Skip to main content

Double dip?

Recovery taking place under Labour. Tories get in, cut 50% as much again as Labour planned, and, as was widely predicted would be the result, we slide sharply back into recession (not a snow-driven blip, either, as this graph makes clear, though George, being an expert PR man has done a very effective job today of blaming it all on the weather).

Maybe it's too soon to judge, but middle of this year it may well be clear that "lightweight" Osbourne will go down in history as the man who fucked Britain.


Anonymous said…
Why do you think that graph shows that the contraction in growth was not due to the weather?
wombat said…
How does the graph show anything about the weather or not???

Doubt if Osborne will feature much in history for it - a great string of politicians have been working away an that theme for ages.

This interest in George Osborne is becoming a little unhealthy (unless you have accepted a large advance on your next book to be titled "George Osborne - My Part in His Downfall" I suppose).
Stephen Law said…
Yes you are right graph does not show anything about weather - sorry, was tired. But in fact independent sources say that weather accounts for only 0.5 drop, so in effect economy is now flat-lining. If the next quarter shows anything below zero, then we are looking at a double dip, not a blip. There was a marked slow down even before the weather hit.
Stephen Law said…
"This interest in George Osborne is becoming a little unhealthy"

Yes you are probably right!
Anonymous said…
Might want to check out for an alternative perspective. Perhaps the most pertinent point given the OP is number four: the cuts have not, in fact, started yet, and state spending has continued to increase (which, by your logic, should surely mean that the economy should still be growing?).
Rocky said…
@ anonymous above:

but then you also have to remember that individuals, businesses etc. don't start taking the effects of cuts into account only at the point that they actually begin to come into force, they adjust to them well in advance (certainly I know my own employer is doing this), so the effects of cuts will be felt to a certain extent before they actually happen
Tim Stephenson said…
I think George Soros had it right when he said earlier in the week that the government had done the right thing at the start but now maybe the time to slow things down to prevent a recession.

Stephen - don't you think that the current government getting in is good for the democratic health of the nation?
Stephen Law said…
Yes Britain feels so much more democratic now!

Are you joking Tim?
Tim Stephenson said…
I'm not joking. I'm just glad I live in a country where there is a regular change of government. How long would you have wanted the Labour government to last for? If there had to be a Tory government at some point to maintain the democratic system, isn't a period when there is a need for significant cuts a good time? (Just the people to do the necessary).
Hugo said…
As Anonymous says, the cuts have not started yet. Therefore your argument fails.

A fall in GDP is inevitable now regardless of any policy whatsoever. This is because the economy is "unbalanced", meaning that the interest rate has been artificially lowered by government inflating the currency, which caused people to make "malinvestments". The government can only expand their bubbles for so long before no additional spending will keep it going -- the bubble must burst.

It is not Osborne's fault that we are in a recession: the recession is the inevitable "great recalculation" after a bubble when unsound businesses kept going by the bubble are exposed as unsound, go bust and their resources redistributed. This takes time.

Additional government spending will prolong the recession and make it deeper. Osborne is not cutting enough.

The model of "the economy" being "too weak" to withstand cuts in government spending is meaningless nonsense. That's not how economics works.

To put it simply, Keynesianism has been disproved by the 20th century but it seems that no amount of evidence will convince some people even if it's staring them in the face.
Hugo said…

The budget deficit is approx £200 billion a year. What would you cut?

It's not an excuse to say that we shouldn't cut yet because the economy is "too weak". That's merely deferring the question.

When the economy has "recovered", what would you cut?

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o