160,000 (typically financially comfortable) voters, and little/no intent to get around to fuel/food poverty issues until after the summer holidays (September) that likely will be far too late for many of the population.

Such attitudes/characteristics do of course impact GDP, poor governance typically has a significant negative effect upon productivity.

Truss seems to think that reducing taxation NI resolves the issue, where on MP wages the tax savings amount to £1K to £2K, enough to compensate for a reasonable amount of the increased household energy bills. But others might not see even a penny of such tax savings, and where for those the proportion of household income they spend on energy is considerable/highly-significant.

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8209
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4097 times

Re: Nominal GDP targeting

#520789

Postby tjh290633 » August 8th, 2022, 5:51 pm

Moderator Message:
This discussion has gone seriously off-topic. I am therefore locking it.

TJH


Return to “The Economy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests